Dean's Comments
 

That's not the point. The point is that you guys are defending the statements on the basis of truth (i.e., a most hotel staff are minorities). Unfortunately for your argument, that is simply not the case.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Neither ineluctably follows. They need not be regressive, and they certainly need not be confiscatory, any more than current taxes are at least.

Please be sure to recognize the distinction between the concept of a consumption tax and the implementation of one type of consumption tax, known as a sales tax. The latter is the consumption based alternative of a the flat income tax, which should help to highlight that the problem lies not in the basis for the tax but rather its implementation.

Dean's Comments
 

Not Bob, who wins the bet about the Irish?

I still don't think it holds. I still think it's simply a slam on the GOP. It's not that even a sweeping generalization about the demographics of hotel staff. It's simply a statement that the GOP is so lily white that the only people of color who would happen to be at one of their events is a person who worked at the venue. Fortunately, thanks in part to the Great Society, the GOP can't keep minorities from working their events, so it's possible one or two might get in. He didn't say all. He simply slammed the GOP.

Dean's Comments
 

Not "most" -- a "disproportionate number" -- which is clearly true. You do seem to labor under a delusion here. Do you not agree that one is much more likely to find a large number of blacks on a hotel staff than black Republicans at a GOP rally?

S_A_M

P.S. The minority breakdown depends on geography. In Texas, its likely Mexican/hispanics. In Baltimore -- blacks. In DC -- blacks up to the mid-1990s, now hispanics, etc. It astounds me that Mr. Anti-PC and anti-affirmative action thinks that any reference to minorities as a group is racist.

Dean's Comments
 

Cite, please. I've just given you info that shows that whites comprise 72.5% of the workforce, and yet only make up 30.9% of hotel maids, 48.1% of hotel busmen, and 40.7% of hotel janitors. This means that hotel staff jobs are held by minorities in far higher percentages than their numbers in the workforce as a whole. If you've got something that says differently, show it. If not, drop it.

Get off your fucking high horse. Dean's intended audience, the Black Caucus, knew exactly what he was talking about and was not offended. The only people even feigning offense are conservative whites who are so arrogant that they feel the need to point out to blacks when they should be offended. Quit being so goddamned condescending.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

In theory that is true but in practice I'm not certain. I believe that a significant number of people do not take full advantage of 401ks even now -- either because they are ignorant, or because they feel they can't afford it.

It is very possible that the most significant effect of expanding 401k options will be that people who already save a lot of money will shift those savings from taxable to tax-advantaged accounts. If someone is not using their 401k now, or not putting away the full amount, how will raising the limit change their behavior?

The net result of savings being shifted would be no increase in the savings rate, but a decrease in tax revenues. The decrease in tax revenues, in turn, results in higher deficits, and that in turn only makes the long-term problems facing SS more serious.

Dean's Comments
 

FWIW, I used to argue on a regular basis with a libertarian that thought that the "race/ethnicity" question on the census was inherently racist.

Club's saner than that guy was.

Dean's Comments
 

I'm not disputing that it's a slam on the GOP. That part is clear. I think what he meant to say is that the only people would attend are those that HAVE to be there for their job, because no minority would attend voluntarily. However, the way in which he conveyed this thought, which is more true than most of us in the GOP would like, was via a stereotype based on race, and I think you people are giving him a pass that you would not give a Republican.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

It increases future tax revenues, however, fortuitously at the time that SS will be in most dire straits.

Dean's Comments
 

I agree with his sentiment, I don't agree with his method of conveyance.

Dean's Comments
 

what if it's on a college application?

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

You're simply not reading the original carefully. The "self-supporting annuity plans" referred to there are what we now call Social Security. If you go back FDR's statement, you will see that his (2) and (3) both involve "annuities." On this point, take a look at the SSA's site, cited by Drum:

• When President Roosevelt submitted his legislative package to Congress on January 17, 1935, the Administration's proposals contained three provisions designed to provide retirement security for older Americans:
  
  1. A System of Old Age Pensions- These were state-run welfare programs for the elderly. The Administration's proposal was for block grants to the states to help them fund their existing or any new old-age pension programs. Many states already had such programs in existence and there was considerable interest in securing federal assistance with these programs. In the terminology of the period, old-age "pensions" meant welfare benefits.
  
  2. A System of Mandatory Old Age Annuities- This was the old-age insurance system that we now call Social Security (the term "Social Security" was not applied to the Administration's program until mid-way through the Congressional hearings). In the terminology of the time, this was referred to as "mandatory old-age annuities."
  
  3. A System of Voluntary Old Age Annuities- The Administration also proposed a program of voluntary old-age annuities. These were to be insurance-type annuities, issued by the government, to supplement the benefits contemplated under the mandatory part of the program, or to provide a basic annuity to workers not covered under the mandatory program.

The point FDR was making had to do with an aspect of Social Security that's no longer with us today -- oldsters retiring back then were going to get benefits even though they hadn't paid into the system. This is FDR's (1) -- the pension plan. Over time, as retirees increasingly came from the ranks of the people who got the government-funded benefit, (2) would supplant (1).

In the parlance of the day, both (2) and (3) were "annuities". By inserting the words "government funded," Hume changed the meaning of the original, to imply that (3) was replacing (2) and (1). Those words do not make sense coming from FDR's statement, and the act of inserting them changed the meaning of the original.

Drum said, "#3, which FDR didn't care much about in the first place, never even got enacted in the final bill that created Social Security." Bilmore is incorrect, and you haven't bothered to check Drum's sources. If you go back the SSA site, cited by Drum and linked above, you will see that the last several paragraphs describe how the voluntary annuities were omitted from the legislation. It concludes, "There is little indication that the Administration considered this provision a priority and no record of any extensive efforts on the part of the Administration to save it." Drum's statement is a fair characterization of this.

Who's drinking the Kool-Aid? I actually bothered to read about what FDR said, unlike you and bilmore. What's your excuse?

Dean's Comments
 

Think again. Although not inherently racist, it offends me that it's actually a question that someone thinks has merit. I always check "other," regardless of whether my race is listed.

Dean's Comments
 

Duh. The Democrats have Senators that were in the fucking Klan for goodness sakes. As long as you pretend to support people while taking actions destined to keep them locked to you, you are a good Dem and immune to charges of racism.

Dean's Comments
 

I'm not a conservative, and my race is irrelevant. And I'm not telling anyone they should be offended.