Eight False Things The Public “Knows” Prior To Election Day
Here is an interesting article I just read and I want to see what you all think about this. Are the facts in this article wrong or has the misinformation right-wing media been incredibly successful at making stuff up and presenting it as truth?
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/...s-they-go-vote Quote:
|
Source please.
|
Robert Gibbs, obviously.
|
It's some guy named Dave Johnson. Here is the original blog post. It has links.
Eight False Things The Public "Knows" Prior To Election Day | OurFuture.org Now, are these things false or not? |
Sorry I just added it. The source is Dave Johnson. Some of his points are subjective but most of them seem to be a listing of fact.
|
Okay, now that we've dogpiled onto the original blog post, are these eight things false or not?
|
No disrespect to Renka, but these talking points are so stupid, it doesn't even matter if they are false, or if Dan Johnson's version of them are true. If the boat is sinking, does it really matter which cannon blew which hole through your hull?
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ---------- I'll start the analysis with a few of these: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
7 posts in and we've already arrived at the point I intended to make - 'truth' isn't a primary concern in politics. Most people are solidly decided on what they believe, and rationalize it with points like Rekna addressed. Whether those things are truth is really only a secondary concern, since they are only rationalizations.
I'd much prefer we waged war with facts instead of preconceptions rationalized by 'facts'. I'm more concerned with the truth then who it hurts. Thanks for sharing this Rekna, but I think the people most influenced by these things they 'know' will receive this with dead ears. |
Truth has become the first causality of politics since, well since the first vote was ever casts.
|
"I'll be glad to reply to or dodge your questions, depending on what I think will help our election most."
—George H. W. Bush (spoken before a college audience during his failed 1980 presidential campaign) |
i dont see the current levels of disinformation as a function of any "natural" process.
it is a function of a deliberate politics. this is what the conservative media apparatus does. that's it's stock in trade----it produces and repeats and provides velocity to and for this kind of politicized infotainment. which is in this case a direct extension of the strategy developed by the right to enable it to run against its own record. what the right is concerned with, really, judging from pretty much everything, is holding power. it is an end in itself. the bush people left the republicans in a pretty shitty position at the end of its debacle of a period in office. apparently the decision got taken---let's pretend we're not the republicans exactly. and let's assume that people's memory really is the length of the last news cycle. and let's assume that people believe what they want to from within a range of prefabricated options. so by extension that politics is a consumer matter. these statements circulate. everyone knows someone who believes one or more of them. they're mostly the sort of horseshit that the talking heads at fox or am radio pundits use alot. everyone knows they're out there. the problem with the article, i suppose, is that it talks in terms of belief. what that opens up is the possibility for any given conservative to point at any one of the statements and say "i don't believe that" from which presumably it'd be possible to say "therefore everything is false." which is unfortunate, giving an out like that. paul krugman addresses much the same problem in todays ny times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/op...rugman.html?hp |
Well, I can address at least one of those truths. I recently received a letter from the SSA informing me (among other things) that I should start planning for my own retirement because by the time I'm eligible to collect social security they're only going to be able to pay 76 cents per dollar owed. Whether or not the SSA is actually going broke they certainly believe that they are.
|
No, no, no Hektore - Dan Johnson and Rekna say it's solvent, so it's solvent. As a matter of fact and according to these seers, SS is so black, it's actually GREEN! Undoubtedly, this is because of all of the environmental jobs created by Social Security.
You go spend that retirement money on hookers and blow. You won't need it. |
Are you retiring more than 25 years from now, Hektore?
|
Quote:
I didn't say it was solvent I said this is the first year in the red and it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world is coming. There are many small steps that we can take to make it solvent. |
Quote:
I do find the biblical reference curious, though. |
fantastic, cimmaron. so not only are you willing to repeat bogus "anti-statist" bits of libertarian nonsense as if they were fact without bothering with actual data, but you're also resistant to the possibility that this bogus infotainment is problematic.
clearly the problem with dialogue comes from those of us who characterize conservatives as conservatives. clearly. |
Quote:
Here is a copy of part of the letter I received: http://www.doughroller.net/wp-conten...ment-Page1.jpg The relevant portion: Quote:
|
Quote:
My daughter received a letter like that, more newsletter then letter. The date on hers was 2037. So if she retired after 2037, 27 years from now she'll get 760 dollars for every 1000 dollars due. |
Quote:
|
Sorry, roach, not playing. Hektore, you believe whomever you want.
---------- Post added at 03:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:23 PM ---------- Quote:
Hookers and blow, Hektore. That Blackhawk helicoptor is just waiting to drop a metric shit-ton of cash on your lawn come retirement day. |
There's a very easy fix for social security: raise the cap on taxable income. There's no reason why someone earning $60,000/year should have 100% of their income taxed for social security while someone earning $1 million/year has only about 10% of their income taxed for social security.
|
Quote:
|
so the point of the article seems to have been made. which is not a great thing.
|
Quote:
This might help. However, you might question the facts of the source. Social Security history Frequently Asked Questions question 4 is of interest. Edit: Now that I re-read your point, I suppose you are technically correct - it was not a substitute for a retirement plan. Although, you still want to cling to the math that SS will exist in any form by the time Hektore ages another 40 years - something I am unwilling to believe as fact. The original plan was to augment incomes for people who lived beyond the average expectancy. The problem today is that they have lowered that age, rather than raising it. ---------- Post added at 04:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ---------- roach - The article paints an incomplete picture of SS, and does so intentionally. If you view the timeline of the posts, I reacted negatively to Rekna saying SS has only not run in the "green" for one year - when in fact it has not run in the "black" eleven years (question 26 from SSA.gov above). So, I do find it amusing and reacted as such, especially since his entire thread is premised on the delivery of facts. When, Hektore said, "wait, what about when I need it in 40 years?" - I made light of Rekna's obvious mistakes as well as Johnson's convenient change of the finish line to suit his needs. The fact is, the finish line is when Hektore and I need it, not when Johnson believes it has proven itself as a working system. The fact is the SS system is in unsustainable decline and can not deliver what it promises to the people that are paying into it (Hektore). So, pointing out these facts as facts in regards to one of the eight points the writer makes does not mean that I am a destroyer of the nation, as Rekna says, or a giant dummy toting some party line, as you imply. |
Quote:
That being said: (Aug 5, 2010 Trustees Report Summary excerpt) Quote:
|
Quote:
|
so what you're saying here is that maybe one of the conservative talking points that have substituted for information is less completely horseshit than the others.
seems alot of work if that's all you're after. |
BTW, Hektore: If I'm elected President, I can guarantee you will not receive one penny from the federal government in retirement funds in 40 years.
|
Quote:
The longer point, which isn't spelled out is that perhaps it isn't helpful to call someone a liar while spouting half-truths of your own. Mr. Johnson could be completely accurate in the rest of his evaluation but he had the opportunity to enlighten the crowd honestly about the state of social security and instead stuck his fingers in his ears and blew some figurative raspberries at the people who think that there are problems that ought to be addressed. Damaging his own credibility isn't very helpful to the other points. Take the stimulus; maybe it helped, maybe it didn't, I don't know. I do know there is enough (mis)information floating around on both sides of the issue (everything from Obama's part in the stimulus makes him the King Savior of the all World to that useless tripe faux news spouts about the bill itself consuming babies for breakfast) that you can find a source to credit to support any position you'd like. If I think he's more interested in towing a partly line with half-truths, because it looks like that's what he's doing with something I do know a bit about, it makes me less inclined to take him seriously about the stimulus. But hey, the point of the thread and the OP was to evaluate all the claims, feel free to show me how much the stimulus helped, I'm honestly very interested to know. |
Quote:
|
the information in 6 of the 7 point seems ok intuitively.
you think that the other point is perhaps overstated. so the problem is some imaginary character defect in the author. how quaint. conservative argumentation. it makes me laugh. |
Radd McCool - To counter whose framing? Dave Johnson wrote every word of that article.
rb - Article title is "8 false things..." You seem to concede that 25% of the items he listed aren't necessarily false...in a list of eight. The author couldn't be precise on eight things in an article rooted in the premise of bringing the truth? I'll brush off the jabs since your argument has been no better. |
cimmaron, it's an impressionistic editorial piece taken from a blog.
if we're going to talk about a text, keeping the genre straight is kinda important. unless we want to encourage meaningless critiques. which a prerogative, i suppose. i'd enjoy it in the way i like putting tacks into my hand. the question isn't whether the counters are true, really: it's more whether the assessment is accurate of the conservative misinformation points that have crept out of the space of conservative misinformation and are confused with "facts"---i've heard people say most of these things. have you? that seems to me about as far as one can go with this. if you want to have a social security conversation, we could do it, but it'd require actual data rather than just the sort of infotainment that one could get sitting around in a publick house except without the beverages. but what's the point of sitting around a publick house if there aren't beverages to be had? by which i mean that there is maybe an interesting other discussion about this to be had, because basic data and basic interpretations diverge quite considerably about social security and its sustainability. these divergences typically come down to restatements of premises. that's why this sort of "discussion" here is tedious--there's no pressure to demonstrate the premises so no pressure to expose why you interpret the information you have as you do---because there's no information. it's like that, in my humble opinion. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
:yawn: |
How is "Ponzi scheme" a conservative framing? It's named after Charles Ponzi, the guy who took investors' money and used it to pay off previous investors. Will not social security use the money of current investors to pay off previous investors? Yes. Did SS know that the amount being taken from investors was not adequate based on their expected retirement draw to properly finance the plan - and that they would have to use other people's money to make good on their promise? Yes. Does the perpetrator of the plan benefit from its creation. Yes. If we can use cognitive framing of corporate personhood on one argument it's perfectly fair to have government personhood to explain the motivation (acquiring power) in creating entitlement programs.
I see you are uncomfortable that the venerated entitlement program parallels a popular fraud, but it is the very definition, not a cognitive framing. |
There is a superficial analogy between pyramid or Ponzi schemes and pay-as-you-go insurance programs in that in both money from later participants goes to pay the benefits of earlier participants. But that is where the similarity ends. A pay-as-you-go system can be visualized as a simple pipeline, with money from current contributors coming in the front end and money to current beneficiaries paid out the back end. As long as the amount of money coming in the front end of the pipe maintains a rough balance with the money paid out, the system can continue forever. There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system, and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. |
Quote:
Sure, the government can fix this by either confiscating more taxpayer money or reducing payouts, but right now it fits the model of a Ponzi scheme. |
"These are not the droids you are looking for." - The Social Security Administration
Hasn't the average Federal salary risen to about 163% of the average private sector salary? You must have to pay big to find people smart enough to manage a program that will only pay me 74% of what they said they would. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm having trouble thinking through why you think comparing it to a PONZI scheme is relevant to anything but I more or less concluded it's an emotional thing. Why do you think it's bears mentioning? |
Quote:
Second, a Ponzi scheme requires a ever-increasing investor pool, since previous investors are paid out more than what they put in to get the 'incredible' returns on investment. Social security does not require an increasing pool of workers, but, in it's current form, can only support a limited contraction of the labor pool. So, if the SSA projections are accurate, in about 25 years, if nothing is done to change the SS system, the trust fund will start to run out of money. Ok, fine, something should be done about that. But it isn't the emergency or proof of the failure of social security that conservatives like to pretend it is. If conservatives would make honest arguments against things like this, I'd have a lot more respect for them and conservatism as a movement. It's fine to say "I don't think the government should force people to save for their retirement." Fine. Talk about that. Not this ponzi scheme BS or faux concern over the long term solvency of SS. ---------- Post added at 10:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:16 PM ---------- Quote:
No? You are getting your facts from liars. Here's an article that debunks this lie pretty well: Correcting Myths About Federal Pay |
SS Maybe not be a true Ponzi Scheme but it certainly has elements that are similar so I can understand conservatives making that comparison. The part I don't get it is it's trouble and needs to be fixed. The only thing I hear coming from the right is "get rid of it" and "privatize it." SS has helped a lot of people over the years. A lot of low income folks and disabled folks would have nothing without it. I certainly favor fixing it over getting rid of it.
|
personally i think alot of the conservative whining about social security is about protecting military spending by directing attention away from it. but its that sector which eats the largest proportion of any other....to make of social security etc something larger, conservatives have to add things together. and so far as i am concerned, no conservative who talks about deficits as a problem and doesn't talk about slashing military spending is worth taking seriously.
|
I'll say it again for at least the fifth time on here: Military spending should be cut dramatically. We should only enter conflict if we declare war on a nation. Having said that, all international aid should be cut until we are debt free as a nation. Even then, the federal government should not be giving money to foreign lands as aid, that's what charity is for and Americans are the most charitable people in the world.
...and no, Radd McCool, it should not be fixed. It should be phased out. Put on your big boy pants, save your 3.5% yourself in a Roth IRA and retire a millionaire....and for the record, until this thread, I have never called SS a Ponzi Scheme. I believe its existence to be outside of the responsibilities of the Federal government. I believe it is a program which denies Americans the opportunity to grow wealth, so that the government can maintain control over an element of their lives. I believe it is a wedge issue which politicians balloon to maintain or exchange control of the government. |
and that, cimmaron, is entirely fantastical insofar as "foreign aid" is concerned.
you cannot possibly understand the first thing about what they call "globalizing capitalism" and how it operates and maintain that position as anything more than a pipe dream. and understanding that as "charity" simply compounds the error. but there's always time for a moment of self-congratulations. it's amazing how wonderful every last american is. no wonder everyone everywhere loves us so much. only bad people think bad things about the united states. for example, i am quite sure that pinochet in chile was just misunderstood. but the military--absolutely it can be cut and cut very substantially. |
Quote:
|
If 3.5% is 10 bucks, then no - you will not be a millionaire.
Find me any 40 year period in the market, and you take your contributions and the annual return. I think you will find your coming out just fine. Here's a quick one: 3.5% of $50K salary is $1750. Divided in months is $145.83/month Put into the market at a 10% rate of return will give you $929K in 40 years. Since any good advisor says you need to keep back 15% for retirement, you can see how it goes... For the love of God, don't come back with "Well, that's a $50K salary!" You can go find an investment calculator, put in your salary, and calculate whatever you want. The point is, it isn't that hard to earn wealth through investments - unless you are "investing" in the SS program. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
No, I'm not dropping the framing, because I didn't create the framing - Dan Johnson did.
Good for you, trying to get to 10%. Just imagine if the government gave you your 3.5% back from their shit-ass program, how easy it would be for you to get there. I point out that I never called it a Ponzi scheme since you "frame" it as generally a "conservative tactic". Or, did you use framing? It's hard to say. I mean, am I defending the Ponzi scheme analogy or whether it's only conservatives who say it. I'm just so confused - all this framing and such. You can embed 1,000,000 graphs and it won't make a difference. People spend their money on their unlimited texting, their 250 channel TV contract, their over-priced brand new "identity" car, etc. long before they worry about eating dogfood in their 80's. I'm not playing the game of "Source???", so you can ignore me if you think I'm being deceitful. Utility is not greater than Ideology. You lack character if you sacrifice your core values. Sorry. I didn't call it a Ponzi scheme, Dan Johnson did. I'm not going to argue with you over the strings attached to government entitlement programs. You are a fool if you deny them. I'm not going to argue with you over foreign aid. I'm breaking my rule of getting dragged too deep into these political threads. I apologize for leaving when you are on a roll, but I've determined it is a waste of time. Do what you want, vote for who you think is best, good luck to you. |
Quote:
|
Not at all. As those who have been here a while can attest, I have been less and less involved in the politics section of the board. Primarily, because it is truly a waste of time. There's no chance "you" will pull the lever "my" way, or vice versa. I suppose one could argue that our words might end up influencing others, thus making it worthwhile - but there's no guarantee there either. I'm not perfect and have clearly fallen back into the trap in this thread.
If you hang out here and find it fruitful to debate with Ace, knock yourself out. Roach and Baraka have got your back. I like all three of them and enjoy watching the fireworks, as I'll enjoy your contributions. But as for my industry, my energies are better spent "fixing my own house", that's all. |
Quote:
Besides which, I get to pass on any 401K balance as an inheritance, which I don't get to do with Social Security. It's not the government's job to save me from myself. It's not your responsibility to provide me food and shelter and it's not my responsibility to provide you with food or shelter. ---------- Post added at 05:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:10 PM ---------- Quote:
Also, identify military programs which are redundant without good reason and merge them. |
I know your position. You've got yours and screw everyone who doesn't. I disagree with that thinking.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
No system is perfect. In the current system, if I die a year after starting retirement, the money I paid into my retirement fund is lost. How is the government confiscating approximately 12% of my income fair? |
Quote:
"Let them starve." is a perfectly reasonable answer. If I agreed with your view of government, that's the one I'd give. If it isn't the governments responsibility, then that's all there is to it. They can rely on private charity, family, or simply starve (or die of exposure to the elements). Quote:
This one is a regressive tax on income from labor, and part of the deal is that, instead of using it for something nice and useful, like killing foreigners, the government will give some of this money back when you're ready to retire (yes, assuming you live that long). If you're lucky and/or wise enough to have put away enough money for your own retirement, the SS money will just be a nice extra. If not, it should give you enough to survive on. If you ever make enough money to be truly rich, the social security tax will drop to a very small portion of your total tax burden...the SS tax is capped at something like $100k, and most wealthy people derive a fairly large percentage of their income from investments anyway, and that income isn't taxed under SS. Incidentally, one of the many ways to fix the 'about to collapse' social security system would be to raise that cap a bit. |
Quote:
|
that's assuming that everyone who is poor/in a bad financial situation is in that situation because of a lack of personal responsibility. that's an awfully big (and often false) assumption
|
The issue about the privatization of social security that most people ignore is that to privatize it would mean that the money that is being paid into social security would be diverted to the private sector. Which would mean that people currently receiving social security would either have to have their benefits eliminated or the government would have to run a much larger deficit in the mean time.
Finally, the actual redistribution that the American federal government does is very modest by most standards. Which makes the whole "I don't want mah money going to them poor folk" a bit ridiculous (as it comes from people who have certainly used public schools, public roads, the massive government subsidy called "mortgage interest deduction" on the federal taxes, federally protected bank accounts and federally subsidized students loans, things that the poor have limited or no access to). |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project