Why Do Liberals So Stridently Oppose Choice and Ownership?

Math.

Never a liberal strong suit.

Not unlike their nerves, especially when the world is at war.

Oh well.

HILLARY HAPPENS.

Why Do Former Republican Legislators So Glibly And Comfortably Lie?

Why does Dick Armey spread lies and FUD? No one will ever know. Oh wait, we know why, because he's a liar.

O.k, now I am really curious. Is Mr. Armey under the impression that this "guest-blogging" gig is a dialogue between himself and Joe Klein, plus whatever friends Joe can muster? Is that what the Time editors told him? Is the idea of actually directly responding to his commentators somewhere beneath the considerable dignity of Mr. Armey?

Posted by valentinian
June 7, 2007
Why Do Former Republican Legislators So Glibly And Comfortably Lie?

PRACTICE!!

what do I win? what do I win?

"The current Social Security system is about insecurity, dependence on the government, and votes for the Democrat party."

And that's been their basic platform, for DECADES.

Lord knows they wouldn't want anyone to not be suckled by the big teat of state.

That might lead to actually productivity, personal prosperity, and family security.

Can't have any of that, in Hillary's resplendent Global Gutter.

one good thing about having DICK Armey here....

QH has found someone he can talk to on his own level of intellect and honesty.

I bet QH would even go a-book burnin' with DICK

"Why Do Liberals So Stridently Oppose Choice and Ownership?"

I'll bite at the overarching generalization:
because people tend to make piss-poor decisions regarding risk management when left to their own devices.

It's because we all hate America.

Why don't you give us all a break and take Friday off?

Heck, we all know that John doesn't like Ketchup and Lady Laura bakes better cookies.

"if you simply gave younger workers and Swampland readers the option of choosing either a Chilean-style personal account or staying in the current Social Security system, I think we'd know which system they'd choose, even if they say something else in public"

We'd choose social security. Rule #1 of investment is that you do not gamble with money you cannot afford to lose.

Why won't Dick stop beating his wife?

"...and Teresa Heinz Kerry would no longer be able to exploit tax law to only pay 11.5 percent of her $5 million income."

Why not just fix the tax loopholes? Otherwise, I'm sure the rich would pay MUCH less under your fixed tax-rate scheme than their base tax rate under the current progressive scheme.

This is what Dick "Barney Fag" Armey wants Americans -- who DON'T have his great Congressional retirement plan -- to sign on to.

A system that:

* averages 1.8% return, less than a freaking PASSBOOK account

* has outrageously high expenses and fees, from 15% to 20% of annual contributions--an average of $62 per enrollee in 1995. (U.S. Social Security expenses, by way of contrast, amount to less than 2% of contributions.)

* is not enough to support over 40% of contributors after retirement.

* has high transition and supplementary costs - between the new system and the old one, the "recognition bonds," the minimum pension, and other guarantees, the private pension system is at least three times as costly to run as the system it replaced. Government spending on pensions currently amounts to 6% of Chilean GDP.

Why Does Dick Armey So Stridently Bullshit The American People?

Dick Armey, doing furious battle with his liberal strawman. Quoting.... nobody he attributes positions to.

Hey, Dick we raised payroll taxes to provide for SS. Where'd the money go? hmmm?

Is this the same Dick Armey who sexually harassed his students?

I oppose hack politicians who use word games, rather than substance and fact. But that's just me.

Last week, Senator Shiksa came as close to yapping the Stalinist "Take From Those That Do, Give To Those That Don't" mantra as any lib party hack since, well, NOBODY has spewed any such socialist crap as their formal platform of "fairness" in a major American campaign.

Mind you, she's a gem for the Slacker Set, giving away more free Pell Grants, free Medicrap, free Social InSecurity, free phone cards to Bin Ladenites, free passes to Iran & Syria on EFP's and nuke bunkers.

It IS 2007 in America - and a Soviet-style clod wants to "manage" the strongest, most productive, most resilient free nation in the known history of our universe.

Christ sakes, she can't even manage her own SPOUSAL UNIT.

How in the hell does she qualify to take the reigns of power?

FBI files experience? Travel Office decisions? Rose Law Firm racketeering? Carpet bombing of Bosnia for 72 days (and still terrorists there too uncaught, after 10 YEARS), watching idly as Rwandans dies en masse, turning the other butt cheek to the Taliban scorching of the earth, and USS Cole, and Khobar Towers, and African embassies, and Waco, and South Beach, and Zimbabwe, and Sudan, and Somalia, and North Korea, and Red China...

You think gasoline is high now?

You think city crime is high now?

You think passport delays are high now?

Tell it to Hillary, and Fancy Leftosi, and Sgt Smurfa, and all the other vagina monologgers feigning as Americans.

They should be back from France by now, given they don't want them anymore there either.

Check with Gupta Air for schedule updates.

"I bet QH would even go a-book burnin' with DICK..."

Actually, I've been published, twice.

Under my own name, no less.

Klein likely couldn't relate, eh?

I love the wag who said, "Dick Armey is the stupid person's idea of a thinking man."

So Dick, if liberals are against "choice," as you claim, why are conservatives against a woman's right to choose?

Choice only matters when you're a conservative?

I love the wag who said, "Dick Armey is the stupid person's idea of a thinking man."

So Dick, if liberals are against "choice," as you claim, why are conservatives against a woman's right to choose?

Choice only matters when you're a conservative?

You know, I'll probably get flamed, but I'd rather get rid of social security tax myself and fund my own retirement pension plan, if given the options. However, I know the issue isn't quite that black and white.

Talking about Social Security is a waste of time. Talking about retirement in general is pretty lame. All I see are baby boomers arguing about money. Is retirement really that important?

What's wrong with working until you can no longer work? I just do not see the hype in saving money for 30+ years in order to not work. I will need something to do. Working provides one with something to do.

Life just seems pretty lame when you look at it in these terms:

1) Be born and learn how to walk, talk, and use the toilet.
2)Go to school as a kid, keep up good grades, and participate in activities.
3) Take ACT and SAT and apply for elite colleges.
4) Graduate in 4 years and get a high paying job at the big corporation.
5) Have a family and save for retirement.
6) Retire.
7) Have grandkids and do some traveling.
8) Die.

Is this what it's all about?

Posted by Question Authority? QUESTION HILLARY.
June 7, 2007
"I bet QH would even go a-book burnin' with DICK..."
Actually, I've been published, twice.
Under my own name, no less.

I always wondered who wrote the Turner Diaries. Or was it the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?

COMRADE HILLARY, BY THE NUMBERS...

- Number of local soccer games ever coached... ZERO

- Number of local soccer games ever attended... ZERO

- Number of local soccer moms ever sucked up to... All

- Number of innocent Cuban kids sent back to Castro at gunpoint during illegal 90's co-Presidency... One (that the media gladly covered)

- Net number of new private sector jobs created in most recent adopted home state (rumored to be Old New York) during self-stunted Senate career... ZERO

- Number of spousal units, or off-sprung, or in-laws, or distant cousins, or Georgetown neighbors that have actually served in America's federal armed forces... ZERO (excluding Jammit Remo)

- Number of regional power outages during peak season of not-so-hot Senate tenure... Two (not including this August in Paris)

- Number of days ever worked in the real world not a legal beaver paper mill... ZERO (but at least she doesn't keep saying "My $2 haircut Daddy worked at a legal beaver paper mill.")

- Number of U.S. embassies blown up during illegal 90's co-Presidency... Two

- Number of federally subsidized abortions she'll allow if illegally re-elected co-POTUS (marking a third term) in 2008... All of them

- Number of current Travel Office employees she'll then can to make way for her Air Hillary personal convenience clowns... No fewer than worked at the World Bank under Wolfie

- Number of private U.S. church compounds burnt down during illegal 90's co-Presidency... One (excluding those Her Man may have created out of deluded thin air from his mental Midnight Cowpants youth in far, far away western Alabammer)

- Number of carpet cleaners hired annually... You mean at home, abroad, or just on the Vineyard?

- Number of pre-paid pardons issued for foreign campaign hacks and future mausoleum contributors... Being publicly schooled, we simply can't count that high

- Number of slacker FOB's indicted, convicted, and jailed... Sorry, still re-counting

- Number of times she denied Monica in her mind, if not at the White House kitchen door... Grab a calculator

- Number of liter bottles of Pepsi thrown at Blozo... Off the charts

- Number of former Rwandans that will be voting for her in 2008... Subtract 900,000

- Number of major American cities bombed during illegal 90's co-Presidency... Two (that we know of)

- Percentage of legal American voters that picked her illegal 90's co-Presidency... Never half (twice)

- Original intellectual similarity to the late, great Pat Moynihan... ZERO

More liberal loon number fun here soon!

QH: "Actually, I've been published, twice."

Letters to Penthouse don't count.

"Is this what it's all about?"

Great post.

No, we don't need to stick to formula - but a goal of sorts may help, short or long-term.

Mine would involve hookers on a raft at sea, but that's just me.

I hope you are not putting impatience in front of the fun cart, in any event.

QUESTION HILLARY: "I've been published, twice."

Jesus, it's true. Regnery really will publish anyone.

If you want to help people, let everybody opt into the federal employees' TSP. 401k fees are about 30 times as high as TSP (0.03% versus 1.00%). You don't want that of course, because the whole point of privatization is to funnel fees to Wall St.!

Our tax system is complicated because Congress made it hard to determine what "income" is. The progressive rate structure is totally easy. After spending six hours figuring out your AGI, you look up your tax in a table and you're done. A flat tax doesn't make looking a number up any simpler. You know that, and are trying to fool us. Sorry pal.

The rate structure could be a logistic function (probably should be) and it wouldn't be any harder.

Mrs Kerry has a low tax rate because she's massively invested in munis. That's a problem too, but you're not being sincere about it. Shes' not a cheat. Dick Cheney is massively invested in munis too (and wisely, from Vanguard, a not-for-profit co-op).

"I always wondered who wrote the Turner Diaries. Or was it the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

Unless those are cook books, keep wondering.

"...and votes for the Democrat party."

Really? You cannot even bring yourself to use the actual name of the party? Is this the way you intend to conduct a serious discussion?

QH: "Actually, I've been published, twice."

Letters to Penthouse don't count.

.....

Not even really sincere compilations?

QUESTION HILLARY: "Great post. No, we don't need to stick to formula - but a goal of sorts may help, short or long-term. Mine would involve hookers on a raft at sea, but that's just me."

There's that classy Mainstream Republicanism at work again.

Although, it is interesting to note that even in QH's sex fantasies, he still has to pay for it.

Question for Dick Armey: Dick, when you see how your supporters express themselves, does it ever cause you to re-think your positions? I mean, talk about a confederacy of dunces...

Posted by Question Authority? QUESTION HILLARY.
June 7, 2007
"I always wondered who wrote the Turner Diaries. Or was it the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?"

Unless those are cook books, keep wondering.

1,001 Road Kill Banquets?

Social Security fails at being an investment vehicle because that isn't what it was designed to do. What Social Security is for is to guarantee a minimum income for people too old or disabled to work. If there's a privatization plan with a guaranteed minimum income, I'd be perfectly willing to consider it.

As for tax reform, I have a better idea than Armey's: Why don't we eliminate all the loopholes he's talking about, but keep the part where the wealthy pay at a higher rate than people of modest means? Also, tax Teresa Heinz-Kerry's (and everyone else's) unearned income at the same rate or higher than the tax paid on wages and salaries.

Dick Armey is smart.

Dick Armey has managed to bait a lot of people here. He chose the title "Why Do Liberals So Stridently Oppose Choice and Ownership?" because he knew it would cause controversy and outrage folks. He knows that these blogs are nothing more than entertainment. No real solutions will be discovered by posting here. People will argue amongst themselves and play the blame game.

I think his next blog title should be "Why Do Liberals Exist?". This site would crash from all of the backlash that would be posted here.

Choice, and ownership, and economic basics, and life is precious, and God, and the Bible.

I thought this guy was dead. At least his ideas seem so.

Lets ruminate on Dick's ideas: raiding social security so private companies like Enron can get access to more capital, then squander it, leaving 1000s penniless because Republicans refuse to regulate business, then having them apply for government relief; he next posits a flat tax which benefits his rich cronies and is regressive in nature.

Dear Dick, americans after their 7.8% contribution to SS, still have 92% of their pay to do whatever the f*** they like, namely spend it on anything they want. And they do.
The savings rate was less than 1% last year, so what makes Dick think that they will automatically use this new largess to save or invest in retirement accounts?

Dick, (I hope I can call you Dick), please just be honest and say that you want your rich cronies to have all the money.

And by the way, that wonderful country Chile has per capita income of $5,600 and a woefully uneven wealth distribution which (surprise!) heavily tilts towards the weathly.

So, what Dick is really saying is he wants the average American to make $5,600 a year, and have the top 10% of wage earners take in over half the income like they do in that wonderful south american country.

Please, go back under the friggin rock which history has consigned you to.

The sooner the Republicans go the way of the dodo bird (or the polar bear to be more contemporary) the better.

A family of four who makes $45,000 should pay the exact same tax as Teresa Heinz Kerry. America should be more like Chile. If you invested your retirement fund in Enron, you deserve to starve to death.

Complete with links to Bush press releases.

Just... wow.

"So Dick, if liberals are against "choice," as you claim, why are conservatives against a woman's right to choose?"

...

Libs comparing private investments to subsidized abortion.

You read it hear on Time-CNN-Turner's Swamprats.

Ha ha! Just kidding!

I'm on SSI benefits right now!

Liberals love Choice. A properly constructed liberal program protects and increases choice. The reason that Conservatives do not like these programs is that they do not want other people to be able to make these choices.

The main question is who is going to offer people these choices? Conservatives want to be the only ones to do so. Liberals want to make sure that people have decent choices and opportunities. If that means that the government needs to subsidize a program to offer low income people an additional choice then so be it. The only time Conservatives complain is when the government takes potential business away from them so they whine about their lower profits.

Conservatives do not want a 'shareholder' society; they want a 'sharecropper' society.

"Although, it is interesting to note that even in QH's sex fantasies, he still has to pay for it."

I understand that paying your own way IS truly a liberal nightmare, but thanks for playing.

"Conservatives do not want a 'shareholder' society; they want a 'sharecropper' society."

Turtleneck, just drink your Black Label, and watch the Oreos blow another one, eh?

We also hate America too, Dick - including freedom, puppydogs and apple pie. How about you write your next post on that?

QUESTION HILLARY: "Ha ha! Just kidding! I'm on SSI benefits right now!"

Nothing like making fun of the disabled to show the Compassionate side of that "Compassionate Conservatism" Republicans are always going on about.

Dick Armey, with supporters like these, do you really wonder why people have trouble taking your arguments and proposals seriously?

"Why Do Liberals So Stridently Oppose Choice and Ownership?"

Why do conservatives so stridently erect strawmen and then light them on fire?

JGabriel: "Although, it is interesting to note that even in QH's sex fantasies, he still has to pay for it."

QUESTION HILLARY: "I understand that paying your own way IS truly a liberal nightmare, but thanks for playing."

For sex? Wow. *SO* glad I don't live in your world.

Talking to a brick wall.

As I said before,

Democrat is not an adjective.

There is no 12 trillion dollar liability:

http://lists.portside.org/cgi-bin/listserv/wa?A2=ind0501a&L=portside&P=756

And even Austrian conservative uber-economist Freidrich Hayek thought healthcare could be a shared resource:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/tim_duy_in_defe.html

In the same paragraph he said the government should help protect people from the effects of freak storms such as hurricanes. It would appear that today's Republican crowd thinks differently on that matter too.

QUESTION HILLARY: "Turtleneck, just drink your Black Label, and watch the Oreos blow another one, eh?"

Mainstream Republicanism.

This is what it looks like, folks.

NTodd: "Why do conservatives so stridently erect strawmen and then light them on fire?"

Because they likes the pretty lights!

Hey Dick -

ENRON.

Any questions?

In 2003 Dick Armey said this about liberals in a radio interview:

Liberals are not guilty of much deep thinking....I just don't think that they are very bright people

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2003/12/20031216_a_main.asp

This appears to mean that Mr. Armey doesn't have to address the theories and substantive issues about social security in his blog post. The simple flashing of some Luntz-speak terms is enough.

So anyway, looking through this and the past two threads, we now know that QUESTION HILLARY is a Republican cookbook writer who pays for sex.

That's so... weird.

Keep your freak flag flyin', QH!

Although I do wonder if anyone will ever again be able to read your posts without thinking "Republican cookbook writer who pays for sex" then breaking out into uncontrollable giggles.

Liberal? Well, according to a Harris poll taken at the end of the last go-round with Social Security reform (12/21/2005), the program enjoys support from 76% of the US population.

That's a whole lot of Liberals...Just for fun, how 'bout I deconstruct Mr. Armey's rather weak argument for privatizing Social Security?

Armey: "Supporters make it sound like it is a guarantee."

And unless Social Security is changed by an act of Congress, it pretty much is. I'm suprised that, as a former member of Congress, Mr. Armey forgets that Congress has never cut benefits for retirees; Congress would sooner cut its own throat. I'm also suprised that Mr. Armey is unfamiliar with the concept of an implied contract.

*Side note: Nestor wasn't a US citizen. He *was* retired and drawing a pension when deported during McCarthy's witch hunts for being a Communist in the 1930's. Little suprise that Nestor's plea to receive his Social Security checks back in then-Communist Bulgaria fell on deaf ears in 1960.

Part two! Enjoy!

Armey: "Let’s go back and look at the Chilean retirement security system."

Yes, let's take a look at the Chilean system, one which President Bush has called "a great example" for other countries, along with stating that the United States could "take some lessons from Chile, particularly when it comes to how to run our pension plans."

I'm assuming that Mr. Armey agrees with these statements. If so, would he be so kind to explain these outcomes of the privatized Chilean retirement system:

"More than 17 percent of Chileans 65 and older keep working because their pensions are inadequate, according to a government-commissioned study," - Poor Chileans labor past retirement, Boston Globe, Feb 28, 2005.

"..a recent World Bank study calculated that a quarter to a third of all contributions paid by a person retiring in 2000 would have gone to pay (pension fund commission) charges."- Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan, New York Times, Jan.27, 2005

"For those remaining in the (Chilean) government's original pay-as-you-go system, the maximum retirement benefit is now about $1,250 a month. The National Center for Alternative Development Studies, a research institute here, calculates that to get that same amount from a private pension fund, workers would have to contribute more than $250,000 over their careers, a target that has been reached by fewer than 500 of the private system's 7 million past and present contributors." - Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan, New York Times, Jan.27, 2005

"Nearly half of Chilean workers, for example, are employed off the books in the so-called informal sector, while many others are hired as independent contractors, who are not required to contribute to a pension account and do not do so regularly because they cannot afford it." - Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan, New York Times, Jan.27, 2005

"The annual cost to the (Chilean) government, still the guarantor of last resort, has remained steady at 5 to 6 percent of the nation's economic output." - Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan, New York Times, Jan.27, 2005

Stay Tuned!

Come on. Margret Thatcher's object of idol worship, Freidrich freakin Hayek:

****the case for the state’s helping to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong….To the same category belongs also the increase of security through the state’s rendering assistance to the victims of such “acts of God” as earthquakes and floods. Whenever communal action can mitigate disasters against which the individual can neither attempt to guard himself or make provision for the consequences, such communal action should undoubtedly be taken…***

Freidrich Hayek--Socialist!!!!

Um, Dick:

M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.
M: It is.
A: Not at all.

So, Dick Armey. When are you going to repudiate supporters like QUESTION HILLARY? When are you going to define and discuss a conservativism that excludes people like QH?

Because until you do, people are going to continue to associate the brand "Republican" with the racist, whoremongering, rhetoric of jerks like QH who make fun of the disabled.

Is that really the way you want the Republican party to be represented? Is that the kind of supporters the Republican party wants and seeks?

"Why Do Liberals So Stridently Oppose Choice and Ownership?"

With this post, Armey descends from maddenly stupid demagogue to maddenly stupid demagoging troll.

Liberals are for ownership -- a woman should own her own reproductive system. Why are wingnuts opposed to ownership.

Liberals are for choice -- the choice of who to marry, regardless of gender. Why are wingnuts opposed to choice?

Could someone let me know if/when this blog turns back into a discussion of current events, instead of Dick and Joe reviving their "glory days" from the high school debate team?

Better yet, just give Ana her own blog so we don't have to hear from either of these morons again?

And, Mr. Armey, please don't try to tell us that QUESTION HILLARY is not a typical representative supporter of the Republican party as it is today.

One only need look to websites like FreeRepublic.com and Little Green Footballs to ascertain that QH's posts are not only typical of Republican discourse today, but are in fact mild by the standards of those sites (both are major, widely trafficked websites) and other Republican / Conservative internet forums.

Numero Three-o!

Armey: "..if you simply gave younger workers and Swampland readers the option of choosing either a Chilean-style personal account or staying in the current Social Security system, I think we'd know which system they'd choose, even if they say something else in public..."

From Chile's Retirees Find Shortfall in Private Plan, New York Times, Jan.27, 2005:

"Even many middle-class workers who contributed regularly are finding that their private accounts - burdened with hidden fees that may have soaked up as much as a third of their original investment - are failing to deliver as much in benefits as they would have received if they had stayed in the old system."

"Dagoberto Sáez, for example, is a 66-year-old laboratory technician here who plans, because of a recent heart attack, to retire in March. He earns just under $950 a month; his pension fund has told him that his nearly 24 years of contributions will finance a 20-year annuity paying only $315 a month."

"'Colleagues and friends with the same pay grade who stayed in the old system, people who work right alongside me,' he said, 'are retiring with pensions of almost $700 a month - good until they die. I have a salary that allows me to live with dignity, and all of a sudden I am going to be plunged into poverty, all because I made the mistake of believing the promises they made to us back in 1981.'"

No, Mr Armey...Privatization of Chile's retirement system was good for a high return on investments, due to all the money being dumped into the bond and stock markets. Has it been shown to be good for the average citizen of Chile? Not really...People are having to work past the age when they should be retiring and the Chilean government is still having to act as a safety net for those who bought into the private system.

Perhaps Mr Armey needs to spend more time outside the conservative think tank he chairs. Maybe he'll stop insulting our intelligence with his re-heated Cato-institute rhetoric.

Yeesh.. this is a failed experiment if ever there were one; all Swampland's handlers have managed to do with 'Dick Armey' is piss off their reasonable commenters with his dribbles, while encouraging QUESTION HILLARY's authoritarian and sociopathic proclivities.

Paul Krugman:

Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system,
management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.

These fees cut sharply into the returns individuals can expect on their accounts. In Britain, which has had a privatized system since the days of Margaret Thatcher, alarm over the large fees charged by some investment companies eventually led government regulators to impose a "charge cap." Even so, fees continue to take a large bite out of British retirement savings.
A reasonable prediction for the real rate of return on personal accounts in the U.S. is 4 percent or less. If we introduce a system with British-level management fees, net returns to workers will be reduced by more than a
quarter. Add in deep cuts in guaranteed benefits and a big increase in risk, and we're looking at a "reform" that hurts everyone except the investment industry.

Advocates insist that a privatized U.S. system can keep expenses much lower. It's true that costs will be low if investments are restricted to low-overhead index funds - that is, if government officials, not individuals, make the
investment decisions. But if that's how the system works, the suggestions that workers will have control over their own money - two years ago, Cato renamed its Project on Social Security Privatization by replacing "privatization" with "choice" - are false advertising.

And if there are rules restricting workers to low-expense investments, investment industry lobbyists will try to get those rules overturned.
For the record, I don't think giving financial corporations a huge windfall is the main motive for privatization; it's mostly an ideological thing...

Privatizers who laud the Chilean system never mention that it has yet to deliver on its promise to reduce government spending. More than 20 years
after the system was created, the government is still pouring in money. Why? Because, as a Federal Reserve study puts it, the Chilean government must "provide subsidies for workers failing to accumulate enough capital to provide
a minimum pension." In other words, privatization would have condemned many retirees to dire poverty, and the government stepped back in to save them.

The same thing is happening in Britain. Its Pensions Commission warns that those who think Mrs. Thatcher's privatization solved the pension problem are living in a "fool's paradise." A lot of additional government spending will be
required to avoid the return of widespread poverty among the elderly - a problem that Britain, like the U.S., thought it had solved.

http://www.reality-tape.com/archives/krugman.pdf

Dick, you're not going to start with an apology for been a congressman?

You know, it's a black-mark on your record, that you were a congressman.

It's a widely known fact that politicians from Washington DC are terrible people.

Worse yet, you were and are a Republican. You should be ashamed.

The Democratic members of congress are almost all terrible, hypocritical people as far as I can tell.

There may be a few exceptions.

But the Republican members of congress? I can't find the words to describe you people.

You really ought to start with an apology, first for having been a member of congress, which is, in and of its self, a grave offense.

And to think, people's children are actually allowed to come into contact with members of congress. Children should never be exposed to politicians.

Politicians should be outlawed. Washington DC should be quarantined because there's a very dangerous, very contagious, mental illness there.

I'm told the vector for the transmission of this pathogen which leads to terrible mental and spiritual disfigurement is money.

Apparently our federal money supply has been exposed to lots of really sick people who give the money to other people who then become infected.

I'm going to be careful not to take any money from people who have the disease because I'm told that even if you don't take the money in your hand, the contagious mental illness can be transmitted even through electronic funds transfer.

It's a public health crisis. You should only do business with people who are not infected!

When you're trying to avoid people with the disease, one of the symptoms to look for is blood on their hands. If you see blood on their hands, don't do business with them.

Dick, this Jimmie alumni is ashamed of you. Just stop, please.

According to Snopes, the Einstein quote has a very uncertain history. It never circulated during his lifetime and first appeared decades after his death. It has never been determined who he said it to, when, or what the exact wording was.

Not that I expect accuracy or independent thought from a Cato puppet.

"In America, Congress spends the money on other programs and leaves a non-transferable I.O.U. in a safe in West Virginia (quite literally). These I.O.U.'s aren't like other types of government debt. There's no secondary market and no investors for them. There are no assets in this "Trust" Fund."

Notice how this guy has the chutpah to write about this without acknowledging his own personal role in this robbery. And he voted straight line for the Bush tax cuts too - knowing full well that the treasury would be forced to continue raiding the funds that should have been going into the Trust Fund. Sheer unmitigated gall. This guy and his Congressional comprades should be in jail for robbery.

"Real retirement security means assets that you own, control, and can pass on to your loved ones. Personal accounts allow all Americans to build wealth and join the ownership society by harnessing what Albert Einstein said is the "greatest power on earth”: compound interest. The current Social Security system is about insecurity, dependence on the government, and votes for the Democrat party."

The "DEMOCRAT party"??? OMG - what is this guy living in 2005 or something?
Let's talk about "insecurity" - say I and my wife are both 60. I work - she's a homemaker. I have been dutifully paying into my individual "retirement account" all my life and it's waiting for me to retire. Instead, I get laid off, and I lose my health insurance. My wife gets a catastrophic illness, and the ensuing medical bills wipe me out. Because the "retirement account" is my asset, when they come after me for the medical bills and I declare bankruptcy, the retirement account assets get taken along with everthing else and I am reduced to destitution and penury in my old age. With the current system, my social security wouldn't be touched and I'd still have that to fall back on - talk about "insecurity".

The problem with the world with the way people like Armey see it, is that they really want to remove all of the safety nets for everybody. "Ownership" of retirement account assets may be a good thing in an abstract way, but without the guaranty that you'd actually be able to hold on to it into your old age there is every chance that you and many many others would end up totally screwed. That's EXACTLY what the current social security program was designed to address.

Why is Dick Armey a Douchebag?

Mr. Armey

I consider myself a liberal for over 30 years. I like ownership. I own a motorcycle, a computer, and other items. Ownership appears fine.

I have a bank account so I own my own money that I worked for. YEs Liberals do earn a living and pay taxes and we want government to take care of the poor, unlike you in your REPUBLIKLAN party.

What I object to comes from privatizers who want to destroy the New Deal created by FDR, the great est president of the 20th century, and by the performance of the chimp in the white house, the greatest in the 21st centruy too. What you call ownership of social security personal accounts appears a sham. That involves privatizatrion of social security and medicare.

If people want to open bank accounts and buy stock, they can do it now. They don't need government to codify the ideology of the REPUBLIKLAN party and lock out government taking care of those who need help because of misfortune.

If I want to buy a pizza, a car, or a swimming pool, I will rely on the free market to set prices, and if I want retirement benefits and health care, I want the government to take care of that. As for retirement benefits and health care we should also have private options too, but don't codiy the private option in government law.

We Lberals believein ownership.

But your republiklan party believes in the type of ownership that occurred in the 19th century which Lincoln eventually stopped: Slavery and rigged markets.

Mr. Armey, people can already buy their own 401ks and other retirement instruments right now in the private sector. Your legislation would block social security as it has runs successfully since 1935 and destroy it which appears your goal.

If you want a goverment retirement system such as Chile, move to Chile.

The "DEMOCRAT party"??? OMG - what is this guy living in 2005 or something?

Just call his party the REPUBLIKLAN Party and see how much Mr. Armey likes it.

Sure, sure, sure, Dick . . and each and every one of them hates America too.

The difference between us is that you have talking points and we have talking facts.

Mr. Armey,

You should be very proud that many commentators
read all of your analyses. With all due respect,
your style of writing and your approach to your
subjects turn my brain to mush. I honestly
cannot take the boredom, and I either have to
move on or take a nap. Swampland readers who wade
through your "essays" are tough and determined.
I have to admit, if "quantity" equals "smart",
you are a genius.
Sincerely.

Dick Armey says he believes in the free market. Yet he wants to force you to put your money in accounts run by stock brokers. If you decide to spend that money on something else, like a house or a vacation to Hawaii, instead of giving it to the stock brokers who pay Mr. Armey to lobby for him, Mr. Armey thinks you should be sent to jail for tax evasion.

If Mr. Armey really believed a free market were better than government controlled Social Security, he would advocate for cutting the whole program and letting you spend the money any way you like. He would not force you to chose between Social Security or giving money to the people who pay his salary.

Mr. Armey's says he believes in the free market, but that is baloney. Mr. Armey wants the government to force you to give your money to his clients.

Reading your post and seeing your biopic, I have only one question. Have you always been a dude? I mean I don't want to offend you, but you were born a woman, weren't you? You can tell me; I'm open-minded.

Tell us what the administrative costs of SS are in relation for return? Tell us the same for the individual private plan? You can't without looking like a swindler can you? And I'd like to point out that Social Security is running surpluses, has been for years, and former Senators like you stole them so you didn't look so irresponsible. Or like a swindler. You swindler.

Ownership is like date rape.

Mr. Armey,

Unlike the people you normally address many of use educated liberal types actually travel to places like Chile.

In fact some of do business in Chile; the wealthy and upper middle class have saving accounts, the working and just pain poor have… nada.

Go peddle your half-truths some where else, but then you don’t read this blog and you have some aide write your blog post so I guess the joke is on us.

Why do I oppose choice and ownership?

For the same reason I opposed the Iraq war when it was sold as a war to bring freedom to the Iraqis.

In other words, when Republicans speak, the words that come out of their mouths actually mean opposite of their normal meanings.

That is, Republicans LIE.

They would rob a man and when the man opposes, they will say why do the victims hate Jesus and not want to be like Christ, poor and penniless.

Let me guess:

Time asked tricky dicky here to come and ply this random gibberish in an effort to distract from the continuing failures of the CONservative Joke Line...

The editors of this swamp should consider draining it and starting over with some amateur Bloggers that will, at least, have a basic understanding of the subject matter covered here.

Mr Armey,

Opposition to your plan is based on the understanding that a retirement portfolio should be based on a combination of risk free investments and risky investments. Social Security is the ultimate risk free investment. There is nothing stopping a citizen of our country from having substantial high risk/high return investments for retirement. You should recall that every MBA in the country has be taught in their financial management courses that you alway have a substantial portion of your portfolio in low risk or risk free investments.

What I want to know is why conservatives, who should know better, are eliminating the risk free investment that Social Security represents. Putting an entire retirement portfolio into high risk/high return investment is bad financial management.

Dick sucks! Dick's ideas are bullshit. In fact Dick could be called a low down dirty dick sucker and it have nothing to do with sex!

Right on Dick! Eff Americans! If you don't qualify for corporate handouts (aka welfare) then you don't matter!!! More war!
.
Idiot

WAIT A MINUTE? HOLD ON?

If these pick pockets want my money the least they can do is ask.

The problem with Social Security is, that when you give the government something the government enjoys taking more and more as time goes.

I also feel that personal responsibility has been overstepped by this sense of privilege that people in America act like they deserve. This sense of give me, give me, give me, is what has gotten us into this Social Security mess in the first place. A great American once said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, BUT WHAT YOU CAN DO FOR YOUR COUNTRY." If you have no idea who said that and you are American then you are pathetic. You are even more pathetic if you are a democrat or a liberal(two completely different political views) and you do not know who said that.

Also, to comment on one parties abilities lie and somewhat suggesting that the side that you are with are completely innocent from sin is like saying, what about all the good thing Hitler did. Please keep war and religion out of debates such as these. For the sake of making yourself look intelligent please just take your hand from the keyboard and keep your mouth shut. For the man that keeps quiet might look like a fool but a man that utterance his mind will only prove he is a fool.

If I were to site the defining difference in liberal/Democratic politics vs conservative/Republicans it would be the issue of personal responsibility. I lean toward the conservative view that personal responsibility is esential to a civilized society. Having said that, old age pensions (SS) must be guaranteed even if it means protecting people from their own mistakes. Therefore, I am against private accounts for SS. After all, we already have 401K and IRA for those that want a tax deferred invetment.

P.S.: little dick boy... I am looking at the millions of people that are currently losing their homes and laughing at the fact that you meek-minded pinheads are still at it with your Republicon ownership society BS.

Keep it up... There will be no GOP in a few years the way you dimwads are going.

I won't ask you "when will you learn?" because it obvious, now, that you never will.

Why do Republicans hate the poor and disabled?

The leftist comments on this blog are incredible. Why the hatred? Why the venom?

Freedom Works. Too bad the left hasn't quite figured this out. Give 'em hell, Armey!

Gee when it comes to social security you don't no dick. I bet your so full of crap you will try to say that the Social Security trust fund is just worthless IOU'S. What is your party going to do deny that all you Republicans stood on the capitol steps with Ronald Reagan and swore a "IRONCLAD" guarantee that the Trust fund would be honored. Here you have one Republican president swearing a guarantee for the trust fund and the present idiot republican saying it's worthless. Have you no honor?

Hey Dr. Armey! Why did you call Congressman Frank "Barney Fag"?? Do you think social security would be strengthened by the unapologetic use of homophobic epithets??

And why did you go along with the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign Middle East country, which was started on the basis of out-and-out lies?? Are you glad that all our dead soldiers won't be receiving social security benefits??

And how much money did your buddies Gingrich, Armey, Stevens, Ney, Cunningham, Lewis and Foley fleece from the federal treasury?? Do you think, maybe, that we could have used some of that ill-gotten gain for social security payments for average citizens??

I look forward to your honest replies!

Ignorance is bliss!!

You know who I am talking to!

Oh, and by the way, if Dr. Armey wants to move to Chile, he's certainly welcome to! Which brings up the obvious question about how much his pension is compared to the average social security recipient - I wonder if he'll enlighten us with the crunched numbers...

-- "For the man that keeps quiet might look like a fool but a man that utterance his mind will only prove he is a fool."

It's almost like reading Twain.

Almost.

One way to sell it may be target retirement accounts. So nobody would be able to invest in one stock or time the market.

Based on your retirement date, the fund would be more aggressive early in your career, and get more conservative later in your career.

I'd love to wax eloquent here, but after wading through the brambly thicket of the third-rate think tank position paper above, I can only come to one admittedly juvenile conclusion.
Dick Armey. Wanker.
Or to paraphrase the recent illustrious mumblings of Christopher Hitchens, if you gave the man an enema you could bury him in a matchbox.
Ana, you know that I will love you forever, but this blog is about three Armey posts from my kill file. That or one more Klein column about how everyone is mean to him. Please darling. Trim this ballast or jump ship. I know that people like Dick Armey and Joe Klein don't have a clue about how screwed over and angry the average American is these days, but I don't need to read about it in my little free time. The only rational responses to the current situation are outrage and humor, and these poor slobs are sadly lacking in both.
As for my disdain of "choice" and "ownership", I only wish I owned a powerful handgun with with which I could choose to blow my brains out as an alternative to reading repackaged Heritage Foundation talking points from 1994.
Cheers,
Spence
P.S. Dick, the Cato Institute, eh, not so very convincing when making the appeals to disinterested authority.

I love how the post's title gives fair warning to readers that it is content-free. That, at least, is a service.

Watching a debate between Klein and Dick Armey over Social Security for a liberal is comparable for a conservative to defining Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez as the "left" and "right" boundaries of the debate over the role of government in income redistribution.

Wouldn't right wingers get angry if someone like Chavez were trotted out everytime a "conservative" spokesperson were needed on the news or in major news magazines?

Before 1929 people had their own private accounts, known as stock portfolios and also bank accounts. Unfortunately a lot of wealthy people lost their private accounts and some of them jumped out of tall buildings Mr. Armey.

Those middle class with their bank acounts also lost their money too.

in November 1932, a lot of people decided not to vote for Mr. Hoover because the Republiklan party had done nothing to help people even though disaster looked imminent back in 1929.

Mr. Roosevelt soundly defeated Mr. Prosperity is around the corner.

Mr. Hoover looks today somewhat like W and his father. Not caring about a large amount of people and hoping to stop a hurricane with a prayer.

The leaders of the Republiklan party have a tradition and pattern of doing nothing about brewing storms and then either smiling or saying whoops when large segments of people lose money or their life. The earliest I have seen this came in 1929 with Mr. Hoover.

What we have here is not a debate. A debate would involve Mr. Armey responding to Joe with something other than recycled talking points, bald assertions, and incorrect "facts".

What we have here is an insult. Dick has displayed a complete lack of regard for Joe, the Swampland blog, and Time.

Time Editors:

Dick Armey isn't blogging. He is cutting and pasting lobbyist talking points.

For the love of God, get rid of his tripe and bring in someone who knows how to, you know, blog.

Posted by Dick:

"It takes almost 15 percent of our income and is a $12 trillion unfunded liability."

Um, Dick, why should anyone take you seriously, or read anything you have to say, when you flat out lie twice in your third sentence?

Posted by Dick:

"It takes almost 15 percent of our income and is a $12 trillion unfunded liability."

Um, Dick, why should anyone take you seriously, or read anything you have to say, when you flat out lie twice in your third sentence?

You're just insulting us, which is why we keep insulting you right back.

Oops, sorry for double post.

Well I don't have to comment on Mr. Dick's thesis since it has been admirably handled by the rest of the crew, but how I can let this thing of beauty pass without comment?

"a Republican cookbook writer who pays for sex."

Shhhhh, can you hear that? It's someone's credibility smashing into a million pieces.

Dick Armey is indicative of the republican scheme.Give some program where they and their supporters can rob billions and call it choice or some other mild sounding name.I would got into all the half truths and outright lies in his blog just suffice to say if this is the crap he was teaching at North Texas State the parents deserve refunds.

Joe Klein is right (about liberals): "Anyone who doesn't move in lockstep with the most extreme voices [of the left] is savaged and ridiculed...."

Dick Armey is right about Social Security.

"We'd choose social security. Rule #1 of investment is that you do not gamble with money you cannot afford to lose."

Part of the reason people in this country can make risky investments and mobilize capital efficiently is BECAUSE they have a guaranteed income for retirement to fall back on in case of misfortune. If you measure the value of the SS program by the present value of future payments to the individual, the individual has a very lucrative and safe security at hand. He can't devise it to his heirs, but that just increases the cash available should he live long enough to need it.

It is a social insurance program, not an investment, and the ghouls on Wall Street must not get their hands on it.

whoa Professor, that's one killer counter-argument.

wow. This week's been terrible.

TIME - I will no longer be coming to your site. In fact, I'm not even going to look at the cover of your magazine in the store anymore.

Bye Bye.

"This is not about current retirees, this is about our grandchildren."

Let's see - not like your governing demonstrated concern for our grandchildren. You saddled them with the largest debt in history by rolling back taxes for the rich. You hurt them now - from cutting health insurance for them, to raising the costs of student loans, to tobacco control to school lunch programs - you haven't exactly demonstrated concern about them with your decisions.

And then, for your grand finale, you demonstrated the greatest disregard and contempt for these young people by choosing to send them into an unneccesary war without a proper strategy or even basic necessities - or proper care when they come home.

So don't you dare have the audacity to talk to us about concern for our grandchildren, when all I can see is literal death, debt and destruction that you've left for them. You've already done quite enough for them, thanks.

I believe that what is missing is a relationship to the founding of the country. As odd as it sounds, there is a basis. The first words of the constitution are "We the people, in order to form a more prefect union" (admitting the grammatical error there) The basic thought being conveyed was for people to work together as a society.

How about the theory that Government is suppose to serve the people instead of people serving the government. While Mr. Armey would use this basis to defend his position, it was meant that the government is suppose to be a coalition of the people to help serve us all. Everyone must put in to help, and therefore would recieve help in return.

The sole purpose to privatize Social Security would be benificial to one group; Who ever holds the "Government Approved Accounts". And with the predatory nature that certain groups have diplayed in the past (Hello Mr. Keating... back so soon?) you are looking at leaving millions with out those very investments Mr. Armey says would be protected.

Social Security was created to guarentee a Security, from society (aka your social structure) stipend for those who have, as workers in this country, given back to the greater good, served thier country or anything else being a member of society entails you to do.

It was income based for the very reason Mr. Armey should recognize, those with more money dont recieve as much since they have money. That logic is why there is only a social security tax on the first $90,000 of income.

In a world where societies around the world have passed us in health care, education and standard of living while living a more enviormentally aware existance without the internal persecution that this country seems to thrive on. Mr. Armey declares war on one of the few things that was created to make the field level and support those who need it.

While I admit to having a more socialist slant to utopian government than most, I blame it on the most socialized portion of our country. Look at the military. Our medicine is socialized for the most part, our housing is either provided for or subsidized with tax free allowances, we are giving an extra $280 a month for "basic allowance for sustanence".

Now, do I believe everyone should have to serve to get these things? No, not at all. I am not fond on the restrictions to my liberties, speech or being (by practice) a political tool for the executive branch.

I do however believe that every citizen is as important as any service member. That no citizen should go for want when we can as a nation help them. There is no excuse for nations we give subsidies to, to wind up with a higher standard of living than this country.

If you care more about the situation of others in general than your own nations people, go to the people you care about.... you can reach your checkbook from anywhere these days.

NTodd: "Why do conservatives so stridently erect strawmen and then light them on fire?" It reminds them of their KKK days.

jayackroyd; You prove my point.

Wow, he sure did, Conservative Professor. Could your PHD be in logical argumentation, by chance?

I see there are a lot of republics throwing in with Armey.

Remember what led to the start of the slide in the president's job approval rating?

Seems that he was "spending his political capital" and trying to ram through privatization of "Sosha S'cure'ty". Didn't work too well, did it?

Idiot republics. Keep it up, clowns. You'll never see a majority in the Congress or another republic president in decades.

heh.

I see there are a lot of republics throwing in with Armey.

Remember what led to the start of the slide in the president's job approval rating?

Seems that he was "spending his political capital" and trying to ram through privatization of "Sosha S'cure'ty". Didn't work too well, did it?

Idiot republics. Keep it up, clowns. You'll never see a majority in the Congress or another republic president in decades.

heh.

It is just amazing here. The libs here just can't help but call names, make fun and in general make no contribution. In normal conditions when that happens you know that a person has lost the argument. Here you can tell because of the lack of fact AND the name calling. Too bad that the Left won't take some time to become just a LITTLE informed.

"... the Democrat Party..."

Help me understand why I should take anything else the guys says seriously after that?

Swampland editors: please insert a "[sic]" into the sentence quoted above. Thanks.

Cranky

Being in my 30s, I'm not expecting to see a dime of social security when I retire due to democrats' refusal to address the problem (they're all old enough to actually collect social security), and republican hesitation to bring the topic to the forefront of discussion and propose several options to solve the impending crisis. As a moderate, I'd side with the republicans, as at least they recognize the problem and have a desire to correct it. democrats just want to yell and scream the problem away, but don't wish to address it.

grape_crush, thanks for the info on Chile.

Does anyone think Armey will respond substantively to these facts?

Right. No contributions. Links, facts, arguments, critical thinking aren't contributions. Only syncophancy for Armey's cooked "think" tank talking points are "contributions." And Armey's channel surfing different talking points, without engaging us on our valid points, now those are "contributions."

Ok Dick you had me listening until the

"Teresa Heinz Kerry would no longer be able to exploit tax law to only pay 11.5 percent of her $5 million income."

Like the Bush's (and lets remember the twins trust funds) don't exploit the tax code to pay as little tax as possible?

Oh that's right...they are protecting themselves from the liberal tax code.

OK Joe time to find a new guest writer.