« Safety First | Main | Killing Jokes Revisited » Absolute Disgrace Video09 Jul 2008 03:22 pm Here's the video of John McCain calling Social Security an "absolute disgrace": Another thing for his campaign to complain is being taken out of context, I suppose. McCain's just the sort of candidate who's too awesome to be quoted accurately lest the public understand his agenda, something we must be shielded from at all costs by war stories and vague stuff about patriotism and reform. Comments (32)
By quoting John McCain without protective context you are directly insulting his service and his integritude. 
Are you questioning John McCain's integrity? /MSM
John McCain is a disgrace.
HE WAS TORTURED! HOW DARE YOU?!
I havea question is Social Security structured in the same manner as the Canada Pension Plan (Cpp), in that it is a separate item on your taxes (ie you make a CPP contribution alongside your taxes). CPP money then goes into a separate fund that pays out all benefits. The prupse of the plan is to be self-sustaining. If so, then I agree with McCain that it is too bad that present day workers are paying extra to support retirees. Unfortunately there is nothing tha can be done about it now (Canada was forced to completely revise our system when it became apparent that there would be a shortfall in about 25 years, so now we have a self sustaining system,at higher rates of contribution)
You must have missed the magic words, he said, "Now, I'm going to give you some straight talk..." When he says that, your journalistic heart is supposed to swoon and you are supposed to write about how he tells hard truths to voters etc. If you need some examples, you might want to check out a David Broder column or just any ol' story written on the man by one of the denizens of the Straight Talk Express.
Matt, This one goes with your earlier post about talking points. The entire Social Security "debate" has been burdened by these kinds of talking points, ones that bear little resemblance to the "facts" of social security. Admittedly, the facts are complicated ones; it is not a straightforward story. As such it is easy 'to demagogue that point'. The ironic thing is that, in fact, if I have it correctly, boomers and current retirees have been paying in for their own retirement -- only the government has been borrowing that surplus designed years ago to cover the extra spending for other purposes, to help present what looks like a balanced budget, or a smaller deficit. Boomers have been paying in for their own retirement at a rate that should have yielded this positive balance on the books for the huge pay outs to come. But the government (run for years now mainly by boomers and older folks like McCain) have been using those funds and borrowing still more. To pay SS back what the government owes, it will have to raise taxes, cut spending or borrow still more. SS funds have been borrowed for other things with the same kind of gamesmanship that has fueled the mortgage meltdown. My bottom line is that it is not Social Security the program in theory or practice that is messed up but the way current retired and soon to retire leaders and voters have allowed it to be gamed for our short term needs-- and, yes, at the expense of the next generations.
Social Security is a government program that does not involve killing foreigners. It's a disgrace.
/Bob Schiffer //Bob Schiffer is a disgrace
I really hope that one of the many many political strategists out there this year with some measure of influence is smart enough to start immediately cutting ads with this rant and airing them on the tele, especially in Ohio and Florida. This is such an enormous foot-in-mouth -- it needs to be broadcasted far and wide and loudly and constantly.
Another thing for Marc Ambinder to complain is being taken out of context. I presume you mean.
I don't know why you guys spend so much time making fun of McCain - when Republicans are doing it fun of him too, so why waste blog space trashing someone who is already a foregone conclusion . Anyway if its a contest between Republican Obama or senile Republican McCain - the Repugs will most likly vote for Obama. Someone on Washington Journal called in and said there is a Republican email going around calling McCain a "songbird" BECAUSE he supposedly recorded so many pro-messages for the enemy in Vietnam after serving six years in a POW camp. IT equals whinning about PTSD in GOP lingo, I guess.
All I know is that listening to this guy makes me want to throw up Mylanta. I'm sorry the guy was tortured. Really. But now, why does he have to torture us?
Sure his policy proposals and views on important issues are repugnant to me but he's so nice and he was tortured as a POW.
Here's a great run-down on this issue by Hilzoy on Obsidian Wings. She thinks that McCain may just not understand how Social Security works and he's just blowing smoke and showing his ignorance all at the same time. I think that may be spot on. Actually, spouting off on things he knows little about seems to be a pattern. It seems that his advisers spend a lot of time explaining what he REALLY meant and complaining that he was quoted. (How foul! Quoting his actual words! Will the Dems stop at nothing to smear this patriot?) This guy really is the second coming of George W., i.e. often wrong but always certain, a perfect blend of ignorant and arrogant.
Some dude calling himself "Me_again" I don't know why you guys spend so much time making fun of McCain - when Republicans are doing it fun of him too, so why waste blog space trashing someone who is already a foregone conclusion. Anyway if its a contest between Republican Obama or senile Republican McCain - the Repugs will most likly vote for Obama. Tool, stop wasting our time with these lame comments.
By quoting John McCain without protective context you are directly insulting his service and his integritude. Just remember, his service is an important part of who he is, which is why he should be president, but it can not be examined on the merits or criticized because it is not part of his argument about qualifications to be president. Or something straight-talky like that.
I really hope that one of the many political strategists out there this year is smart enough to start immediately cutting ads with this rant Oh how I wish we could count on the Democrats to do something like that. But I'm not going to get my hopes up.
What, exactly, is so terrible about that?
I keep telling you, it doesn't matter. McCain is the anointed next President of the United States. The fix is in. Obama might as well retire back to Chicago.
I havea question is Social Security structured in the same manner as the Canada Pension Plan (Cpp), in that it is a separate item on your taxes (ie you make a CPP contribution alongside your taxes). CPP money then goes into a separate fund that pays out all benefits.Posted by Chris B | July 9, 2008 4:00 PM Chris, The plans are very similar. It is a separate item on the paycheck for Americans too. The problem is it is not in a separate fund. The Americans have lumped it into the general revenues and in a sense borrowed their SS money to fund general revenues. Now this was fun while the retierment population was small but as it grows those borrowed funds are gonna have to be put back and that is going to hurt. But it is their own damn fault and it is not proof that the system does not work just proof that some people are unscrupelous and stupid. We are very blessed in Canada to have politicians who give a damn and would not undermine their nations future to win today. I sometimes think that the whole GST deficit reduction program which all federal parties got behind in the 1990s could never happen in America. Which means the USA is in a heap of trouble. Their political culture will have to change before they make things right and that takes time.
Northern Observer, I'm not convinced that it's necessarily a bad thing that the government spent the SS surplus. Otherwise, you are talking about the government overall running a substantial surplus over those years. I'm not really sure you want to do that. Yeah, it'll mean that the government has to raise taxes or cut benefits to avoid massive deficits later on, but an important thing to remember is that a society has to adjust when their ratio of workers/retirees drops regardless of what kind of savings plan they implement. Fundamentally, you have a bunch of non-working people consuming services from other people.
Did you know that Social Security benefits for baby boomers will be partially paid for by something called the SS Trust Fund, which doesn't even have real money in it but U.S. government bonds, which, because they are the most secure investment in the world, teh government will have to redeem with taxpayer money? That is an absolute disgrace. No tax payer money should ever go to paying for any government service. Vote for McCain and end the current liberal tax and spend system.
From Time Magazine web site: “Prime Minister Maliki is the leader of a country and I'm confident he will act as the President and the Foreign Minister both told me in the last several days. It will be directly related to the situation on the ground--just as they have always said. And since we are succeeding, I am convinced, as I have said before, we will withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable, and I am confident that's what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about. He has told me that in many meetings we have had.” From Andrews blog citing the pool report of same: “Prime Minister Malki, is, has got his, he is a leader of a country,and I am confident that he will act, as the president and foreign minister have both told me in the last several days, that it will be directly related to the situation on the ground, just as they have always said. And since we are succeeding and then I am convinced, as I have said before, we can withdraw and withdraw with honor, not according to a set timetable. And I’m confident that is what Prime Minister Maliki is talking about since he has told me that for the many meetings we have had.” I just happened to come on those five minutes apart. The problem is the Time “quote” doesn’t seem to be what the Senator said, it’s what he’d prefer to have said. I guess they just couldn't stand to see him. fumble and stumble
Maybe it's a disgrace that he didn't call it the Ponzi scheme that it is, a monumental transfer of wealth from the politically weak young to the politically strong elderly.
I hadn't realized McCain actually tells people he's giving them a little "straight talk". Is it a disclaimer or something, in case people were to think what he's saying is nuts? "That's messed, but damn them words be linear!" It just seems so pathetic.
Don't talk Hack, buy shares on InTrade, McCain shares are cheap, if you think what you think, go make a killing.
I don't gamble. Give me enough money and some time to learn point counting well enough, I might play blackjack, but that's it. Besides, I have little money to invest in any sort of gamble. I need to buy more computer equipment. My machine is nearly six years old. I'm getting a new 22" LCD monitor this week in preparation for getting a new machine in a couple months: a nice AMD dual core 6400+ with 4GB of RAM and 750GB of disk space. That will hold me for another three years or more. Here's a better idea: when the Iran war starts and Obama loses, everybody here send me ten bucks as penance for being fucking wrong about everything. Matt can send me his salary for the month since he's the "pundit".
And yet NPR, that bastion of liberal, soporific voices, dutifully reported this mornign that McCain stated that it's a disgrace that benefits for current retirees are being paid by young workers who will not get any benefit from Social Security. It's a trifecta: (1) that's not what he said; (2) it's rank fear-mongering calculated to appeal to the low-information voter; and (3) it's also false on the merits. Josh nailed it: only McCain gets the privilege of having his spin attached to all media reports of what he says.
"The ironic thing is that, in fact, if I have it correctly," " The problem is it is not in a separate fund. The Americans have lumped it into the general revenues and in a sense borrowed their SS money to fund general revenues." Well you don't have it correct and Northern Observor is wrong as well. You really have two choices on Social Security. You can believe that the Special Treasuries that comprise the Trust Fund are real obligations of the Federal Government, meaning that the surplus dollars were invested in what has historically been the safest investment on the planet. OR you can buy into one or another version of the 'phony IOU' narrative. When the Chinese Central Bank purchases a Treasury note they give the US Government money which goes into the General Fund. In return they get a promise. When the Social Security Administration runs a cash surplus they in effect purchase a Treasury note in exchange for that cash which goes into the General Fund. In return they get a promise. People have sacrificied thousands of barrels of ink and untold bazillions of pixels trying to explain the difference but frankly where it doesn't simply derive from not thinking through the issues is mostly a matter of bluster and bullshit. Every penny ever sent to Social Security since 1935 has either been spent on benefits (with about 1% for administration) or held in the form of interest earning Treasuries in Social Security's reserve funds (somewhat misleadingly called the Trust Funds). There has not in fact been any blending at all. Would it be conceptually easier if these reserve funds were held in some other asset classes? You betcha, come to the Econoblogs and we can discuss it. Would it also be easier if Johnson had not changed budget rules in 1968 in ways that made the accounting seem fuzzy? Well yes, the adoption of the Unified Budget and putting Social Security first on budget and then off has added several layers of confusion to the whole debate. But when you get right down to it nothing underhanded has been done. Not by Johnson, not by Reagan, not by Clinton, and not by Bush (though he made a try at it). If you assume the Trust Fund is a real obligation (and when pressed all the big players on the privatization side agree that it is and that moreover that they never suggested different) all that is left is a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be a bond backed by the Full Faith and Credit of the United States.
I guess per me it is not enough to 'buy' a bond. Instead you have to BE a bond. And get misunderstood to boot.
Comments closed July 23, 2008. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Wow - it's going to be really hard to try to spin out of that. "It's a disgrace. It's an absolute disgrace."
Posted by BFR | July 9, 2008 3:37 PM