Since When Is A Comparison To Fred Thompson A GOOD Thing

12:51 am EST April 16th, 2008 | Republicans | 9 Comments

In John McCain’s Bush 2.0 tax plan he rolled out Tuesday, former Fred Thompson staffer Sean Hackbarth sees echoes of old mint julep himself. Considering the way Thompson shuffled and ambled two inches in the campaign before falling flat on his face, how is this a good thing?

Of course, these are the guys who seriously think privatizing social security is a good thing. Yes, put our senior’s future in the next Bear Sterns or Enron. Brilliant! Go with that.

Topic: , ,

Related Posts

«
»

9 Responses to “Since When Is A Comparison To Fred Thompson A GOOD Thing”

  1. Haplo9 says:
    April 16, 2008 at 2:34 am

    >Of course, these are the guys who seriously think privatizing social security is a good thing. Yes, put our senior’s future in the next Bear Sterns or Enron. Brilliant! Go with that.

    So you don’t see any problem, none at all, with financing peoples retirement by taking money from those who happen to be earning income at the moment? I wouldn’t try to claim that privatizing social security is a slam dunk all around good thing, but at least then it would be based on real assets, rather than the not yet earned income of future generations.

    Oh wait my bad. This is the usual Oliver Willis purposefully-simplistic-to-make-the-other-side-look-bad description of something. Why did I bother!

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    April 16, 2008 at 3:05 am

    So you don’t see any problem, none at all, with financing peoples retirement by taking money from those who happen to be earning income at the moment?
    No, I don’t have a problem with the most successful social investment system our government has devised. Social security has made America stronger and plowing those funds into the market is a recipe for disaster.

  3. Winghunter says:
    April 16, 2008 at 7:08 am

    I don’t have a problem with the most successful social investment system our government has devised. Social security has made America stronger and plowing those funds into the market is a recipe for disaster.

    What about the certain disaster of bankruptcy Oli??

    Would the understudy of Marx prefer to allow the children of the next several generations to pay for it or shall we just seize most of everyone’s income and dole it out as the rightful parent in government sees fit?? OR perhaps, we could just throw the word “change” at it until it fixes itself??…why do we always complicate things, right??

    Don’t worry Oli, fretting over the favorite confidence-based political tool of snivelers to whine when they wish that the sky of our economy is falling just to gain political power will still be available to those who have no principles or conscience…I know you feel comforted realizing that.

    “Save and Protect Social Security. The goal of reforming Social Security should be to preserve and strengthen the program for future generations of Americans and guarantee that the current level of benefits is fully protected for inflation. Most importantly, reforms should completely eliminate the estimated $4.7 trillion unfunded Social Security liability over the 75-year actuarial planning horizon and leave Social Security on a fiscally sustainable basis. These goals can be accomplished by:

    Providing Voluntary Personal Retirement “Add-On” Accounts to Supplement Benefits. These accounts would act like a private-sector employer 401 (k) plan and provide government matching funds for every contribution made by the participant.

    Indexing the Social Security Benefit Formula for Prices, Not Wages. This action would go a long way toward resolving the impending bankruptcy of Social Security while ensuring fairness by making sure future retirees receive the same amount as current retirees in real terms.” – Fred Thompson

  4. Haplo9 says:
    April 16, 2008 at 10:25 am

    How exactly is it an “investment” system? That seems a very.. inventive way to describe it. You are unconcerned, then, with its future liabilities?

  5. Duros62 says:
    April 16, 2008 at 10:33 am

    So you don’t see any problem, none at all, with financing peoples retirement by taking money from those who happen to be earning income at the moment?

    That’s why it’s called Social Security, asshat.

  6. Duros62 says:
    April 16, 2008 at 10:36 am

    You are unconcerned, then, with its future liabilities?

    Such as, Carnac the Great?

  7. Oliver Willis says:
    April 16, 2008 at 10:38 am

    It’s an investment in our senior’s well-being. That’s why it was first created, that’s why it remains far and away the most popular program we’ve got going. The system is not headed towards collapse or DOOOOM. It needs some tweaking (I think we should raise the caps) but dumping our national pension fund into Wall Street’s pockets is not the answer.

    That is one leg of the Obama plan:

    Obama believes that the first place to look for ways to strengthen Social Security is the payroll tax system. Currently, the Social Security payroll tax applies to only the first $97,500 a worker makes. Obama supports increasing the maximum amount of earnings covered by Social Security and he will work with Congress and the American people to choose a payroll tax reform package that will keep Social Security solvent for at least the next half century.

  8. Duros62 says:
    April 16, 2008 at 10:44 am

    Would the understudy of Marx prefer to allow the children of the next several generations to pay for it

    I’m sorry, who?

  9. Duros62 says:
    April 16, 2008 at 12:01 pm

    Wait a second..

    The Spirit of Fred Thompson Lives in John McCain
    by Sean Hackbarth

    Did Fred pass away? How would we know?