The Other White Meat
Posted July 7th, 2008 by Da King
Above is a photo of Flipper, who somehow seemed appropriate for this post. Hi Flipper !
It has recently been brought to my attention that there is another fellow running for president, one whose name is NOT Barack Obama. Has anyone else heard about this ? I heard it mentioned on FoxNews the other day, in between the Obama stories and Obama speeches. His name is John McCain, and he's a Republican, in the mold of Democrat turned Independent, Joe Lieberman. I hear this McCain guy might even have purchased Alan Greenspan's book to learn about the economy, so you know he's a serious candidate. Obama bought Karl Marx's book to learn about the economy. That reminds me, don't forget to buy your tickets for Obamapalooza ! They're selling out fast ! I thought it might be a good idea to check McCain's record, since he could become president if Obama decides to move to Tibet and become a monk prior to november 4th, 2008.
John McCain has over two decades of military experience, over two decades of Congressional experience, and ran for president in 2000 (this is what former general Wesley Clark, an Obama supporter, refers to as "untested and untried", and with a straight face too ! Must be Clark's counterintelligence training).
McCain has a reputation for being a "maverick", which means he often stands against his own party on issues. This garnered much pseudo-love for Johnny Mac from the media throughout his career, but at some point McCain realized he'd have to get Republicans to vote for him if he wanted to become the Republican nominee (who says McCain's not too bright ?), so the maverick started jumping back and forth over a lot of fences to make himself appear more conservative base-friendly. He catered to some evangelicals he formerly disliked, and he decided those Bush tax cuts weren't so bad after all. He referred to himself as a "Reagan footsoldier" a lot during the primaries, and voila, it worked. McCain defeated Huckleberry and the Mormon (the guy the GOP SHOULD have picked as their nominee, who would have beaten Obama), and became the Republican nominee (note - To whom it may concern, Rudy Giuliani's presidential campaign is STILL missing. The search has been called off, though Rudy's picture is still on many milk cartons).
In any case, the Republicans are stuck with McCain now, so let's examine his flip-flops on the issues. Tracking McCain's flip-flops is no easy task, since most lists of them are contained on far left websites, and are thus wildly inaccurate. The far left websites are some of the biggest liars on the planet. One of the best website lists of McCain flip-flops is a sweet and rabidly "objective" little site called How Insane Is John McCain ? This site is about half right and half lies, and is also a perfect example of liberal compassion, tolerance, and diversity. It's premise, obviously, is that McCain is mentally unstable. That reminds me, the media wants me to tell you that the Republican attack machine is racist and will smear Barack Obama, so get your tickets to Obamapalooza NOW ! Children under 12 are indoctrinated for free.
Without further ado, here are some of J-Mac's more "nuanced" positions:
Tax cuts flip-flop -
McCain's most famous flip-flop. He was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for them. Now he wants to make them permanent, and is even proposing more tax cuts if he becomes president. Back in 2001, McCain said, "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief."
Hopefully, McCain learned something about economics since 2001, but I doubt it. High taxes are very bad for our country. I call this a flip-flop in the right direction, even if it's for the wrong reasons. Liberals, who have never heard of the principle of scarcity, which underlies all economic theory, disagree. They want to send as much money as possible to Washington D.C. Somehow, they call this "fairness".
===
Social Security privatization flip-flop -
"I’m not for, quote, privatizing Social Security. I never have been. I never will be” - John McCain, June 2008.
“Without privatization, I don’t see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits” - John McCain, November 2004
“As part of Social Security reform, I believe that private savings accounts are a part of it - along the lines that President Bush proposed” - John McCain, March 2003
This is undoubtedly a flip-flop, right ? Nope. It sounds like one, but it isn't. You must remember, Bush's Social Security plan was NOT a plan to privatize Social Security. It only contained a provision for a SMALL PART of SS funds to be placed into private accounts. Therefore, McCain could support Bush's plan for private accounts, as he did, and still be against a total privatization of Social Security, as he is. Subtract one flip-flop.
===
Abortion flip-flop -
“In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade…[overturning Roe would force] women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” - John McCain, 1999.
McCain in 2006, during an interview with George Stephanopolous:
STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask one question about abortion…You’re for a constitutional amendment banning abortion, with some exceptions for life and rape and incest.
MCCAIN: Rape, incest and the life of the mother. Yes.
We'll call this the flip-flop for the evangelical vote that I mentioned earlier.
===
McCain flip-flopped on offshore oil drilling once gas reached $4 per gallon. Good ! Now if he'd only flip on ANWR. I guess that won't happen until gas hits $5 per gallon.
===
And if anyone can tell me what McCain thinks about immigration, please let me know. I can't figure it out. He came out with a plan, then was against his own plan, and now he's saying he's for it again. The Straight Talk Express has me straight confused on this one. I'll call this one a double reverse flip-flop with a half twist ending in a belly flop. I don't even want to hear what McCain has to say on the immigration issue anymore.
===
Ethanol flip-flop -
"Ethanol is a product that would not exist if Congress didn't create an artificial market for it. No one would be willing to buy it. Yet thanks to agricultural subsidies and ethanol producer subsidies, it is now a very big business - tens of billions of dollars that have enriched a handful of corporate interests - primarily one big corporation, ADM. Ethanol does nothing to reduce fuel consumption, nothing to increase our energy independence, nothing to improve air quality." - John McCain on CNN in 2003.
"I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects" - John McCain, 2006.
Johnny must have watched Al Gore's movie.
===
The left-wing websites characterize many other McCain positions as flip-flops that really aren't. These include the estate tax, the 100 years in Iraq comment, FISA, and others. I have purposely left those off the list. In conclusion, let's just say that John McCain doesn't have much room to talk about Obama's many flip-flops. During the GOP primaries, the media made much of Mitt Romney's flip-flops, but they zipped their lips about McCain, who has as many if not more than Romney ever did. Now that Johnny Mac has the GOP nomination, the media suddenly discovered that John McCain has flip-flopped on about every position he ever held. Funny how that works, isn't it ? All the news that fits the agenda.
July 7th, 2008 at 11:52 am
On Social Security, I like the John McCain of 2003/2004 better than the 2008 McCain.
July 7th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I would just point out that Bush and Rove first suggested Mr. McCain was mentally unstable in 2000. In either case, use of such unfounded untruth is not only not relevant at this point in the campaign, but the tactics of a coward. I don't care for McCain, but the fact that the rumor still exists and that Ds are using it disgusts me as much now as it did in 2000. Excellent post King and we on the left appreciate your equal opportunity on the flip flop issues.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:34 am
Ben,
At this point, I think I'd be happy if the government did anything with Social Security other than what they are doing now - using it as an undeclared income tax, paid for with IOU's. SS is the poster boy for financial insanity.
July 8th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
So would I.
I never understood the vitriol against private accounts. Optional private accounts.
July 8th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Ben, that vitriol was nothing but Democrats saying that they weren't about to allow any tinkering with SS that they didn't do. They have only two "babies" that belong to them, SS and Roe v. Wade and they aren't about to allow those Republicans make any changes in their babies.
I never found any young people who didn't agree with the base beliefs of privatizing some of their SS money. Of course, I only spoke to Republican young people about that
July 9th, 2008 at 9:53 am
If Americans have private SS accounts, that is money the Dems can't get their grubby mitts on to invest ("invest" is Dem Orwellian Newspeak for "spend"). They don't like that, not one bit.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
The SS surpluses have been "invested" in Treasury bonds, the most conservative vehicle available. The reason for rejecting optional accounts is the same reason for not letting people opt out of taxes going to police or fire protection. It would financially undermine the system. The only danger of SS going broke is if the US government defaults. If that happens, then it will be part of a financial catastrophe and the end of the US as we know it.
July 10th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Mr. King,
Thank God the Republicans never hid their deficits this way.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:11 am
frank,
What choice have the Republicans ever had ? The Dems won't let them touch SS. The GOP couldn't even get enough votes to reform it with Bush AND a GOP majority Congress. Bush did try and the Dems immediately vilifed Bush. It was an all out assault. The lies were deafening. I have never in my life heard even one Democrat speak honestly about SS. Never.
Also, the GOP has put forth resolutions to stop spending the excess SS funds (more than once), and the Dems unanimously voted it down.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:17 am
also frank, about those bonds - the government immediately spends the excess SS funds (those above payouts to retirees) and then prints an IOU (the bonds) for the money just spent. To buy into that scam, you have to believe that it is possible to spend money and save money at the same time. It isn't.
The bonds are just paper, a claim on some future taxpayer. It's fraud.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
King is claiming that the entire financial credit system of the United States is based on fraud.
Someone better tell China.
July 13th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Mr. King,
The practice of placing surplus SS funds into Treasury bonds has been going since the late 60's. Neither party has attempted to change this. I agree that it is a shabby accounting trick which hides the true size of budget deficits, but where should these funds be placed? If placed in the stock market, it would become a source of corruption as the ruling party would reward a favorite brokerage or company. Can you imagine the fees that that large of an investment would generate? I would much rather have it out of the hands of crooked politicians. While it is true that the surpluses have been spent as have all Treasury bonds, the only danger is if the federal government begins defaulting. If that happens, it's all over for the US.
July 14th, 2008 at 5:53 am
frank,
The GOP DID try to change the practice of spending the SS Trust Fund, as I said before. The last time was a couple years ago.
Any system that DOES attempt to spend the Trust Fund should be illegal. Our current SS system would be a crime if the private sector tried it. All concerned would be in prison. It should be a crime when the government does it as well. There shouldn't even be a debate on this. It's obvious.
I find it highly questionable when people defend the current SS ponzi scam by telling me how a private system couldn't work. That's a smoke screen setup by Dems to defend their SS scam. Private systems are working now all throughout the world. Fees are also a non-issue, another smoke screen created by the Dems. If fees were an issue, people wouldn't invest in the stock market. That obviously isn't the case.
If you took an average wage earner, one who earned about $30,000 per year, that person would retire as a millionaire if he invested his SS money in a stock mutual fund over his lifetime. That investment would outperform SS five times over. Even more conservative investments would easily triple SS. There is no known conservative investment that would actually underperform SS, unless we adopted the "stuff your money in the mattress" programs (actually, even that would be better than SS, because it doesn't attempt to play the shell game of using the same money twice by spending it AND "investing" it in bonds).
When you fellas talk about the US government backing a bond, as if that is the most wonderful thing in the world, what does it really mean ? Heck, the US government is almost $10 trillion in debt. What's trustworthy about them ? All the "full faith and credit of the US government" means is that the government is backed by us, the people, the taxpayers. The government, if need be, can FORCE us to cough up our own money (again) for SS. That's not a selling point for SS, it's a serious drawback.
If I need to explain this more simply to you guys, let's try this - Send me 12% of your income every month for 42 years or so. I'll spend every bit of it and hand you an IOU. After 42 years, if you're still alive, I'll start paying you back as much or as little as I want each month, subject to my ability to pay and my whim. I have total discretion on the payback terms.
If the above sounds like a good investment to you, then you're the ones P.T. Barnum was talking about, no offense intended.
July 14th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Mr. King,
Thanks for the correction. There was a bill to change the accounting trick of counting the revenues without without counting the outlay several years ago. It received little press coverage and I forgot about it.
When you talk about the stock market outperforming SS, you are talking about long term averages. The stock market fluctuates, so an individual's return also fluctuates. Under a privatized system, some would do extremely well, some would even lose. It would depend on when you entered the workforce and when you retire.
Any privatization scheme would involve government in business affairs and would inevitably lead to corruption and distortions in the market. Of all people, conservatives should want to avoid this. For these reasons, I prefer the predictable returns of the present system.
Of course, the problem isn't funding. That problem was fixed in 1982 and that fix was based on very conservative economic projections, such as a 1% growth rate. Funding is more than adequate to address the temporary imbalance of baby boomers receiving benefits vs workers supplying funds.
The SS part of our national debt is a small part of a much larger problem. Our national debt weakens us today and promises to be worse in the future. The only reason we have been able to reach this level of debt is that we are underwriting the rise of our global competitors, mainly China. Unfortunately, neither political party will reduce our military presence nor our role in being the world's policeman. Unless we scale back our activities, and make some serious choices where are money goes, we are heading for doom. "Free trade" and the world's most expensive defense is not the way to go.
July 16th, 2008 at 7:23 am
I agree with you on the overall economic direction we're heading (the wrong direction), but not about SS, nor about free trade.
I'm not suggesting a person be able to gamble their SS retirement money on one company (like Starbucks stock) in the stock market. That would be very irresponsible. I'm suggesting conservative investments, ALL of which are virtually guaranteed to outperform our current SS system over the long haul. I mean, you could put your retirement money into bank CDs and outperform SS by a tremendous margin. Nobody would lose money. Everybody would make money.
I'm also missing how you say a privatized SS system involves the government. It seems quite the opposite to me. The only involvement of the government would be in determining what types of investments are allowed. That would be easily manageable. Even I would trust the government to handle that job, and I don't think they handle much of anything very well.
July 16th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Mr. King,
When a government tells you where you can invest your money, it is definitely getting involved in business. I suppose each party may be equally controlled by Wall St, how is it different than mandating your investment in Treasury bonds?
It is true that the stock market provides greater returns on average over the long run, however, it rises and falls in cycles, and if you are unlucky to come of retirement age during a downturn, you lose. There are very few situations where everyone makes money and nobody loses. Also, compare SS overhead to brokerage fees. SS overhead is much less. Finally, the goal of SS is not individual financial enrichment, but to make retirement possible for the largest number of people. The reason for this is that we are better off as a nation if people do not have suffer the extreme poverty that many would have to endure without SS. Privatizing SS would undermine it financially.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
frank,
Doesn't the government regulate all kinds of business ? Hasn't there been a call for government to regulate business more and more lately, due to the mortgage crisis and other things ? A privatized SS system is far LESS government involvement than what we have with the current SS system, so to object to privatization on the grounds of government involvement is a pretty strange argument to make.
There is no comparison between SS overhead and stock market brokerage fees. SS provides a NEGATIVE return on money (doesn't even keep up with inflation, plus it's a double pay-in fraud), and the stock market provides a POSITIVE return. I'd rather pay a fee to make money than no fee to lose money. That is no argument at all. Far from undermining SS, privatization would make it financially sound for the first time in about 60 years.