Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Wednesday, October 14, 2009

U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly shown that they value making money more than the health of citizens in this country. This morning I heard a comment that couldn't have made that more clear. I often watch CNBC's Squawk Box during my morning workout. Today, FDIC Chair Sheila Bair was being interviewed and made the comment that banks are very proud that they pay for deposit insurance through the FDIC.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

hope4hope

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

When Obama began to tackle this problem I predicted that it will be too expensive, give too much away to Health Care, Inc. and cover too few people.

Until private money is removed from the election cycle the US is going to keep getting the same shitty candidates we have now.

-Until private money is removed from the election cycle

We were kidding the other day that Obama will tackle campaign finance reform... in his second term.

Well, maybe we weren't kidding.

Ya 726, I think a single payer would drastically lower prices but from day one the Democratic Party has shied away from it. Needless to say, I strongly oppose any reform other than a single payer, because it will end up being an even more convoluted and expensive mess. The government already has their fingers in healthcare through VA, Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs and we end up with the most (or near it) expensive system in the world. Anything short of single payer will just make it worse. A public option (which will be a weak public option if anything) will just build another layer of ineffectiveness onto an already ineffective system.

We live in a pretty dumb nation where millions of morons will defend the obscene profits of insurance companies while their own kids go without health care insurance and probably without basic health care at all. Some, I won't name any names, have admitted as much right here of DR. Ideology before the health of your own kids smacks of pure stupidity.

banks don't burn well. they are made of brick and seldom full of money.

We were kidding the other day that Obama will tackle campaign finance reform... in his second term.

Well, maybe we weren't kidding.

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2009-10-14 03:57 PM

Yes you were.

#3 | Posted by andyuhenet: Needless to say, I strongly oppose any reform other than a single payer, because it will end up being an even more convoluted and expensive mess.

I also strongly believe single-payer is the key to fair and equitable health care. But I think the people will come out ahead with this reform. Getting rid of pre-existing conditions will be a huge help to many who right now are fighting a disease with no chance of getting insurance.

There has never been a Republican president who cares enough about the health of American citizens to make reform a priority. With less than a year in the White House, Obama has already made it further than Clinton. (the last President who tried)

Carpe Diem!

There has never been a Republican president who cares enough about the health of American citizens to make reform a priority.
#7 | Posted by hope4hope at 2009-10-14 04:40 PM

You still embarrassing yourself with that load of crap? You were provided a link last time you ignorantly made that brilliant claim. Seeing as you ran away before, are you man enough to respond today? Not that anyone else on the left here hasn't run when this was posted....

Here is the last paragraph of the article:

But anyone seriously interested in health reform would welcome the president's proposal as a basis for negotiations, raising public expectations and increasing pressure on the president to embrace more comprehensive reform. Unfortunately, that is not the approach of Messrs. Stark, Rangel, Reid and Kennedy, who apparently prefer demonizing the president and grandstanding on the issue until the next election.

Haven't we had enough of this?
www.washingtonpost.com

Ideology before the health of your own kids smacks of pure stupidity
4 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-14 04:08 PM |

Which is why Kennedy, Reid, Rangel and others opposed Bushs' HC Reform... But of course you have seen this link more than a few times and conveniently put on your Usain Bolt shoes.

Deposit insurance doesn't compare to health insurance. Wanna talk deposit insurance?????????
Obviously not!!!

Go ahead make my day!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we pass health care without the public option the other "reforms" such as "no pre-existing condition" will drive rates to unaffordable levels.
Insurance companies simply are not going to sacrifice profits so the costs will be born by premium payers. If we pass those reforms then we MUST also pass a real public option or we are only screwing ourselves.

"There has never been a Republican president who cares enough about the health of American citizens to make reform a priority."

Teddy Roosevelt did but by then he wasn't a REpublican any longer.

When many here wanted to 'Nationalize' the 19 tarp banks....NO ONE here had any idea what that would have cost. BTW Trillions.

Gee maybe we should make it like the dem's HC plan. You know, insurance anytime, no pre-conditions!!!!?

I CHALLENGE ANYONE here to compare the two!!!!

If this doesn't get passed are you voting Bull Moose party in 2012 Danni?

"Washington, D.C. Today, Senator Edward M. Kennedy released the following statement, also included is a fact sheet on the President's health care proposal:

"I welcome the President's call to make health care a priority for Congress. But to solve the health care crisis, we need not just action - but the right action. The President's proposals are an opportunity missed. They will not improve access to good coverage, and won't help working families afford the spiraling cost of health care. They will do little to improve the quality of health care. Republicans and Democrats alike should come together to build on the lessons from the states to see that all Americans have quality, affordable health care."

Even in the articly you linked Pearlstein admits that Bush's proposal might likely be just an attempt to try and gain some level of credibility due to his very low poll numbers. No one could possible pretend that his proposal was a major one that would have significantly reformed health care.
Basicly, his idea was to tax health care benefits over a certain level of value, which is in the present proposal.

"If this doesn't get passed are you voting Bull Moose party in 2012 Danni?"

If there was a Teddy Roosevelt running I would.

Trust buster!

There has never been a Republican president who cares enough about the health of American citizens to make reform a priority."

Teddy Roosevelt did but by then he wasn't a REpublican any longer.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-14 05:05 PM |

Oh a priority. I guess that's why Kennedy didn't endorse Bushs' proposal and instead lied through his yellow teeth?

How did he lie Crispee???

It is a little foolish pretending Kennedy would oppose anything Bush did out of party loyalty when you consider Kennedy co-sponsored No Child Left Behind, Bush's signature education bill and one of his biggest accomplishments, imperfect though it may still be.

Republicans think reform is just making insurance cheaper for those who already can get it. They do nothing to open the doors to those are denied for pre-existing conditions.

#19...

First of all, thanks for finally reading the article and retorting....

It is obvious that Kennedy and the left responded exactly the way they did when Bush mentioned SS reform. Not directly because of policy disagreement, but because of party. In regards to the Kennedy, Stark, Reid, Rangel... Perlstein sums up their hypocrisy and lies and proof of party over politics. Not saying I blame them, or repubs would react any different to something sacred to the party. But let's be real here and call a spade a spade.

How did he lie Crispee???

#18 | Posted by danni at 2009-10-14 05:19 PM |

Worst of all was the five-page memo distributed by Sen. Edward Kennedy to Democratic colleagues that ought to embarrass a man who considers himself the Senate's leading health-care expert -- a compendium of half-truths, unsupported assumptions and outright lies. Kennedy reverted to the hackneyed rhetoric of class warfare, asserting that the president's proposals will do nothing for working families, give new tax breaks to the rich, increase the number of uninsured and encourage everyone to buy less insurance coverage than they should have.

In fact, all of these are almost precisely the opposite of the truth.

Kennedy reverted to the hackneyed rhetoric of class warfare, asserting that the president's proposals will do nothing for working families, give new tax breaks to the rich, increase the number of uninsured and encourage everyone to buy less insurance coverage than they should have.

#22 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-10-14 05:36 PM

Sounds like the truth to me.

"It is obvious that Kennedy and the left responded exactly the way they did when Bush mentioned SS reform. Not directly because of policy disagreement, but because of party."

That's just ridiculous. Most Americans VEHEMENTLY disagreed with his ideas about SS even after he went on the road to pitch it and THANK GOD too because if we had put our SS money into the stock market it would have shrunk just like our 401Ks.
That was not party of policy, it was protecting the American people from the wolves on Wall Street.
I'm not saying Kennedy wasn't a strong, loyal Democrat but the level of partisanship he displayed as compared to the REpublicans, with their K Street Project, their refusal to go along with ANYTHING the Democrats propose now was no where near as extreme or as unAmerican.

#24...

You are missing the point. Kennedy would not have gone along with anything Bush proposed on SS reform. What is sad is the fact the dems were not even intersted in addressing the problem. Much like we see the repubs today on HC Reform.

Kennedy reverted to the hackneyed rhetoric of class warfare, asserting that the president's proposals will do nothing for working families, give new tax breaks to the rich, increase the number of uninsured and encourage everyone to buy less insurance coverage than they should have.

#22 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2009-10-14 05:36 PM

Sounds like the truth to me.

You also go by the handle jackass. Read the next paragraph showing Kennedy lied and proof of your ignorance...

All Bushco cared about was funneling monry to his rich supporters. Unless you are rich he was a terrible president.

"What is sad is the fact the dems were not even intersted in addressing the problem"

You're joking, right? After that pathetic yearlong dog-and-pony show in front of loyalty oath signers, Bush finally admitted his plan wouldn't even address the problems. And anyone with a even a passing familiarity with SS realized privatization would exacerbate the underfunding by siphoning off monies to Wall Street.

The telling fact is the more people learned of Bush's ideas, the less they supported it. By the end, Republicans were deserting in droves. Ultimately, Bush couldn't get a single respected economist to sign on to his plan of no new taxes and no later retirement dates, all during a time of falling birth rates. And he never made a peep about where he would get the $2 trillion price tag.

#28...

"What is sad is the fact the dems were not even intersted in addressing the problem"

"You're joking, right? After that pathetic yearlong dog-and-pony show in front of loyalty oath signers, Bush finally admitted his plan wouldn't even address the problems."

What does that have to do with the dems "immediate" criticism of Bush wanting SS reform? Before anything was proposed. I can understand your point after looking at his policy, but to say the dems would have got on board is just laughable. Again, much like the repubs today on HC Refrom.

BTW...
Have the dems addressed it today? Last year? The year before?

#8 | Posted by crispee_oc: You still embarrassing yourself with that load of crap? You were provided a link last time you ignorantly made that brilliant claim.

Oh Crispee, given what a sweetheart you are, I would have responded had I seen the link. Thanks for posting it again. I just read the story. I would hardly call Bush presenting a health plan and stating his intentions in a State of the Union address to "come to the negotiating table on a range of domestic issues" means Bush made health care reform a priority.

#11 | Posted by danni - I think you are right, in 1912 Teddy Roosevelt did advocate for universal health care. But he was running as a Progressive candidate. Also, here's a link that debates how much of priority it really was for Roosevelt.

www.politifact.com

"What does that have to do with the dems "immediate" criticism of Bush wanting SS reform?"

It wasn't reform, as anyone familiar with plans like that knows. It was merely a scheme to siphon money off to Wall Street. Bush never proposed any actual reform. How could the Dems 'get on board' with something that never existed?

"Have the dems addressed it today?"

No, they're busy with health care. SS in actually not that far away from a fix. Medicare, and health costs overall, are the major problem. If medical inflation isn't stemmed, and it continues to rise 4x inflation as it has over the last decade, we're screwed.

"Last year? The year before?"

Of course not. They neither had the votes to override a veto nor the votes to close debate. You do know how Robert's Rules of Order work, yes?

Today, FDIC Chair Sheila Bair was being interviewed and made the comment that banks are very proud that they pay for deposit insurance through the FDIC.

No shit? Banks like that the money is backed by the Federal Government so they can do whatever they want with it, and all of their losses will be subsidized? Wow...fascinating analysis.

What does that have to do with the dems "immediate" criticism of Bush wanting SS reform?"

It wasn't reform, as anyone familiar with plans like that knows. It was merely a scheme to siphon money off to Wall Street. Bush never proposed any actual reform. How could the Dems 'get on board' with something that never existed?

Fine danforth. How about the IDEA of reform? Would you prefer that? The dems were not on board to any Bush idea for SS reform.

The Rise Of Blogs
Reprinted with permission of National Journal magazine, as published in the Jan. 21, 2006, edition.

By K. Daniel Glover

When President Bush campaigned for re-election in 2004, he vowed to "save Social Security." Bush touted the notion of voluntary personal retirement accounts in his 2005 State of the Union address, promoted the idea just after the speech, and then, along with top administration officials, barnstormed the nation in a "60 Stops in 60 Days" Social Security tour.

This strategy might have worked brilliantly in another era, when presidents dominated the news from their bully pulpits, and critics -- especially those outside officialdom -- fought for a few paragraphs or minutes of airtime for rebuttal. But in the Information Age, Bush's foes had a powerful new tool known as the Web log at their disposal, and they seized it to great effect.

One blog, There Is No Crisis, focused solely on challenging the president's argument that the Social Security system must be overhauled soon or face dire circumstances. Bob Brigham, a central contributor to the now-defunct site, said that the slogan helped reframe the discussion and embolden congressional Democrats to oppose Bush. Many of them adopted the blog's theme, he said. "By removing the urgency," Brigham continued, "it allowed Democrats to win the debate."

Joshua Micah Marshall of Talking Points Memo also made opposition to Bush's plans for Social Security a staple of his blog. He berated the Bush administration at every stage of its "Bamboozlepalooza Tour"; he chastised the "Fainthearted Faction" of congressional Democrats who sided with Bush on Social Security; and he lauded the "Conscience Caucus" of Republicans who dared to disagree with Bush.

"We probably heard from most of [the Democrats] that they didn't belong in the Fainthearted Faction," Marshall said. And by the end of April, Marshall had removed more than half of the original 13 from the list because they had come around to his way of thinking.

These days, there is little serious talk in Washington about immediately reforming Social Security, but there is plenty of chatter about blogs -- and with good reason. The technology has taken firm root in the capital. Since summer, bloggers have testified before Congress and the Federal Election Commission; have been invited to Capitol Hill for exclusive interviews with lawmakers and to participate in conference calls with administration officials; and have spurred heated debates on everything from Supreme Court nominees to pork-barrel spending.

"Of course not. They neither had the votes to override a veto nor the votes to close debate. You do know how Robert's Rules of Order work, yes?"

They need votes to address or override a veto just to bring up SS? You are getting ahead of yourself. Have they "mentioned" anything about reforming SS? Or made it any type of priority since Jan 2007?

#10 | Posted by DavetheWave: Deposit insurance doesn't compare to health insurance.

Agreed that the banking system and the health care systems are not the same.

What is the same is --- Banks pay premiums to a government agency for deposit insurance. The American people would like to pay premiums to a government agency for health insurance.

Lawmakers allow this for banks, not for people.

I would hardly call Bush presenting a health plan and stating his intentions in a State of the Union address to "come to the negotiating table on a range of domestic issues" means Bush made health care reform a priority.

#30 | Posted by hope4hope at 2009-10-14 06:14 PM

Ahh. The "priority" caveat. Before it was HAS ANY REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT cared about or proposed any HC Reform....

"How about the IDEA of reform? Would you prefer that? The dems were not on board to any Bush idea for SS reform. "

What IDEA of Bush's? There were none, at least none that addressed reform. In fact, there were none that even addressed the problems. And please, be realistic: with a Republican President, no Democratic IDEAS were allowed to the surface. It would have required 67 votes.

"Have they "mentioned" anything about reforming SS? Or made it any type of priority since Jan 2007?"

You really don't know how governance works, do you? Whatever the Dems wanted, and Bush didn't, would take 67 votes. Had they pursued it, folks like you would've bitched they were wasting time.

#24 | Posted by danni: THANK GOD too because if we had put our SS money into the stock market it would have shrunk just like our 401Ks

Amen to that!

#30...

I may owe you and apology and mistook your handle with someone named nogov4me. He had asked that same question about any Republican President proposing any type of HC Reform.

That said you are correct in your question about making it a priority and #36 is invalid.

"When President Bush [...] pork-barrel spending."

Huh? Bush's idiotic plan failed because of bloggers?!? If you mean the truth got out, regardless of what Bush said, I'll agree. If you're suggesting Bush was actually suggesting 'reform', truly improving the situation and addressing the fundamental underlying problems, and bloggers undermined it by fabricating errors where none existed, you're nuts.

But inform us: how would privatization have addressed the problems, and not exacerbated them?

#37...

Damn danforth. The judge is tired of hearing "objection". Bush used the pulpit and said "something" about addressing SS reform. Have the dems used their pulpit and mentioned anything about reforming SS. Not voting. Not ammending. Not legislating. Not vetoing. Just the mere mention of SS reform? A campaign promise?

#40 | Posted by crispee_oc: any Republican President proposing any type of HC Reform

It's cool. I did ask something like that a few threads back. So it could have been me. I researched it but it's tough to say a fact like that as an absolute.

"Bush used the pulpit and said "something" about addressing SS reform"

Bullshit. He said something about siphoning money off to Wall Street. And then he began a series of loyalty oath meetings when he didn't address reform at all.

"Have the dems used their pulpit and mentioned anything about reforming SS."

Do you understand medical costs are a more pressing problem, or not? SS is in no immediate jeopardy, despite the lies Bush told about it. SS is within a few percentage points of being solvent for 75 years, the maximum look-ahead.

"Have they "mentioned" anything about reforming SS? Or made it any type of priority since Jan 2007?"

You really don't know how governance works, do you?

What the fuck does governence have anything to do with the DEMs addressing SS reform? They can't say they want reform because... You keep talking about votes and vetos. Last time I looked someone campaigning can say I promise to... Do they fucking need to override a veto to make a campaign promise? How about when they give lectures about their vision to... What about in an interview? Can they answer what they think needs to be done?

I have asked about any dems addressing SS reform. You keep insisting I am asking for written legislation by the dems.

"Bush used the pulpit and said "something" about addressing SS reform"

Bullshit.

Fine you are right. Bush never said "ANYTHING" about SS reform. I say "proposal", you say BS. I say "policy", you say BS. I say "mention", you say BS. I say "idea", you say BS. I say "something" you say BS. I get the hint danforth.

"What the fuck does governence have anything to do with the DEMs addressing SS reform?"

Everything. If you don't have the votes, you don't even get it on the floor. Do I really have to give you a remedial lesson in Robert's Rules of Order?

"Do they fucking need to override a veto to make a campaign promise?"

Obama promised to work on the more pressing problem, health care costs. Again, SS in nowhere in as bad of shape as Bush's lies pretended.

"I have asked about any dems addressing SS reform. "

And I have responded it's nowhere near as big a problem as you pretend, and instead they're addressing a much larger problem. Besides, this all started when you blasted the Dems for not 'getting on board' with Bush, as if there was any actual reform coming from the Republicans. Telling, though: you won't hold Republicans' feet to the fire for not addressing a problems you believe are so dire, nor for wasting years and years without proposing anything of substance.

"Fine you are right. Bush never said "ANYTHING" about SS reform"

Obviously, just SAYING the word, and then proposing things that had nothing to do with actual reform is good enough for you.

Before you go any further: exactly WHAT 'REFORM' was Bush proposing?

"Should we act sooner rather than later to reform SS?" (YES)

Time working against us

We have the opportunity to exceed the expectations of every generation of americans

We have bigger problems that we ultimately have to address

"Does SS have a financing problem?" (YES)

www.gao.gov

#49

"Gee, we've got a problem with health care. There, I've proposed reform!"

Why can't you directly answer a direct question? What REFORM did Bush propose that actually addressed the problems?

""Does SS have a financing problem?" (YES)"

And then he proposed 'ideas' to make it WORSE.

And you cheerlead.

Obviously, just SAYING the word, and then proposing things that had nothing to do with actual reform is good enough for you.

Going back to the first post... Dems were not on board to "anything" regarding SS reform if it came from Bushs' mouth. I know danforth. BS.

#51...

You are just plain insolent danforth. I never backed or endorsed ANY SS reform Bush offered. I claimed the dems WERE NOT BOARD to any SS reform just like they were not on boad to Bushs' HC reform. REGARDLESS. The point was because of party. NOT POLICY. Or lack of...

As usual you take a simple statement and turn it into a semantics contest or jump to conclusions that had NOTHING to do with the post or who the retort was in response to.

"Should we act sooner rather than later to reform SS?" (YES)

Time working against us

Well not according to danforth. SS is not in any jeopardy. But hey what does the GAO know when danforth is around to educate us all?

SS is within a few percentage points of being solvent for 75 years, the maximum look-ahead.

#24 | Posted by danni: THANK GOD too because if we had put our SS money into the stock market it would have shrunk just like our 401Ks

Amen to that!

#39 | Posted by hope4hope

I would take my SS in a S+P500 fund over the gov's hands ANY DAY. You don't invest so who gives a shit what YOU say???

SS is projected to go broke. Don't you know ANYTHING danni? Or were you not listening in school?

"Have the dems used their pulpit and mentioned anything about reforming SS."

Crispee everyone already knows what to do about SS, raise the amount of income subject to SS tax...JUST LIKE RONNIE RAYGUN did. It isn't even a major problem, the Dems aren't about to bring it up right now though, they are trying to pass health care reform. RAising taxes is the last thing they want to talk about right now even if it is going to be necessary, they can talk about that and many other things after health care reform. Enough distraction, no more about SS in a thread about the fear of government health insurance while our banks are insured with government insurance.
Why don't you try addressing that. Why is it ok for the banks to have government insurance but it would be wrong for us to have government health insurance????

#56...

If banks were all healthy, there wouldn't be a need for Gov Insurance. If people were healthier, the same applies.

#55 | Posted by DavetheWave: I would take my SS in a S+P500 fund over the gov's hands ANY DAY.

Even Warren Buffett lost money this past year.

personalmoneystore.com

Many seniors would be living much more of a nightmare right now if Bush had privatized SS.

"Dems were not on board to "anything" regarding SS reform if it came from Bushs' mouth. "

How do you know that? Not a single word addressing the actual problems ever came out of Bush's mouth. You're just barfing that up, blaming the Dems without mentioning the Republicans never uttered a syllable about a fix.

"Well not according to danforth. SS is not in any jeopardy. But hey what does the GAO know when danforth is around to educate us all?"

Go ahead, parade your ignorance for all I care. You obviously don't have the first clue. Check the facts:

www.factcheck.org

"I would take my SS in a S+P500 fund over the gov's hands ANY DAY."

Okay. The days you get are 1929-1940, and from September '08 to March '09.

" I never backed or endorsed ANY SS reform Bush offered. "

No shit. He never offered any. But you thought he did, obviously.

"You're just barfing that up, blaming the Dems without mentioning the Republicans never uttered a syllable about a fix."

It was a comparison to the leading dems refusal to listen to "any" Bush HC Refrom danforth, because of party. IMO Regardless if it was the greatest plan to fix it. That was my point. I wasn't blaming the dems. I wasn't getting into what Bush wanted to do. It was all about the immediate reaction when Bush mentioned SS reform. If it was a bad comparison so be it. I also said it was much like the repubs today and the dems HC reform. That's it. Nothing more.

"It was a comparison to the leading dems refusal to listen to "any" Bush HC Refrom danforth, because of party. "

You're making that up. You have absolutely no proof, because the Republicans offered absolutely no reform.

Why won't you tell us what reform the Republicans actually offered? Tell us what problems the Rs addressed during the 6 years they had power? What fixes did the Dems refuse to 'get on board' with?

"It was all about the immediate reaction when Bush mentioned SS reform. "

Why do you insist on repeating that lie? WHAT REFORM DID BUSH OFFER? "Mentioning" reform is not offering reform. Dems said they'd come to the table if Bush actually had an idea. Too bad for all of us he didn't.

Go ahead, parade your ignorance for all I care. You obviously don't have the first clue. Check the facts:

www.factcheck.org

#60 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-14 08:08 PM | Reply

I linked the Gao. I guess they were as clueless as well back in 2005.

"I guess they were as clueless as well back in 2005"

Not as clueless as Bush.

And anyone who thought what he was offering was "reform". Doesn't it mean anything to you that Bush was lying to you?

Dems said they'd come to the table if Bush actually had an idea. Too bad for all of us he didn't.

I guess Bush never said anything about taking part of your SS and allowing you to invest in the Stock Market. Never happened right danforth? Nothing about personal accounts? Nah. He only "said" he wanted to reform SS. He never actually backed it up with anything.

Harvard University is, by some measures, one of the most left-wing institutions on the
face of the earth. So you may be surprised to hear that it has endorsed George W. Bush's
proposal for Social Security reform. Literally, of course, that is not true. But the
retirement plan Harvard has set up for faculty members like me bears a striking
resemblance to what the Social Security system would become under the president's
proposed changes.
Harvard's retirement plan is essentially the nonprofit sector's version of a 401(k). Each
year, the university puts a certain percentage of my income into my retirement account. I
then invest this money in low-cost mutual funds, which hold a diversified portfolio of
stocks and bonds. I can choose a safer portfolio with a lower expected return or a riskier
portfolio with a higher expected return. The money is mine, even if I decide to leave the
university. If I die, I can leave it to my kids. When I retire, I can use it to buy an annuity
to ensure a stream of income for the rest of my life.
Under Bush's proposal, you would have the option of diverting some of your payroll
taxes into a personal retirement account. You would invest this money in low-cost mutual
funds, which would hold a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds. You could choose a
safer portfolio with a lower expected return or a riskier portfolio with a higher expected
return. The money would be yours, no matter how many times you changed jobs. If you
died before collecting any money, you could leave your account to your kids. When you
retired, you could use it to buy an annuity to ensure a stream of income for the rest of
your life.
Historically, Social Security has been a defined-benefit system. You put money in when
you are working, the government promises you an income when you retire, and, in the
meantime, the feds take care of everything. Bush is proposing that Social Security
gradually evolve into a defined-contribution system, where money is put in your account
and then you watch over your own retirement assets.
www.economics.harvard.edu

Wait a second. danforth claims bush NEVER OFFERED UP ANYTHING. What the hell? Is this article made up? Could danforth be wrong?

" I never backed or endorsed ANY SS reform Bush offered. "

No shit. He never offered any. But you thought he did, obviously.

#62 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-14 08:13 PM |

Go ahead, parade your ignorance for all I care. You obviously don't have the first clue. Check the facts:

"I guess Bush never said anything about taking part of your SS and allowing you to invest in the Stock Market"

And for what price? And at what cost? Anyone familiar with what's happened to the Stock Market since then realizes the idiocy of adding risk while siphoning off profits. The whole point of SS is to eliminate risk, but I guess the thrill of taking money out of the overall system was too much for you to resist.

"He only "said" he wanted to reform SS. He never actually backed it up with anything."

No, he didn't. Nothing realistic. He refused to address the fundamental problems the GAO referenced, especially since he never uttered one thing about who would pay for it all. $2 trillion price tag, and just like his war of choice, money was to come from the heavens. (Or, like in the past, from daddy and daddy's friends.)

"Check the facts"

Too funny. For you, saying the word "reform" equals actually proffering reform.

Tell us, how would diverting SS money into the Stock Market, with monies being siphoned off into Wall Street have actually addressed the problems you insist are so pressing?

"Could danforth be wrong?"

What a moron.

"Literally, of course, that is not true."

"Under Bush's proposal, you would have the option of diverting some of your payroll taxes into a personal retirement account. "

And who pays for the gap? $2 trillion. Who pays? Oh, that's right...NO ONE! Bush pretended that part of the equation didn't exist. Some 'reform'.

I'm sure you thought his "plan" for going to Mars was the equivalent of landing.

#70...

I am not arguing if it was a good or bad proposal and if it would or would not reform SS.

You insisited on saying he never offered up ANYTHING. Far cry from offering up something that isn't plausible.Either way THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY ORIGINAL POINT (opinion) OR COMPARISON TO TODAY'S REPUBS ATTITUDE TOWARDS HC REFORM.

If you have something that proves the dems would have listened to any Bush SS idea, link it. Otherwise STFU.

"Could danforth be wrong?"

What a moron.

"Literally, of course, that is not true."

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-14 08:50 PM |

You said Bush never offered up ANY proposals. I was simply following your lead and posted the link.

BTW.. Was the literally, of course, that is not true... about me being a moron, or you could be wrong?lol

He only "said" he wanted to reform SS. He never actually backed it up with anything."
crispee

No, he didn't.
danforth

"Under Bush's proposal, you would have the option of diverting some of your payroll taxes into a personal retirement account. "
#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-14 08:54 PM

Quite the conundrum you have there....

"If you have something that proves the dems would have listened to any Bush SS idea, link it."

If you have something that proves Bush had an idea that didn't siphon off money and exacerbate the problem, link it.

President Bush, on a road trip to promote private Social Security accounts, acknowledged Friday that his proposal would not by itself fix the future financial problems of the retirement program.

www.msnbc.msn.com

Robert Samuelson says the Bush Social Security proposal is an attempt to provide a benefit while hiding the future costs of the benefit.

www.parapundit.com

Whatever you do, Crispee, don't STFU. Keep embracing Bush's reform, and keep blaming the Dems for not 'getting on board'. Financial expertise like yours is why I have ~300 clients.

"Under Bush's proposal, you would have the option of diverting some of your payroll taxes into a personal retirement account."

Gee, I'll propose payroll taxes end, and payouts increase 100%. Crispee-style Reform! Fuck-all if it's just as realistic as landing on Mars next Tuesday. It's REFORM!

Who pays, George?

George?

What? You don't have an answer to that question? WOW...REFORM!!!

U.S. lawmakers have repeatedly shown that they value making money more than the health of citizens in this country

I'd like you all to recall the Bush (then mccain) plan for privatizing social security.

Given what happened to our economy in November of last year, how well do you think the elderly SS users would be faring right now? I can tell you that banks would have added even more homes to their ownership.

Probably be a great year for cat food companies, too.

How much do they pay you for this advice?

If you have something that proves Bush had an idea that didn't siphon off money and exacerbate the problem, link it.
#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-14 09:08 PM |

Please show me where I did? Oh that's right I have said a few times I don't disagree with your interpretation of it being good or bad.

Whatever you do, Crispee, don't STFU. Keep embracing Bush's reform, and keep blaming the Dems for not 'getting on board'. Financial expertise like yours is why I have ~300 clients.
#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-14 09:08 PM |

Do you play the semantic game with them as well?

Do you try and find a way to take anything they say personal and accuse them of taking positions not mentioned?

Do you call them morons because they don't know where you are coming from?

Do you find the need for people to think you are smart and knowledgeable by speaking to them in a condescending way?

Just curious if you are the same at work as here. Personally if I was your client and you acted like you do here, I would... Well let's just say I hope you like shakes.

"Do you find the need for people to think you are smart and knowledgeable by speaking to them in a condescending way?"

I've never spent a dime on advertising. My clients come to me because someone else has spoken highly on my behalf. Sometimes the smartest thing a person can do is admit there are others who know more than they.

"Personally if I was your client and you acted like you do here, I would... "

...Beat the market handily, year after year.

Financial expertise like yours is why I have ~300 clients.
#77 | Posted by Danforth at 2009-10-14 09:08 PM |

You the man danforth...

Hell I am just a peon working for a Mortgage Lender. Nothing big at all. Just handle a Warehouse Line up to $80 million. Peanuts compared to you. Shit it's not like we have done just over $600 million in closings. Chump change. Penalties, re-priced loans? Damn I think we have saved about $1.5 million since I started. Again, nothing for someone like you danforth.

BTW... I live about three miles from Newport Beach, sucks I know for a person of your stature. Golf, fishing, bowling, camping, travel once a month to Mexico, Vegas, Hawaii, Montana... Those are for suckers. Right danforth? I am amzed someone like you even reads what I post.

Sometimes the smartest thing a person can do is admit there are others who know more than they.

Maybe you should open you fucking eyes. So far I have admitted as much more than a few times. Somehow that ego of yours blocks it from your brain.

But hey, no worries danforth. I will be happy to go back to the old ignore and abhor, and hope someday I met you face to face.

"Damn I think we have saved about $1.5 million since I started."

Chump change to what I've saved and/or made for my clients.

"Hell I am just a peon working for a Mortgage Lender"

And you probably thought the sub-prime loans were "reform".

"Again, nothing for someone like you danforth. "

I was recently nominated to be a trustee for a multi-billion dollar pension and health plan. So yes, you're right.

"BTW... I live about three miles from Newport Beach, sucks I know for a person of your stature."

And I get much more bang for my real estate buck.

"Golf, fishing, bowling, camping, travel once a month to Mexico, Vegas, Hawaii, Montana... Those are for suckers. Right danforth? "

Not at all. I vacation at least 3-4 times a year, and Vegas, Montana, Hawaii, et al, are some of my favorite places. So are Tuscany and the south of France. the bride & I love Yellowstone, and hope to explore NW Montana soon, and we recently returned from our 4th or 5th Vegas trip. I also go to NYC and LA for business regularly, and Newport Beach is beautiful. Don't get so down on yourself. Just because you think saying the word "reform" is actual reform doesn't mean you're past hope.

"and hope someday I met you face to face."

Really? When? How long ago?

#85...

Then what makes you act like some insolent, asshole looking for attention? Sounds like you have it pretty good. Is it an ego thing? Is it like the Seinfeld episode:

.... It's all about, me, me, me. Please, look at me! I am so pretty! Love me! ...

"Then what makes you act like some insolent, asshole looking for attention?"

Huh? You're the pussy who can't admit someone actually knows more than you regarding pensions, and saw through Bush's lies while you bought them lock, stock and barrel. Reread your recent posts. Nothing but sour grapes.

Huh? You're the pussy who can't admit someone actually knows more than you regarding pensions, and saw through Bush's lies while you bought them lock, stock and barrel. Reread your recent posts. Nothing but sour grapes.

You just can't help yurself can you danforth. You keep lying about a position I never took. Are you really this fucking desperate thaty you have to resort to LYING through your teeth? I have offered ore than once to dummy up if you could link anything where I agreed with Bush or disagreed with you. Have you provided anything? Nope just more lies about what I didn't say.

At some point I got tired of your pathetic little game and decided to post what a fucking asshole you are. So... I guess here is where I say go fuck yourself and if I ever meet you, or any other schmuck like you I would say the same thing. Let me know the next time you are in OC.

"You keep lying about a position I never took."

WTF are you talking about? You kept referring to the Dems who wouldn't 'get on board'. With what, if not your pretend version of reform?

"I guess here is where I say go fuck yourself and if I ever meet you, or any other schmuck like you I would say the same thing."

Awwww...how lovely, an internet tough guy. I'm (pretend) scared!

BTW, dipshit, put quotes around something you post that you didn't write. Otherwise, people will think you're smarter than you are.

Done having anything to do with you danforth until the next time you come out to SoCal and meet me. After that I will gladly listen and repsond to any posts you direct to me. Until then, don't even waste your time here expecting a reply.

"Until then, don't even waste your time here expecting a reply."

What a pussy. As if his opinion has meant anything thus far. Crispee is one of those dickheads who can't seem to debate without moving goalposts as far as possible, once he realizes he's in over his head. Gee, I never believed it was reform! It's the Dems fault! And then once he's been handed his ass, starts whining and crying. Typical.

Done having anything to do with you danforth until the next time you come out to SoCal and meet me. After that I will gladly listen and repsond to any posts you direct to me. Until then, don't even waste your time here expecting a reply.

#92 | Posted by crispee_oc

You go, girl!

SS would have been shored up and our national debt paid off THIS year had Bush and the GOP not gone on the most massive spending (wasting) spree in world history. Clinton left a plan to do it. But, Bush and Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney had other ideas with our national treasure.

The author ignores that the FDIC is insolvent, and will require a bailout in the first quarter of next year.

Begs the question. When the only insurer in business is the federal government, who bails them out?

Clinton left a plan to do it. But, Bush and Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney had other ideas with our national treasure.

#95 | Posted by Timex
* * * *

Translation: Clinton did a great thing and balanced the budget. Bush and Cheney did a stupid thing and ran big deficits. But Obama is doing a great thing by running enormous deficits, with more on the way.

It's easy when you're a partisan hack, to always know where to come down on things.

Reduced revenues due to recession + Medicare Part D + Bush 2 tax cuts for the wealthy + Iraq War = deficits.

Obama's first budget didn't begin 'til the first of this month.

I may be a partisan hack, but you're so far to the right you're falling off the cliff.

#96 | Posted by rightisright: The author ignores that the FDIC is insolvent, and will require a bailout in the first quarter of next year.

According to Forbes: "There is no danger of the FDIC collapsing: It can raise funds either by increasing the premiums it charges banks on deposits (either immediately or on a deferred basis) or directly from the Treasury."

www.forbes.com

Banks pay premiums to a government agency for deposit insurance. The American people would like to pay premiums to a government agency for health insurance.

Lawmakers allow this for banks, not for people.

Funny how you link to Forbes and do not give us the article header...The FDIC's difficulties highlight just how distressed the U.S. banking system really is.

So dudes do you want health insurance with a 'deposit cap'? Anything over 100K you pay yourself?

How about tort protection? Good luck suing the FDIC!

There are so many levels in which these insurance differ. To compare them is pie in the sky leftist stary eyed dreaming

#100 | Posted by DavetheWave: Anything over 100K you pay yourself? There are so many levels in which these insurance differ.

It's $250k. And I agree the banking and health care systems are not the same. There would be no cap. Just as private insurance companies adjust premiums, the government would adjust premiums to cover fluxuating medical costs. (minus the big corporate salaries and bonuses) Just as the FDIC will adjust premiums to cover the losses of the banks that have gone under.

Because lawmakers have created an agency that allows banks to pay premiums to a government agency for deposit insurance. While lawmakers have denied the American people a government agency to pay premiums to for health insurance.

250K is the temporary limit, and it will roll back to 100K 12/31/2013.

Right now fdic insurance is also around money market mutual funds and repackeged loan pools. These are special moves made to keep the whole system from crashing...which it would have done.

The exposure of the fdic is horrifically large. To close one of the top 5 US banks might have been in excess of a trillion dollars. JUST ONE. Can you imagine if they liquidated the 19 tarp banks.

DR left go back to your sara palin and peace prize threads, you know not what you type

So you are crossing the lime to moral imperative? Oh come on, I do NOT want my HC to change. Nor do I want to pay for illegals. I pay enough as it is. To pay more, to get less is bullshit.

Change malpractice, eliminate state boundries, open free medical clinics, etc.

DO NOT hammer out an agreement behind closed doors in between one pol. party and force it on Americans

And as for SS are you kidding me. I will take an account owned by me over tbills any day. Do you and danni know what the S+P 500 return for the past 30 year?????

Of course you don't, or else you might understand why any gov run 'programs' suck ass

TBills don't have the reward but they don't have the risk either. I guess some people prefer a sure thing. I have my 401k to gamble with.

"Nor do I want to pay for illegals. I pay enough as it is."

You fail to see that you already are paying for the uninsured's medical care and at a premium, because their only option is the emergency room.

"Change malpractice, eliminate state boundries, open free medical clinics, etc."

Change malpractice? Okay that's 1 to 2 % saved. Though I hope you never find yourself the victim of malpractice.

Eliminate state boundaries? Companies here and there might lower costs for a while in order to gain market share, but then its up up up.

Open Free Medical Clinics? Who pays for that? You will.

The Republicans controlled the White House for 20 of the last 29 years, and had one or both houses of Congress for many of those years. If health insurance reform had been as important a priority to them as, say, the Star Wars missile shield, we wouldn't be in such a mess today.

Republicans don't care about most domestic programs. Never have. The only way to get them to care about universal care is to enroll 100 percent of the country in the military.

#103 | Posted by DavetheWave: So you are crossing the lime to moral imperative? Oh come on, I do NOT want my HC to change.

More than 40 million people are uninsured. A percentage of those will die an early death because they did not have access to affordable health care. I absolutely call this a moral imperative. Every other industrialized nation has taken steps to make sure their citizens have access to affordable health care.

Don't change your health care. It's a public option. In Germany private and public exist side by side.

FDIC, while troubled because of the banking system's financial collapse, will be solvent again after time and an insurance premium adjustment.

People cannot be brought back from the dead.

No that 40 million includes 14 illegal immigrants. they ARE NOT Americans. PERIOD!!

Okay. About 30 million Americans are uninsured and a percentage of those Americans will die an early death because they did not have access to affordable health care.

Morally, U.S. lawmakers should follow the lead of every other industrialized nation and create a public program that ensures Americans have access to affordable health care.

Comments are closed for this entry.


Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Copyright 2012 World Readable