Redstate

they might as well have been hugging a statue of Casimir Pulaski.

I also thing Krugman is a genuine Democrat secret weapon. We, collectively, spend about 10 times as much time debunking Krugman as he spends bunking in the first place.

See here for a discussion of the above. You're mixing up the first and second clauses. Sorry if you don't like Media Matters but it's the most relevant source I could find quickly.

I agree with you that both sides should leave FDR out of it and evaluate any plan on its merits alone.

the Media Matters article does nothing to clear up the situation.

The original post quotes accurately from FDR. Brock may not like it but it I haven't found anything - other than his blog - that supports the Rube Goldberg device he constructs.

the larger issue of whether privatization is a good idea for another time. On the narrow issue of whether the original post is taking comments FDR clearly intended to refer to noncontributory old-age pensions (first clause) and applying them to compulsory contributory annuities (second clause: this is SS), I don't find any confusion. Clearly both the "30 years" and the "self-supporting annuity plans" refer to the old-age pensions. I don't quite see how you can call that a Rube Goldberg device.

I think the Dems totally don't want FDR's words to be interpreted as supporting private accounts because it discredits them.  

I read the Media Matters article claiming Hume's arguments are distorted, and I don't agree.  The piece didn't really clear anything up. It sounded to me like they're saying, "well, FDR said this, but that's not what he meant".  As I read his words, it sounded like a partial privatization, which is what's being discussed, is exactly what he meant.  

If you read the whole letter, you will see that FDR defines "self-sustaining" as meaning not being funded by money from general taxation. It's a few paragraphs above your quote.

It's also pretty clear that the thirty year period he is talking about refers to the period during which the government (federal and state) would have to fund annuities for folks who were retiring, but who had not paid into the system.  In other words, start up costs.

Your reading of this is incorrect.

Cheers -

that he is saying the system as it was set up needed to move on to a different structure.  And now, 70 years on, has that structure been changed?  Doesn't seem so.  

Can you explain where, in this letter or in other statements of FDR's, he says that he intended the SS system to move to a different funding basis?  I don't see it.

Thanks -

It is proposed that the federal government assume half the cost of the old-aged pension plan, which ought be supplanted by self-supporting annuities.(emphasis mine)

From that statement, it would appear that FDR himself wanted the people of the US of A to start funding thier own retirement after awhile. It does to me at least. Why even mention self-supporting annuities if you don't intend to move toward having that happen? The half cost assumption was a short term fix to get the recent and soon retirees something to get them by until they died while younger workers were getting thier retirement finances (self-supporting annuities) going. Like they want to do now, only 60 or 70 years ago. I could, and have been known to be, wrong but I don't think so this time. :)

~Shakes Amos's hand~

Hope that helped.  :)

So what?

Is your argument that you will advocate anything that FDR supported? Or is your argument that Democrats are hypocritical because they agree with some things that FDR advocated, and disagree with others?

Either way, its a yawn.

Is your argument that you will advocate anything that FDR supported?

I said nothing of the sort.

Or is your argument that Democrats are hypocritical because they agree with some things that FDR advocated, and disagree with others?

Yes.  I think they are misleading, hypocritical, obstructionists with a dash of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure.

But, what else is new, right?

. . .are shrieking that Republicans are trying to desecrate FDR's crowning achievement.  These historical tidbits tend to suggest that calling it desecration when FDR seriously considered a similar approach is asinine, hysterical, and dishonest.

"misleading, hypocritical, ... with a dash of historical revisionism thrown in for good measure."

a better characterization of your FDR exegesis I could not have written myself.

Gordo -

First, handshake gladly received and reciprocated.  It's nice to converse with you again.

Agreed that the 30 year period refers to non-contributory retirement benefits to be paid to folks who were, at the time, already at retirement age, and who therefore could not participate as contributors.  These benefits were to be funded by the feds and states in a 50/50 split.

The question at hand is what it means for the contributory annuities -- either compulsory or not -- to be self-sustaining.  FDR helpfully provides a definition:

"..the system adopted... should be self-sustaining in the sense that funds for the payment of insurance benefits should not come from the proceeds of general taxation."

The SS program as instituted is in fact not funded from general tax receipts.  It is funded by the separate and dedicated payroll tax, whose proceeds are supposed to be used solely for the SS program.    The system as it currently stands is in perfect conformance with FDR's intent as expressed in this letter.

There's nothing sacred about FDR's proposal, or about the current way we go about funding SS.  If a change is warranted, then we should make it.  Personally, I have as yet not seen anything that demonstrates to my satisfaction that the privatization / personalization / whatever you want to call it this week scheme that has been proposed will make things any better.  It might make things worse.  My sense is that the proposal is motivated more by an animus toward entitlements, and less by a desire to most effectively address long-term financial problems.  That debate is ongoing.

In any case, unless you want to read "funds... should not come from the proceeds of general taxation" to mean taxes AT ALL -- in which case the meaning of "compulsory" is a little unclear, and the "personal account" proposal would also not comply -- I think PoliticalCP's original point is not supported by the document he cites.

CHeers -

M Scott -

I invite you to click the link in the original post and read the full letter.  Then, I invite you to demonstrate for me from the text of the letter that FDR's intent was what PoliticalCP says it was.

In particular, as noted above, I would draw your attention to FDR's definition of "self-sustaining".

I look forward to your reply.

Cheers -

Ok, let me begin by saying that I made no claim to have channeled FDR, nor am I trying to put words in his mouth.  My commentary is based on my observation and my initial interpretation of the text I cited.  Upon re-reading that text, I may have misconstrued the 30-year clause, if you want to call it that.  However, I still think there is an allusion to partial, not full, privatization or "personalization" as some are terming it, on some level.  

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

"Voluntary contributory annuities" seem, to me, to refer to a private account.  "By which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts" seems, to me, to refer to investment.

Amos, you said, "There's nothing sacred about FDR's proposal".  You're right.  But, the Democratic leadership is certainly acting as such.

In addition, I think their blatant opposition to the mere concept of any form of privatization represents a socialist mindset with which I disagree.  

This is a big issue with many complexities and when you throw in varying opinions, it can certainly become contentious.  It merits study and deserves debate.

of what was said in the letter was for retirement to be placed back in the hands of the people. Now if (I may be old, but not that old) that was the intent, then the present set up and the way they would like to do this both fail, since they are supported by payroll taxes. Too bad we can't ask him for the intent. :) I would think that, like most depression era legislation, it was to be temporary not permanent. That being said, what politician ever wants to quit taking in money when it's given to them? Not to mention the ones that will spend whatever to stay in office and to H--- with the consequences. ;) I think both sides are somewhat guilty here. Now we the people find ourselves saddled with a system that(if left as is) will force us to raise the tax that supports it or find alternatives.

PRA's might not be the ultimate answer, but as a transition to a completely personal system they would go a long way towards that end. Namely in getting people to start saving for thier retirement, rather than relying on the government. I would hope that is the case, but like most things political it won't be. The transition becomes the norm and we still have the problem of relying on the government to make sure that we save the money we should. Bad habbits sure are hard to break. :) I wonder what would happen if a person were allowed to put all the social security tax into a 401k or IRA account? Would be interesting to see what the return would be like. :)

Business calls,

See you later :)

Gordo -

If I understand you correctly, your reading of FDR's letter is that the feds and the state would fund the non-contributory benefits for about 30 years, and all contributory annuities would be funded directly by individuals, with the government out of the loop financially.  In other words, no tax, no government receipt of money, no government payment of benefits.  Is that correct?

The "compulsory" aspect to this, as you understand it, is what -- that the government would pass laws requiring people to save money in private annuity plans?

I understand that you would prefer that the government get out of it altogether.  That's a perfectly fine position, although one I'm not sure I share.  The question on the table, however, is what FDR intended in his letter.  The issue on the table is whether the Democrats' appeal to FDR is either misinformed or dishonest.

You're right, FDR's dead and we can't ask him what he meant.  So, we have to rely on what he wrote to divine his intentions.  So far, noone has demonstrated anything like an intent to privatize SS in FDR's letter.  Several folks, including yourself, have said that that is "their understanding", but noone has substantiated that understanding from the actual text.  So, I'm inclined to think that that understanding is mistaken.

Regarding what would happen if everyone put all of their current SS tax money into private investments, I imagine some folks would do quite well, and some not so well.

Cheers -

PoliticalCP -

Thanks for the reply.  I'm definitely not trying to beat you up about this, I just didn't see that your point was actually supported by the text.  Frankly, I'm just trying to understand which end is up with the SS issue.

What I understand is the following:

1.  I've been paying a higher rate of payroll taxes for the last 20 years to fund a reserve against the boomer retirement bulge.  Now, the claim is that that money isn't really there.  That's more than annoying.  

Some folks claim the reserve is imaginary, because it's all T-bills, and therefore it's just the government moving money from one bucket to the other.  It's not clear to me how any change to SS affects this.  As far as I can tell, the notes come due when they come due, and you and I will have to pay them.  Sounds like real money to me.

2.  A proposal of some sort is on the table whereby some amount of your payroll tax will be put into a privatized/personalized bucket with your name on it.  Originally, this was "better" because it somehow resolved a potential long-term funding crisis.  Now, that's no longer the claim, now it's "better" because folks are likely to realize a better return than if they left their money in the big pay-go slush fund.  

The estimated return on that fund is 3%, and apparently if you decide to opt for the personal accounts, your benefits will be reduced by the percentage you put into them, with an assumed return of 3% factored in.  So, to do better in the private scheme, you have to do better than a 3% annual rate of return after fees etc, for the particular period in which you participate and retire.  

Frankly, that sounds doable, although I'm not sure it's all as straightforward as it's presented to be.  Putting that much cash into the investment market is going to make it that much harder to do well because the bargains are going to be competed away.  Compare average price to earning numbers from 30, or 20, years ago to now.  Most folks will probably see roughly the rate of growth of the economy overall, not much more or less.  Economists, feel free to correct me on any of this.

And, of course, this change doesn't come for free.  Somehow we have to fund the benefits that were supposed to be paid for by the money we would divert to the personal accounts.  It will cost $700B in the first decade, and something like $2T overall.  Some claim that this is an improvement, because it moves the cost up front.  In any case, the net result is -- wait for it -- taxes will go up to service the debt.  Why this form of raising taxes is good, and other forms are evil, escapes me.

So, after spending some amount of time trying to digest the blizzard of junk that's been shoveled our way, it appears to me that the this comes down to one fundamental thing:

Conservatives don't like entitlements.  They believe people should do for themselves, rather than relying on government.  That is, the privatization scheme is better exactly because it is to some degree private.

That's actually a rational, consistent point of view.  It's not one I necessarily agree with.  I personally have no problem with a government operated insurance program that provides a modest benefit across the population as a whole.  In fact, I think it's splendid.  But, not everyone feels that way, and the folks who don't feel that way are in the driver's seat.  I'd just like them to be straight up about it.

Cheers -

This part in my original post and it might help.

it is proposed that the government assume half the cost......,which ought ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuities.

Now having also read the whole letter and partially understood the situation FDR faced (Took me a few tries), it could be possible he was attempting to establish the dual system proposed today. I say possible due to the tax levied to fund Social Security, and the end in which he says this ultimately be supplanted (replaced?) by self-supporting (private, union, other?) retirement plans. Might be he wanted to have a back up plan in case of another economic depression.

Now to the question of the dems.

Misguided, hysterical, almost dishonest, as I have said before, most of the legislation from that time was to be temporary. Now it has become a semi(?)sacred cow. Mainly because of the cash it brings in. Again, what political type ever wants to give up cash they can use however they wish just by giving an IOU for it? Think of the money that would go to private accounts and not to the Feds. Now the tactic of saying these guys want to get rid of your retirement is gone. The whole old people out in the street whatever scare would be a big lie. Just like saying it aint broke now, when the same people said it was just a few short years ago. It needs fixed and the less money in D.C. the better.

Another stupid question: How much does the SSA pay all those people who sit around and don't even do so much as find a better investment for the money? Seems like a lot of overhead to me. That is assuming thier salaries come from the SS budget.

Thanks for getting me straightened on track. :)

Conversatives really do choose to create their own realities.  To divinve that FDR was implying that Social Security should be phased out in 30 years as this article states is pure fantasy and revisionist history.  Why, when you get caught retelling an administration-spun lie, do you insist on side-stepping the original lie and restating in a new, enhanced version?  Here are the facts:  

1.  FDR did not want to dismantle SS, he created it.
   
   
2.  SS is not in a crisis state and is not going "bankrupt" in 18 years as the president stated.
   
   
3.  Privatized accounts will not save SS, they will lead to its certain demise.
   
   
4.  Taking money away from the SS program will not salvage it.
   

These facts are reality.  They don't fit in the false reality that conservatives continue to foist on their fellow Americans, but they are facts none the less.  Don't you all feel some sense of shame when you lie to get your way?  Don't you see that is is immoral to do what you do?  WMDs, Al-Qaeda connections to Hussein, the "energy crisis," planted reporters in the press room, paying independant "columnists" to tow the adminstrartion line, Swift Boat Veternans for "Truth," and the list of lies goes on and on.  I would say, "get a reality," but you already have. A warped and immoral reality that makes many of us sick at heart that you continue to get away with it.

and just because i admitted that my interpretation of the 30-year clause was wrong doesn't mean I was lying.  I am exploring this issue just like anyone else to understand it.  I wrote my initial observations and opinions.  I said what I said, but that doesn't mean that that it was any sort of final say on anything.  

If you read the discussion, amos pointed out an error in my reading, I concurred, but we still disagreed on a couple points.  He may be a Dem too, but our discussion was conducted without animosity.  

I know you "tolerant" libs have a problem with "tolerating" opinions that are contrary to your own, but deal with it.  

Besides, who makes you the "knower of all facts"?  You're obviously towing the Michael Moore line, so don't lecture me on facts or "immoral reality".  

This long strand of verbiage is rather pointless.  The basic structural flaw of SS was built into it from the beginning. It was based on the assumption that each new generation of payers would be able to fund retirement benefits for each new generation of collectors.  Oh yes, and it assumed that each new generation of Congressmen would be able to keep their hands off of SS money.  Any plan that doesn't take into account the fact that these two propositions are, in fact, NOT TRUE, is destined for failure.  We can play politics with this, and blame each other all day long, but let's let Roosevelt rest in peace.  Like all Presidents he got some things very right and some things very wrong.  And he isn't around to lead us out of this particular wilderness.

p.s. What was the point of that Pulaski reference?  What do cavalry tactics have to do with retirement benefits?

You fail to comprehend my larger point.  Your entire original article was based on a complete falsehood; that FDR ultimately wanted to privatize Social Security.  That you knowingly lied about this is indisputable.  You cited Al Franken's correct interpretation of the FDR statement and then scoffed at it, only "realizing" your mistake after several other readers pointed the same thing out.  Yet you persist - even though you were wrong in your premise, you stand by your conclusions.  The only honest conclusion to your realization is that yes, Brit Hume did knowingly spin FDR's words in an attempt to undermine the foundation of Social Security and yes, he should resign for his wanton breach of the public trust.  There is no other honest conclusion, unless you want to say Brit Hume is stupid and he should resign for that reason.

This all leads to my broader point.  This administration, and most current day conservatives it seems, operates under the notion that the ends justify the means in all of their political efforts.  An early example was the California energy "crisis," which the administration touted as a clear example of why we needed to drill for oil in ANWR.  When it became public knowledge that the crisis had nothing to do with the cost of oil, but instead greedy, powerful buddies of George W. who were financially raping the citizens of California, George Bush found other "reasons" to drill for oil while publicly stating he hardly ever heard of Ken Lay.  This despite the fact that "Kenny Boy" as Bush used to call him was his single largest campaign contributor through the years.  "Kenny Boy?  I hardly knew ye!"  

Then there is the war in Iraq.  We had to invade because Sadaam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and a working relationship with Al-Qaeda.  We were told Hussein was months away from developing nuclear weapons and was going to fly unmanned drones over our cities and spray the innocents below with nerve agents and deadly bacteria.  The Bush administration basically worked their butts of to scare the crap out of everybody.  And it worked.  Later when it became evident that all of this was a completely made up fiction, a ruse to confuse and scare, a manufactured reality so to speak, the administration moved the goal posts not once, but repeatedly and continually.  You were unpatriotic to question their motives.  We are there to liberate the happy masses who will welcome us with flowers.  Sadaam and his sons were evil men who raped women and burned babies while the mournful parents were forced to watch:  We had to stop them!  We are bringing democracy and the dawn of a new era to a struggling world.  And on, and on, and on, and on, and on ...   Although we may never truly know what his motives were (are?) we do know that it doesn't really matter why we did what we did in Iraq, just as long as we get "it" done.  "It," as it turns out, is looking very much like the creation of a new theocratic radical Islamic state modeled after their next door neighbors; Iran.  What a powerhouse that will be!  A real one-two punch that in almost all ways, we created! Remember the US installed Shah of Iran whom we installed and was later disc raced and replaced by radical Islamists?  What will the Bushies say then, that we brought the balm of religion to two formerly hedonistic states?

I ask you, can you name one good, solid government initiative that was based on a foundation of lies?  I know I can't think of any.   Why in God's name would we think that the Iraq situation will prove any different?

Here are a few other of Bush's more manipulative lies:  

*    We will fully fund No Child Left Behind (In my school district we are cutting programs left and right to fund this under-funded initiative.)  

*    The Medicaid drug benefit will cost no more than $385 million

*    His practice of holding "town hall meetings" but only admitting card carrying Bush supporters

*    Admitting fake journalist plants to his press conferences for over two years

*    Directly paying columnists and TV people to carry his water through their "journalistic" efforts

On these later few points, if he has to pay people to manipulate his message for him, one has to wonder how good could the message be in the first place?

I also personally think that it is morally indefensible to give huge tax cuts to the wealthiest among us as we are struggling with a vast and costly war effort and all the while trying to cut the health benefits of those who are fighting it for us.  This is just my sense of morality, though.  I can see how the "more for me!" crowd might disagree with this assessment.

Now fast-forward to the Social Security issue.  Just yesterday, Bush said, "If we don't act to avert that outcome (SS going "broke" in 2018) the only solution would be dramatically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and severe cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs."  Fear mongering ala the WMD scare?  You betcha'!  Scaring old people?  Fur' sure!  Lying to scare the masses?  Unquestionably.  The truth is, relatively minor tweaking is all that is needed to keep SS afloat for the long term foreseeable future.  But the Bush team wants to, in there own words, "fix it for good."  The worst part is that what he is proposing will do exactly what he is scaring us over.  Privatized accounts do nothing to solve the current financial problems, but will certainly yield "massive new borrowing" and "sudden and severe cuts in SS benefits."  The only way out of the hole will be to get rid of SS altogether, or have "dramatically higher taxes."  Now we know new taxes are not in the offing, so that leaves only the first option.  But don't worry, the ends justify the means!  No matter how we get there and no matter what ruses are used to convince the American people that getting rid of Social Security is good for them, we will ultimately do away with this system that protects the weakest among us in their old age.  And what's more, Jesus, who now apparently resides only in the red states, would undoubtedly approve!

PS - What is this Limbaugh-ism thing you have about liberals being intolerant of other people's point of views?  I am very tolerant, even accepting of conservative points of view.  It's just the current trend of lies and dishonesty that I abhor.  Why can't many of you make your point without crossing the lie-line.  "FDR wanted to privatize Social Security."  HOGWASH, and you knew it when you wrote it!  

and you're obviously just trying to stir things up.  I'm sure you're a real hit over at Democratic Underground.

Because as you say, you are "very tolerant", I must marvel at your tolerance in calling me a liar.  Whatever I claim to have written as obseration and opinion, you will undoubtedly dispute as suspect and sinister, so there's really no point in going round and round with you.  

I wholeheartely disagree with your opinions and I could spend quite a while countering most of them, but I would rather not.  However, I don't think you are a liar. I think you believe what you believe, just as I do, even though I don't happen to agree with you.  

Thanks for your response.  I note however that your core points are that I am a "liberal dem," who is "obviously trying to stir things up" and a "hit at the Democratic Underground" (is there such a thing?) and your further implication that I am intolerant.  I love the code words you use.  Where have I heard them before?   Was it the Rush Limbaugh poison I heard last week, or five years ago?  But name calling aside; I didn't get much grist out of your correspondence.  You said that you could spend quite a bit of time countering my opinions, but in fact you didn't counter any of them.  That's fair, it's your space.

My guess is what will happen with the SS/FDR lie that Brit Hume "broke" and you and others helped promulgate is that, over time, it will be repeated again and again by Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity/Michael Medved/ Ann Coulter/Glenn Beck/Bill O'Lielly/and a rash of other right wing pundits and "new media journalists."  Many American people will believe that it is true, having heard it from so many "reliable media sources" so many times.  If someone in the press counters this fiction, they will be labeled the "media elite" quicker than you can slap a mosquito.  And just as a 50/50 balance is finally struck between truth and fiction (reds states 50/blue states 50), a new crop of lies will pop up and the false reality effect will shift once again to your side.  My guess is that Karl Rove is a political genius.  What's yours?

So I am sorry that you don't like my calling you a liar, but frankly I can't think of a more appropriate term given the situation - a lie is cleverly created and it is repeated over and over again until it gains the sheen of veracity.  This is the modus operandi of the current administration and crop of right-wing pundits, you included.  Sinister?  You bet!  I just can't figure out why half of the country is willingly and happily going along for the ride.  This by the way is why I wrote to your website.  Not to "stir things up" as you suggested, but to call a spade a spade.  Welcome to the "new media" response to at tactic that has worked so well for you guys the last eight to ten years.   How long will it take Karl Rove to create a new counter reality?  Not long, I suspect.

I can't help but wonder how you balance the notion that somehow the "Rush Limbaugh poison" is real, and "Al Franken's correct interpretation of the FDR statement" is sacrosanct.

I haven't followed this thread too closely, and I rather enjoy the exchanges from my not-so-right-wing fellow American, but when I caught this last post I coudn't help but jump in.  I am more than willing to accept that there is, in your intimation, a conservative spin in the media you referenced, but I am not going to let you get away with inferring that there isn't a left wing spin in the MSM.  I didn't hear Hume, but I bet he DID spin FDR's statements.  If you want to argue that your side doesn't, then you're just out of touch with reality.  

There is NO unbiased media out there...anyone who thinks there is just doesn't see what's in front of them.  The only debate here is whether there is a balance between left-leaning and right-leaning media.  You guys had a monopoly for many years...now, we are catching up.  

There's never been more fun in the political wars than what we have now...for every anti-Conservative Michael Moore and Al Franken, we thankfully have anti-Liberal Hannity's and Limbaughs.  And, it's long overdue.  If you guys want a debate, that's one thing.  Until now, there was NO debate...just the left-leaning MSM.  Now, there are no more monopolies.  That's a good thing...there's too much at stake.

My response is that the idea of a left-wing "main stream media" (now impolitely and pejoratively renamed the Media Elite by the right-wingers) is a concept that is somewhere between a huge exaggeration to a complete fabrication.  To my knowledge, Tom Brokaw never called women's rights groups "Femi-Nazis," however he may have spent more time in his newscasts covering urban blight than the crisis faced by the wealthiest among us over what was known as the "luxury tax."  Come to think of it, I have heard more from the media on the evils of the luxury tax than poverty and urban blight, so scratch that last one.

Peter Jennings, to my knowledge, never called environmental groups "tree huggers" but he may on occasion have reported the problems caused by acid rain and pollution; a decidedly liberal bent!

Dan Rather may have challenged Republicans on their foibles, but he challenged Democrats alike.

The point is, the vitriol that is taking over the national political debate was not originated in the "main stream media," but from the right.  Michael Moore's and Al Franken's platforms are successful because they are in response to the right-wing demagoguery of issues.  Simply saying that the left had the stage for many years does not make it so.  And to correct "the problem" by skewing the public debate by introducing invective and hate (read Limbaugh/Hannity/Coulter) and simply making crap up (read Drudge/Brit Hume/Tony Snow/Swift Boat Veterans for Truth/Washington Times) doesn't help matters.

Is the media unbiased?  It doesn't matter any more.  The right wing has successfully undertaken the task of politicizing the news by infusing class warfare and personal invective in their coverage.  You say you didn't follow "the string" on the Brit Hume/FDR SS "spin."  It won't take you more than two minutes to read what FDR said and how Brit Hume changed the meaning and intent of FDR's words so completely with the clear intent to fracture and invert FDRs original meaning.  Our website host calls this "opinion."  I call it by its real name; an outright, destructive lie.  Read it and you will agree; Brit Hume lied to the American People so to knowingly undermine the foundations of the Social Security program.  

As John Roosevelt, the grandson of FDR and a guiding hand in the development of Social Security over the past several years said on Franken's program today, Hume does not need to apologize to him (John Roosevelt) or his family.  He needs to apologize to his viewers, whom he deceived, and if he can't do that he should resign or be fired.

PS - I love the red herring you threw out around the "MSM idea," but I still remain amazed that no one on this site can debate the real issues.  What about Brit Hume's lies?  What about the president's exaggeration and ultimate deceit on WMD, Al-Qaeda links, tax reductions for the wealthiest among us, giveaways to the drug industry through taxpayer-paid astronomically priced Medicare drug prescription plans, No Child Left Behind funding shortfalls, The Clear Skies Cough, Cough Initiative, saving SS, etc., etc.  I wish I could follow ya'll so blindly down this dark, thorny path because I would be a happier guy!

Well I happen to remember debating Social Security, the role of the Public Library, Tax Policy, and Immigration.  And those are just the stories I wrote.

As for other major debates, I see AIDS, an end to gerrymandering, Tort Reform, and when taxes should be raised by Republicans.

Your protesting the left-leaning nature of the MSM is your choice.  But since Big Walter came out against the Vietnam War, the MSM has taken stances and shown the news through their lens.  See "pro-life" vs. "anti-abortion," the treatment of Gavin Newsom ("standing up for what he believes in") vs. Roy Moore ("pushing his religious views on others") both claiming civil disobedience, or the coverage of Gannon and the silence on Eason.  I don't think its necessarily a conscious bias, but it is there.  Thankfully, talk radio, Fox op-ed commentators, and the internet have given conservatives ways of reaching voters without going through a Dan Rather filter.

to say "PS - I love the red herring you threw out around the "MSM idea," but I still remain amazed that no one on this site can debate the real issues.  What about Brit Hume's lies?"  

What about them?  If a person states their opinion about something and it doesn't match yours, does that make it a lie?

"What about the president's exaggeration and ultimate deceit on WMD, Al-Qaeda links, tax reductions for the wealthiest among us, giveaways to the drug industry through taxpayer-paid astronomically priced Medicare drug prescription plans, No Child Left Behind funding shortfalls, The Clear Skies Cough, Cough Initiative, saving SS, etc., etc."  

And?...When Clinton said there was an Iraq problem, was it a lie?  When Kennedy got credit for "forcing" Bush to implement Education reform and then turned around and said Bush was weak on Education...was it a lie?  Which was the lie?  Kennedy's comments, or Bush's signing of a bill his right-wing constituents asked him NOT to sign?

"I wish I could follow ya'll so blindly down this dark, thorny path because I would be a happier guy!"  

If you don't think the Michael Moore/Al Franken "the world is doomed and we all suck until Bush is gone and Democrats are in power" (key word in the Democrat implosion... power or lack therof) isn't following a dark and thorny path, then you are doomed already.

As new as I am here, I have seen all these issues debated on tis site.  The problem is that what you DON'T find on this site is the mantra "Bush lied, Bush exaggerated, Bush is a babykiller, Bush is only out for oil, Bush, Bush, Bush...blah blah blah".

If Bush lied, so did everyone else...for many years.  And this statement, if true, means that hundreds of people in Washington D.C., and in our collective Government agencies, have all been in on a huge conspiracy...and they have all kept it a big secret!

Whew...for as well as they screw up everything else, I am highly impressed that the "Smokin' Dude" has kept them all in line over this one.

Come on.  A little reality please.  Debates happen here, but typically are based on facts as can best be determined, rather than the best sounding crap from anyone with a microphone that hates Bush and/or Republicans.  Our so-called right-wing talking heads are at least motivated by what they consider important issues for the overall good.  Your guys are only concerned about tearing down anyone that doesn't share their chicken little impression of the world.

Give me a Democrat that has the attitude "we're doin' ok, but her's a list of what we can do that will make us even better...and I'll listen.  Til then, it's all about power.  Those with it, those without it.

Oh well...