Say Anything Blog

For those who don’t grasp the concept of analogy, the Senator was trying to point out the irony of sending someone like Dick Cheney, who wants to rid the nation of SS entirely, to represent the cause for saving it.

Lets practice.  Here are some more examples:
...like having a wolf fighting for the protection of sheep.
...like having Texaco advocate electric cars.
...like having Jesse Jackson speak on behalf of white supremacy.

Get the idea?

Gluskape says:

For those who don’t grasp the concept of analogy, the Senator was trying to point out the irony of sending someone like Dick Cheney, who wants to rid the nation of SS entirely, to represent the cause for saving it.

Naturally you can specify a specific link where Dick Cheney said he wanted to “rid the nation of SS entirely?” Moonbat logic not accepted in this blog so I’d simply like to see a direct quote. 

Rob: Likely the Cheney=Saddam reference is do to the fact that the comparison to Hitler is already taken by GWB.

Like you said, welcome to the Howard Dean world, where the most outrageous accusations about the right are swallowed down as easily as red koolaid.

Gluskape is right, at least as regards the fact that the senator was using an analogy.

If you think he was making a direct comparison between Cheney and Hussein, then logically you would have to assume that, had Corzine compared Cheney’s appearances to Texaco promoting electric cars (to use Gluskape’s example), he was likening Cheney to Texaco.

Which is, of course, totally ridiculous, as ridiculous as believing that me using the phrase ‘like turkeys voting for Christmas’ with regard to somebody bringing about their own downfall implies that I am suggesting they are a turkey.

Analogy or not, comparing someone to a genocidal dictator is not conducive to the type of political discourse that is going to be helpful to this country.

Or maybe its just me being overly-sensitive to this sort of thing, but having been called a Nazi countless times of the last couple of years and seeing those I agree with called Nazis and worse I can tell you that I am more than a little tired of it.

I’ve had enough of the petty insults, especially from those who are supposed to be leading this country.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob -
Note that I did say ‘Gluskape is right, at least as regards the fact that the senator was using an analogy‘ - I was making no comment on the suitability of such an analogy in discourse.

Nevertheless, I wouldn’t go so far as to describe it as an ‘insult’ - rather, perhaps somewhat florid use of language. As Saddam is (or was) a dictator (and therefore clearly the antithesis of democracy), so the Senator was implying that Cheney is the antithesis of social security.

I don’t know whether Cheney is all that bad (you will undoubtedly say no)- but even if he isn’t, I still think ‘colourful’ analogies like this one are excusable.

But then again, I’m used to the tone of debate in our House of Commons - which is rather more vigorous and heated (not to say entertaining), with insults (disguised and overt) being thrown freely.

Privatization will be a huge windfall for Wall Street and financial firms. It will not help your average retiree. It will help the bottom line of brokerage houses and the like to a great degree.

How does allowing people to invest in the stock markets - which go up and down like the tides - make social security any more secure? It does not. It does expose people to new risks, for example if the market should crash, everyone would lose what they essentially will need when they stop working.

I think they’re a little sensitive. Oh - poor us - we can’t force through our bill robbing Social Security. Let’s scare them into compliance - let’s set up a fake retirement rights organization called USA Next and slander the AARP - bad idea.

Now they’re turtling. ‘Stop hitting me!’
Whaaaaaa?

Colin goes into the deep end, “I think they’re a little sensitive. Oh - poor us - we can’t force through our bill robbing Social Security...”

“Robbing Social Security”?  Care to explain that comment?

Colin said, “Your statements show a lack of understanding of how the government funds itself.”

Really?  How?  You didn’t explain in your comment.

Secondly, you’re saying that if the stock markets crash (or if something like what happened to the Internet bubble - bursting) the government is in trouble. Not so, since the government does not invest in the stock market, though it may indirectly influence it thgouh subsidies etc.

Where do you think the government gets it’s money?  Hint: it’s the taxpayers.  Now if the market crashes, who’s also going to hurt in the pocketbook?  Hint: the government will.  Where does Social “Security” money come from?  Hint: the taxpayer’s paycheck.  Now if the market crashes, who’s paycheck will also be hurting?  Hint: the government’s.

Allowing people to invest their social security monies only means that when something bad does happen, the government (thus, the taxpayer) will have to pick up the tab to save the poor starving old people.

Nice sob story.

I’d rather stick with what works, thank you very much.

You think a program that doesn’t make money, that is a pyramid scheme, and that is non-transferable “works”?  Wow!  Taxes keep going up.  But it “works”.  The retirement age creeps up.  But it “works”.  You have a different definition of “what works”.

Your statements show a lack of understanding of how the government funds itself. It does ‘borrow’ from Social Security - to do things like finance the Iraq war - and that is part of the reason behind the so-called ‘crisis’.

Secondly, you’re saying that if the stock markets crash (or if something like what happened to the Internet bubble - bursting) the government is in trouble. Not so, since the government does not invest in the stock market, though it may indirectly influence it thgouh subsidies etc.

Allowing people to invest their social security monies only means that when something bad does happen, the government (thus, the taxpayer) will have to pick up the tab to save the poor starving old people. I’d rather stick with what works, thank you very much.

Colin said, “Privatization will be a huge windfall for Wall Street and financial firms. It will not help your average retiree.”

To which I say BS.  Retirement funds, IRAs, 401K plans, and union benefit programs are all invested in Wall Street right now.

How does allowing people to invest in the stock markets - which go up and down like the tides - make social security any more secure?

The stock market actually makes money whereas the government doesn’t.

It does expose people to new risks, for example if the market should crash, everyone would lose what they essentially will need when they stop working.

Yes.  Freedom carries certain risks.  And if the market should crash - the government is going to be in trouble as well.  Where do you think they get their money?

Finally: I repeat: how is privatization (and this is only partial privatization) “robbing Social Security”?  The only way I could see it as “robbing Social Security” is if one believes that government owns all money to begin with.

I’d never thought of Social Security as being compared to a pyramid scheme, but I guess if you think about it there are some parallels.  The major difference is that in pyramid schemes the people at the top get all the benefits.  With SS its the other way around.

Good comparison, though.

[...] Call attention to problems and seek solutions in order to save a collapsing ponzi scheme called Social Security and you’re likened to Saddam Hussein. Name calling is usually a fall back position when you lack facts and logical arguments. Jon Corzine is certainly bereft of facts and solutions to problems facing the country or New Jersey.In a conference call with reporters Monday, Sen. John Corzine, D-NJ, one of the leading opponents of the president’s plan, said Cheney had “a virtual career of disdain for Social Security,” and compared his appearances to sending Saddam Hussein to campaign for democracy in Iraq."He’s certainly not being sent on the road to convince Democrats, moderates or Baby Boomers,” Corzine said.Hold a different opinion than Jon Corzine and he compares you to a ruthless dictator. Not just any dictator, but Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of the United States who tortured and killed anyone that dared to express a different opinion. How open minded, how statesman like.This little temper tantrum hardly makes Corzine a poster boy for democracy in action. Of course Corzine may have a point – Chaney isn’t trying to convince Democrats, moderates and Baby Boomers about Social Security, the majority already have been convinced. Perhaps this is why the Senator is pouting and acting like a child, he is losing the argument.Like it or not Senator Corzine, Dick Cheney is the Vice President of the United States and deserves respect for the office he holds. You owe the Vice President, the country and the people of New Jersey an apology. You have disgraced the office you hold.Update: Thankfully other blogs have picked up this story and are posting on this outrage. Read more here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.Update II: Bret Schundler says : ’That’s about as ugly a thing as you could say, and it’s far beneath the level of discourse New Jerseyans have a right to expect from their leaders.“Jon Corzine should immediately apologize – to the Vice President, to New Jerseyans he represents, and to his own mother, who must surely be aghast at her son’s foul mouth.” [...]