October 24, 2002

11:26 PM

Since many of you most likely don't travel often to the Republican National Committee's Website, I thought I would share this with you... [More Inside]
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood (33 comments total)

You may remember the Democrat's Flash ad (previously discussed here, though I can't find where...) with Bush pushing 'Grandma' in her wheelchair, off a cliff... Well the GOP has answered back...

Many of you know my politics, but even I can't help from cracking up...

I can only hope this starts a war of smart ass & funny Flash add from both sides... politics we can all enjoy!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:27 PM on October 24, 2002

It's a sad day when you realize how much newgrounds.com has influenced culture.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:34 PM on October 24, 2002

Good lord. that was a little too much sensory input at this hour of the evening. Who thinks of this stuff and who thinks that it's an effective tool of persuasion?

...well, besides the RNC that is...
posted by udeups at 11:35 PM on October 24, 2002

Steve,

We disagree on so much, but I find myself in total agreement with your assessment in this case - that is some of the funniest shit I've seen in a long time. Thanks for the tip!
posted by edlark at 11:36 PM on October 24, 2002

I wonder if the RNC acquired legal licensing of the Superman theme? Somebody should alert the government of this piracy!
posted by quadog at 11:57 PM on October 24, 2002

or at least Christopher Reeves!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:00 AM on October 25, 2002

I wish Bush was catching Christopher Reeves in that cartoon. It would have been more relevant.
posted by quadog at 12:04 AM on October 25, 2002

The Bush Plan to Save Social Security: No government investment in the stock market!

Wasn't the original plan the exact opposite?
posted by Ljubljana at 12:06 AM on October 25, 2002

Great link, Steve-at_Linnwood - finally, politics we can all enjoy :-)
posted by dg at 12:15 AM on October 25, 2002

Bush dropped Christopher Reeve already.
posted by condour75 at 12:18 AM on October 25, 2002

Ljubljana, as I remember it: yes, that was the Bush plan.

Unless someone can refute this - my memory may be faulty, and I don't have the time to check it out at the moment - it stands as a really ugly untruth.
posted by adamgreenfield at 2:07 AM on October 25, 2002

Poor Grandma, why did she explode? (democrat flash link)

Very nice.
posted by hama7 at 3:13 AM on October 25, 2002

Who picked mauve as the most appropriate color for GWB's super skivvies? It reminds me of someone else who's been discussed here some time ago.
posted by ursus_comiter at 4:30 AM on October 25, 2002

John Williams composed the Superman theme.

My favorite part of this content-less joke is "voluntary accounts." That equals "nothing in the bank." If voluntary accounts worked, everybody would save diligently and plan for the long-term, and the Social Security system would go un-needed. Doesn't work that way, does it?
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:33 AM on October 25, 2002

I'm apologize in advance for linking to the flash ad of the Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate from Ohio, Tim Hagan. You see, his opponent, Bob Taft, is a liar. And he's a duck....
A duck named Taftquack.
posted by putzface_dickman at 4:41 AM on October 25, 2002

Mo -

For those who plan and save for retirement, Social Security contributes little to their standard of living. Do you plan on relying on Social Security to support your retirement? I hope you're over 45, your retirement plans are fairly simple and you don't mind working into your 70's. Frankly, I don't expect to receive any Social Security when I retire, and I resent the money I pay into the fictitious "trust fund" every paycheck. While I would prefer to simply have the money to manage as I see fit, the Republican plan to allow taxpayers to place their money in certain Goverment approved mutual funds at least gives me an element of control over my money, instead of giving members of congress another pot of money with which to fund their pet pork projects.

What really gets my goat is that most of the people who oppose any reform of Social Security are people in or near retirement - people who wouldn't be impacted. The DNC add, while funny, is misleading at best. Personally, I consider it a blatant distortion; an outright lie ,which preys on the fears of people who didn't have a choice when planning their retirement.

Take a portion of my paycheck to keep Social Security solvent, because we owe it to the people who have paid into Social Security throughout their working lives, but call it by its real name, a tax, and give me the balance to manage as I see fit. Unless someone can provide some reasonable assurance Social Security will be there for me when I become eligible in 40 years, shouldn't I be able to make that choice?
posted by chazw at 6:28 AM on October 25, 2002

Darn. I was gonna post that then thought better of it.
It WAS hilarious, wasn't it?

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Social Security Trust Fund simply a matter of bookkeeping-in other words the money supposedly in it is actually being used elsewhere? Seems I heard that somewhere...
posted by konolia at 7:04 AM on October 25, 2002

I'm amazed that out of 19 screens with text messages in that flash-o-ganda, there was only *one* complete sentence.

Sentence fragments!
Saving the day!
Look!
Over there!
Not here!
posted by kfury at 7:28 AM on October 25, 2002

Okay, that was pretty funny.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 9:43 AM on October 25, 2002

I thought the Dems were funnier, with the Bush voice and all. There's not a single joke in the Rep ad that I can see, except Bush as Superman. Whoo-hoo, what a knee-slapper. And I *like* what I've read about voluntary social security investment accounts.

I think the way it works, Mo Nickels, is that you have to give the government the same amount of money, but you can choose to set some of it aside for investment if you like. Since I don't believe I'll be getting any return before I'm 85 or so, if then, I'd prefer to take my chances on my brother's investment advice instead.
posted by mediareport at 10:14 AM on October 25, 2002

Take a portion of my paycheck to keep Social Security solvent, because we owe it to the people who have paid into Social Security throughout their working lives, but call it by its real name, a tax, and give me the balance to manage as I see fit.

Uh...You think that the tax required to keep social security going is going to be less than your current payroll deduction? I'm pretty sure that the "balance to manage as you see fit" will turn out to be a negative number. And yeah, that's just to guarantee benefits for people who've been paying in for their entire working lives already. Social Security doesn't have enough money in the bank, and if people stop paying in, it'll dry up for current benefit recipients; the amount workers pay will have to increase just to take care of retiring baby boomers--forget about building up the trust fund for retirees 20-30 years down the line.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:19 AM on October 25, 2002

Decent explanation of Social Security Trust Fund. In a word, it's money in the general fund ... and future general funds ... that is "owed" to the Social Security program. The government is treating social security like a 401(k) that you can borrow against, paying interest to yourself, through a T-bond mechanism. It's neither as secure as an actual untouchable trust fund or endowment -- nor is it as uncontrolled as moving money from a savings account to checking, which is sometimes the way it's caricatured. This is also a policy which has bipartisan support; the only differences are in details and degrees.
posted by dhartung at 10:19 AM on October 25, 2002

He said "No new taxes", but he didn't say "Read my lips".
posted by teo at 10:42 AM on October 25, 2002

The Social Security system has been one of the great success stories of government intervention. It has all but ended poverty in the older segment of the population. But the reason that it has worked so well is precisely because it is a "hands off" entitlement, unlike a 401k or IRA. Funneling money from payroll accounts to stock investment is more about an attempt to prop up the stock market than about making the best financial decision for current and future retirees.

If the parties were really concerned about preserving and improving the current SS system they would be advocating for an honest separation of payroll tax monies from the general fund - no more borrowing to balance budgets and pay for military expenditures. Instead, a positive reform would be to modify the system so that surpluses are held in endowment. Such a modification would provide a hard-currency cushion to make up eventual shortfalls during economic downturns and holds at least the potential for a future retirement or reduction of the payroll tax itself due to feedback from the endowment's proceeds.

Also the payroll tax cut off should be raised substantially and all Social Security tax paid should be 100% deductible on your income tax.
posted by edlark at 12:11 PM on October 25, 2002

Yep. The DNC one was funnier. Also, the RNC spammed me.
posted by Songdog at 12:23 PM on October 25, 2002

i have to admit i was hopeing that dick would be there so we could see the ambigously gay duo in action. Still pretty funny from some rich old crusty white men.
posted by NGnerd at 1:10 PM on October 25, 2002

I don't remember Bush ever proposing to put all of SS in the stock market. He only proposed to take 2% and put it in a retirement account of your choice if you wanted to. The current return rate of SS is what 2%? So taking that 2% out is only taking out what you would of gotten on the shitty return of SS, correct? I know plenty of places I could put that 2% and get a higher return rate than SS could. The Dems don't like it at all becuase it threatens there ability to control your money. Now the Dems are lying out their teeth saying Bush wants to put "ALL" of SS in the stock market. Democrats can fool their fellow lefties with this lie, but he isn't fooling me. SS is the biggest sham. Talk about Enron economics.
posted by ZupanGOD at 2:21 PM on October 25, 2002

The Social Security system has been one of the great success stories of government intervention. It has all but ended poverty in the older segment of the population. But the reason that it has worked so well is precisely because it is a "hands off" entitlement, unlike a 401k or IRA. Funneling money from payroll accounts to stock investment is more about an attempt to prop up the stock market than about making the best financial decision for current and future retirees.

I emphatically disagree. While SocSec may have filled a niche at it's inseption and for many years after, I feel that every dollar of my paycheck that goes to SocSec is a small piece of my future that has been stolen from me. My 401k has continuously outperformed SocSec and am much more confident in it than ANYTHING that the governement has it's hands that deeply in. 401k's and IRA do NOT have to be stock invested, that is the choice of the investor (mine currently is in government securities) - so your argument that it is an attempt at proping up the stock market is a bit specious. Anyone who invests money in the stock market and expects a guaranteed return is a lunatic - but placing it in a well managed fund for an extended period of time? SocSec can't even begin to compete...
posted by RevGreg at 2:39 PM on October 25, 2002

So now Bush is taking Gore's wardrobe?

Holy Doughnuts, Batman!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 3:18 PM on October 25, 2002

Saving Social Security? Perhaps the administration's plans will save Social Security, that's certainly open for debate- but these propagandizing fuckers won't even admit they were saying "privatize" Social Security two years ago, when it was less out-of-style than today. Sickening.

ZupanGod: I don't remember Bush ever proposing to put all of SS in the stock market. He only proposed to take 2% and put it in a retirement account of your choice if you wanted to

Wait, that's wrong, you are woefully uninformed. Bush & Co. want you to think he proposed a mere 2% diverting of funds, but he actually proposed 2 percentage points- not 2%. Sound like splitting semantic hairs? Hardly. The difference being that I and my employer pay about 12.4% of my income to SS, which is ~12 percentage points. Taking 2 percentage points- as opposed to 2 percent- of the SS revenue would be 1/6, or nearly 16%, of the total revenue, which while not "all" of social security is a damn large chunk of it. Chrissakes, you really suck at math... something that doesn't bode well for your retirement plans.

RevGreg: I emphatically disagree. While SocSec may have filled a niche at it's in[c]eption and for many years after, I feel that every dollar of my paycheck that goes to SocSec is a small piece of my future that has been stolen from me. My 401k has continuously outperformed SocSec and am much more confident in it than ANYTHING that the governement has it's hands that deeply in

It's not a freakin' retirement account, you damned imbecile! For example, when a parent dies in an accident, the remaining spouse and kids get help from social security- something Josh Marshall has talked eloquently about, a quick read which I urge you to take a look at. If you think about it, this scenario offers a "rate of return" that dwarfs even the best hedge fund out there- a rate of return that means your "investment" is a little less. But this isn't about computation or investments or 401ks- it's the well-worth-it price you pay for the social compact that is social security. If you want a retirement account, invest in one. If you want to participate in a compassionate society that takes care of its own, stop whining about Social Security's less- than- Netscape- IPO-like return of value.

If you would prefer instead to be self-centered and uncaring, "Reverend", I suggest you move to a place like Chile- I hear they had a great time privatizing their social security system.
posted by hincandenza at 7:01 PM on October 25, 2002

It's not a freakin' retirement account, you damned imbecile!

My parents collect money from SocSec for retiring exactly why then? As for the article you cited, I also maintain my own life insurance which outperforms SocSec and would pay out much more than SocSec would if I were killed. As far as disability is concerned, I am also charged separately on every check I get for short and long term disability and I carry additional insurance through a separate carrier - all of which are much better investments with much better return for my money than SocSec. Let me clarify that I make less than $30,000/year also so I am not working from a position of great wealth.

Yet, no matter how you look at it, SocSec is a horrible return for money invested period. Maybe some people make out well, and I have no problem with a safety net for them, but SocSec underperforms even government securities...and somehow that seems a bit strange. In the end, is it worth nearly 7% of my income compared to less than 4% of my income covering all but retirement with MUCH larger coverage? Not a chance!
posted by RevGreg at 3:48 PM on October 26, 2002

It's not merely 7% of your income. Your employer puts in another 7%. If they didn't have to do that, that money would be yours. So Social Security is really even worse than it seems on the basis of return on investment.
posted by kindall at 4:44 PM on October 26, 2002

Thanks for that link to Marshall's analysis, hincandenza. My mother died when I was very young, too (much younger than Marshall was, fwiw), and my father got SS checks to help raise me and my brother for a long time. I even got a few bucks out of it during my first year in college, since my 18th birthday was in October.

But while I agree with Marshall's point about the ethical decision to provide a social compact, I find myself wondering what percentage of SS money actually goes to widows/widowers/survivors like him and I. Absent that, I'm not yet convinced that the rate-of-return analogy - the notion that SS is ineptly managed and can't match the rate of return of the market - is necessarily "dishonest." In other words, we need to see more numbers here. Marshall hasn't yet proved anything.
posted by mediareport at 7:05 PM on October 26, 2002