lol2K4 up to its old tricks

[The Czech Republic 0]

Donahue finished last against CNN and Fox News, that's why it was canned.

[Guest MikeSC]

I used to watch Donahue on MSNBC, however once he was rewarded for being the highest rated show on the networkby being given a pink slip, and then replaced by Scarbarough, I tuned out.

"Highest rated" being 3 viewers instead of the usual 2.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

It's odd that Olbermann and Roosevelt Jr didn't provide the context that Hume allegedly didn't provide, isn't it? You know, like the part of the FDR quote that Hume allegedly left out of the equation.

Ahem:

 

OLBERMANN: At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled. The ones Mr. Hume pulled, only that he wanted to pull:

 

"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 to old build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come fund will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions.

 

"Second, compulsory contributory annuities which 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." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

 

I had to reread it a few times, but it seems as though they did, in fact, provdie what you asked for.

And the quote is NOT how Hume characterized it how?

 

FDR, hate to break it to you, is advocating Bush's plan.

-=Mike

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

I used to watch Donahue on MSNBC, however once he was rewarded for being the highest rated show on the networkby being given a pink slip, and then replaced by Scarbarough, I tuned out.

Donahue was on at 8 p.m. -- Joe has the 10 p.m. slot. Did Joe once have the 8 p.m. MSNBC slot?...

[SuperJerk 0]

It's odd that Olbermann and Roosevelt Jr didn't provide the context that Hume allegedly didn't provide, isn't it? You know, like the part of the FDR quote that Hume allegedly left out of the equation.

Ahem:

 

OLBERMANN: At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled. The ones Mr. Hume pulled, only that he wanted to pull:

 

"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 to old build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come fund will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions.

 

"Second, compulsory contributory annuities which 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." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

 

I had to reread it a few times, but it seems as though they did, in fact, provdie what you asked for.

And the quote is NOT how Hume characterized it how?

 

FDR, hate to break it to you, is advocating Bush's plan.

-=Mike

Let's look again.

 

 

"Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

 

It looks to me like they are saying you should be able to establish a voluntary part to increase the money you would already be getting under the plan.

 

 

"It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

 

Is the interpretation of self-supporting to mean that:

 

a) the "self" in "self-supporting" refers to the future retirees themselves should be responsible for saving the money

 

or

 

b) the "self" in "self-supporting" refers to the program itself being the source of the money for future retirees, rahter than contributions taken from the government's general fund.

 

I would tend to think the latter is the case, since this sentence was about pension plans, rather than people.

 

To draw a 100% accurate conclusion, however, you would need the entire speech/document which all of the quotes were lifted from, as you pointed out. There was enough of a quote was there to support Olbermann and James Roosevelt Jr.'s conclusion, but not to entirely prove it.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's look again.

"Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

It looks to me like they are saying you should be able to establish a voluntary part to increase the money you would already be getting under the plan.

 

 

Which is EXACTLY what Bush's plan involves.

"It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans."

Is the interpretation of self-supporting to mean that:

 

a) the "self" in "self-supporting" refers to the future retirees themselves should be responsible for saving the money

 

or

 

b) the "self" in "self-supporting" refers to the program itself being the source of the money for future retirees, rahter than contributions taken from the government's general fund.

 

I would tend to think the latter is the case, since this sentence was about pension plans, rather than people.

No, it's calling for the gov't to pay for current retirees WHILE it goes over to a privately-financed system.

 

Which, again, is precisely what Bush is trying to do. And what absolutely must be done.

To draw a 100% accurate conclusion, however, you would need the entire speech/document which all of the quotes were lifted from, as you pointed out.  There was enough of a quote was there to support Olbermann and James Roosevelt Jr.'s conclusion, but not to entirely prove it.

Sorry, but it honestly shits on Olbermann and FDR Jr's claims.

 

But, with Olbermann, it is to be expected. I don't think the man has made a relevant point...ever.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Let's look again.

"Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

It looks to me like they are saying you should be able to establish a voluntary part to increase the money you would already be getting under the plan.

 

 

Which is EXACTLY what Bush's plan involves.

Bush's private accounts would REPLACE contributions made to Social Security, not supplement them.

 

 

No, it's calling for the gov't to pay for current retirees WHILE it goes over to a privately-financed system.

 

Which, again, is precisely what Bush is trying to do. And what absolutely must be done.

 

WHY? Why must it be done? That's what I don't get. You guy's say its because Social Security doesn't have enough money to survive, but Bush's plan would just make things worse.

 

Bush's plan would require MORE money than the current plan does, because you'd have to pay for both the private accounts of younger people and pay out benefits to retirees.

 

A better plan would be to raise the retirement age and cut the rate at which benefits increase.

[NoCalMike 0]

Donahue finished last against CNN and Fox News, that's why it was canned.

So which show on MSNBC happens to beat CNN & Fox? None. Donahue was the highest rated talk show on the station. If they didn't like him getting beat, then change his timeslot to go up against something else and see if it makes a difference, but to can him, being the only liberal voice on the station, and replace him with yet another "OMG how can you not suppot this war you idiots" voice reeks of idiocy.

[Guest MikeSC]

Let's look again.

"Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

It looks to me like they are saying you should be able to establish a voluntary part to increase the money you would already be getting under the plan.

Which is EXACTLY what Bush's plan involves.

Bush's private accounts would REPLACE contributions made to Social Security, not supplement them.

 

They'd be guaranteed by the gov't and would INEVITABLY be worth more than the current piddling numbers the gov't provides.

No, it's calling for the gov't to pay for current retirees WHILE it goes over to a privately-financed system.

 

Which, again, is precisely what Bush is trying to do. And what absolutely must be done.

WHY? Why must it be done? That's what I don't get. You guy's say its because Social Security doesn't have enough money to survive, but Bush's plan would just make things worse.

Social Security works by current workers paying for current retirees. OUR generation is MUCH smaller than the Baby Boomers who are about to retire.

 

Bush's plan will fix this system that is damaged beyond repair. The system would generate enough revenue to ACTUALLY pay for itself.

Bush's plan would require MORE money than the current plan does, because you'd have to pay for both the private accounts of younger people and  pay out benefits to retirees.

This SHOULD have been done MANY years ago. The longer we wait, the more it'll cost.

 

The OTHER option is to raise FICA taxes to a borderline comical level to pay for a system that might not be solvent when I reach retirement age.

 

No offense, but fuck that logic.

A better plan would be to raise the retirement age and cut the rate at which benefits increase.

No, that doesn't deal with the fundamental problem. The only solution that will work is privatization --- which even Bush doesn't support.

 

And, quite honestly, if Bush suggested what you recommend, he'd be accused of "Starving the elderly". It's a no-win situation for him.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Donahue finished last against CNN and Fox News, that's why it was canned.

So which show on MSNBC happens to beat CNN & Fox? None. Donahue was the highest rated talk show on the station. If they didn't like him getting beat, then change his timeslot to go up against something else and see if it makes a difference, but to can him, being the only liberal voice on the station, and replace him with yet another "OMG how can you not suppot this war you idiots" voice reeks of idiocy.

I assume you've missed Olbermann's show.

 

Donahue was the "only liberal voice"?

 

Yeah.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Donahue finished last against CNN and Fox News, that's why it was canned.

So which show on MSNBC happens to beat CNN & Fox? None. Donahue was the highest rated talk show on the station. If they didn't like him getting beat, then change his timeslot to go up against something else and see if it makes a difference, but to can him, being the only liberal voice on the station, and replace him with yet another "OMG how can you not suppot this war you idiots" voice reeks of idiocy.

I assume you've missed Olbermann's show.

 

Donahue was the "only liberal voice"?

 

Yeah.

-=Mike

I've seen Olberman's show, and it seems more like something that belongs on E! or Comedy Central channel then cable news.

[Guest MikeSC]

Donahue finished last against CNN and Fox News, that's why it was canned.

So which show on MSNBC happens to beat CNN & Fox? None. Donahue was the highest rated talk show on the station. If they didn't like him getting beat, then change his timeslot to go up against something else and see if it makes a difference, but to can him, being the only liberal voice on the station, and replace him with yet another "OMG how can you not suppot this war you idiots" voice reeks of idiocy.

I assume you've missed Olbermann's show.

 

Donahue was the "only liberal voice"?

 

Yeah.

-=Mike

I've seen Olberman's show, and it seems more like something that belongs on E! or Comedy Central channel then cable news.

It's modern liberalism. He is the route the Dems appear all to ready to take.

 

God knows the whackjob left blogs LOVE that joke of a man.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

Social Security works by current workers paying for current retirees. OUR generation is MUCH smaller than the Baby Boomers who are about to retire.

 

Bush's plan will fix this system that is damaged beyond repair. The system would generate enough revenue to ACTUALLY pay for itself.

How? Bush will need to borrow TRILLIONS to get his program to work.

 

The only way this program is going to pay for itself is after (a) all the people who will ever get Social sEcurity benefits are dead, and (b) we pay off the TRILLIONS of dollars Bush will have to borrow to keep the current system running while the current workforces' contributions are redirected into individual investments.

 

Bush's plan would require MORE money than the current plan does, because you'd have to pay for both the private accounts of younger people and  pay out benefits to retirees.

This SHOULD have been done MANY years ago. The longer we wait, the more it'll cost.

 

The OTHER option is to raise FICA taxes to a borderline comical level to pay for a system that might not be solvent when I reach retirement age.

 

No offense, but fuck that logic.

A better plan would be to raise the retirement age and cut the rate at which benefits increase.

No, that doesn't deal with the fundamental problem. The only solution that will work is privatization --- which even Bush doesn't support.

 

Like I said, in order for Bush's plan to work, he'll have to borrow TRILLIONS. His cure is already off to a horrible start.

 

And, quite honestly, if Bush suggested what you recommend, he'd be accused of "Starving the elderly". It's a no-win situation for him.

 

Its not a no-win situation for him. If Bush's plan passes, it'll mean windfall profits for the firms that get to handle the private accounts (i.e. his campaign contributors).

 

My plan is common sense. If you're spending too much money, the easiest and most effective way to stop would be to cut expenses. There's no reason, given the advances in medicine, the retirement age for our generation can't be raised higher.

 

Yeah, the Democrats would claim he was starving the elderly, just like they did to the Republicans in 1995. And they'd be wrong, just like they were in 1995. Remember all that "political capital" Bush earned with his 51% victory? THAT'S what he should spend it on, not some risky scheme that would add TRILLIONS to the national debt and make investment firms even richer.

[NoCalMike 0]

Donahue finished last against CNN and Fox News, that's why it was canned.

So which show on MSNBC happens to beat CNN & Fox? None. Donahue was the highest rated talk show on the station. If they didn't like him getting beat, then change his timeslot to go up against something else and see if it makes a difference, but to can him, being the only liberal voice on the station, and replace him with yet another "OMG how can you not suppot this war you idiots" voice reeks of idiocy.

I assume you've missed Olbermann's show.

 

Donahue was the "only liberal voice"?

 

Yeah.

-=Mike

I've seen Olberman's show, and it seems more like something that belongs on E! or Comedy Central channel then cable news.

It's modern liberalism. He is the route the Dems appear all to ready to take.

 

God knows the whackjob left blogs LOVE that joke of a man.

-=Mike

As opposed to modern conservatism like Sean Hannity that asks a guest a certain question, then as they are trying to answer, interrupts to ask why they hate freedom three times, and repeat "rape rooms & torture chambers" when the original quesiton is about a guest speaker at a college...

 

Or the excellent debating skills of O'Reily:

 

Shut Up

Shut Up

Cut his Mic

...NOW.....

[Guest MikeSC]

Social Security works by current workers paying for current retirees. OUR generation is MUCH smaller than the Baby Boomers who are about to retire.

 

Bush's plan will fix this system that is damaged beyond repair. The system would generate enough revenue to ACTUALLY pay for itself.

How? Bush will need to borrow TRILLIONS to get his program to work.

It's going to cost MORE the longer we wait. We've tried the quick-fixes for a long while now and they do not work.

The only way this program is going to pay for itself is after (a) all the people who will ever get Social sEcurity benefits are dead, and (b) we pay off the TRILLIONS of dollars Bush will have to borrow to keep the current system running while the current workforces' contributions are redirected into individual investments.

We could kill Social Security, if that'd make you happy. This system is going to cost FAR more than we can possibly cover.

 

And I don't BEGIN to buy government "projections" on its cost.

Bush's plan would require MORE money than the current plan does, because you'd have to pay for both the private accounts of younger people and  pay out benefits to retirees.

This SHOULD have been done MANY years ago. The longer we wait, the more it'll cost.

 

The OTHER option is to raise FICA taxes to a borderline comical level to pay for a system that might not be solvent when I reach retirement age.

 

No offense, but fuck that logic.

A better plan would be to raise the retirement age and cut the rate at which benefits increase.

No, that doesn't deal with the fundamental problem. The only solution that will work is privatization --- which even Bush doesn't support.

 

Like I said, in order for Bush's plan to work, he'll have to borrow TRILLIONS. His cure is already off to a horrible start.

There not a good option right now. We either bite the bullet now --- or we bite a BIGGER one later.

And, quite honestly, if Bush suggested what you recommend, he'd be accused of "Starving the elderly". It's a no-win situation for him.

 

Its not a no-win situation for him. If Bush's plan passes, it'll mean windfall profits for the firms that get to handle the private accounts (i.e. his campaign contributors).

No, it'll benefit retirees. It'll make Social Security more like an IRA.

 

Which is what it SHOULD be.

 

What the hell makes the government competent enough to decide how to invest my money, considering that they are fiscally retarded?

My plan is common sense.  If you're spending too much money, the easiest and most effective way to stop would be to cut expenses.  There's no reason, given the advances in medicine, the retirement age for our generation can't be raised higher. 

Because the AARP votes a lot and has few qualms about demonizing any change.

Yeah, the Democrats would claim he was starving the elderly, just like they did to the Republicans in 1995.  And they'd be wrong, just like they were in 1995.  Remember all that "political capital" Bush earned with his 51% victory?  THAT'S what he should spend it on, not some risky scheme that would add TRILLIONS to the national debt and make investment firms even richer.

Bush's plan fixes the system permanently.

 

Yours does not.

-=Mike

[Guest MikeSC]

Donahue finished last against CNN and Fox News, that's why it was canned.

So which show on MSNBC happens to beat CNN & Fox? None. Donahue was the highest rated talk show on the station. If they didn't like him getting beat, then change his timeslot to go up against something else and see if it makes a difference, but to can him, being the only liberal voice on the station, and replace him with yet another "OMG how can you not suppot this war you idiots" voice reeks of idiocy.

I assume you've missed Olbermann's show.

 

Donahue was the "only liberal voice"?

 

Yeah.

-=Mike

I've seen Olberman's show, and it seems more like something that belongs on E! or Comedy Central channel then cable news.

It's modern liberalism. He is the route the Dems appear all to ready to take.

 

God knows the whackjob left blogs LOVE that joke of a man.

-=Mike

As opposed to modern conservatism like Sean Hannity that asks a guest a certain question, then as they are trying to answer, interrupts to ask why they hate freedom three times, and repeat "rape rooms & torture chambers" when the original quesiton is about a guest speaker at a college...

 

Sean Hannity is an unbelievable douche. Fortunately, he's not a stereotypical voice of the GOP.

Or the excellent debating skills of O'Reily:

 

Shut Up

Shut Up

Cut his Mic

...NOW.....

I think you've missed my frequent references to O'Reilly as an egotistical blowhard without a useful opinion.

-=Mike

[NoCalMike 0]

Well I wasn't implying that you liked them, just pointing out that cable news pundits on both sides are, for the most part garbage.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well I wasn't implying that you liked them, just pointing out that cable news pundits on both sides are, for the most part garbage.

And you don't see conservatives praising Hannity or O'Reilly terribly often.

 

I DO see sites like DU and DailyKos --- who powered Dean's run for President and for head of DNC --- praise Olbermann. His "Expose" of the "problems" in Ohio in 2004 caused mass orgasms on those sites.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

^I see plenty of conservatives praise Hannity and O'Reilly.^

 

No, it'll benefit retirees. It'll make Social Security more like an IRA.

 

Which is what it SHOULD be.

 

What the hell makes the government competent enough to decide how to invest my money, considering that they are fiscally retarded?

 

Bush's plan fixes the system permanently.

 

Yours does not.

         -=Mike

1) It'll alledgedly benefit people our age when we retire, but not current retirees.

 

2) As incompetent as the government is, I trust them more than I trust private investment firms and the stock market.

 

3) Bush's plan is not feasible because it will add multi-trillion dollars of new debt which will take generations to pay off, and allow private firms to have the opportunity to screw people out of their retirement money.

 

Bush says that Social Security is going bankrupt, which is true. However, his plan just accelerates the bankruptcy.

[NoCalMike 0]

I don't think Bush's plan will fix Social Security at all, if anything it is the first step into easing the general public into the idea of ENDING social security, which I think the plan by the neocons is anyway, they just don't want to come out say it, because if a substantial amount of people draw funds out of the general pot, there won't be enough to fund the rest of the retirees, in ADDITION to everyone else that draws money out o social security for other various reasons. The entire privitization idea is just another "I got mine, and I don't care if you got yours" mindset, which will be great for the haves, and another hit to the have-nots.

 

If private accounts are introduced, it will draw money out of the funds, thus hurting anyone not wanting to participate and leaving less funds in the overall pot. It isn't really "social security" at all if it is being put into private accounts, becqause the mere idea of "private" accounts is in direct contradiction to the term "social security"

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Ask England how well SS privatization works.

 

They are looking at our current system pretty longingly right about now.

[Vyce 0]

Well I wasn't implying that you liked them, just pointing out that cable news pundits on both sides are, for the most part garbage.

And you don't see conservatives praising Hannity or O'Reilly terribly often.

But for some inexplicable reason, Rush gets mad props.

[The Czech Republic 0]

But, with Olbermann, it is to be expected. I don't think the man has made a relevant point...ever.

I think he probably said "stay tuned for Baseball Tonight" once and that was pretty relevant, because it was dealing with exciting late-breaking news and important statistics with expert analysis. I'm glad he said that.

[Guest MikeSC]

But, with Olbermann, it is to be expected. I don't think the man has made a relevant point...ever.

I think he probably said "stay tuned for Baseball Tonight" once and that was pretty relevant, because it was dealing with exciting late-breaking news and important statistics with expert analysis. I'm glad he said that.

I always assumed Patrick would've said it better.

-=Mike