Sharron Angle Surfaces, Still Nuts

WingnutsJune 2010 • Views: 4,672

Nevada Tea Party wacko Sharron Angle shows why the GOP brass are doing their best to keep her away from the media: GOP Senate Nominee Sharron Angle Breaks Her Silence.

FLV Video

LAS VEGAS - As Sharron Angle greeted supporters at Stoney’s Restaurant in Las Vegas, 8 News NOW Reporter Nathan Baca approached her to ask about her Social Security plan.

Her website calls for “transitioning out” Social Security and Medicare.

“Why do you want to eliminate (Social Security) for younger folks, because your plan calls for transitioning out,” [8 News NOW Reporter Nathan] Baca asked.

“You believe the Harry Reid lie,” Angle replied.

When asked to define “transitioning out”, Angle said, “Transition into a personalized account… personalized Social Security accounts that they can’t raid.” …

Baca then asked Angle about her quote calling for the elimination of the Environmental Protection Agency. “Why do you want to eliminate the EPA when we’re in our worst environmental disaster in this country,” Baca asked.

Angle replied, “Where are you getting these questions? The issues are not about the EPA… The issues are homes here in Nevada… He is trying to make this a campaign about me. But, where’s Harry? Go ask him… Please go ask Harry about the EPA, and why they have failed.”

“And why you want to eliminate it,” Baca asked.

“Why they have failed to do what they needed to do in the Gulf,” Angle answered.

Angle walked away when asked about her website once advocating the United States’ withdrawal from the United Nations. She then gave a 20 minute interview to conservative radio talk show host Roger Hedgecock.

She told the assembled media she’d answer four questions, but refused to answer Baca’s question about a previous Angle statement in which she said, “If this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking towards those Second Amendment remedies.” Baca kept asking into the parking lot, but received no answer.

The reaction from the Angle campaign was swift. A campaign spokesperson called Nathan Baca “an idiot” and another term that can’t be repeated. The campaign spokesman did say he would detail Angle’s positions, but he refused to answer on camera.

Jump to bottom

101 comments

Bubblehead II Fri, Jun 18, 2010 9:55:34am

“A campaign spokesperson called Nathan Baca “an idiot” and another term that can’t be repeated.”

/Classy.

jamesfirecat Fri, Jun 18, 2010 9:57:05am

I hear the interview ended with her running away from the reporter.

Well walking away… but still wow…

Not ready for Prime time as the saying goes, maybe she and Rand Paul can go halvesies on a bunker in an undisclosed location together…

brookly red Fri, Jun 18, 2010 9:57:35am

I don’t know if that is the way to go regarding social security, but I am pretty sure some kind of changes will be necessary.

jamesfirecat Fri, Jun 18, 2010 9:59:06am

re: #3 brookly red

I don’t know if that is the way to go regarding social security, but I am pretty sure some kind of changes will be necessary.

I think tying it to the stock market is too temperamental a way to go myself…

darthstar Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:00:53am

Can we get Angle, Taitz, Palin, and Bachmann together and see if the convergence opens a wormhole to another dimension?

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:01:07am

re: #3 brookly red

I don’t know if that is the way to go regarding social security, but I am pretty sure some kind of changes will be necessary.

i quite agree. trouble is, no one wants to hear it from a crazy person.

albusteve Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:02:00am

re: #3 brookly red

I don’t know if that is the way to go regarding social security, but I am pretty sure some kind of changes will be necessary.

certainly and more private control over some of it will probably be one change…and I like the idea of withdrawing from the UN

brookly red Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:02:21am

re: #4 jamesfirecat

I think tying it to the stock market is too temperamental a way to go myself…

well if you are paying in 15% plus anything your employer matches for 40 years or so even a savings account should be enough, providing no one spends it for you before you retire.

albusteve Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:03:07am

re: #6 Aceofwhat?

i quite agree. trouble is, no one wants to hear it from a crazy person.

it’s all about images, less about ideas

jamesfirecat Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:04:28am

re: #7 albusteve

certainly and more private control over some of it will probably be one change…and I like the idea of withdrawing from the UN

What would withdrawing from the UN accomplish exactly?

brookly red Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:04:32am

re: #7 albusteve

certainly and more private control over some of it will probably be one change…and I like the idea of withdrawing from the UN

I am no fan of the UN either, but I think they respond positivity if we cut their funding in half… but that will never happen.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:04:55am

re: #4 jamesfirecat

I think tying it to the stock market is too temperamental a way to go myself…

an index fund over 40 years will crush SS returns. i can never figure out what it is about compound interest that confounds liberals who otherwise see themselves as more empirical than conservatives on the issues…sigh…

Nimed Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:05:14am

re: #2 jamesfirecat

I hear the interview ended with her running away from the reporter.

Well walking away… but still wow…

Not ready for Prime time as the saying goes, maybe she and Rand Paul can go halvesies on a bunker in an undisclosed location together…

Cue obligatory music:

Youtube Video

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:05:42am

re: #10 jamesfirecat

What would withdrawing from the UN accomplish exactly?

Eliminating any and all influence we have there.

It’s a terrible idea, unless the goal is to make the US internationally irrelevant.

albusteve Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:07:40am

re: #10 jamesfirecat

What would withdrawing from the UN accomplish exactly?

it would make me feel warm and fuzzy…it has no use but to suck up vast amounts of money then distribute to itself, so they can write blistering condemnations of Israels behavior….they are legal mobsters that get people killed

Lidane Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:08:06am

Withdrawing from the UN is pure fantasy. Ain’t happening, no matter how many Tea Party folks want it to.

Also, the idea of tying Social Security to the stock market is nuts.

brookly red Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:08:38am

re: #12 Aceofwhat?

an index fund over 40 years will crush SS returns. i can never figure out what it is about compound interest that confounds liberals who otherwise see themselves as more empirical than conservatives on the issues…sigh…

well the nature of the investment is not as important accessibility to the investment. As long as at the end the investor actually gets their money & that involves to government not spending it.

Dark_Falcon Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:08:40am

re: #5 darthstar

Can we get Angle, Taitz, Palin, and Bachmann together and see if the convergence opens a wormhole to another dimension?

Are you a god?

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:08:53am

re: #12 Aceofwhat?

an index fund over 40 years will crush SS returns. i can never figure out what it is about compound interest that confounds liberals who otherwise see themselves as more empirical than conservatives on the issues…sigh…

The objection is volatility, primarily.

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:09:08am

re: #18 Dark_Falcon

Are you a god?

DON’T CROSS THE STREAMS!!!

Walter L. Newton Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:09:23am

“Angle walked away when asked about her website once advocating the United States’ withdrawal from the United Nations. “

Wow… that’s the craziest of all her positions.

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:10:18am

re: #21 Walter L. Newton

“Angle walked away when asked about her website once advocating the United States’ withdrawal from the United Nations. “

Wow… that’s the craziest of all her positions.

I don’t get why, out of all the nutty things Angle has said, that this was the one the interviewer latched onto.

Feline Fearless Leader Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:11:48am

re: #14 Fozzie Bear

Eliminating any and all influence we have there.

It’s a terrible idea, unless the goal is to make the US internationally irrelevant.

We’re just going through our latest iteration of isolationism. Put up the fence, guard the gate, and rest of the world can go haring down the road to destruction without having any effect on us.

Didn’t work the last time around, or the time before that. And it won’t work this time either. And then we eventually get sucked in unprepared.

I think the one thing we’ve so far been blessed in terms of foreign policy is that to date we’ve fought our modern wars mainly in other people’s countries. Their infrastructure gets blown up and their farmlands turn up unexploded munitions for decades afterwards, not ours.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:12:43am

re: #19 Fozzie Bear

The objection is volatility, primarily.

index funds aren’t volatile. the objection is unsound, primarily.

Walter L. Newton Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:12:56am

re: #22 Fozzie Bear

I don’t get why, out of all the nutty things Angle has said, that this was the one the interviewer latched onto.

I know… it’s not any more nutty than her other positions. Really… leave the UN? The only body of leaders and policy makers who have only one goal in mind… peace among the nations… healing the environment and the health of all the planets citizens. I she wants to deny us access to those wonderful goals?

Crazy, really crazy.

Racer X Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:12:59am

Reminds me of this gem:

Image: bagley.jpg

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:15:24am

Didn’t Dubya want to do this too? I remember it being on the rightwing platform for a long time and it always gets shot down. As it should. Bad, bad idea.

My mother worked for an Ombudsman for many years helping seniors get access to services. She was a senior herself! Anyway, some of these people live on $500 a MONTH which is only their SS. Without that, they’d be living under a bridge.

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:17:17am

re: #27 marjoriemoon

Didn’t Dubya want to do this too? I remember it being on the rightwing platform for a long time and it always gets shot down. As it should. Bad, bad idea.

My mother worked for an Ombudsman for many years helping seniors get access to services. She was a senior herself! Anyway, some of these people live on $500 a MONTH which is only their SS. Without that, they’d be living under a bridge.

Rather Bush wanted to privatize social security, another bad idea.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:17:41am

re: #27 marjoriemoon

Didn’t Dubya want to do this too? I remember it being on the rightwing platform for a long time and it always gets shot down. As it should. Bad, bad idea.

My mother worked for an Ombudsman for many years helping seniors get access to services. She was a senior herself! Anyway, some of these people live on $500 a MONTH which is only their SS. Without that, they’d be living under a bridge.

sigh. we want them to live on 4x that amount, Marjorie. that’s the motivation.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:18:53am

re: #28 marjoriemoon

Rather Bush wanted to privatize social security, another bad idea.

i don’t get it.

conservatives opposed to AGW are idiots.

liberals opposed to compound interest are…?

why is being anti-math only cool when one is not a conservative?

albusteve Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:18:59am

re: #28 marjoriemoon

Rather Bush wanted to privatize social security, another bad idea.

allowing the feds access to SS is an even worse idea…I think that’s the point…where did it all go?….the fuckers robbed my mom blind

jamesfirecat Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:24:34am

re: #30 Aceofwhat?

i don’t get it.

conservatives opposed to AGW are idiots.

liberals opposed to compound interest are…?

why is being anti-math only cool when one is not a conservative?

Isn’t there a way the government could store the money that would generate compound interest?

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:29:58am

re: #32 jamesfirecat

Isn’t there a way the government could store the money that would generate compound interest?

Do you mean that you don’t wish for people to access their social security index fund until retirement age…or that you don’t wish the money to be invested in anything yet still want interest to magically generate itself in HarryPotter-esque fashion?

Vambo Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:30:01am

re: #9 albusteve

it’s all about images, less about ideas

It doesn’t like Obtuse Angle is the one with ideas. When asked about her positions, she says “ask Harry Reid”… um, what?

cineaste Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:30:27am

I hate that disconnect. You have someone claiming to be all against the dark & shady government but then is unwilling and/or unable to answer simple questions about their opinions on camera.

Transparency is all well and good until it’s your underwear that’s showing I guess…

cineaste Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:31:33am

re: #15 albusteve

it would make me feel warm and fuzzy…it has no use but to suck up vast amounts of money then distribute to itself, so they can write blistering condemnations of Israels behavior…they are legal mobsters that get people killed

The UN has a lot of problems but organizations like the WHO do amazing work.

Shazam Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:32:07am

“The EPA failed in the gulf, so let’s get rid of it altogether and have no regulations. Also, I’m willing to talk about any of my views except the ones that are unseemly, and if you bring them up then you’re just being an idiot.”

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:33:06am

re: #29 Aceofwhat?

sigh. we want them to live on 4x that amount, Marjorie. that’s the motivation.

How is taking away SS allowing them to live in 4x that amount?

reidr Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:36:07am

re: #16 Lidane

Also, the idea of tying Social Security to the stock market is nuts.

Yeah, I would’ve thought the events of the last few years would put the kibosh on that talk. Maybe it’s been tweaked a bit to not mention the stock market, but it’s still crazy.

jamesfirecat Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:36:18am

re: #33 Aceofwhat?

Do you mean that you don’t wish for people to access their social security index fund until retirement age…or that you don’t wish the money to be invested in anything yet still want interest to magically generate itself in HarryPotter-esque fashion?

Well ideally we take the money and we invest it, or at least spend it on whatever “got to have it right now” item the pentagon needs to insure our national security.

If we’re just letting it lay fallow we’re doing something wrong somewhere.

Targetpractice Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:38:48am

I gotta ask, why exactly is it a bad idea that the US leave the UN?

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:38:56am

re: #40 jamesfirecat

Well ideally we take the money and we invest it, or at least spend it on whatever “got to have it right now” item the pentagon needs to insure our national security.

If we’re just letting it lay fallow we’re doing something wrong somewhere.

Some folks who don’t make large salaries in their lifetime have minimal social security when they retire and it’s the only money they have. It’s not money that should be gambled on or eliminated entirely. I mean, that was the whole point when it was created.

jamesfirecat Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:40:31am

re: #41 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I gotta ask, why exactly is it a bad idea that the US leave the UN?

Because it makes the US look like like that drunk guy at the bar with a bottle who is screaming “HEY, YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME! COME OVER HERE I’LL KICK MY OWN ASS!”

What do you see as a good reason for us to leave it?

Lidane Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:41:37am

re: #30 Aceofwhat?

I don’t know if it’s being anti-math as much as it is concern over how that money is invested and by who.

My mom, who is 73, is lucky. She owns her home free and clear. She’s debt free, because she pays for everything as she goes. She doesn’t have much in the way of expenses, and she has money saved up if she needs it because of the saving and planning my parents did. Still, she primarily lives on her Social Security check every month.

I don’t like the idea of that check being dependent on someone else investing the money for her, no matter how stable the index fund might be. Also, because she has next to zero knowledge of investments, it would be a HUGE source of anxiety for her to have someone poking around in that money instead of just getting her check monthly. Seriously — the phone and cable bills give my mother agita these days. Reading a statement about how her SS money is being invested? She’d have a stroke.

There are plenty of other seniors that aren’t as lucky as my mom. They live on fixed incomes. They’re barely getting by as it is. Introducing that kind of uncertainty into their lives wouldn’t help them, no matter how noble the intent. Also, there’s no guarantee that the returns would be higher over the long run, since no one can predict where the market will be even a year from now.

Yes, the current system needs reform, but I’m not convinced that tying SS to the stock market is the answer.

cineaste Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:42:17am

re: #41 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I gotta ask, why exactly is it a bad idea that the US leave the UN?

Giving up our guaranteed veto in the security council would be foolish.

Targetpractice Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:43:17am

re: #42 marjoriemoon

Some folks who don’t make large salaries in their lifetime have minimal social security when they retire and it’s the only money they have. It’s not money that should be gambled on or eliminated entirely. I mean, that was the whole point when it was created.

The whole point when it was created was that it’d be money put away for retirement, not touched, not messed with, a rainy day fund for those of us who reached our retirement years without having a small fortune in the banks.

Then the Great Society came along, Congress needed to bankroll massive social spending, and SS turned from a “lockbox” into yet another slush fund that’s regularly raided to pay for new spending, with the money withdrawn replaced by IOUs.

albusteve Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:43:30am

re: #43 jamesfirecat

Because it makes the US look like like that drunk guy at the bar with a bottle who is screaming “HEY, YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME! COME OVER HERE I’LL KICK MY OWN ASS!”

What do you see as a good reason for us to leave it?

yup, it’s all about appearances….forget reason and principle, lets continue the fairytale…pretty weak argument

Baboon Cheeks Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:45:22am

re: #5 darthstar

Can we get Angle, Taitz, Palin, and Bachmann together and see if the convergence opens a wormhole to another dimension?

According to my calculations, they would collapse into their common centre of idiocy, creating a single super-dense wingnut, which could, with the addition of Andrew Breitbart, collapse further to create a new wingularity.

Lidane Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:46:56am

re: #47 albusteve

yup, it’s all about appearances…forget reason and principle, lets continue the fairytale…pretty weak argument

Where have you been? Politics and diplomacy are largely all about appearances. That’s the point. It’s all about saving face and not looking too bad on the world stage.

Why give up something that helps to provide legitimacy to things that we do? That makes no sense. Also, we have a permanent vote in the Security Council. Giving that up would be stupid.

Targetpractice Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:48:45am

re: #43 jamesfirecat

Because it makes the US look like like that drunk guy at the bar with a bottle who is screaming “HEY, YOU WANT A PIECE OF ME! COME OVER HERE I’LL KICK MY OWN ASS!”

What do you see as a good reason for us to leave it?

I see our continued membership as granted legitimacy to an organization that has become synonymous with corruption, controversy, and bureaucratic stupidity. That we, by remaining a member of and bankrolling the UN, are providing a ready bully pulpit for the latest generation of dictators and crackpots to rant from and be seen as “legitimate.” The General Assembly is a joke, the Security Council is fast becoming one, and the various committees (chief amongst them the Human Rights Committee) are often chaired and composed of nations who have no place being on such committees in the first place.

The only thing that’s kept the UN from going the way of the League of Nations is that we remain a member. If we left and took our money and military might with us, the whole house of cards would collapse upon itself.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:49:07am

re: #44 Lidane

Do you know how cheap it would be for the government to back such things with insurance to at least cover what would have been the return under the old SS system?

I understand your objections…but they’re elementary.

Your mother would much rather have a larger check every month, wouldn’t she? The fund would purchase an annuity at retirement age = fixed income for seniors that vastly exceeds what they get now.

You give me any date after 1945. Pick the worst possible date - like right before a crash or something. In 40 years, you’ll have far more money despite your horrible investment timing than you’d have had under the SS scheme.

subsailor68 Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:49:59am

This is taken directly from the Social Security Administration FAQ:

By law, income to the trust funds must be invested, on a daily basis, in securities guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the Federal government. All securities held by the trust funds are “special issues” of the United States Treasury. Such securities are available only to the trust funds.

In the past, the trust funds have held marketable Treasury securities, which are available to the general public. Unlike marketable securities, special issues can be redeemed at any time at face value. Marketable securities are subject to the forces of the open market and may suffer a loss, or enjoy a gain, if sold before maturity. Investment in special issues gives the trust funds the same flexibility as holding cash.

Source: SSA FAQ Page

IOW, the government is “borrowing” the money in the trust fund (over and above what is needed to pay current retirees). Note that the money is given to the Treasury. It’s not sitting in a bank account in the Treasury building - it’s being spent by the politicians.

To make matters even worse, what happens when the SSA “redeems” these special issues at face value? Treasury needs to find the money somewhere else. Through more borrowing or speeding up the printing presses.

That’s what’s happening to grandma’s money.

jamesfirecat Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:51:42am

re: #50 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

I see our continued membership as granted legitimacy to an organization that has become synonymous with corruption, controversy, and bureaucratic stupidity. That we, by remaining a member of and bankrolling the UN, are providing a ready bully pulpit for the latest generation of dictators and crackpots to rant from and be seen as “legitimate.” The General Assembly is a joke, the Security Council is fast becoming one, and the various committees (chief amongst them the Human Rights Committee) are often chaired and composed of nations who have no place being on such committees in the first place.

The only thing that’s kept the UN from going the way of the League of Nations is that we remain a member. If we left and took our money and military might with us, the whole house of cards would collapse upon itself.

How much money do we pump into the UN annually? (I have no idea)

Also would you grant me that the UN Would be a good thing if it worked properly?

If we withdrew from the present day UN how should we go about creating something new to takes its place?

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:53:50am

re: #46 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

The whole point when it was created was that it’d be money put away for retirement, not touched, not messed with, a rainy day fund for those of us who reached our retirement years without having a small fortune in the banks.

Then the Great Society came along, Congress needed to bankroll massive social spending, and SS turned from a “lockbox” into yet another slush fund that’s regularly raided to pay for new spending, with the money withdrawn replaced by IOUs.

The government is using our social security money as a slush fund? You have a link for that?

Baboon Cheeks Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:54:35am

UN HAS CHANGED! US MUST FLOUNCE 1!1!

okonkolo Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:54:51am

re: #44 Lidane

Somewhat related in terms of privatizing SS, but I am very leery of the investing angle with the elderly. things with seniors get really prickly when seniors slowly evolve to a place where they cannot make good decisions for themselves. There is someone in my extended family who has been set since her husband passed away, but because she has outlived all of her peers she is lonely and gets into sweepstakes, sales pitches, and investment schemes at least in part because of the interaction with people and not understanding that she is being conned. The idea of seniors who cannot recognize that a voicemail answered their call rather than a real person or that the cable box has a different power switch are in charge of their portfolio and their lives depend on its management and stability terrifies me. They are ripe for abuse by fund managers and criminals alike. I like SS and fear the privatization because investing is like gambling, the pros usually do okay, the non-pros do not, and the house always wins. What do you do with seniors who are robbed of everything (perhaps even in sleazy legal ways) or lose everything in Enron, real estate, or BP? Literally, what do you do with them? I much refer SS, even though i know we must pay the piper and scale back things. Angle is stuck with this stupid idea that George Bush could not sell.

albusteve Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:54:57am

re: #49 Lidane

Where have you been? Politics and diplomacy are largely all about appearances. That’s the point. It’s all about saving face and not looking too bad on the world stage.
Why give up something that helps to provide legitimacy to things that we do? That makes no sense. Also, we have a permanent vote in the Security Council. Giving that up would be stupid.

I’ve been there all along…I could care less about the SC…what do they accomplish?…words
times have changed, might as well get with it or people will be asking you ‘where have you been’…the UNs rampant with corruption and the way they treat Israel is vile….that’s enough excuse I need to leave

Baboon Cheeks Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:55:28am

re: #55 Jimmah

UN HAS CHANGED! US MUST FLOUNCE 1!1!

ps WOLVERINES!!11!

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:56:43am

re: #56 okonkolo

hi. i’m an annuity. i’m what you’d automatically trigger at retirement age.

sigh.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:57:48am

re: #58 Jimmah

ps WOLVERINES!!11!

Ps, speaking of dudes with accents, David Feherty is the shit.

(do you play any golf?)

Lidane Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:58:09am

re: #51 Aceofwhat?

I understand all that. I really do. And I see your point. However, I can’t help but think about what my mom goes through monthly, or any time she needs to go to the doctor or get a prescription filled. She’s got enough anxiety already, and she’s the type to turn everything into an emotional, world-ending crisis if she doesn’t understand it. She’s from a different age, where the husband handled all the money and investments, and without my dad she’s totally lost. Every time something happens that sets her off, she pines for my dad, because he would have taken care of it. God only knows what she’d do if her SS checks suddenly became unstable.

There are a lot of other seniors like her out there. They’ve gotten used to things working a certain way because it’s what they know. Changing that, even if it potentially means a larger check every month, would throw them into uncertainty and worry, which wouldn’t be good.

Personally, I don’t even expect to get Social Security. I’m not planning for it in my retirement and savings plans. I’m mostly thinking of my mom here, and not me. I see what you’re saying, but I also see what I’d have to deal with if something like that happened, and I’d really rather avoid it if at all possible.

albusteve Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:58:21am

re: #59 Aceofwhat?

hi. i’m an annuity. i’m what you’d automatically trigger at retirement age.

sigh.

too complicated….anyway I feel that a spouse should receive the money of their mates til they pass away

Targetpractice Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:58:35am

re: #53 jamesfirecat

How much money do we pump into the UN annually? (I have no idea)

Also would you grant me that the UN Would be a good thing if it worked properly?

If we withdrew from the present day UN how should we go about creating something new to takes its place?

I’ll grant you that the UN was a good thing years ago and, in a perfect world, it could still be. But in little under a decade, I’ve read so many charges against the UN, from “Oil for Palaces” to accusations of “peacekeepers” engaging in child prostitution, that I no longer can think of them as anything more than another bloated bureaucracy that’s long past its “Best By” date.

As for creating a successor organization, the problem is that the US leaving the UN would lead us to be dubbed a “rogue state.” That we consider ourselves “above the law” and that any nations that follow our lead will be seen as throwing in their lot with an uncontrollable giant. Not to mention that, as pointed out, we give up our veto in the Security Council by leaving and that’s the only thing keeping it from turning into a smaller version of the General Assembly, only this time with the legal weight that the larger body lacks.

Right Brain Fri, Jun 18, 2010 10:59:22am

Its not that the Democrats are any good, its just that the Republicans are so bad. This woman isn’t ready to run for city council let alone the United States Senate. What was her party thinking? Is there any vetting whatsoever? Do they do any practice interviews? This nincompoop could not answer a single question, and the rhetoric was being taken from her own web site.

Lidane Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:01:33am

re: #64 Right Brain

Its not that the Democrats are any good, its just that the Republicans are so bad.

Heh. Welcome to my world. I’ve been saying that about the parties here in Texas for years.

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:01:45am

re: #56 okonkolo

Somewhat related in terms of privatizing SS, but I am very leery of the investing angle with the elderly. things with seniors get really prickly when seniors slowly evolve to a place where they cannot make good decisions for themselves. There is someone in my extended family who has been set since her husband passed away, but because she has outlived all of her peers she is lonely and gets into sweepstakes, sales pitches, and investment schemes at least in part because of the interaction with people and not understanding that she is being conned. The idea of seniors who cannot recognize that a voicemail answered their call rather than a real person or that the cable box has a different power switch are in charge of their portfolio and their lives depend on its management and stability terrifies me. They are ripe for abuse by fund managers and criminals alike. I like SS and fear the privatization because investing is like gambling, the pros usually do okay, the non-pros do not, and the house always wins. What do you do with seniors who are robbed of everything (perhaps even in sleazy legal ways) or lose everything in Enron, real estate, or BP? Literally, what do you do with them? I much refer SS, even though i know we must pay the piper and scale back things. Angle is stuck with this stupid idea that George Bush could not sell.

Absolutely.

Look, no one is getting rich on their SS, far from it. What is the most you can collect now anyway? About $1200 a month? As a yearly salary, that’s poverty level and some collect half of that.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:03:12am

re: #61 Lidane

I appreciate your candor. I will try to be sensitive here, as your mom is a good example (i.e. if it can’t work for her, it won’t work for millions of others).

Assuming from your post that she is past retirement age, the government would have converted her index fund to an annuity which pays a consistent, guaranteed, unchanging sum each month until the end of her life. In that respect, it’s just like social security.

That’s the point. We can make it feel the same, but greatly increase the payout. Does that help? (i’m assuming you know what an annuity is, but i can linky if i’m incorrect…)

Targetpractice Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:04:46am

re: #54 marjoriemoon

The government is using our social security money as a slush fund? You have a link for that?

The Social Security Trust Fund was made part of the General Fund during the Great Society. Then SS taxes were raised in ‘83, to create a surplus for the inevitable flood of retiring Baby Boomers, only for it to be looted in varying degrees by Bush Sr, Clinton, Dubya, and now Obama. Dubya particularly hollowed out the surplus to pay for the “Tax Cuts for the Rich” and the War on Terror.

reidr Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:09:12am

re: #64 Right Brain

Its not that the Democrats are any good, its just that the Republicans are so bad. This woman isn’t ready to run for city council let alone the United States Senate. What was her party thinking? Is there any vetting whatsoever? Do they do any practice interviews? This nincompoop could not answer a single question, and the rhetoric was being taken from her own web site.

She sounds pretty unpolished, but you can only polish a turd so much. When your policies are that far from the mainstream, what do you do? I guess dodge the media as much as possible. Will there be a debate?

Baboon Cheeks Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:12:08am

re: #60 Aceofwhat?

Ps, speaking of dudes with accents, David Feherty is the shit.

(do you play any golf?)

Nah. I like to watch on TV maybe once a year but that’s about it.

darthstar Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:12:16am

re: #69 reidr

She sounds pretty unpolished, but you can only polish a turd so much. When your policies are that far from the mainstream, what do you do? I guess dodge the media as much as possible. Will there be a debate?

Let’s hope there is a televised debate…Other debates I’d like to see televised: McCain/Hayward (AZ primary), DeMint/Greene (SC), Whitman/Brown (CA), Boxer/Fiorina(CA), Bachmann/Bowl of Jello (MN)

Lidane Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:13:15am

re: #67 Aceofwhat?

I hope I know what an annuity is. My Finance professors would be very upset with me if I didn’t. Heh. ;)

Like I said— I can see your point, and can understand what you’re saying, but it’s still a big pile of uncertainty, especially since it involves entrusting someone else to invest that money, hoping that they do it right, and that it leads to a larger check every month for the rest of her life. That’s a whole lot of faith to put into an investment.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:13:17am

re: #71 darthstar

DeMint/Greene, for sure.

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:14:51am

re: #68 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

The Social Security Trust Fund was made part of the General Fund during the Great Society. Then SS taxes were raised in ‘83, to create a surplus for the inevitable flood of retiring Baby Boomers, only for it to be looted in varying degrees by Bush Sr, Clinton, Dubya, and now Obama. Dubya particularly hollowed out the surplus to pay for the “Tax Cuts for the Rich” and the War on Terror.

Like I say, if you could provide links, you’d not only help me, but help the Wiki.

en.wikipedia.org
The 1983 Amendments and the Social Security Trust Fund

The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget (In political jargon, it was proposed to be taken “off-budget.”[citation needed] Yet today Social Security is treated like all the other trust funds of the Unified Budget.[citation needed] It is a political way[citation needed] of using a cash budget instead of the more appropriate[citation needed] accrual budget, for all the budgets in the U.S. government. It is a way of disguising total debt.[citation needed](Source: Webb, Roy, (1991). “The Stealth Budget: Unfunded Liabilities of the Federal Government,” Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond), 77,2 May/June.) This provision also provided for the exemption of Social Security and portions of the Medicare trust funds from any general budget cuts beginning in 1993.[45] This change was one way of trying to protect Social Security funds for the future.

As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the “baby boomers.” Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Because the government had adopted the unified budget during the Johnson administration, this surplus offsets the total fiscal debt, making it look much smaller[citation needed]. There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:15:28am

re: #72 Lidane

I hope I know what an annuity is. My Finance professors would be very upset with me if I didn’t. Heh. ;)

Like I said— I can see your point, and can understand what you’re saying, but it’s still a big pile of uncertainty, especially since it involves entrusting someone else to invest that money, hoping that they do it right, and that it leads to a larger check every month for the rest of her life. That’s a whole lot of faith to put into an investment.

Duh, how could i forget - you’re off to get your MBA! Welcome to the club…

And i absolutely agree that the practical application of such a thing is no small detail. But so many people still deny the basic theory that i haven’t found it worthwhile to dwell on the implementation.

b_sharp Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:15:39am

re: #11 brookly red

I am no fan of the UN either, but I think they respond positivity if we cut their funding in half… but that will never happen.

I just found out that the US finally paid up in full their UN dues. Way to go USA. (no sarcasm)

If you cut the funding in half, that would take about 12.5% from the general fund and 13.5% from peacekeeping. Which one would you like to reduce?

Targetpractice Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:15:58am

re: #74 marjoriemoon

Uhm yeah, I tried looking for a credible link…and the first thing Yahoo spit out was Ron Paul’s site. That and an excerpt from an economic professor’s book on the subject.

I don’t know whether that makes me look like a loon or an idiot…or both.

darthstar Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:16:37am

re: #73 Aceofwhat?

DeMint/Greene, for sure.

Just for entertainment value, really. Don’t expect DeMint to be specific, but do expect him to blow up when he realizes he’s being forced to stand on a stage next to an arguably handicapped black man for ninety minutes.

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:18:08am

re: #77 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Uhm yeah, I tried looking for a credible link…and the first thing Yahoo spit out was Ron Paul’s site. That and an excerpt from an economic professor’s book on the subject.

I don’t know whether that makes me look like a loon or an idiot…or both.

lol Well I don’t think you’re either. I’m not sure why there’s such a question about it. It’s either is being used or it isn’t?

In my experience, Democrats have always been on the side of the lockbox approach and that’s where I’m at.

Lidane Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:18:35am

re: #72 Lidane

Dear lord. Talk about a run-on sentence. Total grammar fail. =P

Baboon Cheeks Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:18:37am

re: #71 darthstar

Let’s hope there is a televised debate…Other debates I’d like to see televised: McCain/Hayward (AZ primary), DeMint/Greene (SC), Whitman/Brown (CA), Boxer/Fiorina(CA), Bachmann/Bowl of Jello (MN)

Heh. I’d love to see Palin vs a bowl of Jello. I can just imagine the complaints from the right wing media next day : “Unfair! That bowl of jello deliberately asked her difficult questions! It had an agenda!”

b_sharp Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:19:32am

re: #27 marjoriemoon

Didn’t Dubya want to do this too? I remember it being on the rightwing platform for a long time and it always gets shot down. As it should. Bad, bad idea.

My mother worked for an Ombudsman for many years helping seniors get access to services. She was a senior herself! Anyway, some of these people live on $500 a MONTH which is only their SS. Without that, they’d be living under a bridge.

I’ve always wanted to live under a bridge, but hey, that’s what trolls do.

Lidane Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:21:17am

re: #81 Jimmah

Heh. I’d love to see Palin vs a bowl of Jello. I can just imagine the complaints from the right wing media next day : “Unfair! That bowl of jello deliberately asked her difficult questions! It had an agenda!”

Pfft. They’d claim bias based on the flavor of Jell-O. “Unfair! They had Sarah up against a bowl of green lime Jell-O when her greatest strengths are against bowls of cherry and peach Jell-O!”

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:21:23am

re: #82 b_sharp

I’ve always wanted to live under a bridge, but hey, that’s what trolls do.

i’m saving up for a van down by the river…

Targetpractice Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:22:18am

re: #79 marjoriemoon

lol Well I don’t think you’re either. I’m not sure why there’s such a question about it. It’s either is being used or it isn’t?

In my experience, Democrats have always been on the side of the lockbox approach and that’s where I’m at.

And that’s what I’m getting at, Gore’s talk about the “lockbox” approach back in ‘00 was in response to the raiding of the surplus from the SS Trust Fund. Bush even talked up how he’d make sure SS was viable for future retirees, even while Republicans in Congress were using it to pay for his own spending spree.

Fozzie Bear Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:22:52am

re: #75 Aceofwhat?

Duh, how could i forget - you’re off to get your MBA! Welcome to the club…

And i absolutely agree that the practical application of such a thing is no small detail. But so many people still deny the basic theory that i haven’t found it worthwhile to dwell on the implementation.

The implementation is where most of those who oppose such a plan find the greatest potential problems. In theory, it should work. Of course, in theory, there is nothing wrong with the current SS system. That’s the problem.

The only people I trust less with my money than those in congress are those on Wall Street.

Targetpractice Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:22:54am

re: #84 Aceofwhat?

i’m saving up for a van down by the river…

Damnit, I was just getting ready to use that joke! No fair!

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:23:30am

re: #82 b_sharp

I’ve always wanted to live under a bridge, but hey, that’s what trolls do.

Moe the Troll goes International :p

Youtube Video

What, me worry? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:25:08am

re: #85 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

And that’s what I’m getting at, Gore’s talk about the “lockbox” approach back in ‘00 was in response to the raiding of the surplus from the SS Trust Fund. Bush even talked up how he’d make sure SS was viable for future retirees, even while Republicans in Congress were using it to pay for his own spending spree.

I always thought that was about the talking phase or planning about using SS for other funding. I never thought it was actually done.

b_sharp Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:26:19am

re: #88 marjoriemoon

Moe the Troll goes International :p

[Video]

LOL. It needed Homer in it to make it complete.

Aceofwhat? Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:35:56am

re: #86 Fozzie Bear

The implementation is where most of those who oppose such a plan find the greatest potential problems. In theory, it should work. Of course, in theory, there is nothing wrong with the current SS system. That’s the problem.

The only people I trust less with my money than those in congress are those on Wall Street.

I disagree. “What if the market crashes”, “how do i guarantee payments”, etc…those are theory, not implementation. Most who oppose this couldn’t tell me what the most poorly timed index fund purchase 40 years ago would yield today.

And i wouldn’t let wall street touch this. Even a government employee can supervise the purchase of generic index funds.

sngnsgt Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:49:39am

May as well say it now, congratulations Senator Reed.

Cato the Elder Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:51:53am

Behold, the standard wingnut talking points, repeated by a demented parrot!

“Awk! Taxes bad! Awk!

Ming Fri, Jun 18, 2010 11:54:40am

Perhaps most terrifying of all is the way some people, like Sarah Palin and Sharron Angle, simply do not submit to questions from the press. To them, dealing with the press is adversarial. Period. Before the past 2 years, every important politician went before the press. George W. Bush took tough questions from the press. Starting with Sarah Palin, the media was put on notice: don’t think, don’t question, just do as you’re told. Now, the media in general seems frankly not interested in getting at the truth. I’m not saying this is a liberal thing or a conservative thing. The media has been overwhelmed by the entertainment side of their business. The truth about Sharron Angle? Why should they care about the truth. Incredibly, comedians like Jon Stuart and Joy Behar often do more real journalism than the media themselves!

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Jun 18, 2010 12:09:38pm

re: #64 Right Brain

Its not that the Democrats are any good, its just that the Republicans are so bad. This woman isn’t ready to run for city council let alone the United States Senate. What was her party thinking? Is there any vetting whatsoever? Do they do any practice interviews? This nincompoop could not answer a single question, and the rhetoric was being taken from her own web site.

You’d sort of think the Republicans would want someone good to go up against Reid. Or maybe they figure he can’t be beat, so what can an Angle hurt?

SanFranciscoZionist Fri, Jun 18, 2010 12:11:09pm

re: #81 Jimmah

Heh. I’d love to see Palin vs a bowl of Jello. I can just imagine the complaints from the right wing media next day : “Unfair! That bowl of jello deliberately asked her difficult questions! It had an agenda!”

It was red jello!

MinisterO Fri, Jun 18, 2010 12:21:02pm

re: #24 Aceofwhat?

index funds aren’t volatile. the objection is unsound, primarily.

Nonsense. Indices are as volatile as the market segments they track. Over the last two decades most all of them are losers to inflation.

Baboon Cheeks Fri, Jun 18, 2010 12:24:21pm

re: #96 SanFranciscoZionist

It was red jello!

Yep - and did you see it wobbling menacingly during her answers to distract her? UNFAIR! TRICKSY LIBRHUL JELLO!

Pacific moderate Fri, Jun 18, 2010 2:50:26pm

I’m not familiar with her usual speech, but is it possible she’s a little tipsy in this clip? Without anything to compare with, her words seemed a bit slurred. Maybe someone who has heard her before can set me straight.

100

brainiac-dumdum Fri, Jun 18, 2010 9:41:57pm

A campaign spokesperson called Nathan Baca “an idiot” and another term that can’t be repeated.

How dare they call him Voldemort!

101

MagnaniomousCoward Sat, Jun 19, 2010 5:25:03am

re: #64 Right Brain

Its not that the Democrats are any good, its just that the Republicans are so bad. This woman isn’t ready to run for city council let alone the United States Senate. What was her party thinking? Is there any vetting whatsoever? Do they do any practice interviews? This nincompoop could not answer a single question, and the rhetoric was being taken from her own web site.

Sharron Angle isn’t the establishment GOP candidate in the primary - she’s the Tea Party/Scientology/nutbar candidate. The GOP has to make an at least token effort to get her elected in respect of the voters, but I think many traditional Republicans would rather have Harry Reid bumbling his way for another term than to have a disaster like Angle.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Sharron Angle Surfaces, Still Nuts

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud