Michael Medved, twisting in the wind
Today, I went on the Michael Medved radio show for an hour. What a riot.
I'm talking on the show and explaining why I don't think privatization would help young people---He starts hollering about how it is an outright lie that anyone supports "privatization."
This one really gets me going. I don't care what they want to call it. But I just can't stand to hear people yell and accuse me of lying because I refer to private accounts/personal accounts/personal-property accounts/if-you-can't-tell-we-are-messing-with-your-head-by-now-then-you-are-a-complete-idiot accounts as privatization. I mean really.
So anyway, Medved is like, and this is a paraphrase, "you are a liar, you are a liar, President Bush's plan would not privatize Social Security."
So, I read this quote from George W. Bush as reported by ABC News on October 30, 2002: "What privatization does is allows the individual worker - his or her choice - to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace."
I had to read it about 5 times before it sunk in. That is Mr. Bush, describing his own plan, calling in privatization.
So then he starts calling me a liar for saying that there are politicians who want to get rid of Social Security entirely (an accusation that has been made here in the comments at this blog, and where I suspect Medved got the question). He's like, I dare you to name one politician who supports phasing out Social Security. My reaction was, I don't want to get into naming names. But he kept harping on me so I had to dig into my files.
So I read him this quote from Congressman Chris Chocola: "Bush's plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start. Eventually, I'd like to see the entire system privatized."
At that point, Medved just lost it and started saying that Chocola was not a real Congressman.
Repeat: When confronted with the facts once again he accused me of lying and said he doubted that there was really a member of Congress named Chris Chocola.
Wow.
I'm talking on the show and explaining why I don't think privatization would help young people---He starts hollering about how it is an outright lie that anyone supports "privatization."
This one really gets me going. I don't care what they want to call it. But I just can't stand to hear people yell and accuse me of lying because I refer to private accounts/personal accounts/personal-property accounts/if-you-can't-tell-we-are-messing-with-your-head-by-now-then-you-are-a-complete-idiot accounts as privatization. I mean really.
So anyway, Medved is like, and this is a paraphrase, "you are a liar, you are a liar, President Bush's plan would not privatize Social Security."
So, I read this quote from George W. Bush as reported by ABC News on October 30, 2002: "What privatization does is allows the individual worker - his or her choice - to set aside money in a managed account with parameters in the marketplace."
I had to read it about 5 times before it sunk in. That is Mr. Bush, describing his own plan, calling in privatization.
So then he starts calling me a liar for saying that there are politicians who want to get rid of Social Security entirely (an accusation that has been made here in the comments at this blog, and where I suspect Medved got the question). He's like, I dare you to name one politician who supports phasing out Social Security. My reaction was, I don't want to get into naming names. But he kept harping on me so I had to dig into my files.
So I read him this quote from Congressman Chris Chocola: "Bush's plan of individual investment of 2 percent of the money is a start. Eventually, I'd like to see the entire system privatized."
At that point, Medved just lost it and started saying that Chocola was not a real Congressman.
Repeat: When confronted with the facts once again he accused me of lying and said he doubted that there was really a member of Congress named Chris Chocola.
Wow.
posted by Hans Riemer at 5:10 PM
144 Comments:
Damn. You're good, dude!
There also can't be a congressman named "Delay." I mean, what silly novel did that come from? Usually, all they do on the Hill is delay. It would be like having a Commissioner at the Federal Trade Commission named Orson Swindle. (Oh, wait. I think we did have one of those.)
Wait...
There is really a member of Congress named Chris Chocola?
Nor could the Treasurer of the state of Texas be named Jessie James.
I kind of hope that Denial will defeat Delay (as long as we all believe it isn't possible, maybe they'll all go away). Perhaps Frankenberry can unseat Chocola.
Who is this "Medved" that you speak of. I don't believe there's a radio host named 'Medved."
You've got to admit--that's quite an improbable name.
(...and whether I mean Chocola or Medved...well...take your pick.)
Medved has been saying stupid and obvious things in public for so long by now that I am quite convinced his attention-seeking is a narcissistic symptom of a raging axis II personality disorder.
After all, he adds nothing to any debate but an echo of the current party line. He just needs to be out there - as in, if we see him, he must exist.
Honest to God, never has one man with so little to say said so much.
come read me at www.guntotingliberal.blogspot.com
I'm a Republican, and a fan of Michael Medved, and I must say regretfully that I agree with you. Not on social security, as I am for the president's plan; but Michael completely lost it. He is normally a excellent debater, but he completely lost it with you. I don't know if he was ill prepared, or what.
I only caught the part of the debate you describe in your blog, but that was all I need.
Don't be dissin' the Count!
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sounds like Medved "Chaffeed" at your comments. He seemed to think you wanted to "Hatch" a plot, or "Delay" things further.
Then again, the next intelligent comment Medved makes will be his "Frist".
My favorite has got to be the DeLay-Doolittle Amendment, which postpones campaign finance reform.
No joke.
So Medved had him confused with some Count. Doesn't everyone make that mistake? Especially early in the morning.
Well, we did know that they are all reality-challenged. If something doesn't fit their narrow-minded mindset, they don't question the validity of their mindset, they attack and attack and attack.
What a poor, poor man is Michael Medved. How can a person possibly defend a bankrupt ideology? By yelling, of course, and trying to drown out any reasoned discussion.
I'm surprised that he didn't stick his fingers in his ears, poke his tongue out at you and start humming to himself. Maybe this is what Jesus Christ was referring to when he said that "the blind leading the blind shall surely fall in to the ditch."
Yep, I think we have a winner...or is that a whiner?
The last time Social Security reform was a big issue, it was saved by a compromise measure worked out by, among others, Rep. James "Jake" Pickly and Rep. Claude Pepper. I remember hearing something at the time about the "Pickle-Pepper Amendment".
Medved would NEVER buy a story as crazy as that.
Jesus is that guy stupid.
You have to be a full-blown delusional lunatic to be a Bushist. You have to believe things that are, for fuck's sake, not true.
I LOVE you for having the facts at your fingertips to give that imbecile the set-down he so richly deserved. Why aren't others as well prepared. I see these right-wing commentators spouting lies every day, and their liberal guests rarely seem able to summon up the facts to refute them. Thanks for showing 'em how it's done.
Michael Medved's an asshole and a thoroughly dishonest piece of scum. What you did just frosts the cake (but thank you for doing so as completely and as thickly as you have done).
What Medved hopes to get out of this for his ten-inch deep brown-nosing, I don't know. Maybe Grand Inquisit.... -- ummm, sorry, "Minister" -- of Propaga... -- ummm, sorry again -- "Media" in the new Fourth Reich.
These folks simply have no sense of shame, as you demonstrated so well....
Go get 'em.
Cheers,
Thank you. I am so sick of the lies. It's great to see you answer them with facts. No appeasement in this battle for democracy.
This is not fair you are beating up on Michel Medved he is an honst middle of the road news man and everybody knows you dems are not smart you cant even use good grammer and didnt do good in school.
Us Republicans got all the good grades and this is why we know social security is bad it is a welfare program for greedy old people not something Americans should support Michel Medved knows this and you don't, no wonder he was angry.
I am proud I am not stupid like the sorry liberals I am one of the smart people I support Bush he is right and we will see that he was right about everything you just wait.
- Arnie
You made my day! Hilarious, including the comments.
Notice how many of these right- wing blowhards go nuclear when challenged?
Yeah, like Hans Riemer's a real name. I say we go with the number system and forget all this crazy first name, last name business. And then, when you quote Congressman 62535-838515's crazy scheme to screw us over, dopes like Medved wouldn't have a leg to hide behind.
Beyond that, my big surprise isn't about what a hack Medved is, but that he's got his own show. Who the hell's idea was that? I wouldn't trust him with his own lawn mower, forget about a radio show; even if I *was* a conservative. Hell, I wouldn't want Medved speaking publicly especially if I was a conservative. He's just a disgrace. I hope he keeps it up. We could use more like him.
I hope everyone is pronouncing his name right...
Because it doesn't sound like the ceral Count...
It is pronounced Chick-o-la...
Medved is a whiner. He made a name for himself humping the corpse of Ed Wood Jr. for those stupid "Golden Turkey" books he wrote. What a repug turd.
Are we suppose to be impressed by this?
I have no idea who Medvid is, nor do I consider talk show hosts to be among the most intellectual giants of our time, but I find it hilarious that Hans continues to put forth that this socialist program is better left alone.
And what exactly is the problem with killing SS all together? Why are you so afraid to letting individuals invest their money in private accounts instead of letting politicians control the cash as they see fit with no written guarantee? Why is government the answer to our futures? Do you and the rest of your supporters believe government can make better decisions than the individuals of this country? I have yet to see Hans defend his positions on this board, and since it seems the man does research I'd like to see his plan for saving SS (and no, linking to the AARP doesn't count Hans). Tell us how you would save SS and why it will work taking into consideration the longer lifespan of Americans, the drop in those entering the workforce compared to those retiring and the increase in spending of the SS fund for general budget items.
You can't just expect to throw money at this issue and win, at some point the numbers will catch up with you and the money will run dry.
Good thing Medved isn't as smart as O'liely, he would have turned your mike off.
Congressman Chris Chocola does not want to get rid of Social Security.
Chris Chocola's Website http://www.chocolaforcongress.com/
Verifies that Medved was correct and Hans Riemer was wrong he could not name anyone who said they want to get rid of Social Security.
Strengthening Social Security
Over the years, Social Security has become a mainstay for millions of Americans. It provides crucial support for our most disadvantaged citizens while ensuring retirement security for American workers. In the short-term, this system is sustainable, but it will become financially insolvent in the near-future. I believe Congress must address this looming crisis with bi-partisan legislation that guarantees current and future retirees receive the payments they need and deserve. Specifically, any reform must be based on three principles: no new payroll taxes, no cuts to current recipients, and no cuts in benefits.Additionally, I believe Congress should work toward a long-term retirement security plan that allows younger workers to voluntarily direct a percentage of their payroll taxes into a personal account under their control. We must work to protect the promises we have made to American workers, while striving to provide a sustainable Social Security system capable of providing benefits to future generations.
Reply to Sean, ask the Enron employees how they feel about private accounts and if they are now glad some of their money went into Social Security.
First the count was for private accounts now he's agin' 'em. Flip-flop anyone?
Social Security needs to exist, and it needs to come as close to fully funding retirement income as possible. WHY? Gee, how many private investors lost virtually everything when Enron died? My better half has lost half a million dollars in the market since 9/11, and he manages his own investments with the help of a ton of research. In fifteen years, if he doesn't have SS, he'll be living in a one-bedroom apartment in Podunk and eating dog food.
Here's how you "fix" Social Security:
1. Eliminate the ceiling on taxation (currently at $90K a year). Trust me, those who earn more than that a year can afford it. I know firsthand.
2. Raise taxes on the top 1/3 earners. I'm among them, and I know it won't hurt me.
3. Give 401(k) investors the option to divert pre-tax earnings into SS instead of the other way around. I would much rather have an assured benefit than trust some rich mutual fund manager who doesn't give a rat's ass about me.
Too socialist for ya, huh? Thought so.
Sean, ask the employees of United Airlines how they feel about Social Security now. Go over to TPM to read about it.
To the person arguing that Chocula does not support the phase-out of Social Security:
Talking Points Memo says otherwise.
A Republican, lie? That would never happen!
sean foushee said: Why are you so afraid to letting individuals invest their money in private accounts instead of letting politicians control the cash as they see fit with no written guarantee? Why is government the answer to our futures?
You want to know why I'm afraid of individuals investing their money with no written guarantees? Because I'd lose my mind when my in-laws moved in with us. Or be consumed with guilt when they died on the streets. Pleasant choices, no?
My father-in-law fancied himself as a wily, entreprenurial type. He lost considerable money in three scams that I know about. There were probably more. It started when my spouse was a child, and continued until very recently. Now my in-laws manage to get by on their Social Security.
So what would you advise in the absence of Social Security? Should my spouse and I sacrifice our peace of mind and chance to live a little now that the children are going on to college? Should we deposit the old folks with poor investment skills on an ice floe? Or should we support the safety net of Social Security?
Shame on you for bringing printed quotes onto Medved'd show, dispelling his lies. That's just down right...refreshing.
God bless you, Hans.
This would be one of the classic "slothful induction" fallacies - very frustrating and effective in the hands of a master like Medved.
Oh - what about Dick Swett? Wasn't he a congressman? Some politician, anyway.
I'd rather trust my elected officials than some corporate crook or hack--unless you intend to go off to your own little world, where your private investments don't involve other people or things...
Did anyone happen to tape that segment, and if so, posted it on the net???
:-)
Or, at least a transcript...
The really crazy thing is how Medved is turning this into a cause on his web site. But he is 'cool' - and evidently that is enough in absence of an idea or a clue or a fact.
Anyone find it humorous how Hans Reimer said absolutely nothing after being totally owned by Neil Cavuto last week on a Social Security debate, yet he launches a giant diatribe today about Michael Medved?
Once again, Reimer leaves crucial information out, to make his own partisan agenda look good. He mentions one debate, while totally leaving out his other television appearance- one in which not only Neil Cavuto, but other people WHO ARE ACTUALLY IN OUR AGE GROUP (unlike Hans) totally outdebated him on Social Security reform.
I also like how Reimer once again tries to scare this generation by using the word "privatization." The President has used "privatize" a number of times in reference to the plan, because it is a partial privatization- FOR THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO WANT IT. Honestly, there's nothing wrong with "privatize."
Reimer seems to prefer "socialize" to "privatize" when it comes to Social Security, or any other program for that matter. Hans Reimer is a partisan hack, and once again he allows his blind agenda on this issue to override the well being of the generation he claims to represent.
Reimer has been countered hundreds of times on this very blog. For those of you who want to see his demagoguery for what it really is, see the comments in response to his last few posts on Social Security. Hans Reimer is as big of a partisan hack on this issue as any religious right zealot is on the issue of, say, gay marriage.
To any of you who feel that raising the payroll tax cap would be a great fix, I'd like you to try to explain to all of us how such a move would not have adverse economic effects. You might as well just give the rich a smaller benefit than that of the poor- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH PLAN DOES- without having to raise taxes on anyone. On top of that, people get an option to EXTEND their earnings with a personal account.
Now, what the hell is wrong with that? Absolutely nothing- except for Hans Reimer, there's plenty wrong: there's no tax increase. And that, in itself, gets big government drones like Hans Reimer upset.
This one's for Reimer:
You know as much as I do, Reimer, that personal accounts are not "privatization"- not under the Bush plan. "Privatization" means shifting the entire system out of the government and into the market/people's personal control. The President's proposal- at the highest- proposes a 4% personal account out of the 12.4% of Social Security taxes that we pay- AS AN OPTION.
That's not privatization. And if you're going to argue that it will "lead to total privatization of the system," you're using a slippery slope fallacy. Hans, you've got no argument here, and you're lucky you have clowns like Medved who somehow can make a partisan hack like you look good.
Once again, you attempt to scare people with the word "privatization", even though this proposal is anything but privatization- especially with the progressive indexing.
Gee, Mikey, it's nice for you to show up just after Hans handed you your gluteus maximus on your own radio show.
"personal accounts are not "privatization"- not under the Bush plan.
So you're saying George W. Bush is a liar when he said it was "privatization"?
Or he's an incompetant idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about?
Which is it?
You can hear those childish Conjobs whine, "but it's only an option, it's only an option, it's only an option"
An option, that just because it exists, makes SS LESS secure, not more, for those who don't choose this "option".
My, how exceedingly shallow and poorly thought out Conjob "logic" is, huh?
You are right about one thing, like any broken clock.
Progressive indexing is 1/2 the solution. The other is to raise the cap. Case closed. Discussion ended. NO CRISIS in SS. None. Whatsoever.
Just lots of pissed off filthy rich people, who whine and whine and whine, because...
BOO HOO! Now they have to pay SS on the entire 14 million they made this year!
BOO HOO HOOO! Imagine! The nerve!
Having to "get by" on less, because they raised the cap from under 100K to none at all.
BOO HOO HOO! I'm a greedy Republican!
I want it all! Who cares if this fixes the problem! That money is mine! Because I say so! And I'm a Republican! What I say is always right...
ONE BIG FAT WHINE AFTER ANOTHER THE GREEDY SICK BASS-TURDS!
usedmeat, are you referring to employees or investors? As I mentioned in a previous post here on RTV if you invested 100% into Enron then you got what you paid for, a high risk move followed by a high risk loss. Any investor who knows what they're doing will explain the word diversify is the key to a long term investment. Now if we're talking United pensions thats a different subject, but if we stay in line with private accounts for retirement how can you explain that any 30 year period in the market's history returned over 6% to investors while SS returns around 1%? Investments are hardly a one stock shot, you don't put your money in one facet of the market you move it around and keep it in for the long haul.
auntie neo - So just raise the tax on the rich? What about the spending that got us into this problem in the first place? Again this is like treating an amputee patient thats still hemorrhaging blood with a series of transfusions while ignoring the initial wound. You want to just tax people more, offer them less in return and allow the politicians to continue spending SS into oblivion? If this was a family budget issue I wonder if you would recommend having the husband going next door and taking his neighbor's money at gun point to shore up their $1000 bill for that new HDTV? So far politicians have said nothing about stopping the out of control spending of the SS fund, and unless you stop that throwing more money down this hole will do nothing but prolong the inevitable. And when the system finally hits the point where 4 Americans are supporting 1 what will you suggest? Just taking all of the rich's money because they can afford it?
cowlaker - for goodness sakes, talk about compassion... heaven forbid you actually take care of family! Since graduating college I've helped my brother-in-law get into college, my father-in-law enter rehab five times and my sister-in-law with her 3 kids move in with us for a time while moving out of the ghetto in San Antonio to a better area of North Texas and better schools for her daughters. I've sent money to family when in need of help because they're my family. If you don't want them to move in with you then why do you even care if they die on the streets?
I tell you what I propose instead of SS, why don't Americans forgo the bigger house, newer car and eating out each week and instead save cash for the future. The average poor in America still gets cable, has a car and a DVD player (I know, my sister-in-law was one of them... while on WELFARE). If people want to secure their future in life then they need to live responsibly, but then again if you believe people can't be charged with their own care then I understand your opinion, your a socialist.
"You might as well just give the rich a smaller benefit than that of the poor- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH PLAN DOES- without having to raise taxes on anyone."
So you agree with Bush that anyone making over 25k a year is "rich"?
remedio - so in your mind anyone that will be hit with the raise in the 90K cap makes 14 Million a year? Talk about illogical statements. I hope you realize the majority of small business owners in America, you know the ones who supply the jobs (yeah its not the government) make over $90,000 a year? And I bet you're so out of touch with our current income tax system that you think I mean "take home pay" and have no clue that many small businesses file their business returns with their personal returns, so if their business made $200,000 that year, so did they... oh and thats over $90,000!
Its amazing how much crap is being thrown around here with absolutely no understanding of the current tax code or how those of us who own businesses generate jobs and pay salaries. In fact, how many of you understand that corporations don't pay ANY taxes... employees and customers do?
w.b. reeves - "So you agree with Bush that anyone making over 25k a year is "rich"?"
I'd love to read your source on that quote.
Medved is a tool of capital.
Sean,
That was not a reply to you, it was reply to anonymous. Peruse the thread you'll find the quote.
Since you address me I'll address you on a couple of points. Your argument about SS vs. the Stock Market misses the point. SS was not and was never meant to be an investment plan. It is insurance. It's not intended to supply a full retirement benefit. It's intent is to provide a secured basic income as an economic floor below which no elderly person can slip. As such it has been one the building blocks of the U.S. economy for over half a century. Ignoring this while pretending SS is comparable to an investment portfolio is either ignorant or dishonest.
The immediate "spending" that has gotten us into the current budgetary mess has nothing to do with SS. The current deficit is the direct result of the massive tax cuts which liquidated the previously existing budget surplus combined with the current spending binge in Washington, including the debacle in Iraq that continues to hemorage blood and treasure.
Since you seem to specialized in ignoring facts that are inconvenient to your prejudices, it comes as little surprise that you ignore the actual arguments put forward here in favor of your own inventions. One example:
"I've sent money to family when in need of help because they're my family. If you don't want them to move in with you then why do you even care if they die on the streets?"
Right. If cowlaker doesn't want to live with his/her relatives it means he/she doesn't care if they die in the streets. That's right up there with comparing taxation to sticking up your neighbor to pay a fictional $1,000 HDTV bill. Next you'll be bleeting about SS welfare Queens driving cadillacs and buying sirloin steaks.
You're in no position to criticise others as being "illogical".
As for the sermonette about personal responsibility, it would be far more credible if the US economy wasn't predicated on encouraging precisely the opposite of what you are advocating. In case you haven't heard, massive consumption fueled by personal debt is about the only thing that has kept the economy afloat for the past three years.
It may be, as you say, that the poor in America all own cars, DVDs and cable. Personally, I don't know of any such data. However, citing your sister in law's example proves nothing other than your disrespect for her.
hey dude, how about fixing the html so it's not all one big underlined hyperlink?
A suggestion, Hans: next time you're in a similar position where you are absolutely CERTAIN that what you're saying is right and the wingnut host is wrong, challenge them to a bet.
You could have said, for example, "Uh, Michael, are you man enough to bet me a thousand dollars that President Bush DID call it privatization?"
If he won't take the bet, he comes off as weak to the audience of his own show. If he DOES take the bet, he loses when you provide the quote and the source of the quote.
I've worked as a talk radio host and I can tell you that NO host wants to be depantsed (metaphorically speaking), especially on their own show.
It's time to back these pricks down over and over again.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
I'm all for shoveling all the money we can into the pockets of the retired and elderly. They are the perfect consumer. They shop at the Safeway store, require services,healthcare, buy RVs, travel and take vacations, help their grandchildren with education and braces for their teeth and generally speaking, fuel the economy by pumping every dollar back into the system.
Viewed in the proper perspective, the retired and elderly could be a great asset to our country.
Remember...we're ALL headed for the old folks home.
I have mesothelioma. It is untreatable. I'm unable to work & hence survive on SSDI. Would Mr Medved prefer that i live in homeless shelters or should i just kill myself & deal w the inevitable?
Wasn't Medved once a movie reviewer? How'd he get to become a policy maven?
Anonymous said:
To any of you who feel that raising the payroll tax cap would be a great fix, I'd like you to try to explain to all of us how such a move would not have adverse economic effects. You might as well just give the rich a smaller benefit than that of the poor- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH PLAN DOES...
I'd like you to explain why raising the cap would have any significant economic effects (don't forget to compare and contrast to the effects of funding SS through alternative means such as federal borrowing, etc.). As for the claim that the "Bush plan" does exactly the same, horsepiffle. To begin with, Dubya's plan cuts benefits of retirees. One difference. Second difference is that Dubya's plan cuts in at $20K, not $90K. There's a hell of a lot of difference between the two. And that's just for starters. Not that you'd notice....
Cheers,
Republicans have been trying to get rid of SS ever since it came about, and they expect dems to believe they want to preserve the system? They have no credibility. I don't believe a word Republicans say. They just got done lieing this country into a war, and now they expect us to believe them. SS in trouble? Only because they are attacking it.
The Count said he wanted to privitize Social Security. His claims to the contrary now are just for political cover.
Hmmm Are you sure it was Medved ?
It doesn't sound like one of his shows. He mainly harps on Gay issues ! "Homosexuals this, and homosexuals that, etc" Hardly a day goes by that he isn't salivating on some GAY issue ! Some say he's a "Spokane Mayor" himself ! !
It's not privatization. What a dumbass thing to say. Trying to search for some excuse for this fool, maybe its not privatization because it isn't completely privitization. Think back to those true false questions from school. If even one part of the statment is false the entire thing is. I'm reachin here people. That's the best I got. Sounds like this talk show guy is a tard. Demo's would want to taxpayers to pay for his tarded person treatments. Anyway, Reps and Demos have this system on lockdown with their political price fixing we all know the Skull and Bones (yale frat thingy) run everything anyway.
I wonder what Medved thought about Reagan Whitehouse spokesman Larry Speaks?
Chocola, huh...
Many people don't realize that there really is a Congressman Chocola, heir to the famous Chocola family. Of course, they Americanized it at Ellis Island from "Chocula," which can be traced back to the Carpathian castle region, and the famous Count Chocula, also known as Choc the Ganache, the bloody and unredeemable.
So Medved has moved along to political commentary, hunh? I remember when he was just a poor excuse for a movie critic sporting a really cheesy mustache.
Come to think of it, sitting in a dark room being forced to endure improbable plots and poorly written dialogue is probably an excellent training ground for being a Republican mouthpeice...er...commentator!
Sean,
You just don't get it. You said "I tell you what I propose instead of SS, why don't Americans forgo the bigger house, newer car and eating out each week and instead save cash for the future. The average poor in America still gets cable, has a car and a DVD player (I know, my sister-in-law was one of them... while on WELFARE). If people want to secure their future in life then they need to live responsibly, but then again if you believe people can't be charged with their own care then I understand your opinion, your a socialist. "
The liberals don't want to help out anyone with thier own money or efforts (that requires accountability). They want the rest of society and the government to pick up the tab. That way they get to feel good without actually having skin in the game.
I read somewhere that if a conservative feels strongly about a cause they will work hard to support it, but if a liberal supports a cause they think other people should pay for it.
Good thing Congressman Dick Swett isn't still in office :)
You gotta track down and post an .mp3 file of you on that show it would spread like crazy in the blogosphere.
I'm going to repost your experience on my blog to help spread the word (http://www.dudewheresmyretirement.com)
I still say the most appropriately named Congresscritter of all time was Dick Armey. I still can't here that one without giggling.
raising the cap will not fix the problem and raising taxes on the top 30% of income earners will not fix the problem. It is a mathmatical issue. What are you going to do when it's 2 workers to every one retiree? How are you going to survive when you have to pay $1000 a month into social security?
Saying the top 30% sounds like a nice round number but most people don't understand who the top 30% really are. The top 30% already pay over 85% of the income taxes and the top 30% only make about 50K and above.
If you look at the issue the only option that makes any real sense is personal/private accounts to compliment the money coming in from taxes.
Don't forget Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings.
The whole Bush conversation on Social Security is nothing more than an admission that he sucks at handling money. He blows the doors off the deficit and then uses his own screw up to argue for gutting the most successful poverty prevention program in history.
Funny, we didn't need to have this "conversation" during the Clinton years.
As for Sean - dude, here's a quarter, call someone who cares about your personal issues.
Sounds like everyone that works at RTV is blogging to try to support the propagandist himself, Hans. Its inronic that the news of the day is the anniversary of the end of World War II and the propaganda that took place in Germany. I wonder if Hans might have some lineage back to those propagandists or if this is a developed talent.
Where was all your support when you got pummeled on Neil Cavuto, Hans? Why didn't you right a blog about that experience? Probably because you are still trying to pick your pants up from around your ankles.
These are some funny blogs to read. Liberals feel so triumphant taking money from the rich and supposedly giving to the poor. I wonder why there isn't a special section on our tax returns for people to give more to the government if they want to. I would think the reason is that no bleeding heart liberal would give a dime. That's alright, all you have to do is pass a law and threaten jail time to the rich and call it a day.
Do all of you bedwetters understand how many times taxes had to be increased to support Social Security? Over 20 TIMES. What makes you think raising taxes will save it this time? How many times do we keep raising taxes until we figure out we have a problem?
I'll tell you what the problem is. THE GOVERNMENT. The fact that the government runs the program is the problem. No matter how much money you send to Washington, politicians will spend it on anything but social security. Why do you people trust the government the way you do? Our government has not shown any competence when it comes to controlling any large program. The only thing the gov't does well is protecting us and endlessly spending our money.
It is surprising how many of you don't understand private accounts or whatever it's being called. First of all, your money won't be invested in companies like Enron. The investments will be very safe with little risk.
Second, Pensions are more comparable to SS than private accounts. If a company goes out of business, so goes your pension. You don't own anything. If you work for United, the gov't just approved your pension being cut. Sound familiar. Yeah, politicians can cut your benefits anytime they want in SS.
Third, a 401k account is comparable to a private account. You contribute to your own account and a company matches your contribution. You own the account. If the company goes out of business, the money is still yours. The gov't can't come in and force a benefit cut.
Get your comparisons correct if your going to make assertions to try to persuade people. If you don't, it just makes you look insignificant.
I don't know who this medved guy is, but after reading this blog for a month now, this is the only report of good news for Hans.
Anyway, stay in your broke system and keep praying it will be there when you move out of your mommies house when your 65. Meanwhile, I won't need it, but maybe you can come cut my grass for a little extra money to supplement your SS check.
Keep fighting the battle of guaranteed poverty when you retire. How nobel.
You're not a responsible grammarian, I must say.
Dear Irresponsible American:
First of all, the system isn't "broke", it just needs a new President who knows how to handle money. This one couldn't balance his own checkbook. He's had other people bailing him out his whole life, why should this be any different?
Second, in a Democracy, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Much as BushCo would like it, we are not yet a monarchy. So if you don't like the decisions "the government" is making, it's your own damn fault.
As Barney Frank once put it, if you think Congress is bad, the voters are no bargain either.
I was wondering how the heck there were so many comments so suddenly, but a link from Talking Points Memo is truly like a visit from the traffic fairy.
No kidding. I'm with Will. How in the hell did so many people respond so quickly. Usually it takes a day for people to respond. I guess RTV is making its employees prop up Hans due to a lack of support from the true youth.
Hey, Shorthorn. What president or politician would you trust with your money? Can you handle your own money, or do you need someone else to step in for your incompetency? Where you and I differ is that I don't care if it were Bush or your supreme socialist leader, I don't trust any politician with my money, PERIOD.
To your other comment:
"Second, in a Democracy, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Much as BushCo would like it, we are not yet a monarchy. So if you don't like the decisions "the government" is making, it's your own damn fault."
Sorry, your government school education has fallin a bit short, like your horn. We live in a Representative Republic. Look it up. And no, it's not another name for a democracy. The founding fathers of this country did there homework and new that a democracy couldn't sustain itself over time. They're intention was to avoid mob rule; hence, we live in a Representative Republic.
Also, I never mentioned anything about Bush. What I do care about is private accounts for my daughter. Sounds to me like you have a problem with Bush. Probably because your horn has never met bush.
Hmm. I wonder who Barney was talking about when he mentioned the voters are no bargain either. He couldn't have been talking about the voters that don't even know what type of gov't we live under. Nevermind, that's voters politicians love, ignorant and passionate.
later
Can anyone tell me how getting rid of social security as we know it (which IS the Republicans plan) does not end with starving and impoverished elderly Americans? Is there any way that once the safety net is removed this doesn't happen?
I hope there is either video or audio of this debate out there somewhere. I'm dying to see this.
Spoken like a true liberal, Ned. Is that your contribution? Nothing intellectual to add? Don't know enough about the issue so you have to write about the grammatical content of the post? Thanks for the critique. Maybe I will keep my posts limited to one line so that I limit my exposure to error. Thanks for teaching me how to avoid taking risks, Ned. A true lesson.
a 401k account is comparable to a private account. You contribute to your own account and a company matches your contribution. You own the account.
My company doesn't offer a 401(k) account, because they don't want to have to match what I put in.
It is surprising how many of you don't understand private accounts or whatever it's being called. First of all, your money won't be invested in companies like Enron. The investments will be very safe with little risk.
And ergo very little return. What Mr. Responsible forgets to mention is that under the President's "plan", you have to get at least a 3% return on the money you put in your personal account just to break even on the benefits you *would* have gotten if you stayed with the old system. If you don't beat 3%, you will get a smaller benefit. 3% doesn't sound like much when all the market cheerleaders rave about how the stock market has a 7% historic rate of return; but what they don't tell you is that would be if you had invested your money on Day 1 of the stock market's existence, pre-1929! I've seen forecasts that have stock market staying basically flat for the next 10 years; so if you are just now starting to invest, and those forecasts are true, you won't make even the piddly 3%. And as all the financial forecasters have to put in the fine print at the bottom of their rosy scenarios, "past performance is not an indication of future returns."
Do all of you bedwetters understand how many times taxes had to be increased to support Social Security? Over 20 TIMES. What makes you think raising taxes will save it this time? How many times do we keep raising taxes until we figure out we have a problem?
Gee, do you think that might have had anything to do with the cost of living going up, or with more and more people living into old age, and living longer? Your question is simple to answer: if we are committed to supporting our elderly and disabled, we keep raising taxes until we are able to provide for them.
Our government has not shown any competence when it comes to controlling any large program.
So you are against the Department of Homeland Security, I take it.
Meanwhile, I won't need it, but maybe you can come cut my grass for a little extra money to supplement your SS check.
I'm glad you've been so successful that you are guaranteed to be financially independent. I haven't been so fortunate, and neither have millions of others. And it's clear that your "compassionate conservatism" ends at the point we can no longer be productive to you. So I guess at that point our elderly and disabled should just be eliminated, according to you.
Hey, once you've elected a Bush and Dick to the top offices of the country, we can't make fun of someone named Count Chocula, I mean Chris Chocola.
longhorn - The president does not handle spending, that is the job of the congress.
w.b. reeves - SS is not an insurance, its a tax and redistribution plan, plain and simple. Insurance policies requires the payee to receive a guarantee which SS does not have due to the way the fund can be spent. Which again the president has nothing to do with and if you research how members of both parties in the congress have riffled through the SS fund for general budgetary spending you'd understand that many of the transgressions against SS has come from the left attempting to pay for more social programs.
As for my sister-in-law I laughed when you claim that I disrespect her, after all that I've done to help her and her three daughters get off welfare, move to a better part of the city and attend better schools she continuously thanks me and my wife for all that we've done. Hardly the act of someone who disrespects another.
In fact, your comment is filled with assumptions of bigotry and hate on my part, and its curious to read considering that all I have done is ask Americans to be responsible for themselves, help their own family and not force others to pay for their bills unwillingly. Individualism is a major part of being American, and unfortunately something that we've lost over the last few decades, its not a pipedream but the true dream of our founding fathers and one that has had a war waged against it for some time now (members of the opposition include Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Karl Marx).
Longhorn, nice try but your as bad as Hans when it comes to facts. You said "Funny, we didn't need to have this "conversation" during the Clinton years." Below is a quote from your icon of the Clinton years. If you go back and look at the facts you will see that he was trying to have the conversation. He even favored putting money into a type of mutual fund account. Sound familiar????
Bill Clinton Quote on Social Security
"[I]f you don't do anything [with Social Security], one of two things will happen. Either it will go broke and you won't ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society ... of taking care of our generation's Social Security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that most of us who are parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the United States."
- President Bill Clinton, February 9, 1998
rob - as an employer let me explain why you don't have a 401K option, because their "contribution" is in your paycheck. If you want a 401K from your employer then expect him to cut salaries. This is part of the reason why corporations don't pay any taxes. Of course if you want a 401K or savings plan you don't need to wait until your employer offers one, go out and open a savings account.
First of all, unlike the New England Weenie Tax Dodging Bush clan, I'm actual Texan (5 generations back, to be exact). Shrub sucked as governor and he's proven equally inept as President.
Second, I did just fine under Bill Clinton, as did most of the country. Incomes were up, poverty was down, and we went from a deficit to a suplus (even the abortion rate was lower.) Economically, people as a whole do better under Democrats than Republicans (and if you want the whole charts and graphs version of that, go to www.washingtonmonthly.com). It's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of voting for the person who puts forth the best fiscal policy. I pay taxes, I pick the person who will do the best job with them.
Third, like most self-absorbed right-wingers, you're oblivious to the privileges afforded you by other peoples' money. Do you drive on the roads? Do you take prescription drugs? Have you or your daughter ever attended a public school? Other peoples' money has been protecting your heath and your roads and your education, but somehow it's all "your money."
I don't have kids but I don't mind paying taxes for my friends' children to get an education because the benefits far outweigh the cost. That's the whole underlying notion of Social Security and why the selfish hate it so much: the idea of collective responsibility, that we are our brothers' keeper and that a civilized society looks after not only our parents but the parents of future generations.
And like most of the close-minded clan, you're dragging out the old glossary vs reality argument "see, I got the words right! Nyah, Nyah!" (Although I would advise you to try both spell and grammar check in the meantime.) Like it or not, in the popular vernacular we're referred to as a democracy, which Webster's defines thusly:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections."
At least it did until this Administration.
Rob, your post is so full of false information I don't even know where to start.
I'm not going to get into disecting your post but you started with "My company doesn't offer a 401(k) account, because they don't want to have to match what I put in." You need to check with your company. There is nothing that says that they have to match anything you put into a 401k. I assure you the reason they don't offer it is for other reasons. Have you bothered to look in a traditional IRA or Roth IRA? If you want to invest in your future these are great places to start.
I love that you don't let the facts stand in they way of a good story.
Nice that the Republican funders are keeping their trolls busy.
You omit one rather important fact: Clinton was discussing what do with a budget SURPLUS to ensure the longevity of Social Security, not how to cut benefits because of his own financial ineptitude. We had the luxury of having to decide what to do with the extra money, not trying to make up for the biggest deficit in American history.
We need to stop pretending that Bush and the right care about Social Security recipients, the elderly, or anyone else but themselves. They don't. They don't want to "reform" Social Security, they want to blow it up.
SEAN:"And what exactly is the problem with killing SS all together?"
For one, we would have to come up with something to replace current survivors' benefits. I believe 1 out 6 SS recipients are children.
SEAN:"Why are you so afraid to letting individuals invest their money in private accounts "
It's INSURANCE, not an INVESTMENT.
To address your "Invisible Mind" point, most people SUCK at investing and are NOT interested in getting better at it.
Here are just a few links:
"But a growing body of research shows that millions of Americans fail to get even the most elementary investment decisions right. " http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nobel11may11,1,7710650,print.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
The Silent Scandal: 401(k)s and the Failure of Responsibility
by Robert Markman
Journal of Financial Planning
http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/1998_Issues/jfp1298-art2.cfm
Longhorn, you said "not trying to make up for the biggest deficit in American history."
You come across as an intelligent individual so lets not speak in 1/2 truths. Clinton oversaw an overheated economy based greatly on not real numbers such as .com companies and bad accounting practices (Enron, Adelphia Worldcom). Clinton's management of the system lead us to the largest accounting scandals in history and into a recession.
When discussing deficits to be accurate they need to be looked at in compairison to GDP. Clinton did well with the deficit and Bush has had issues but the current deficts are not the worst in history. To say so is to say a 1/2 truth and an attempt to mislead people.
Why are you so against people having the right to choose where thier money goes and getting it out of the hands of the government. No one wants to leave people on the street. The SS program just cannot continue in the long run on it's current course.
"You might as well just give the rich a smaller benefit than that of the poor- WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BUSH PLAN DOES"
Not really. They tie initial high-earner benefits to prices while low-earners' benefit remain tied to wages.
Some of us remember "stagflation" when prices rose FASTER than wages. In such a situation, low-earners' initial benefits would be lower than high-earners.
Anon and then Sean...
Rob, your post is so full of false information I don't even know where to start.
Wow, and I didn't even try to make that many points, in the interests of keeping it short. You can't even handle that?
Thi