NationStates Jolt Archive

*its bad enough that Hume forced his gay son to commit suicide with his rightwing values but hes now distorting quotes from the Honorable FDR over Social Security. How low can the rightwing liars on Foxnews sink?

Journalists are charged with reporting the truth to the public. Brit Hume has blatently and knowingly tried to fool his viewers, using maliciously constructed out-of-context quotes, into believing that FDR would have supported Bush's Social Security scheme--a scheme which is nothing but a pretense to eliminate any meaningful form of Social Security. Hume is dishonest and unworthy of the soapbox which he currently commands. FDR's own grandson has called for Hume's resignation. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003)

Brit Hume should do the honorable thing, admit that he betrayed his viewer's trust by knowingly misrepresenting FDR using out of out-of-context quotes, and resign from Fox News.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/BritMustResign

It'll be great fun to see all these people get their just rewards.

It'll be great fun to see all these people get their just rewards.
the slimy Rupert Murdoch now has a foxnews affiliate in China and over there hes telling lies for the communist govt.I Wonder how the neocon nazis in America feel about that

the slimy Rupert Murdoch now has a foxnews affiliate in China and over there hes telling lies for the communist govt.I Wonder how the neocon nazis in America feel about that

They seem to conveniently forget things like that, skape. Didn't you know from reading these threads, apparently China isn't a superpower, isn't communist, and doesn't torture people (well, not anymore)?

They're just swell. The sort of government the US can get behind (when it suits them).

On the other hand, Bush and friends have just decided that, for no clear reason, Syria is the single greatest threat to soccer moms in Indiana.

Go team!

They seem to conveniently forget things like that, skape. Didn't you know from reading these threads, apparently China isn't a superpower, isn't communist, and doesn't torture people (well, not anymore)?

They're just swell. The sort of government the US can get behind (when it suits them).

On the other hand, Bush and friends have just decided that, for no clear reason, Syria is the single greatest threat to soccer moms in Indiana.

Go team!
if they can bottle republicans ability to shutdown their minds in allegience to their fuhrer they would have the ultimate mind control drug

People misquote others all the time. If all of them quit the media, there be no reporters left. :D However, this does suck I'm sure although I'm not privvy to the background. But what's with the hate espousal against reps?

Journalists are charged with reporting the truth to the public.

Does anybody actually believe that Fox is a news source? Boggle...

Wow. FDR's kid doesn't like Brit Hume. What a surprise.

OK, Social security was intended to be vuluntary only, but is not any longer. The privatized retirement acounts make SS voluntary to a degree, which would put it back closer to the way FDR intended it to be, instead of the extra tax on my paycheck that is is now.

Whats the problem?

Fox news is horrid and horribly unbalanced. I do watch occasionaly. Last night On the O'Reilly factor and on Hannity and Colmes it was terrible. O'Reilly has some reporter on making heresay comments about Ward Churchhill acting like it was factual. The character assination was awful and irresponsible.

On Hannity and Colmes they brought on a guy asked him questions like. You believe that 9/11 was an inside job and a bunch of other questions when the gentleman tried to explain his answers he was cut off and interupted and asked more questions just enough to indite himself with no chance to legitmize his claims then was told sorry we are out of time. The look of the poor guys face. He knew he just got played hard.

hi MKULTRA nice to see you're still kicking around to make things interesting.

Who's MKUltra?

People misquote others all the time. If all of them quit the media, there be no reporters left. :D However, this does suck I'm sure although I'm not privvy to the background. But what's with the hate espousal against reps?
cause republicans are corporate whores and pigs for the rich and hate real people

Does anybody actually believe that Fox is a news source? Boggle...
the soldiers dying and losing their limbs in Iraq for Bush/Cheneys greed are only allowed to listen to foxnews lies

Wow, I never have seen so many 'This poster is on your IGNORE List' posts in one thread so fast!

Wow. FDR's kid doesn't like Brit Hume. What a surprise.
Humes dead son hates him too

*its bad enough that Hume forced his gay son to commit suicide with his rightwing values but hes now distorting quotes from the Honorable FDR over Social Security. How low can the rightwing liars on Foxnews sink?

Journalists are charged with reporting the truth to the public. Brit Hume has blatently and knowingly tried to fool his viewers, using maliciously constructed out-of-context quotes, into believing that FDR would have supported Bush's Social Security scheme--a scheme which is nothing but a pretense to eliminate any meaningful form of Social Security. Hume is dishonest and unworthy of the soapbox which he currently commands. FDR's own grandson has called for Hume's resignation. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003)

Brit Hume should do the honorable thing, admit that he betrayed his viewer's trust by knowingly misrepresenting FDR using out of out-of-context quotes, and resign from Fox News.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/BritMustResign

lol

the right wing has ONE TV network (a cable one at that) and you liberals just can't handle it. If you don't like Fox, watch CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/NBC to hear your view of the world.

As for FDR, he had a great hand in getting us into this socialistic mess in the first place. We needed some of those programs for a few years, but not any longer. PEople should be able to handle their own money and not be so dependent on Big Bro.

OK, Social security was intended to be vuluntary only, but is not any longer. The privatized retirement acounts make SS voluntary to a degree, which would put it back closer to the way FDR intended it to be, instead of the extra tax on my paycheck that is is now.

Whats the problem?
they problem is Bush wants to borrow $2 trillion dollars to destroy something thats not broken

hi MKULTRA nice to see you're still kicking around to make things interesting.
Hey Blarg--its good to see some familiar faces are still here. Are you still on late at nite?

Who's MKUltra?

I will divulge the breif version of history:

The Red Arrow (commonly known as TRA) was here when I first arrived in November of '03. He was the local conspiracy theorist who haunted the boards during all hours of the day posting his articles and text conversations that would paint a bad picture of George W Bush. Eventually, the wrath of the mods descended and TRA was DEATed due to spamming and to posting cut-n-paste threads with little or no added personal commentary. Then came the much anticipated move to jolt, where we are now.

Once on jolt, a mysterious new poster under the name of MKULTRA came about. This poster rapidly increased his count with a myriad of posts linking to democracynow.org, never more specific than that. Many thought this poster to be a fould demon from the underworld, but lo! He was beholden to be the very same TRA that we had all come to know and love. MKULTRA was busy doing what he does best, posting obscure conspiracy theory articles linking back to democracynow when the wrath of the mods once again descended.

After some weeks of missing his presence, we noticed a new person with even crazier posts on the board. This person came to be known as Skapedroe. We have the theory that it is MKULTRA back and at it again, same moves, smae posts, and same zany political commentary that we all love.

Hey Blarg--its good to see some familiar faces are still here. Are you still on late at nite?
sometimes. When I don't have homework or when my internet is working (its been jumpy lately) thats when I'm on.

lol

the right wing has ONE TV network (a cable one at that) and you liberals just can't handle it. If you don't like Fox, watch CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/NBC to hear your view of the world.

As for FDR, he had a great hand in getting us into this socialistic mess in the first place. We needed some of those programs for a few years, but not any longer. PEople should be able to handle their own money and not be so dependent on Big Bro.
the rightwing has ALL of TV networks and Foxnews is the loony fringe of the rightwing spreading their lies far and wide and even infecting other countrys like a spreading cancer

Social security is a vast success and runs huge surpluses and stopped 60% poverty rates in America. No wonder the republicans hated it from the start

lol

the right wing has ONE TV network (a cable one at that) and you liberals just can't handle it. If you don't like Fox, watch CNN/MSNBC/CBS/ABC/NBC to hear your view of the world.

As for FDR, he had a great hand in getting us into this socialistic mess in the first place. We needed some of those programs for a few years, but not any longer. PEople should be able to handle their own money and not be so dependent on Big Bro.


Know what is sad is there should be no "side" but then that wouldn't sell real well would it. Drama sells and that is sad.

I will divulge the breif version of history:

The Red Arrow (commonly known as TRA) was here when I first arrived in November of '03. He was the local conspiracy theorist who haunted the boards during all hours of the day posting his articles and text conversations that would paint a bad picture of George W Bush. Eventually, the wrath of the mods descended and TRA was DEATed due to spamming and to posting cut-n-paste threads with little or no added personal commentary. Then came the much anticipated move to jolt, where we are now.

Once on jolt, a mysterious new poster under the name of MKULTRA came about. This poster rapidly increased his count with a myriad of posts linking to democracynow.org, never more specific than that. Many thought this poster to be a fould demon from the underworld, but lo! He was beholden to be the very same TRA that we had all come to know and love. MKULTRA was busy doing what he does best, posting obscure conspiracy theory articles linking back to democracynow when the wrath of the mods once again descended.

After some weeks of missing his presence, we noticed a new person with even crazier posts on the board. This person came to be known as Skapedroe. We have the theory that it is MKULTRA back and at it again, same moves, smae posts, and same zany political commentary that we all love.

LOL.

I will divulge the breif version of history:

The Red Arrow (commonly known as TRA) was here when I first arrived in November of '03. He was the local conspiracy theorist who haunted the boards during all hours of the day posting his articles and text conversations that would paint a bad picture of George W Bush. Eventually, the wrath of the mods descended and TRA was DEATed due to spamming and to posting cut-n-paste threads with little or no added personal commentary. Then came the much anticipated move to jolt, where we are now.

Once on jolt, a mysterious new poster under the name of MKULTRA came about. This poster rapidly increased his count with a myriad of posts linking to democracynow.org, never more specific than that. Many thought this poster to be a fould demon from the underworld, but lo! He was beholden to be the very same TRA that we had all come to know and love. MKULTRA was busy doing what he does best, posting obscure conspiracy theory articles linking back to democracynow when the wrath of the mods once again descended.

After some weeks of missing his presence, we noticed a new person with even crazier posts on the board. This person came to be known as Skapedroe. We have the theory that it is MKULTRA back and at it again, same moves, smae posts, and same zany political commentary that we all love.
you make me sound like a case of the crabs :D :D :D

you make me sound like a case of the crabs :D :D :D

Its only cause we love you. You keep my life entertaining throughout your colorful NS history. Ah, I'll never forget the first time I saw you're posts.

anywya :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

we love you!

We have the theory that it is MKULTRA back and at it again, same moves, smae posts, and same zany political commentary that we all love.
Don't forget that Bush's ancestors caused the earth to shift on its axis by trying to direct a ray from the sun through a crystal to the center of the earth!

Humes dead son hates him too How dare your try to use a son's suicide against a father. I have personal experience at the pain suicide causes for a family.

they problem is Bush wants to borrow $2 trillion dollars to destroy something thats not broken Wrong, everyone knows that the system is broken, the only difference on the issue is how each side wants to fix it. Dems want to tax the rich while Reps want to privatize it.

I love how it works, any time someone on the right makes any comment like this, its like death to him he shouldnt work anymore, yet all the lefty stations play crap like this every day. You just wont stop till you get every single conservative in the media gone. Plus i love how you say social security isnt broken. I heard dems saying that it would only be paying out like 70% or whatever it was in 35 years but it wouldnt be bankrupt like Bush said. I think they need to get a dictionary or go to school because thats the definition of bankrupcy not having a specified resource to pay off your debtors. If your only paying a fraction of it then your bankrupt. If you go 10,000 in debt but only pay 7,000 because thats all you have then your bankrupt. All you lefties to is bash Bush on his plan but no one really offers him any better solutions

Its only cause we love you. You keep my life entertaining throughout your colorful NS history. Ah, I'll never forget the first time I saw you're posts.

anywya :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

we love you!
:fluffle: :D :D :D

Wrong, everyone knows that the system is broken, the only difference on the issue is how each side wants to fix it. Dems want to tax the rich while Reps want to privatize it.
its hardly broken--with minor adjustments it can last well into 2050--but Bush wants to throw Grandma Millie to the wolves of wall street

I love how it works, any time someone on the right makes any comment like this, its like death to him he shouldnt work anymore, yet all the lefty stations play crap like this every day. You just wont stop till you get every single conservative in the media gone. Plus i love how you say social security isnt broken. I heard dems saying that it would only be paying out like 70% or whatever it was in 35 years but it wouldnt be bankrupt like Bush said. I think they need to get a dictionary or go to school because thats the definition of bankrupcy not having a specified resource to pay off your debtors. If your only paying a fraction of it then your bankrupt. If you go 10,000 in debt but only pay 7,000 because thats all you have then your bankrupt. All you lefties to is bash Bush on his plan but no one really offers him any better solutions
social security is very successful and runs huge surpluses--the reason why conservatives hate its is because they only think Govt should serve rich people alone and tell everyone else to go to hell

social security is very successful and runs huge surpluses--the reason why conservatives hate its is because they only think Govt should serve rich people alone and tell everyone else to go to hell
Huge surplusses? realy? then why are the polliticians shiting their pants if you mention "baby" and "Boom" in the same sentence? Where do you get your information from?

Huge surplusses? realy? then why are the polliticians shiting their pants if you mention "baby" and "Boom" in the same sentence? Where do you get your information from?
cause their lying-theres no crisis here. Bush has been trying to destroy SS since 1978. This is nothing new just typical republican classwarfare. Everyplace that privitized SS has suffered because of it.

Privatizing means that when a profit is made from the interest, the rich people get to keep part of it.

What they should do is have it be a government holding, where you get, GASP, -all- of the interest yourself.

They are lying this is your proof? Back your statements up with real info. If you really think social security has a huge surplus you are truely an idiot. Even the dems admit that in the future it will be a problem, no one belives it has a huge surplus, and if im wrong plz profide me with an accutuall real news story about it

This all started when Al Franken screwed up what Hume said. If you look at the actual transcript of what he said and what he was referencing it's not nearly as bad as you make it seem.

Privatizing means that when a profit is made from the interest, the rich people get to keep part of it.

What they should do is have it be a government holding, where you get, GASP, -all- of the interest yourself.
Realy? why cant everyone benifit from my retirement going into a bank instead of just me.

I collect interest on any money I put into a bank account, while SS gives back less than what I put in. Additionaly, money in the bank frees up money to be invested in the market, helping the economy grow. A growing economy means that everyone has a better chance of geting a better job.

Basicly, I'm heling everyone by makeing a retirement account rather than puting the money in SS. That everyone includes rich, poor, and me.

*its bad enough that Hume forced his gay son to commit suicide with his rightwing values but hes now distorting quotes from the Honorable FDR over Social Security. How low can the rightwing liars on Foxnews sink?

Journalists are charged with reporting the truth to the public. Brit Hume has blatently and knowingly tried to fool his viewers, using maliciously constructed out-of-context quotes, into believing that FDR would have supported Bush's Social Security scheme--a scheme which is nothing but a pretense to eliminate any meaningful form of Social Security. Hume is dishonest and unworthy of the soapbox which he currently commands. FDR's own grandson has called for Hume's resignation. ]
:rolleyes:

It is good to see the mind numbed robots of the Liberal media in such lock step. They are even supposed to be the intelligent ones. Yet somehow every single paper, news station and magazine that is liberally slanted says the same thing every day. Ahh to be a mind numbing robot again, Oh never mind I do not miss it.

Oh yeah lets tax our kids and grandkids 60-70% so they can pay for our full benifits in the year 2050. Yes that sounds like a grand idea, way to stick it to our childern liberals.

For that matter, when SocSec started it wasn't near the abomination it was now.

They are lying this is your proof? Back your statements up with real info. If you really think social security has a huge surplus you are truely an idiot. Even the dems admit that in the future it will be a problem, no one belives it has a huge surplus, and if im wrong plz profide me with an accutuall real news story about it
social security always runs huge surpluses thats why the poloticians are always raiding it and why Gore wanted to put it in a lockbox

It is good to see the mind numbed robots of the Liberal media in such lock step. They are even supposed to be the intelligent ones. Yet somehow every single paper, news station and magazine that is liberally slanted says the same thing every day. Ahh to be a mind numbing robot again, Oh never mind I do not miss it.

Oh yeah lets tax our kids and grandkids 60-70% so they can pay for our full benifits in the year 2050. Yes that sounds like a grand idea, way to stick it to our childern liberals.
there is no liberal media just a few voices of liberal enlightment in a wildnerness of rightwing lies--the best way to disenfranchise our kids is to let Bush destroy SS

its hardly broken--with minor adjustments it can last well into 2050--but Bush wants to throw Grandma Millie to the wolves of wall street
If SSI isn't self-sustaining, it's broken. Plus, this change would be a great way for the low income workers in the US to actually accumulate assets. But that would be bad, too. Not enough dependence on government.

social security always runs huge surpluses thats why the poloticians are always raiding it and why Gore wanted to put it in a lockbox
The surpluses that you talk about have been replaced by IOUs. Thanks LBJ!

they problem is Bush wants to borrow $2 trillion dollars to destroy something thats not broken

Remember 6 years ago? Clinton, Gore, and most democrats believed that SS was in real trouble. Now it isn't? Who the devil fixed it between now and then? The ghost of your hero, FDR?

the rightwing has ALL of TV networks and Foxnews is the loony fringe of the rightwing spreading their lies far and wide and even infecting other countrys like a spreading cancer

Social security is a vast success and runs huge surpluses and stopped 60% poverty rates in America. No wonder the republicans hated it from the start

Could you back up any of your 'facts'? I know I'm asking for alot, but please oh great one.

cause their lying-theres no crisis here. Bush has been trying to destroy SS since 1978. This is nothing new just typical republican classwarfare. Everyplace that privitized SS has suffered because of it.


I just figured out that you are the Charles Rangel of NS. You really are the living end!

I just figured out that you are the Charles Rangel of NS. You really are the living end!
I've never seen them together, either. They must be the same person. They never even log into NS at the same time. Or maybe Skidrow is really Barbara Pelosi Feingold.

I've never seen them together, either. They must be the same person. They never even log into NS at the same time. Or maybe Skidrow is really Barbara Pelosi Feingold.

Yes, Skidmarks could be any number of people. All clues point to either Janine Garofolo, Al Franken, or Ted Kennedy.

Apartently TRA thinks that some pundits aren't biased, pid-faced, liars.

Yes, Skidmarks could be any number of people. All clues point to either Janine Garofolo, Al Franken, or Ted Kennedy.

Oh, come now. ted Kennedy is never sober enough to type, Al Franken is too busy, and Janeane Garofolo is tied up in my bas...nevermind.

If SSI isn't self-sustaining, it's broken. Plus, this change would be a great way for the low income workers in the US to actually accumulate assets. But that would be bad, too. Not enough dependence on government.
Nice myth--but if SS was privatized today all these people wouldve lost all their security. Plus its not broken if it can be fixed with very minor adjustments

The surpluses that you talk about have been replaced by IOUs. Thanks LBJ!
theres no more reliable or safer IOU then one based on US Treasury. Thanks to SS for giving Americans real security

Remember 6 years ago? Clinton, Gore, and most democrats believed that SS was in real trouble. Now it isn't? Who the devil fixed it between now and then? The ghost of your hero, FDR?
6years ago no one bought the hype tho--neither should they today

Could you back up any of your 'facts'? I know I'm asking for alot, but please oh great one.
ok

thread by skapedroe = ignored

thread by skapedroe = ignored
then stay ignorant

*its bad enough that Hume forced his gay son to commit suicide with his rightwing values but hes now distorting quotes from the Honorable FDR over Social Security. How low can the rightwing liars on Foxnews sink?

Journalists are charged with reporting the truth to the public. Brit Hume has blatently and knowingly tried to fool his viewers, using maliciously constructed out-of-context quotes, into believing that FDR would have supported Bush's Social Security scheme--a scheme which is nothing but a pretense to eliminate any meaningful form of Social Security. Hume is dishonest and unworthy of the soapbox which he currently commands. FDR's own grandson has called for Hume's resignation. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003)

Brit Hume should do the honorable thing, admit that he betrayed his viewer's trust by knowingly misrepresenting FDR using out of out-of-context quotes, and resign from Fox News.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/BritMustResign

FDR's about as honorable as a wad of used toilet paper.

FDR's about as honorable as a wad of used toilet paper.
compared to Bush FDR is God

You do realize when Brit Hume stopped being a Democrat shill on ABC, and why?

I guess you don't remember the brouhaha that ensued when Brit was a reporter on the White House beat when Clinton came into office. Clinton stopped all the "perks" for the White House press corps, which pissed off everyone except Helen Thomas.

Brit, up until that point, was VERY friendly to Clinton. But taking away his seat on Air Force One, and getting rid of the other "perks" really put his panties in a bunch.

It wasn't until two years later that Clinton restored the perks. But by then it was too late.

You can see the change in Brit's coverage of Clinton, and you can see the change it made in other reporters.

Helen Thomas, of course, was unfazed. You could take her bathroom privileges away, and it would not matter, since she has a colostomy bag.

"The projections show that in 2032, these taxes
will still allow Social Security to pay out benefits that are on average
larger in real terms (adjusting for inflation) than the benefits received
by current retirees. This will be true for the next 75 years, if nothing is
ever done to change the program"

"Today, Social Security is sound, but a demographic crisis is looming. By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

"By 2030, there will be only two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. The average rate of return on the investment any worker makes on Social Security will go down as more people live longer and more people are in the retirement funds, because government securities, while they're 100 percent certain, don't have a particularly high rate of return, like any kind of 100 percent certain investment.

So the question is then raised, well, if -- over any 30- or 40-year period, an investment portfolio that, let's say, was 60 percent in stocks and 40 percent in government bonds, or 40 and 60 the other way, would have an average rate of return far higher. And even after you take account of the stock market going down and maybe staying down for a few years, shouldn't we consider investing some of this money, because, otherwise, we'll have to either cut benefits or raise taxes to cover them, if we can't raise the rate of return. So -- and I think those are the three main options.

"First of all, what about individual accounts and how could we set them up? There are, I think, basically two basic options that have been options that have been advanced. One is, should we take a one percent, or two percent, or some percentage of the payroll tax and, instead of putting that into Social Security, put it into a mandatory savings account for workers and then they can invest it in stocks if they like? What's the downside of that? The downside of that is twofold. Basically, your investments might lose money and you might not be so well-off with them when you retire, so that the combination of your investment fund, plus your guaranteed Social Security fund might be smaller than would have otherwise been the case."


"I would also emphasize -- and, again, I don't want to further complicate this discussion -- but I believe we have to do two things. I think we have to reform Social Security in a way that makes it viable and available for the baby boom generation when all of us get into retirement age, and it doesn't bankrupt our children or our children's ability to raise our grandchildren."

Who said this?

edit to add more information

You do realize when Brit Hume stopped being a Democrat shill on ABC, and why?

I guess you don't remember the brouhaha that ensued when Brit was a reporter on the White House beat when Clinton came into office. Clinton stopped all the "perks" for the White House press corps, which pissed off everyone except Helen Thomas.

Brit, up until that point, was VERY friendly to Clinton. But taking away his seat on Air Force One, and getting rid of the other "perks" really put his panties in a bunch.

It wasn't until two years later that Clinton restored the perks. But by then it was too late.

You can see the change in Brit's coverage of Clinton, and you can see the change it made in other reporters.

Helen Thomas, of course, was unfazed. You could take her bathroom privileges away, and it would not matter, since she has a colostomy bag.
:D :D :D
Helen Thomas is also blackballed by Bush for having the gall to ask him real questions too

"The projections show that in 2032, these taxes
will still allow Social Security to pay out benefits that are on average
larger in real terms (adjusting for inflation) than the benefits received
by current retirees. This will be true for the next 75 years, if nothing is
ever done to change the program"

"Today, Social Security is sound, but a demographic crisis is looming. By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

"By 2030, there will be only two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. The average rate of return on the investment any worker makes on Social Security will go down as more people live longer and more people are in the retirement funds, because government securities, while they're 100 percent certain, don't have a particularly high rate of return, like any kind of 100 percent certain investment.

So the question is then raised, well, if -- over any 30- or 40-year period, an investment portfolio that, let's say, was 60 percent in stocks and 40 percent in government bonds, or 40 and 60 the other way, would have an average rate of return far higher. And even after you take account of the stock market going down and maybe staying down for a few years, shouldn't we consider investing some of this money, because, otherwise, we'll have to either cut benefits or raise taxes to cover them, if we can't raise the rate of return. So -- and I think those are the three main options.

"First of all, what about individual accounts and how could we set them up? There are, I think, basically two basic options that have been options that have been advanced. One is, should we take a one percent, or two percent, or some percentage of the payroll tax and, instead of putting that into Social Security, put it into a mandatory savings account for workers and then they can invest it in stocks if they like? What's the downside of that? The downside of that is twofold. Basically, your investments might lose money and you might not be so well-off with them when you retire, so that the combination of your investment fund, plus your guaranteed Social Security fund might be smaller than would have otherwise been the case."


"I would also emphasize -- and, again, I don't want to further complicate this discussion -- but I believe we have to do two things. I think we have to reform Social Security in a way that makes it viable and available for the baby boom generation when all of us get into retirement age, and it doesn't bankrupt our children or our children's ability to raise our grandchildren."

Who said this?

edit to add more information
I agree that SS needs some very minor adjustments but I dont think Bush needs to destroy the village to "save" it

So who do you think said all that I posted?

and Janeane Garofolo is tied up in my bas...nevermind.

That's not right! (http://childrenwithspecialneeds.com/pecs/pictures/health/throw_up.jpg)

:D :D :D
Helen Thomas is also blackballed by Bush for having the gall to ask him real questions too

I thought she was just there for the free lunch.

Of course she was there for the free lunch, heaven forbid her to actually pay for anything. She is after all a liberal card carrying member

I love how it works, any time someone on the right makes any comment like this, its like death to him he shouldnt work anymore, yet all the lefty stations play crap like this every day. You just wont stop till you get every single conservative in the media gone.

www.freerepublic.com

Ahh... Skapedroe, you are the best member of Nationstates. Whenever I see a thread created by you, my mood goes up 100 points. Whenever I have a bad day, I just look to your posts, and I feel much better.

Thanks, Skapedroe/TRA/MULKTRA, from all of us.

I agree that SS needs some very minor adjustments but I dont think Bush needs to destroy the village to "save" it

Perhaps not need, but there is a sound Bush tradition of trying to save things by killing them.

The Healthy Forest Initiative killed trees to save them, the Clear Skies Initiative sought to save the sky by poisoning it, and the war in Iraq sought to save Iraq by blowing up its cities.

I would like to know who you all believe said the below. because so far everyone I know has failed this question big time.

"The projections show that in 2032, these taxes
will still allow Social Security to pay out benefits that are on average
larger in real terms (adjusting for inflation) than the benefits received
by current retirees. This will be true for the next 75 years, if nothing is
ever done to change the program"

"Today, Social Security is sound, but a demographic crisis is looming. By 2030, there will be twice as many elderly as there are today, with only two people working for every person drawing Social Security. After 2032, contributions from payroll taxes will only cover 75 cents on the dollar of current benefits. So we must act, and act now, to save Social Security."

"By 2030, there will be only two people working for every one person drawing Social Security. The average rate of return on the investment any worker makes on Social Security will go down as more people live longer and more people are in the retirement funds, because government securities, while they're 100 percent certain, don't have a particularly high rate of return, like any kind of 100 percent certain investment.

So the question is then raised, well, if -- over any 30- or 40-year period, an investment portfolio that, let's say, was 60 percent in stocks and 40 percent in government bonds, or 40 and 60 the other way, would have an average rate of return far higher. And even after you take account of the stock market going down and maybe staying down for a few years, shouldn't we consider investing some of this money, because, otherwise, we'll have to either cut benefits or raise taxes to cover them, if we can't raise the rate of return. So -- and I think those are the three main options.

"First of all, what about individual accounts and how could we set them up? There are, I think, basically two basic options that have been options that have been advanced. One is, should we take a one percent, or two percent, or some percentage of the payroll tax and, instead of putting that into Social Security, put it into a mandatory savings account for workers and then they can invest it in stocks if they like? What's the downside of that? The downside of that is twofold. Basically, your investments might lose money and you might not be so well-off with them when you retire, so that the combination of your investment fund, plus your guaranteed Social Security fund might be smaller than would have otherwise been the case."


"I would also emphasize -- and, again, I don't want to further complicate this discussion -- but I believe we have to do two things. I think we have to reform Social Security in a way that makes it viable and available for the baby boom generation when all of us get into retirement age, and it doesn't bankrupt our children or our children's ability to raise our grandchildren."

Bill Clinton said it - he said that we had to do something about Social Security.

WOW the first person to get it right in over 2 weeks of asking. Kinda of funny really seeing as Bush is saying about the same thing. Maybe these two are linked at the hips or something

WOW the first person to get it right in over 2 weeks of asking. Kinda of funny really seeing as Bush is saying about the same thing. Maybe these two are linked at the hips or something

I've noticed a certain pattern blindness in some people, based on their political beliefs.

For me, I don't see any real difference between Bill Clinton and a Republican President. In all respects, he was a very good Republican President.

Other than the fact that he was a Democrat, I can't see why the Republicans hated him so much.

You'll notice that today, Hillary is hobnobbing with Republicans, and saying Republican things. If she gets the nod for the 2008 Democratic nomination, she might win the Presidency - but it will be more of a nightmare for Democrats than Republicans - she's sounding more and more like John Ashcroft every day, especially where her stance on personal rights and the Patriot Act are concerned.

dont you say nothing about john ashcroft i like that man hes from my homestate

*its bad enough that Hume forced his gay son to commit suicide with his rightwing values but hes now distorting quotes from the Honorable FDR over Social Security. How low can the rightwing liars on Foxnews sink?

Journalists are charged with reporting the truth to the public. Brit Hume has blatently and knowingly tried to fool his viewers, using maliciously constructed out-of-context quotes, into believing that FDR would have supported Bush's Social Security scheme--a scheme which is nothing but a pretense to eliminate any meaningful form of Social Security. Hume is dishonest and unworthy of the soapbox which he currently commands. FDR's own grandson has called for Hume's resignation. (http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003)

Brit Hume should do the honorable thing, admit that he betrayed his viewer's trust by knowingly misrepresenting FDR using out of out-of-context quotes, and resign from Fox News.

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/BritMustResign

Quit your whining. The sooner we do away with the raw deal in its current form and give more control back to the people who fund it (taxpayers, in case you were wondering) the better.

I'm just wondering how you "force" someone to commit suicide.

There are plenty of things that went wrong between my father and I (we are estranged in a most ferocious way).

But I'm not about to kill myself over it.

If his gay son killed himself, he wasn't "forced" to kill himself. That's a load of crap.

More than likely, he had a depressive disorder - and used any excuse he could to justify killing himself.

Quit your whining. The sooner we do away with the raw deal in its current form and give more control back to the people who fund it (taxpayers, in case you were wondering) the better.

You know, I like the idea of private accounts, but the Bush proposal flat out will not work. In order for his system to function, there would have to be a bull market for a long time. Since a bull market is indicative of a strong ecnomy, that would mean tax revenues would be up as well. If tax revenues are up, that means that there is enough money to fund social security in its current incarnation from the tax revenues.

Furthermore, for as much griping as the average taxpayer does about having to pay for social security, I'm pretty sure the average taxpayer still wants...and expects...to recieve social security benefits. The idea that privitization should be forced against the will of the consensus (even if it is "for their own good") is undemocratic.

The problem is that there is no real dialogue on this issue. Democrats are turning a blind eye to the fact that the system is running out of money and Republicans are in flat-out denial that the Bush plan is woefully flawed. Until there is a serious discussion about this, a.) reform will never pass and b.) we will sink further into the quagmire.

As for Britt Hume, it is safe to say that he is the Dan Rather of the right. Qualified to be certain, but biased beyond the threshold of credibility. Anyone who would defend Hume on the basis that his reporting abilities negate his bias owes Rather a big appology (unless, you're like me and condemmed both of them :Þ).

Over all the time since the crash of 1929, the stock market in the US has only trended up. There have been downward moments, but the overall direction over the decades has been up.

Assuming that this trend continues, it is likely that the stock market will outperform the 3 percent margin necessary for a stock portfolio to outperform Social Security. In fact, independent assessments figure a conservative 4.5 percent - which means that you'll win big time over Social Security.

Still, that screws the people who are still in the old program.

But, as a Republican strategy to win young voters, it's rather inventive.

Looking at this from a purely reasonable nonpartisan standpoint it seems to me that Social Security is nothing more than the government's hand in my pocket. I much rather do away with it in favor a low risk IRA, Gov Bonds, or at least a CD at the local bank. Since when is the responsibility of government to tell me what to do with my money or to take care of me when I'm old, last I checked my welfare is my responsibility.

Humes dead son hates him too
You crossed the line.

You know, I like the idea of private accounts, but the Bush proposal flat out will not work. In order for his system to function, there would have to be a bull market for a long time. Since a bull market is indicative of a strong ecnomy, that would mean tax revenues would be up as well. If tax revenues are up, that means that there is enough money to fund social security in its current incarnation from the tax revenues.

Furthermore, for as much griping as the average taxpayer does about having to pay for social security, I'm pretty sure the average taxpayer still wants...and expects...to recieve social security benefits. The idea that privitization should be forced against the will of the consensus (even if it is "for their own good") is undemocratic.

The problem is that there is no real dialogue on this issue. Democrats are turning a blind eye to the fact that the system is running out of money and Republicans are in flat-out denial that the Bush plan is woefully flawed. Until there is a serious discussion about this, a.) reform will never pass and b.) we will sink further into the quagmire.

As for Britt Hume, it is safe to say that he is the Dan Rather of the right. Qualified to be certain, but biased beyond the threshold of credibility. Anyone who would defend Hume on the basis that his reporting abilities negate his bias owes Rather a big appology (unless, you're like me and condemmed both of them :Þ).

I'm not going to comment on Brit, as I haven't read or heard his comments and cannot speak to them educatedly, nor do I consider them of much value one way or another, except as a possible balance to the media that supports the other side of the isle.

As for the social security plan, any step toward privatization is a step in the right direction IMO. Personally, it doesn't affect me much one way or the other. I'm opted out, in much the same way as Congress and have been for 5&1/2 years, and my retirement options look much the brighter for it even with the economic down turn of the recent past.

As for Bush's plan being dependent on the economy, I'd say you are correct. But that is true of any fiscal policy. If the market colapses and inflation goes through the ceiling or the value of the dollar continues dropping, no kind of plan is going to be of much use.

You know, I like the idea of private accounts, but the Bush proposal flat out will not work. In order for his system to function, there would have to be a bull market for a long time. Since a bull market is indicative of a strong ecnomy, that would mean tax revenues would be up as well. If tax revenues are up, that means that there is enough money to fund social security in its current incarnation from the tax revenues.


Bear markets make money, bull markets make money, pigs get slaughtered. As long as you invest in safe stocks, you really don't have too much to worry about. When you invest in stupid stocks like google, and any other questionable stocks, you will eventually get burned. Invest in the 'boring' stocks, like coca cola, IBM, oil, etc, and you'll always come out ahead in the long run.