« The apple doesn't fall far from the tree | Main | Pleading poverty »

Quotes Of The Day - "Dude, Where's My Playbook?" Edition

Either there's some new pages in the Democrats Social Security handbook, or these guys aren't getting the message...

"So at some point we've got to stop criticizing each other and sit at the table and work out this problem... Every year we wait to come up with a solution to the Social Security problem costs our children and grandchildren and great grandchildren $600 billion dollars more"
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT): CNN's "Late Edition," 3/6/05

"If Social Security is left alone; benefits after 30 years would be 80 percent of what they are now ***
DNC Chairman Howard Dean on Feb. 23, 2005 at Cornell University [Link]

"It's a serious issue. We ought to address it..."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) on ABC's "This Week," 3/6/05

"I am ready, willing, and able to listen to anything the President has to put on the table about the issue of how he is going to deal with the solvency of social security."
Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE): on NBC's "Meet The Press," 2/27/05

"We're not against solving the problem that [sen.] John Sununu (R-NH)] and i both acknowledge exists in social security. All Democrats do."
Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) on CBS' "Face The Nation," 2/27/05

" [T]he Democrats are going to have to get a better message on Social Security ... our only response cannot be to say, 'no.' . "
Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-TN) in The Washington Post, 2/3/05


Bonus - Find out who on that list is being called a party traitor - below the break.


If you guessed Joe Liebermam, you were right! If you're looking for the term "traitor" (and other choice terms) you'll have to check the Daily Kos comment section.

*** Here's the entire story on the Dean quote.

The Cornell Daily Sun - Dean Speaks to Cornell Community

Dean began by speaking on what he thought was the most important issue today: the proposed privatization of Social Security. He said that President George W. Bush was trying to appeal to 20- and 30-year-olds through privatization, but claimed that in fact that generation would end up having to pay the $2 trillion bill for it.

"I think that privatizing Social Security has much more to do with the enormous amount of money that corporate Wall Street poured into the President of the United States's campaign than [helping] senior citizens," Dean said. "[Social Security] was a response toward [overcoming] abject poverty...it is not meant as a retirement program...it was meant as a social safety net for people who had reached the end of their working careers and did not deserve, after a long lifetime of dignified work, to live in poverty. ... It's not supposed to be a pension."

Dean pointed out that, while he would not endorse this, if Social Security were left alone for 30 years, its benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now. He acknowledged that while there were indeed problems with the program, turning to Wall Street was not the answer.

I fail to see how Novak misquotes Dean. He took a piece of the Cornell Sun coverage and presented it. If Dean presents the case that if Social Security were left alone for 30 years, its benefits would be reduced to 80 percent of what it is now as fact, the prepositional endorse has no bearing on the fact. How Dean feels about the fact is rather unimportant. If, however, Dean presented that as someone else's opinion then Dean's endorsement (or lack thereof) would be important. Since the report is unclear which is the case, the best we can do is infer from the other sentences in the article that Dean does indeed believe there are problems with the Social Security system. He states as much in the last paragraph.


Comments (30)

I haven't seen this much se... (Below threshold)

I haven't seen this much self-destruction since Sam Kinison went on a bender.

I pick Joe Lieberman as Tra... (Below threshold)
Carl:

I pick Joe Lieberman as Traitor of the Day.

Didn't Novak have to retrac... (Below threshold)

Didn't Novak have to retract that Dean quote?

Novak certainly should have... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Novak certainly should have retracted it. He got it completely wrong. Dean said no such thing, as a quick glance at the Cornell Sun will reveal.

http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2005/02/24/421d84959299b?in_archive=1

But then, you conservatives have a knack for believing anything a Right Wing hack like Bob Novak says anyway.

And of course liberals NEVE... (Below threshold)

And of course liberals NEVER believe anything a Left Wing hack such as Michael Moore or Paul Krugman say.

Which is why someone immedi... (Below threshold)

Which is why someone immediately asked if it should be retracted.

*rolls eyes*

Well, I'm not holding my br... (Below threshold)
Brad:

Well, I'm not holding my breath for Kevin to remove the misquote from his post.

Didn't Novak have to ret... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Didn't Novak have to retract that Dean quote?

Not that quote, but the one where he said Dean said that SS would lose 80% of its current benifits, not 20%. He did actually not retract it, though Woodruff did it for him. However in the meantime it was repeated on the RNC website (since taken down), the Club for Growth site, and by Rush Limbaugh.

BTW Kevin, I don't see the word traitor anywhere in that NYT piece.

Third paragraph:"C... (Below threshold)
Beck:

Third paragraph:

"Critics say that is just his latest act of disloyalty to the party."

That pretty much says it. Oh, and the CORRECT Dean quote is precisely what Kevin said. Novak screwed up by saying SS would be 80% insolvent rather than 80% solvent (i.e. covering only 20% of payments rather than a 20% shortfall).

Further excerpts: ... (Below threshold)
Beck:

Further excerpts:

"I think he has betrayed his constituency and he is leaning way too far to the right," said Marjorie Clark

"Other liberal bloggers have been labeling Mr. Lieberman a DINO, for Democrat in Name Only, adapting a coinage conservatives often use for moderate Republicans."

Here's the entire story... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Here's the entire story on the Dean quote.

Not quite. Novak said on Capital Gang and on Inside">http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0502/28/ip.01.html">Inside Politics that:

"He spoke at Cornell University last week, and the only paper that covered this was "The Cornell Daily" student paper, and he said, yes, Social Security has a big problem. Over the years it's going to lose about 80 percent of the benefits. That, Judy, is not the Democratic line. The Democratic line is there is no problem."

Not only did he misquote Dean, but he repeated the lie, implied in this post, that the democratic stance is that SS has no problems. That is not their stance. Their stance has been that this is not a crisis and that private accounts are a bad fix, or rather, not a fix at all.

Beck, Well, the wo... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Beck,

Well, the word traitor is still not in that article. But, yes "critics say"... Interesting the critics listed are a web designer and some "liberal bloggers" who don't like Lieberman, and this is news? A lot of Democrats don't like Lieberman for a variety of reasons. And lets not forget the outrage at various RINOs that has gone on for years. Do Lahood, Specter, Sundquist, Chafee (the list just goes on and on) ring any bells?

A traitor in democratic par... (Below threshold)
bullwinkle:

A traitor in democratic party? I've always thought of them all as traitors, especially on this issue that is not a crisis when a republican wants to fix it, but is when they want to fix it. I think they have a pretty good idea how they'll look if Bush fixes this and adds that to what has happened in the Middle East because they not only lacked the courage to act themselves in either instance, they did all they could to block someone that did. Ok, maybe not traitors, just jellyfish.

I bring up the Novak quote ... (Below threshold)

I bring up the Novak quote becuase it doesn't help if we have the wrong information or if we can be attacked for putting out false statments or attributing false statements to others. Dean has said plenty enough stupid shit that we don't have to misquote him to make him look like an ass.

Well, these guys are small ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

Well, these guys are small potatoes. The King Traitor to the new Democratic party is none other than B. Clinton himself. The article's title is quite misleading but the content covering an overview of BC's reform is pretty good.

Greenspan Wary of Market Role in Social Security Rescue
Amy Goldstein and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 21, 1999

...

A day after Clinton made an overhaul of Social Security the centerpiece of his State of the Union address, his plan raised fundamental questions about whether the federal government should assume an unprecedented role in the workings of private enterprise.

...

Although Clinton rejected the most far-reaching ideas for reshaping Social Security, his two-pronged proposal would represent the most sweeping change to the program since its creation in the depths of the Depression.

...

Clinton also is proposing a new type of personal retirement accounts outside the Social Security program that would be designed to motivate Americans, particularly those with low incomes, to put aside more retirement money on their own. He asked Congress to devote $500 billion over 15 years to give a lump sum to anyone who opened such an account and to help match a portion of the money that people were willing to add to those accounts over time.

...

Most of the critique of the White House proposal, however, dwelled on the precedent Clinton would create for investing Social Security funds in the stock market.


Um, isn't all this a direct refutation of current Democratic talking points? Clinton, as policy, wants to fix SS, wants to use equity in the stock market, and wants to create a supplemental personal savings account. His proposals were as radical as had ever been and yet the Democrats supported it then and critique Bush for "borrowing" the ideas now. Meanwhile, it was Greenspan's Fed that had input during all of this and somehow the moonbats want to smear him because he, like Clinton and Bush, propose crucial change.

Ah, the Democratic platform is falling like a house of cards. Let's watch them reshuffle this one.

Good quoting AD, by the way... (Below threshold)

Good quoting AD, by the way, did you also realize that private accounts were a part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's original plan for social security? I remember reading it at SixHertz House of Pain a while back....

RE: Henry's post (March 7, ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Henry's post (March 7, 2005 07:53 PM)

No, Henry, I wasn't aware of FDR's orignal vision. Interesting. I don't think he'd be too pleased with his creation's current state. I hope we'll reconsider his original design in view of our changing demographics and economics.

Anonymous Drivel: <a href="... (Below threshold)

Anonymous Drivel: Booing FDR

RE: Henry's post (March 7, ... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: Henry's post (March 7, 2005 09:21 PM)

From your link:

[FDR]
"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Wow, pure gold. So all of this rhetoric about "fixing" SS has been bandied about since its inception, and the "new" ideas proposed by Clinton and adopted by Bush are really decades old? Again, wow!

The Republican's are doing a particularly piss-poor job of moving this along and throwing back the antagonism into the Democrats' faces. I understand a political desire to take credit for the modifications even if the opposition party suggests it (though here, the modifications harken back to the plan's creation); but, if one is intent on making the change and getting knocked over the head with hypocritical opposition protestations while doing it, one might as well present the entire argument since it lends more credence to the plan. Isn't this the point of the change? To improve the lives of Americans?

Again, the GOP needs to improve its presentation since the same "talking points" have been advocated by both parties for years. Delay worked for past Presidencies. It no longer will. The population shift forces action now or the country will suffer catastrophic economic turmoil.

AnonymousDrivel writ... (Below threshold)
s9:

AnonymousDrivel writes: No, Henry, I wasn't aware of FDR's orignal vision. Interesting. [...]

And it would appear from your subsequent post that you still aren't aware of FDR's original vision. Roosevelt never proposed what conservatarians are now calling "personal accounts" (because the no longer operative term "private accounts" is focus grouping very well).

The "annuity plans" that FDR was talking about ARE what eventually became the Social Security program.

AnonymousDrivel continues: ...though here, the modifications harken back to the plan's creation...

That's just simply wrong. What Bush and the Republicans are proposing to do is a thinly veiled effort to phase out Social Security. I wish you guys would stop trying to pretend that isn't the plan. Republicans have had a powerful faction in their ranks for the last sixty years that has been sworn enemies of the Social Security Administration since its creation. Only now does that faction think it can finally drive a stake in its heart. Why not admit that's what you're trying to do and make a rational and persuasive case for doing it?

Because it would be unpopular? That would be the coward's way out, wouldn't it?

No, Social Security is a ne... (Below threshold)

No, Social Security is a necessity, however, the way it is implemented leaves MUCH to be desired. THAT is the heart of the debate.

RE: s9's post (March 7, 200... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (March 7, 2005 11:22 PM)

And it would appear from your subsequent post that you still aren't aware of FDR's original vision... The "annuity plans" that FDR was talking about ARE what eventually became the Social Security program.

FDR's principles:

1) "noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance"

2) "compulsory contributory annuities that in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations"

3) "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age"

I dunno. I figure the currently implemented plan approximates principle 2. However his vision was initially accepted or subsequently evolved, it certainly doesn't incorporate all three ideals now. There is nothing "voluntary" about current FICA contributions. When did that change, specifically? Some links would be great since that was well before my time.


What Bush and the Republicans are proposing to do is a thinly veiled effort to phase out Social Security... Why not admit that's what you're trying to do and make a rational and persuasive case for doing it?

I have no problem with Social Security per se (remember that I'm not Republican, however), but I do have a problem with an unsustainable legal/financial mandate that cannot support itself. You assume, I think, that I oppose any and every safety net available to man and let only the financially strong survive. Not true. A basic floor would be acceptable and I'll support any reasonable balance that will provide a floor (as a hedge against utter poverty) but not a complete subsidy of the living standard attained by the end of one's working career. SS was NOT designed to do that.

Is it right for younger generations to be burdensomely and perpetually saddled with the acquired and bloating obligations due the senior classes? FICA taxes from how many individuals must support another retirees monthly payment? Is it three? It used to be over 20 (I believe). Soon it will be two, then one. Is that the type of plan you support? Since payees will exceed payors in due course, we have to boost the money pool, and I'm receptive to any plan that will reduce the burden on indivduals. I endorse extending the retirement age as well to correlate with our population's increasing longevity. As I said, I'll accept any and all ideas to fix this ponzi scheme.

That's not to say I'm against transitioning out of SS in time either. I endorse better results however attained. Typically, that occurs when government is less involved. If we can devise a plan that safely weans every individual off of Federal SS in due course, I'll support it. I like empowering the individual wherever possible. That's one of my more quaint Libertarian stripes showing. I won't apologize for it despite being "unpopular" or being perceived as a "coward". Who is the more cowardly? Individuals who want to escape government hand-holding or those who continue to be bound by it? That is not a rhetorical.

AnonymoiusDrivel wri... (Below threshold)
s9:

AnonymoiusDrivel writes: ...it certainly doesn't incorporate all three ideals now.

Sure it does. #1 is irrelevant now that everyone he was talking about at the time is now deceased. #2 is the SS system we have today. #3 is the 401K and IRA accounts we have today.

AnonymousDrivel writes: There is nothing "voluntary" about current FICA contributions.

Yeah. And there's nothing voluntary about the privatized "defined contribution" system that Republicans are proposing to establish as a replacement for Social Security. Your point?

AnonymousDrivel writes: ...but I do have a problem with an unsustainable legal/financial mandate that cannot support itself.

Which would be relevant if that described the current Social Security system. It doesn't. Social Security is projected to be sustainable for at least the next forty-five years before anything has to be done about its current actuarial imbalance to maintain its ability to sustain itself. If that time arrives (not when, if— the projections are deliberately pessimistic), the changes required will not be a Constitutional crisis. Why are you pretending otherwise?

AnonymousDrivel writes: Is it three? It used to be over 20 (I believe). Soon it will be two, then one.

So what? Have you not been noticing something called "productivity growth" happening around you? I mean those would be scary numbers if productivity was a physical constant of the Universe... but, it isn't. So, what do the numbers mean?

AnonymousDrivel writes: As I said, I'll accept any and all ideas to fix this ponzi scheme.

Ah there it is. You think Social Security is a ponzi scheme. As far as you're concerned, it's a criminal scam.

So, why not make that the centerpiece of your argument for driving a stake through the heart of the Social Security Administration? Why hide behind a lot of handwaving and pretense about how you're just interested preserving the power of the "nanny state" to confiscate individual wealth and distribute it to others as a "hedge against utter poverty" or some liberal nonsense?

What are you afraid of? Having to deal with the cognitive dissonance of trying to support the President's "plan" when it's actually even more noxious that the current Social Security system?

I hope everyone has their c... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

I hope everyone has their coffee because this may take a while.

RE: s9's post (March 8, 2005 03:25 AM)

[s9] ...#3 is the 401K and IRA accounts we have today

That's a good point and I had not considered those functional tools. However, I figured the FDR plan to be a tripartite plan that would transmogrify into a bipartite one under the auspices of governement control since he was describing a wholistic government-backed plan that would be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans. That would mean that both the involuntary and voluntary components would need to be self-sustaining under the watchful eye of federal authority. FDR certainly did not have 401Ks and IRAs in mind when he considered his grand plan because they were investment vehicles that did not exist at the time and only recently became available (and wildly popular) as investment tools. You could argue that FDR intended the old "annuities" to be "401Ks and IRAs" but I don't think that was what he had in mind. I still interpret his bipartite plan to be under government control with some individual investment autonomy over part of it.

[s9] And there's nothing voluntary about the privatized "defined contribution" system that Republicans are proposing to establish as a replacement for Social Security. Your point?

My point, as I've just alluded, is that there is no voluntary component in FDR's voluntary/involuntary bipartite plan. There should be. Some could say (and you are suggesting) that 401Ks and IRAs of today fulfill that role but I'm not so sure it does. Nevertheless, I don't have a problem with having 401Ks, IRAs, and some voluntary control over involuntarily mandated SS contributions. I hold to the idea that that was what FDR intended.

[s9] ...if that described the current Social Security system. It doesn't. Social Security is projected to be sustainable for at least the next forty-five years... Why are you pretending otherwise?

That number gets spun about as good as any yarn in the blogosphere and by pundits. I'll follow the Fed's reports and it is not that rosy a picture. Why do you pretend it is? Here is what Greenspan under Clinton presents in Senate testimony (January 28, 1999):
While a sharp rise in the number of retirees in about ten years seems almost a certainty, the financial and economic state of the American economy in the early twenty-first century is not. We cannot confidently project large surpluses in our unified budget over the next fifteen years, given the inherent uncertainties of budget forecasting. How can we ignore the fact that virtually all forecasts of the budget balance have been wide of the mark in recent years? For example, as recently as February 1997, OMB projected a deficit for fiscal year 1998 of $121 billion--a $191 billion error. The CBO and others made similar errors. Likewise, in 1983, we confidently projected a solvent social security trust fund through 2057. Our latest estimate with few changes in the program is 2032.

It is possible, as some maintain, that the OASI actuaries are too conservative, and that productivity growth could be far greater than is anticipated in their "intermediate" estimate. If that is, in fact, our prospect, the social security system is not in as much jeopardy as it currently appears. But proper fiscal planning requires that consequences of mistakes in all directions be evaluated. If we move now to shore up the social security program, or replace it, in part or in whole, with a private system, and subsequently find that we had been too pessimistic in our projections, the costs to our society would be few. If we assume more optimistic scenarios and they prove wrong, the imbalances could become overwhelming, and finding a solution would be even more divisive than today's problem.

Greenspan states that predictions are fraught with wild fluctuations and errors and that to predict confidently would not be possible. He added further that a previously "confident" prediction seems to have missed the mark and overstated solvency by 25 years. Your contention that SS will maintain solvency "for at least the next forty-five years" (if it ever reaches insolvency at all) seems dubious in view of updated projections (assuming even those are conservative enough). Reread Greenspan's last paragraph again. He concedes that OASI projections could be too conservative; however, he goes on to mention the benefits and pitfalls in view of an uncertain future as well. He even goes further by suggesting that a private system replace (in whole or in part) the current FDR derivative one... shocking. I know that sticks in the craw of many a Democrat. But I digress.

[s9] ..."productivity growth" happening around you? I mean those would be scary numbers if productivity was a physical constant of the Universe... but, it isn't. So, what do the numbers mean?

So "productivity growth" is perpetually and interminably positive? Wow! You have more confidence in our country's potential than even I, and a mighty fine crystal ball. Sorry but I want very conservative projections by our government when it comes to money. Politicians running for office can get away with pie-in-the-sky promises during an election campaign, but once they're in, they are irresponsible to make those claims particularly when the pie is really a cupcake. Now, the numbers mean that a diminishing number of non-retirees (payors) are obligated to finance an escalating number of retirees (payees) to the point of unreasonable burden. That trend will continue until that demographic bubble bursts or the trendlines level. So far we are still on the increasing side of the curve and it is unfair to younger workers to shoulder that much. I prefer a plan that is fair to all and want to leave a reasonable legacy to future generations.

[s9] Ah there it is. You think Social Security is a ponzi scheme. As far as you're concerned, it's a criminal scam.

Oh please. It's a ponzi scheme in the sense that the bulk of the burden is getting passed on to the younger worker. I should have counted on you to focus on the criminality of my word. To be fair, it is used in that context but that is not my exclusive intent. I'm afraid you did not accidentally stumble on some Freudian slip of the tongue.

[s9] So, why not make that the centerpiece of your argument...

I've made my point on this earlier. Please go back and reread it. You want to simply my entire position on the word "ponzi" when I wrote at length my position and my openness to a vast array of ideas. If you respond again to this post using the "driving a stake" semantics, I think I'll scream. You are killing only a strawman with that rhetoric. Clearly you and I have different interpretations as to what is and what is not "noxious". Clearer still, I have few reservations on an attempt made by both Democrats (via Clinton) and Republicans (via Bush) to fix an admittedly flawed design. Clearer even still is your gross partisanship to the whole endeavor... unless you criticized Clinton when he tried to modify SS structure during his tenure. Did you?

I hope this clears up my position even more. I want this problem fixed, fixed now by whoever wants to tackle an obvious problem, and fixed to an extent that it becomes self-sustaining. It's what FDR would have wanted.

[PS - Sorry to bore the casual reader but these types of exercises are important to explain a common man's position. I hope honest debate will cut through the demagoguing and spin posited by pundits. My expressions have been an attempt to not do that so I hope you will walk away with your own take-home message and not rely on hackery. Read reports from the Fed - it's the closest and most pertinent factual evidence you will find.]

The whole 401k / IRA thing ... (Below threshold)

The whole 401k / IRA thing is a commercial/business/personal thing, not a government imposed one. I don't think that's what FDR had in mind. I find it striking that FDR had such vision that even after the stock market crash, and its long lingering effects, he still thought that it could be used for the betterment of retirement plans and society.

Henry writes: The... (Below threshold)
s9:

Henry writes: The whole 401k / IRA thing is a commercial/business/personal thing, not a government imposed one.

How, exactly, do you imagine a government imposed "thing" that is somehow voluntary? I'm trying to reconcile the word "impose" with the word "volunteer" and it isn't working.

Unless, we accept that a government program to give defer income taxes on certain kinds of private investment accounts as a kind of imposition upon the free market in a way that libertarians usually regard the mere existance of the State as an imposition.

AnonymousDrivel conc... (Below threshold)
s9:

AnonymousDrivel concludes a long post thusly: I want this problem fixed, fixed now by whoever wants to tackle an obvious problem, and fixed to an extent that it becomes self-sustaining.

I want more pressing and immediate problems fixed. Social Security is not in any imminent danger of even trivial difficulty, and there is no danger whatsoever that it will ever be unable to meet its obligations simply by raising the payroll tax. It is not a pressing problem, no matter what the President and his flying, blue monkeys say.

The pressing fiscal problems that must be addressed at the federal level immediately are the following: 1) the structural defecit in the U.S. federal budget; 2) the abyssmal national savings rate; 3) the yawning and unsustainable current account deficit.

Any one of those problems alone can be shown to dwarf the fiscal threat posed by the actuarial imbalance in Social Security. All three of them taken together are almost the perfect storm of destructive forces. Yet, your President (and your vaunted Federal Reserve Chairman Greenspan, who must now be recognized for a partisan hack) wants to pretend none of those problems exist. Only the Social Security problem is on the table for discussion. And the President's men all agree that the proposed privatization scheme does nothing about the actuarial imbalance. There's no reason to put forward such a proposal except to begin the dismantling of the program.

So why not come out and argue for dismantling the program?

RE: s9's post (March 8, 200... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (March 8, 2005 04:25 PM)
So why not come out and argue for dismantling the program?

Aaaaaagh! You forgot to include "driving a stake". Changing the wording does not alter intent. I'm not falling for your sidestepping legal mumbo-jumbo.

OK, you want other problems addressed too. So do I. We can argue which rates one, two, and three or their relative scope and impact on this country's economic condition for the rest of time but, sadly, neither of us has enough.

But I have to ask, are you reading the Fed Chairman's reports, particularly the ones while serving Clinton? He explicitly states SS's problems and has been for years. Why is Greenspan now "a partisan hack" for "the President and his flying, blue monkeys" when he was perfectly acceptable under Clinton? You still have not answered my question on whether or not you supported Clinton's "radical" SS changes that he advocated in his SOTU speech or whether or not Greenspan was wrong then under Clinton's tenure?

You are also misrepresenting Greenspan's sentiment regarding the appended issues. He is still concerned about them in addition to SS.

Oops, your gross partisanship is showing.

AnonymousDrivel writ... (Below threshold)
s9:

AnonymousDrivel writes: Why is Greenspan now "a partisan hack" for "the President and his flying, blue monkeys" when he was perfectly acceptable under Clinton? You still have not answered my question on whether or not you supported Clinton's "radical" SS changes that he advocated in his SOTU speech or whether or not Greenspan was wrong then under Clinton's tenure?

p1. When did I ever say Greenspan was "perfectly acceptable" when he was Clinton's monkey at the Federal Reserve?

p2. What the fsck does what Clinton said or did, whether in response to or in the presence of advice from Chairman Greenspan, have to do with the matter under discussion?

Answers: never, and absolutely nothing. For the record, I've never liked Greenspan— since he chaired that commission on Social Security reform in 1983, I've distrusted the man.

AnonymousDrivel also writes: OK, you want other problems addressed too. So do I.

You're not reading me. It's really not that I "want other problems addressed too;" I want those other problems to take higher priority.

I don't want the President or the Congress to waste even an epsilon of time quanta on fighting over the Social Security actuarial imbalance when there are other pressing problems— which, depending on how and when they are addressed, will greatly affect our future options for dealing with the comparatively tiny problem of Social Security.

You, on the other hand, are like an emergency room doctor who wants to do exploratory brain surgery on a patient suffering from a mild, acute tension headache when the triage is full of unstable patients with sucking chest wounds and perforated peritoneums.

RE: s9's post (March 8, 200... (Below threshold)
AnonymousDrivel:

RE: s9's post (March 8, 2005 10:15 PM)

For the record, I've never liked Greenspan— since he chaired that commission on Social Security reform in 1983, I've distrusted the man.

Well, you have just separated yourself from many a Democrat. That is an honest answer with which I can respectfully disagree.

You're not reading me. It's really not that I "want other problems addressed too;" I want those other problems to take higher priority.

Um, I'm reading you just fine. What part of "OK, you want other problems addressed too. So do I. We can argue which rates one, two, and three or their relative scope and impact on this country's economic condition..." did you not understand?

Seeing as we are oil and water on this and that the Fed's reports have no impact on your position and that you have not provided any evidence (relatively unbiased would be best) to support your contention, there is not much point in going further. It's unfortunate that our diagnoses of the patient vary so dramatically since my reports indicate a different conclusion and predict a different outcome. We could perform a shaman ritual dance and prescribe a few placebos to placate the terminal and blissfully unaware subject but I'm afraid that I want this patient to live. I'll not stand idly by and wait for straightlines in contradiction to the factual data presented.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy