A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Cite please.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski

Too much stomach muscle definition? Post #63


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Not Bob
either a young girl or a witch, depending upon perspective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



you could say that about Paigow.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In brief: Your description of FDR's view is fair. But that's not what Hume said in the second paragraph here,* because "supplanted" means "replaced," not "supplemented." The fact that -- as you point out -- he said something accurate in the paragraph before it does not change this.

* Clicking on this link presumably increases FOX's ad revenues.

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?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But that's not what Hume said in the sentence to which I objected. Am I reading Hume to be claiming that FDR wanted qualified accounts to completely supplant SS? Yes. Because Hume attributed to FDR the notion that "government funding ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

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.)

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Furthermore, I think you are very wrong in assuming that the poor place the greatest demand on public services. Someone who has never and will never be able to afford an airplane ticket has no need for our airports, air traffic control, and the massive subsidies and bailouts we have bestowed upon the airlines. An inner-city working class person who doesn't own a car and won't ever buy one doesn't need an interstate highway system, or bailouts for Chrysler. I'm sure you see where I'm going here, so I won't continue my list.

* * *

We all have our own particular idea of whose ox should be gored. The difference is that some of us recognize that one of the functions of a representative democracy is to spread some of the benefits and burdens of this most economically blessed nation on Earth.

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

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I think he's going to sic his wife on us. He may be 6'10", but she's the nasty one.

(Hank, have her do me first - I want to see what she can do with the black and white movie still theme).

pida no quién la campana toca, él toca para usted

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
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"?

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.

(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.)

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.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
But Hume is in good company with a lot of other hacks repeating this crap. Why, S_A_M, why?

I dunno? Vast right-wing conspiracy?

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I dunno? Vast right-wing conspiracy?

S_A_M

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.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I dunno? Vast right-wing conspiracy?

S_A_M

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

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

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by blue_Triangle
pida no quién la campana toca, él toca para usted

How long were you in that Mexican jail?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
While you guys, of course, would never blindly follow any Drum?

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by blue_Triangle
pida no quién la campana toca, él toca para usted

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

[bilmore]

Originally posted by blue_Triangle
pida no quién la campana toca, él toca para usted

Good god, that was you?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by taxwonk


We all have our own particular idea of whose ox should be gored. The difference is that some of us recognize that one of the functions of a representative democracy is to spread some of the benefits and burdens of this most economically blessed nation on Earth.

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).