TexasTiger 13,019 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 A little story on senior Bush tennis partner, Brit Hume: James Roosevelt Jr: Hume's "outrageous distortion" of FDR "calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation"MSNBC host Keith Olbermann and former Social Security associate commissioner James Roosevelt Jr. examined how FOX News Washington managing editor Brit Hume and other pundits distorted a quote by Roosevelt Jr.'s grandfather, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in order to claim that the former president would have supported privatizing Social Security. During their discussion, Olbermann referenced the distortions by Hume, nationally syndicated radio host and former Reagan administration official William J. Bennett, and Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund -- which Media Matters for America has documented. Roosevelt Jr. echoed Air America Radio host Al Franken's call for Hume to resign, saying that "he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation." From the February 15 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann: OLBERMANN: President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and, at minimum, midwife to the Social Security system, would have endorsed President Bush's plan to partially privatize it. Our third story on the Countdown -- that is the claim, anyway, of at least three conservative commentators and several Republican congressmen. But it turns out those guys pretty much just made it up. In a moment, FDR's grandson, himself a former associate commissioner for Social Security, joins us to discuss the fraud. First, the background. It began on television with Brit Hume of FOX News, taking quotes from the three principles of security for our old people that FDR expressed to Congress on January 17, 1935. Not all the quotes, mind you, just some of them, and out of context. I'm reading from the transcript on the FOX website of Mr. Hume's newscast of February 3rd. "It turns out," Hume said, "that FDR himself planned to include private investment accounts in the Social Security program when he proposed it. In a written statement to Congress in 1935, Roosevelt said that any Social Security plan should include, 'Voluntary contributory annuities, by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age,' adding that government funding, 'ought to ultimately be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans.'" As promised, I'm joined now by James Roosevelt Jr., now senior vice president of Tufts Health Plan, formerly associate commissioner for Social Security, and, of course, grandson of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Great -- thanks for your time tonight, sir. ROOSEVELT: Nice to be with you, Keith. OLBERMANN: The argument is that Mr. Hume more or less twisted this entirely around. Can you explain it in layman's terms? ROOSEVELT: I think I can. And it's really quite an amazing distortion. What they did was that they took a very simple statement that my grandfather made, which said that Social Security, when it was enacted almost 70 years ago, ought to first of all have a part that took care of people who didn't have time to build up a Social Security account. And the government should fund that out of general revenues. Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security. And thirdly, those who wanted and who needed to, as many -- almost everybody -- did, to have a higher income and retirement, should have accounts where they could pay in voluntarily, in addition to the guaranteed Social Security benefit. And then my grandfather said that eventually, the self-sustaining portion of the guaranteed insurance would phase out the government-paid portion. That's because we would have a fully functioning Social Security system as we do today. What Brit Hume and others have done is take portions of that paragraph and rearrange it so that it says something entirely different from what he intended. OLBERMANN: At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled. The ones Mr. Hume pulled, only that he wanted to pull: "In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles: First, noncontributory old-age pensions for those who are now to old build up their own insurance. It is, of course, clear that for perhaps 30 years to come fund will have to be provided by the states and the federal government to meet these pensions. "Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. "Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." So, where he raised the prospect of self-supporting annuity plans -- that was not to replace Social Security, it was to replace the money the government was contributing to Social Security for the people born in, say, 1870 and earlier. Is that about it? ROOSEVELT: That is exactly it. And he rearranged those sentences in an outrageous distortion, one that really calls for a retraction, an apology, maybe even a resignation. http://mediamatters.org/items/200502160003 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 Yeah, Keith Olberman has to be the fairest journalist out there. He makes cracks at FOX on a daily basis. He has a personal vendetta against FOX. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,345 Posted February 17, 2005 Share Posted February 17, 2005 WHO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Quite literally making a mountain out of a mole hill. The liberal press commits murder on a routine basis in how they distort the news ( Dan Rather and Forged Documents ) and Brit Hume is guilty of....what? Jaywalking? And THIS is what gets the self righteous folks on the Left all riled up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,019 Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 Quite literally making a mountain out of a mole hill. The liberal press commits murder on a routine basis in how they distort the news ( Dan Rather and Forged Documents ) and Brit Hume is guilty of....what? Jaywalking? And THIS is what gets the self righteous folks on the Left all riled up? 147237[/snapback] By intentionally rearranging quotes, Hume forged his own historical document instead of just relying on a one. If Hume doesn't distort the historical record, he has no point at all. Of course you don't care. It would require principles to be bothered by this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,019 Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 Yeah, Keith Olberman has to be the fairest journalist out there. He makes cracks at FOX on a daily basis. He has a personal vendetta against FOX. 147047[/snapback] Olberman calls BS where he finds it. Since you can't challenge facts, you challenge the person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Quite literally making a mountain out of a mole hill. The liberal press commits murder on a routine basis in how they distort the news ( Dan Rather and Forged Documents ) and Brit Hume is guilty of....what? Jaywalking? And THIS is what gets the self righteous folks on the Left all riled up? 147237[/snapback] By intentionally rearranging quotes, Hume forged his own historical document instead of just relying on a one. If Hume doesn't distort the historical record, he has no point at all. Of course you don't care. It would require principles to be bothered by this. 147239[/snapback] This feigned indignation and selective moral outrage by the left is cute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 If he intentionally distorted quotes, he should be called on it. Maybe he intentionally did. But Keith Olberman is a joke. At the end of some of the interviews you would think that we are losing the war on terror, the whole military tortures, or we live in a sad sick little world. But not to take anything away from the topic, if he purposely misquoted, he should be called on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 Oh yeah, and its spelled F...O.....X. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,019 Posted February 18, 2005 Author Share Posted February 18, 2005 Quite literally making a mountain out of a mole hill. The liberal press commits murder on a routine basis in how they distort the news ( Dan Rather and Forged Documents ) and Brit Hume is guilty of....what? Jaywalking? And THIS is what gets the self righteous folks on the Left all riled up? 147237[/snapback] By intentionally rearranging quotes, Hume forged his own historical document instead of just relying on a one. If Hume doesn't distort the historical record, he has no point at all. Of course you don't care. It would require principles to be bothered by this. 147239[/snapback] This feigned indignation and selective moral outrage by the left is cute. 147246[/snapback] Selective? Your the one who picks and chooses. I never excused Rather. His hubris bit him in the ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted February 18, 2005 Share Posted February 18, 2005 So let me get this straight, (AND PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION THIS TIME TEX!) "Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations."Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." You, Olbermann, and James Roosevelt Jr are claiming that we have actual annuities? at this moment? Are you insane? Anyone that says that we even have "accounts" needs to have his head examined and you guys are saying that we AT PRESENT have annuities? Here's the quote: Roosevelt jr: "Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security."equals FDR: "Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations." Hume did mis-speak, at least on this topic, but he did get the actual content down. FDR did support individual voluntary accounts. I see nowhere that the govt cant be part of the money collection service here can you? FDR wanted the ANNUITIES to be SELF SUPPORTING. We do not have annuities and that is the problem. No Democrat anywhere supports making the program anything other than what it is now, a Ponzi Scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,019 Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 So let me get this straight, (AND PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION THIS TIME TEX!) "Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations."Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age." That's one of the Hume quotes there. "It is proposed that the federal government assume one-half of the cost of the old pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supporting annuity plans." You, Olbermann, and James Roosevelt Jr are claiming that we have actual annuities? at this moment? Are you insane? Anyone that says that we even have "accounts" needs to have his head examined and you guys are saying that we AT PRESENT have annuities? Here's the quote: Roosevelt jr: "Secondly, Social Security should have a self-sustaining portion that was funded by contributions from both employers and employees. That's what we know and have known for 70 successful years as Social Security."equals FDR: "Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations." Hume did mis-speak, at least on this topic, but he did get the actual content down. FDR did support individual voluntary accounts. I see nowhere that the govt cant be part of the money collection service here can you? FDR wanted the ANNUITIES to be SELF SUPPORTING. We do not have annuities and that is the problem. No Democrat anywhere supports making the program anything other than what it is now, a Ponzi Scheme. 147270[/snapback] Coming from you, the hypocrisy embedded in the implication of this statement is amazing: So let me get this straight, (AND PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTION THIS TIME TEX!) The thread regarding your misstatement of a guest on Hannity’s radio broadcast is a classic illustration of question evasiveness. It was a masterful performance on your part, one of many, and you remain the champion in this realm. Your, uh…questions: You, Olbermann, and James Roosevelt Jr are claiming that we have actual annuities? at this moment? Are you insane? Anyone that says that we even have "accounts" needs to have his head examined and you guys are saying that we AT PRESENT have annuities? Insane? No, are you? Annuities? Yes. You can no doubt find numerous definitions of annuities, oftentimes tied to specific contexts, but here’s a common one: an·nu·i·ty n., pl. -ties. 1. a. The annual payment of an allowance or income. b. The right to receive this payment or the obligation to make this payment. 2. A contract or agreement by which one receives fixed payments on an investment for a lifetime or for a specified number of years. [Middle English annuite, from Anglo-Norman, from Medieval Latin annuit_s, from Latin annuus, yearly, from annus, year.] http://www.answers.com/topic/annuity The proliferation of investment opportunities in the years since FDR made this statement will provide variations on this definition, depending on the investment vehicle. Hume did mis-speak, at least on this topic, but he did get the actual content down. Interesting defense. Hume intentionally distorts another’s words, and this is your defense. It would actually work for Rather even better. Bush’s CO’s secretary said that while she did not type those particular letters, she typed letters with the same content. She confirmed the content of the documents, if not their actual authenticity. Doesn’t change the fact that Rather used exceedingly poor judgment in viewing Burkett as an “unimpeachable source†when he was obviously suspect. Hume, on the other hand, distorted the actual content. FDR did support individual voluntary accounts. I see nowhere that the govt cant be part of the money collection service here can you? No. The government can be part of the money collection service for private accounts. But should they be? I have those accounts now. The role of government in this regard is to encourage private saving by making such accounts tax-deferred. Numerous financial institutions can set up an IRA and many employers have established the type of private accounts referred to by FDR. Why further involve the government in that aspect of retirement planning? What purpose does that serve? And how does unnecessary expansion of the government in private lives square with the former bedrock notion of the Republican party of smaller government? In that same statement by FDR he said the following: It is overwhelmingly important to avoid any danger of permanently discrediting the sound and necessary policy of federal legislation for economic security by attempting to apply it on too ambitious a scale before actual experience has provided guidance for the permanently safe direction of such efforts. The place of such a fundamental in our future civilization is too precious to be jeopardized now by extravagant action. It is a sound idea--a sound ideal. Most of the other advanced countries of the world have already adopted it, and their experience affords the knowledge that social insurance can be made a sound and workable project. Social Security was initiated as a form of insurance, not a pure investment plan, per se. It offered a guaranteed minimum payment as a safety net. Individuals may make additional investments with varying degrees of risk in hopes of having more money for retirement. If those investments fail, social security provides a minimum fixed-income. I pay a ton of money each year for house and car insurance. So far, I’ve never needed to collect. I may die and never need it, even after putting thousands of dollars into it year after year. I hope I never “need†social security, either. But many people do who worked hard all their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,126 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 There's simply no 'there ' there , with this story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 an·nu·i·ty n., pl. -ties. 1. a. The annual payment of an allowance or income. b. The right to receive this payment or the obligation to make this payment. 2. A contract or agreement by which one receives fixed payments on an investment for a lifetime or for a specified number of years. [Middle English annuite, from Anglo-Norman, from Medieval Latin annuit_s, from Latin annuus, yearly, from annus, year.] http://www.answers.com/topic/annuity So we dont have annuities but we have annuities? That is your answer? Tex you are a true Dem. Your answer is pure Clintonian BS. Here let me paraphrase for you: "It all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' or the word 'annuity' is..." Where is my Anuuity Tex? I want to read about my personal annuity. You know the one "I" chose. Just for me, exclusively for me. That is owned by me. That is unique to me. That is OWNED by me. You know, my annuity. Just where is it and why can't I see the blasted thing? Why cant we all have a review of our 290M annuities that you say are here somewhere? Show them to me Tex, Where are they? Learn more about Annuities. Some even...PAY REAL RATES OF RETURN!!! Imagine that, woohoo, not losing money to inflation. Also: Income annuities can help you manage the risk of outliving your assets, satisfy your minimum required distributions, or even offer penalty-free access to your tax-deferred retirement assets prior to age 59½. Types of Annuities: Yes Tex, there are CHOICES of Annuities, Imagine that! Type of Income Annuity Considerations  Guaranteed1: Income payments remain level for the period of time you specify • Provides the same payment amount each month  • May not keep pace with rising costs due to inflation Variable: Income payments fluctuate up and down based on performance of annuity funds you choose • Payments may increase and help provide a hedge against inflation if the selected funds perform favorably, they may also decrease if fund performance is unfavorable  • May have short-term volatility of income payments due to market conditions Combination: A portion of each income payment remains guaranteed, while the remainder varies based on the performance of annuity funds you choose • Provides the security of a minimum guaranteed income amount, while allowing for a potential increase to keep pace with inflation if the selected funds perform favorably Mr. George is the Loser here:Link How much each friend receives in: George (Guaranteed Monthly Income) Victor (Variable Monthly Income) Carl (50% Guaranteed50% Variable Monthly Income) January 1989 Three friends get together for lunch and celebrate their first monthly income annuity checks. $653 $613 $633 January 1993 The friends gather for a reunion several years after their initial investment. $653 $800 $727 January 1999 The friends get together for their 75th birthday party. $653 $1,453 $1,053 January 2002 The friends kick off the new year and get together to compare their income. $653 $1,311 $982 Cumulative Income Payments 1/1/1989 - 1/1/2002 $101,848 $161,427 $131,638 Problem here Tex is this: Why would anyone with half a brain decide to make a bad decision with his money? You cannot justify a BAD decision. No matter how silly you define it. Let everyone make the Decision that is right for them. Why do you Libs have to be so narrow minded? Social Security was initiated as a form of insurance, not a pure investment plan, per se. Oh, I see now. FDR talked about Annuities, but those investments were not part of an investment plan? :roll: SS was only an insurance, but FDR lied to us all by calling it an Annuity. You say IT IS AN ANNUITY, BUT IT IS REALLY AN INSURANCE? When you figure out what it is, Whatever that decade is, please come back and chat with us. So far you have called it An Annuity, An Insurance, But it is not an Investment even though everyone one in America uses Anuuities and Insurance as investment vehicles. Let me translate: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,019 Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 an·nu·i·ty n., pl. -ties. 1. a. The annual payment of an allowance or income. b. The right to receive this payment or the obligation to make this payment. 2. A contract or agreement by which one receives fixed payments on an investment for a lifetime or for a specified number of years. [Middle English annuite, from Anglo-Norman, from Medieval Latin annuit_s, from Latin annuus, yearly, from annus, year.] http://www.answers.com/topic/annuity So we dont have annuities but we have annuities? That is your answer? Tex you are a true Dem. Your answer is pure Clintonian BS. Here let me paraphrase for you: "It all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' or the word 'annuity' is..." Where is my Anuuity Tex? I want to read about my personal annuity. You know the one "I" chose. Just for me, exclusively for me. That is owned by me. That is unique to me. That is OWNED by me. You know, my annuity. Just where is it and why can't I see the blasted thing? Why cant we all have a review of our 290M annuities that you say are here somewhere? Show them to me Tex, Where are they? Learn more about Annuities. Some even...PAY REAL RATES OF RETURN!!! Imagine that, woohoo, not losing money to inflation. Also: Income annuities can help you manage the risk of outliving your assets, satisfy your minimum required distributions, or even offer penalty-free access to your tax-deferred retirement assets prior to age 591/2. Types of Annuities: Yes Tex, there are CHOICES of Annuities, Imagine that! Type of Income Annuity  Considerations  Guaranteed1: Income payments remain level for the period of time you specify • Provides the same payment amount each month  • May not keep pace with rising costs due to inflation Variable: Income payments fluctuate up and down based on performance of annuity funds you choose • Payments may increase and help provide a hedge against inflation if the selected funds perform favorably, they may also decrease if fund performance is unfavorable  • May have short-term volatility of income payments due to market conditions Combination: A portion of each income payment remains guaranteed, while the remainder varies based on the performance of annuity funds you choose • Provides the security of a minimum guaranteed income amount, while allowing for a potential increase to keep pace with inflation if the selected funds perform favorably Mr. George is the Loser here:Link How much each friend receives in: George (Guaranteed Monthly Income) Victor (Variable Monthly Income) Carl (50% Guaranteed50% Variable Monthly Income) January 1989 Three friends get together for lunch and celebrate their first monthly income annuity checks. $653 $613 $633 January 1993 The friends gather for a reunion several years after their initial investment. $653 $800 $727 January 1999 The friends get together for their 75th birthday party. $653 $1,453 $1,053 January 2002 The friends kick off the new year and get together to compare their income. $653 $1,311 $982 Cumulative Income Payments 1/1/1989 - 1/1/2002 $101,848 $161,427 $131,638 Problem here Tex is this: Why would anyone with half a brain decide to make a bad decision with his money? You cannot justify a BAD decision. No matter how silly you define it. Let everyone make the Decision that is right for them. Why do you Libs have to be so narrow minded? Social Security was initiated as a form of insurance, not a pure investment plan, per se. Oh, I see now. FDR talked about Annuities, but those investments were not part of an investment plan? :roll: SS was only an insurance, but FDR lied to us all by calling it an Annuity. You say IT IS AN ANNUITY, BUT IT IS REALLY AN INSURANCE? When you figure out what it is, Whatever that decade is, please come back and chat with us. So far you have called it An Annuity, An Insurance, But it is not an Investment even though everyone one in America uses Anuuities and Insurance as investment vehicles. Let me translate: 147470[/snapback] Your first response to me on this thread was unnecessarily obnoxious and rude and totally unprovoked. But, you asked me a question, and I gave you the straightforward answer you requested. Is it an annuity? "Yes." Disagree if you want. Your answer is pure Clintonian BS. Here let me paraphrase for you: "It all depends on what your definition of the word 'is' or the word 'annuity' is..." Actually that seems to be your response. It is an annuity. That's my answer. My answer's correct. I also recognize that there are other definitions. You have you own definition of the word that you want the entire world to exclusively adhere to and it makes you go on a ballistic type of rant that I usually only see from people under the influence of some mind altering substance. Frankly, David, I don't really know you, but I try to tell myself that you're probably an okay, decent, well-intentioned guy. You sometimes make that belief difficult to hold. In any event, one thing I know is that I wasted too much time over the last year swapping petty insults with some folks on this board, including you. I tried to provide an answer to your first question, and you reverted to form. I'm not doing this sh#t ad nauseum anymore. Have a good weekend, brother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,019 Posted February 19, 2005 Author Share Posted February 19, 2005 Oh yeah, and its spelled F...O.....X. 147248[/snapback] faux [foks]A adjective 1 fake, false, faux, imitation, simulated  not genuine or real; being an imitation of the genuine article; http://www.wordreference.com/definition/faux Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,440 Posted February 19, 2005 Share Posted February 19, 2005 Be wary of those that use the tactic of redefining the language. See "Babeling the Language" Link Babeling the Language"words with one meaning take on different and sometimes contradictory meanings" The enemy wants to sow discord among us. One way he does this is through the redefining the language so words with one meaning take on different and sometimes contradictory meanings. This is called Babeling the Language as in the Tower of Babel. It can be words or phrases. An few examples: Love - depending on the context and the speaker can be true christian love, covenant matrimonial love, lust, a preference for, and other things as well. Choice - selecting between alternatives or killing a child in the womb. Freedom - the ability to choose what it right or the license to do what you wish. Freedom of Religion - freedom to exercise religion or totally exclusion for government and its people in any way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.