Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

This is too much. In the very next segment, Brit Hume continued on to misrepresent Harry Reid's position on Social Security in exactly the way I attributed to Roger Simon in my response a few posts ago to S_A_M. Hume says:

• Last night, Senate minority leader Harry Reid (search) likened the president’s proposal to allow Americans to divert a portion of payroll taxes into personal security investment accounts to "gambling." But in 1999, the Nevada Democrat proposed something very similar on our own "FOX News Sunday" saying, "Most of us have no problem with taking a small amount of the Social Security proceeds and putting it into the private sector."

But what Clinton and Reid supported in the late 1990s was having the government invest part of the Social Security Trust Fund in something other than government bonds. That's not the same thing as starting private accounts.

Hume is spelled H-A-C-K.

eta: Atrios points out that Roger Simon has now corrected his misstatement about Harry Reid. So maybe he's not a hack. But Hume is in good company with a lot of other hacks repeating this crap. Why, S_A_M, why?

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I guess that's where you lose me. Self-supporting annuity plans DID completely supplant the government-funded model which was needed for the initial period of payouts. That's what we have now. The government no longer makes the outright grants into the system. But FDR DID also say he wanted the third leg. Where's the relation between your claim that Hume says "replace everything with private accounts", and Hume actually saying "FDR wants private accounts to be a part of the system"?

(ETA - he didn't asy "third leg". I mean, he wanted private investment above and beyond SS involuntary contributions to be a part of our retirement funding system.)

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Without disagreeing with your basic premises, I'll just say that the benefit analysis is more complex than that, and the benefits of most programs and subsidies more widespread.

The dude who can't afford an airplane ticket may still benefit from some of the airline subsidies, airports, etc. if they have a job and work for a company whose executives need to travel for business, or which needs to ship or receive goods by air, or if they wish to have family members visit from overseas, etc. The dude without a car still likes to buy things from stores -- which things are overwhelmingly shipped by truck across our interstate highway system.

So, lets spread some benefits and burdens.

S_A_M

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

pida no quién la campana toca, él toca para usted

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

When FDR used the phrase, "self-supporting annuity plans," he was referring to government funding -- per that SSA site, what we now call Social Security. Go back again to the three things listed in Roosevelt's statement -- both (2) and (3) are "annuities," but (2) is a government-funded annuity, and (3) is like a private account.

Hume didn't just say, as you would have it, "FDR wants private accounts to be a part of the system." That is true. But he then attributed to FDR the notion that "government funding ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." Not supplemented, but replaced. This is not what FDR said.

We agree on this, and if this had been all Hume said, no one would care. But the point of what Bush wants to do is to supplant Social Security with private accounts by steering money from the former to the latter. And the point of Hume's second paragraph was to fool the unsuspecting into thinking that Roosevelt had envisioned this, too. It just isn't true. "Supplant" does not mean "above and beyond." It means "instead." That is the difference between where Democrats are and where Bush is.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I dunno? Vast right-wing conspiracy?

S_A_M

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I don't think they're conspiring, at least not most of them, but they're sure marching to the beat of the same drummer.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I did Atkins. I really resent this "vast" shit. Do I get no credit for achievement?

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

While you guys, of course, would never blindly follow any Drum?

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

How long were you in that Mexican jail?

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I actually read his posts, and sometimes the stuff he links to also. I find I'm better informed that way.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Salte feces roxos, do anuário do telefone do moron do uppity do elocution.

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

Good god, that was you?

Brit Hume, deceptive hack
 

I don't think what I've been saying is necesarily in tension with any of your goals. You seem to be stuck on the idea that consumption tax=flat tax. That's not necessarily the case. That may be the cheapest to administer (or it may not), but one could use the current income tax system but shift the tax burden to those who consume, and particularly those who consume a lot, and have it just as progressive as the current scheme (although, sure, it would benefit those who save more than those who borrow for consumption).