The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords was, as we all know, tragic and horrifying. We all feel for her family, along with the other victims, and denounce this idiotic violence.

Watching the coverage of the story this weekend was truly perplexing. The left immediately jumped to blame the right before we even knew he name of the shooter. The right correctly defended itself pointing out that most of his rhetoric was from the left. At moments of attempted fairness, both sides say that they have some responsibility for angry rhetoric. The media, which is forever trying to elevate itself above that which it covers, claims that one thing we can all agree on is that there is a problem with the discourse in this country.

However, the one thing that no one seems to want to talk about is that after looking at the gunman and his ramblings, I don’t see how a discussion about rhetoric applies at all.

The truth is, unless there are a lot of new facts to come that we don’t know about yet, this shooting says absolutely nothing about our political discourse. Nothing. In fact, it says absolutely nothing about society as a whole. Zero.

I know this is disappointing to politicians and the media, but sometimes the story just isn’t about you. It’s about the people who were shot, and the person who shot them.

Think about this. Jared Lee Loughner was fixated on Gabrielle Giffords since at least August 2007. You might recognize that date as occurring approximately two years before the Tea Party existed. When he had a chance to finally interact with her, he asked her a question about grammar. Grammar.

He’s just crazy.  There’s no larger story here. There’s no there there.

The media and political hacks have used this tragedy as an excuse to talk about something they want to talk about—supposed right wing violence. There is absolutely no evidence at this time that supports that the right wing had anything to do with the killers actions . It’s the ultimate “when did you stop beating your wife” storyline. Conservatives are forced to defend themselves against a charge that no one with any evidence is presenting.

The Weekly Standard lays this case out extremely well, the whole piece is worth your time.

The lead piece from Politico included this passage: “By day’s end, the argument that the political right—fueled by anti-government, and anti-immigrant passions that run especially strong in Arizona—is culpable for the Tucson massacre, even if by indirect association, seemed to be validated by the top local law enforcement official investigating the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D).”

Validated how? Did this official provide evidence that Loughner was fueled by anti-government and anti-immigrant passions that run especially strong in Arizona? The article quotes him.

When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government—the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country is getting to be outrageous,” said Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, an elected Democrat, at a news conference Saturday evening. “And unfortunately, Arizona, I think, has become the capital. We have become the mecca for prejudice and bigotry.

Unsubstantiated accusations from an authority figure do not “validate” the irresponsible claims of conservative culpability; they merely echo them. Unless he has seen evidence he is not sharing with the public, Dupnik was little more than Markos Moulitsas with a badge.

1) Glenn estimates in an off-the-cuff comment about something unrelated that around 10% of Muslims around the world are terrorists

2) Liberal blogs and some others fly off the handle

3) We show that the statistic is backed up by respected pollsters frequently cited by the exact same people complaining about it

4) SILENCE

There were a couple of exceptions to the silence.  For example, Jon Bershad at Mediaite takes the high road–with a refreshingly honest response to the information we presented here.

• Stu “asks for the media ’s apology . Well, here it is: I’m sorry. You appear to be right. However…”
• Look, I know my argument is more about feelings than facts and I know it’s a little flimsy. For instance, I hate the theory, espoused by the likes of early-2000s Eminem and one of my least favorite episodes of South Park, that words like “gay” and “fag” shouldn’t offend homosexuals because, in modern connotations, they actually mean “stupid” or “lame.” However, here I am, basically arguing the same thing about the word “terrorist.” I know I have no proof as to why those two arguments are different, but I feel that they are.  And therein, basically, lies the crux of my (admittedly flimsy) argument.

The entire post is worth your time, as I said–it’s honest.  And “honest” isn’t an easy genre to connect with for many in the media.  For example, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.  If you don’t know who Fareed Zakaria is, then you aren’t working for his show.  But, apparently he decided to rehash all of the arguments that my last post shot down, with impressive levels of denial. You have to love the summary of the opposition:

“And this guy cited some polls to support the claim that many in the Muslim world don’t like us and wish us harm. Uhh, yes, many of us have been pointing that out for over a decade now … But hating America is not the same thing as being a terrorist.

“Believe me, if we had one hundred and fifty seven million Muslim terrorists active across the world, we would be hearing more about it.”

As “this guy” I feel uniquely qualified to comment.

1) The polls don’t describe a “wish” of any sort.  They don’t just describe people hating America.  They show support for violent attacks against civilians on US soil.  They show support for the actions of Osama Bin Laden.  They show support–aka advocacy–for those attacks.  Why is advocacy important? Well…

2) Dictionary.com.  Terrorist. Definition number one.  ”a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.” Look, Fareed -you’re either wrong, or you need to start attacking the dictionary, not Glenn. Just admit it.  Fareed’s defense on this point is that other organizations don’t define it this way, so “never mind.”  Never mind what?  The dictionary?  Never mind the dictionary?  When your defense can be summarized as “well, I think the dictionary is wrong”, you’ve lost.

3) Fareed claims that by my definition of terrorist, Glenn is a terrorist because Glenn says things that make people angry at the government.  I apologize for acting like I’m talking to someone with the IQ of eight, but apparently, I am.

a) Not my definition of terrorist.  It’s the dictionary definition of terrorist.

b) Here’s where your previous mistakes create issues for you, Fareed.  Saying things that make you angry at the United States does not make you a terrorist.  Advocating terrorism does.  If Glenn starts advocating attacks against civilians in the United States, he would be a terrorist.  He hasn’t done this, and never would.  But, let me ask you this-if Glenn DID start advocating attacks against innocent American civilians—would you do a segment of your show defending him?  Would ya?

4) He says if all of this were true “we would be hearing more about it.”  But, then also says he has been pointing out what he considers similar things for a decade.  Nice admission of your irrelevance.

Snark aside, let’s boil both sides down for a second.

–Zakaria’s (incorrect) point is that Glenn Beck is crazy for saying that 157 million Muslims are GOING to blow Americans up, because the truth is just that157 million Muslims WANT Americans to blow up.  Even if that were correct, is it really a point you are proud to argue?

–Glenn’s larger point was that a small percentage of Muslims are causing a major problem for the far, far larger non-psychotic part of it. Is that really a point that you find that objectionable, even if it was worded incorrectly? (It was not.)

The larger thing to observe here is –why is Mediaite doing a far better job than CNN?  Isn’t CNN supposed to be the one who is the level-headed-we’re-better-than-the-other-cable-networks-because-we’re-journalists-network?  Why is Mediaite able to completely destroy them in the credibility department?

Before I go, allow me to end with an acknowledgement of tactics from the left blogs that are in perpetual attack mode on Glenn.  Please, please, please notice how all of this started.  It’s one of the most common tactics in the failing war on Glenn…the sniper method.

Look, the number Glenn used was correct.  But, has he communicated that point in a more clear way at other times?  Sure.  For example, he usually says something like he did in The Real America—ten percent “want you dead” or a similar variation.  But what these blogs (Think Progress, Media Matters, Media Progress, Think Matters, DailyHuffPOlberschultz) constantly do is take a statistic or comment that Glenn says 50 times with all of the appropriate qualifiers–and wait for the one time he does not.  No one bothers to try and understand what he meant or try to understand the context.

A perfect example is the O’Reilly/View walkout.  How many times has O’Reilly said something similar to “Muslim extremists” on his show?  25,000?  Anyone who has ever heard him speak about terrorism at all knows that Bill O’Reilly does not think that every Muslim on earth is flying a plane into a building.  But, the one time he leaves off extremists, he suddenly is anti-Muslim.   It’s an absurd standard utilized by cowards who know how pathetic it is, but use it anyway because they believe the ends justify the means.

Let’s lay this out as quickly as possible. Glenn says this on the radio:

BECK: What is the number of Islamic terrorists? One percent? I think it’s closer to 10 percent, but the rest of the PC world will tell you ‘oh no, it’s minuscule.’ Okay, well, let’s take you at your one percent. Look at the havoc of one percent of Muslims causing on the rest of the world!

The typical idiotic left wing blogs go nuts. Then some not-so-typically-idiotic sources go nuts too. Eventually they figure out that this isn’t even the first time Glenn has said this!!! PANIC!!

To show how ridiculously pathetic the hype on this manufactured nonsense is—let’s start with definitions. What is a terrorist? From dictionary.com, definition number one:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

Okay, now what is terrorism? Would you say that “attacks on civilians in the US” is an acceptable definition? Seems reasonable in this context, doesn’t it?

Okey dokey—here are the facts. All of this is according to a scientific poll of people in Muslim nations done by the respected group World Public Opinion.

The lowest amount of support in the polled nations is in Azerbaijan where ONLY 4% of people approve of violence against civilians on our territory, with another 10% having “mixed feelings” about it. That number rises to 9% approval in Pakistan, with another 15% having “mixed feelings”. Do you want me to mention the Palestinian territories? Do you? 24% approval, 15% mixed feelings.

To put it another way—someone in the Palestinian territories who is open to violence on civilians in the United States is about as easy to find as an American citizen who approves of the job performance of President Obama.

But these numbers, ranging from 10% to 39%, are just the beginning.

• Specific support for Al Qaeda’s attacks on civilians range from “only” 9% in Morocco to 21% in Egypt.

• Support for attacking civilians who just happen to work in Islamic countries range from 6%-30%.

• Specific support for Osama Bin Laden? That ranges from 4% in Azerbaijan to 56% in the Palestinian territories. Include those who have mixed feelings towards the largest terrorist in American history—and you get a range of 10%-78%.

• Let’s remove the Al Qaeda brand name, and look for support for groups in general that attack Americans.  Support ranges from 25%-30%.

• If you think killing troops that just happened to be stationed in the Gulf is terrorism—then it gets much, much worse. Support for violence ranges from 13% in Azerbaijan to a ridiculous 78% in Egypt and 87% in the Palestinian territories. That doesn’t include those who have mixed feelings about killing troops.

Alright, now that we have the facts…let me articulate the lefts last ditch argument:

“But those are only people who advocate terrorism! Not people who are terrorists!!”

First, allow me to point out that your argument has now boiled down to:

“Glenn Beck lied! He said that 10% of Muslims want to kill innocent civilians when the truth is that 10% of Muslims SUPPORT killing innocent civilians!”

Secondly, even that point is wrong. Read the definition of terrorist again:

a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

“But, that’s not what Glenn meant! You’re only saying that to cover after the fact!”

Am I? Here is the 10% statistic as laid out in 2003, in Glenn’s first New York Times bestselling book “The Real America.” (Emphasis mine.)

–Ninety percent of Islam is peaceful.

–Ten percent of Islam wants us dead.

–That ten percent of the faith is composed of extreme radicals who have taken Islam through a time tunnel and twisted it into something that is ugly and barbaric.

What is truly amazing is how completely shocking this is to most of the media. This is very basic information about the war on terror. Anyone who has ever covered a terrorism story should be intimately acquainted with these polls. To be shocked by a statement like Glenn’s, shows either a willful disregard for the information*, or a complete lack of perspective about what we’re fighting. I’m actually stunned.  (*The usual suspects like the Center for American Progress are very familiar with this information and are willfully ignoring it.  They act as if they’re horrified, even while using this organization and it’s polling as a source dozens of times.)

The sad truth is that there are a lot of Muslims around the world who really don’t like us.  That’s not a right wing tactic to get people riled up, it’s the truth.  It’s a small percentage of a large group.  Thankfully, the numbers are much, much better among American Muslims.  That’s encouraging.  And eventually, I believe the truth will win out among Muslims worldwide, and they will realize that we have absolutely no interest in destroying their religion.

But, beyond all of that—say this with me. Glenn was right. You were wrong. Now, go to Twitter and apologize.

Yes, we all ignore him on a daily basis.  But, I make this plea specifically to Sarah Palin…ignore Joe Scarborough.  It’s truly pathetic how hard he is trying to get attention by getting Palin to respond to his idiotic rant about her supposed evils.  It’s a completely transparent tactic from a guy who simply can’t get anyone to pay attention to him.

I guess you have to do something when your radio show is on a “brief hiatus” for eight months and counting.  But, to be fair, you need at least that long to  try and change a “current two-hour radio show to develop ‘a new three-hour program.’”  Certainly you can’t just stay on for an extra hour.

It’s almost as if they didn’t want him on the air anymore.

Sort of like when his last radio show, which also went on “hiatus” in 2005.  However, that show disappeared so that it could be relaunched “in an even more competitive time period“…which is obviously the problem with a show that failed in four months…not enough competition.

Of course, Scarborough had an excuse for that too, saying his old show “was one guy talking into a microphone and spouting an opinion for three hours.”  I mean, what are the odds of that becoming successful in talk radio????

I believe Don Imus put it best:  “His radio show is cancelled. They’re not revamping anything! He will never ever be on WABC in New York again, ever! Ever!…You know why they got blown out? Because they suck! And he’s a punk and a phony.” ]]> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/?feed=rss2&p=1162 http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/?p=1156 http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/?p=1156#comments Thu, 18 Nov 2010 20:49:32 +0000 stu http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/?p=1156 I know this thought might not be too popular, but I’m starting to wonder—is this TSA story real?

To be clear, there are two different elements of this story:

a)  Is the enhanced search policy a good policy?  I think this is perfectly legitimate to argue.

b) Are there a lot of outraged people around the country actually being groped?  I’m a little hesitant on this one.

Over the past week or so, we’ve seen almost all of the highly publicized claims of TSA terror be exposed as being overblown or not current.

Off the top of my head:

1) The 3 year old who was crying in the security line—was actually from two years ago.  And children below twelve are exempt from the searches anyway.

2) The radio host who claimed she was handcuffed to a chair and held for an hour—video seems to indicate she  exaggerated her story greatly.

3) Penn Jillette calls cops after being fondled at airport—that was actually from 8 years ago.

4) The “don’t touch my junk” guy—this just seems suspicious to me.  The agent is courteous and understanding, and the junk guy is obviously trying to make a point.  Remember, he doesn’t say he was groped–he is just putting up fuss about the possibility of potentially being groped.   With the exception of the title “groin check” which is the equivalent of calling a burger a “cow flesh sandwich” —the agent’s description sounds pretty cold and clinical to me.

5) The picture of the nun being searched.  I haven’t confirmed this one yet–but a TSA agent that listens to the 4th hour writes in and says “the picture…the one of a Muslim female officer patting down a nun, is at least 3 years old… She’s wearing our old uniform.”

6) The guy who “punched” the TSA agent in Indianapolis.  It had nothing to do with the new policy.  In fact, the guy wasn’t patted down at all.  He willingly went through the body scanner.  He had “a history of medical issues, including two metal implants, a colostomy bag and a fused right wrist” which started a conversation with security.  Of course, most of these items would have also been spotted by a normal metal detector, but the guy “punched” him anyway.  When the officer asked why the man hit him he replied “I was only kidding with you.”

Again, I think it’s fine to criticize the policy.  I don’t understand why we need to start using the front of the hand instead of  the back of the hand, for example.  I don’t like the possibility of images being saved or sent from the scanners, when we were promised that it wouldn’t happen.  I also recognize that if a terrorist wants to bring a weapon on a plane–he’s going to put it near his junk–and we better figure out how to find it, before he decides to use it.

But, regarding the idea that there is some rash of agents grabbing your noodles for no reason, I just haven’t seen evidence of it happening with any level of regularity.  They get close, sure.  But even the pictures from the Denver airport show close calls, not cup-o-noodles.  Maybe it is going on, but I haven’t seen enough in the news, nor have I seen it once–any of the times I’ve flown.  The whole thing just seems odd to me.

]]> http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/?feed=rss2&p=1156 http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/?p=1145 http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/?p=1145#comments Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:53:46 +0000 stu http://www.glennbeck.com/content/blog/stu/?p=1145

Alan Grayson is fundraising off of Glenn’s back again…or at least he thinks he is.  From his desperate final fundraising pitch on his Facebook page:

According to the Examiner, this is what Glenn Beck said on the air, earlier this week:

“It’s OK if the Republicans lose every seat in the Senate and the House except for one. As long as that one is Alan Grayson losing.”

Yes, “according to the Examiner” Glenn did say this:

Beck: …It’s okay if the republicans lose every seat in the Senate and the House except for one. As long as that one is Alan Grayson losing.

But, this isn’t the Washington Examiner, the newspaper–it’s Examiner.com–a collection of bloggers.  The Huffington Post, actually gets the story right:

“Sarah,” one of Beck’s co-hosts said, in a playful intro to the discussion. “I’m wondering if you are on board with my personal aspirations here for this election, which is, it’s okay if the republicans lose every seat in the senate and the house except for one, as long as that one is Alan Grayson losing.”

So, Glenn didn’t even say it.  I did.  The Huffington Post has it right.  In fact, even Alan Grayson’s own Wikipedia page has it right.  So, why would you reference a random blogger over the Obama-approved-news-source, the Huffington Post?  Well, because throwing my name around won’t raise any money for you. Glenn’s will.  When Grayson wants something he will say anything.  Remember this research quality next time he’s talking about an important issue.

Interestingly enough, the Examiner.com blogger who posted this story has posted eleven straight stories about Alan Grayson.  Who posts eleven straight stories about Alan Grayson?  (Except for me, of course.)

Anyway—here is what the GOP needs to do in the house (remember, they need 39 seats to regain control.)

If they win all races where they are projected to win by 5 or more, they gain 33 seats.

If they win all races where they are projected to win by 3 or more, they gain 50 seats.

If they win all races where they are projected to win by any amount, they gain 59 seats.

If they win all races where they are projected to win or be within 3 points, they gain 71 seats.

If they win all races where they are projected to win or be within 5 points, they gain 80 seats.

Obviously, they will lose some that we expect them to win.   And they will win some that we expect them to lose. But all things equal–if they win all races in which it looks like they have substantial leads, they are in really good shape.  The GOP would have to win only 6 of the 26 other seats that they are favored in, to win the house.  That’s why sites like Intrade are showing about a 90% chance Republicans will win.

Of course, there’s always the Alan Grayson thesis.  In an interview this weekend that aired on our Miami affiliate 610 WIOD, he said (paraphrasing) ‘The only reason that the polls in 2010 look worse than the polls in 2008 is that democrats have more cell phones.’  Hopefully, this will be just another embarrassing moment in the failed career of former congressman Grayson.  Feels so good to type that.

That’s right!  Republican Pat Toomey seems to be HAPPY that China is modernizing and lifting hundreds of millions of its citizens out of poverty.  How dare he.  That’s the message of the DSCC, who drives the point home with a gong and a fortune cookie.  Seriously. (Surely, if a republican were to run an ad about China with a gong and the crunch of a fortune cookie, no one would protest.)

I live in Pennsylvania, so I see this ad constantly, along with this one, which bashes Toomey for doing business with a “Hong Kong billionaire” who devilishly was trying to “help the Chinese economy.”

One of the funniest parts of both ads is that the main charge seems to be that Toomey voted to give normal trade status to China.  When? 5/24/2000..as summarized by the New York Times in an article entitled:

THE CHINA TRADE VOTE: A CLINTON TRIUMPH

Hmmmm…Clinton?  Is that some sort of Republican extremist?  Maybe Sestak can ask him next time they hang out.

Toomey, currently holds a small lead in the polls, and is listed by FiveThirtyEight/NY Times as having an 83% chance of winning.

Patrick Murphy in Pennsylvania has a particularly bad example against his opponent Mike Fitzpatrick. The commercial ends with a rotund elderly gentlewoman looking sadly into the camera and saying something like “Mike Fitzpatrick…I can’t live on half of my social security.”

You get the premise—the market has been a nightmare for the past few years. Therefore, if you had a privatized fund, you’d be screwed!  This is so completely dishonest it’s hard to list all the ways…but let’s try.

(This is pretty long-so, feel free to skip to the end for the one gigantic run on sentence to summarize all of the lies.)

1)    If you are in retirement today—it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE for you to have lost ANYTHING if the privatization plan had been implemented. The social security “privatization” plan did not allow anyone under the age of 55 to participate in it when it launched.  Even if you wanted to. PERIOD.

2)    Let’s ignore that. If you could have joined…then would you have been forced to lose 50%?  No…even when implemented, you would have had to volunteer to be enrolled in it.  It was optional.  You could not have lost money unless you volunteered for the program.

3)    Let’s ignore that. If it was mandatory…and you were exactly 5 years before retirement when the plan was implemented 5 years ago, and you were forced into the program-what would have happened?  Would you have lost 50%?  Nope.  “Why not?  The market did drop by about half!”  True.  But, it also bounced back.  And you would have been buying it when it was low.  In fact, you would have bought the market at an average of about 10,959 over those five years. So, if you emptied the account all at once today, you’d actually STILL be up about 1.3%–even after the worst financial collapse since the great depression.  Oops.*

4)    Let’s ignore that. Let’s assume that the market can’t rebound.  Let’s assume you were forced at gunpoint to sell at the lowest possible market level in the last five years.   Would you lose 50% then?  Nope.  Why?  You could only invest $1,000 per year in the privatized part of the plan.  Even including yearly increases that wouldn’t have kicked in back then, the maximum you could have invested in the privatized fund since 2005 would have been about $1,210 per year.  Even in a world where you could only sell your privatized fund at the lowest point in the market-you’d only be down about $3,600-about 1% of the expected social security payout of someone retiring today.

5)    Let’s ignore that. What if the plan was fully implemented-so there weren’t those pesky yearly limits.  Could you lose 50% then?  Nope.  The absolute maximum you could ever invest in the privatized part of the plan would be about 32% of your social security. Meaning that over 68% of the fund would remain the exact same as it is now.  Therefore, even if you had invested every penny possible into your privatized plan over a lifetime, and you pulled it out on the day the market dropped to half of the average you bought it at, you still would only lose 16%.

6)    Let’s ignore that. 16% is still a lot-right?   It sure is, the only problem is-the plan made it essentially IMPOSSIBLE to lose 16% in this situation.  Why?  Because, even if you were a complete moron who wanted to pull out all of your money on the worst possible day that the market would allow—the rules wouldn’t allow it.   As the plan specifically stated: “Personal retirement accounts would not be emptied out all at once, but rather paid out over time, as an addition to traditional Social Security benefits.”   So, even if you were the most unlucky person on the planet-the plan would stop you from losing all of that money-because you’d have to ride it out over time, allowing the market to bounce back.

7)    Let’s ignore that. Let’s say you had no memory of all that we’ve learned so far.  “All of your money is at risk in the market!  And if you pull it out at the worst possible time, you’d lose 50%!! PANIC!!”   Ooooh…sorry.  Actually, the plan would automatically transfer you out of the riskier fund beginning about 18 years before retirement, unless you specifically told them to do otherwise.  Cass Sunstein fans celebrate-you’d have to specifically veto the nudge of a less risky plan to be more risky.

8)    Let’s ignore that. Sure, every other argument of a 50% loss has been completely demolished—but what about if people started taking the funds out early ?  Ooooops again. If I may quote: “American workers who choose personal retirement accounts would not be allowed to make withdrawals from, take loans from, or borrow against their accounts prior to retirement.”

9)    Let’s say they ignored all of that and went in another direction…(which they have to do when pressed.) Every one of these candidates knows that this “blame the market” approach is complete and utter BS…even in the worst economic times we’ve experienced in the past 50 years.  So, instead, they say Bush wanted to decrease benefits.  Wrong.  He proposed that benefits be indexed to inflation-essentially guaranteeing that they would never be decreased.

10)   Let’s ignore that, and instead act like indexing to inflation is a cut.  How?  Well, they try to stake their claim on the way Bush was indexing the increases in benefits.  Bush basically said “index the benefits to inflation”-while they are now indexed to wages.  So, because inflation usually rises at a slightly slower rate than wages-the Bush plan is supposedly “cutting” benefits compared to what they would have been if they were indexed to wages.  Get it?  So, it’s not a cut at all, it’s only a cut from what benefits would have been if you had indexed them at a higher rate.

11)     Let’s ignore that. Let’s say that they actually believe that indexing something to inflation is completely unfair.  Well-then we finally find our 50% cut…right?  Wrong.  That’s actually still not based on the plan Bush supported. His indexing was more of a hybrid, in between the “wages” and “inflation” measures.  Bush’s inflation-indexing-horror-show would only fake-cut benefits by 28%…not 50%.  By the way, all of these “cut” numbers come from the completely objective source of Barack Obama’s own economic advisors.

12)     Let’s ignore that. Even if you disregard all of this-even if you ignored all of the clauses in the law that would stop these disastrous events– could the lady in the ad REALLY see a 50% cut in her benefits?? ?  Sure.   But, she would have to live to be 130 years old.  You see, these percentages of the fake-cut wouldn’t occur until the year 2075—again-according to Obama’s own advisors.

13) Let’s ignore that. No, we’re not done.  Because to get that 50% cut, in 2075, you’d have to ignore the long-term gains of the privatization plan.  I’m not going to go through the hassle of running the numbers of 65 years of investments, but rest assured you’d be able to beat the 1.2% return of social security by quite a bit.  Especially considering the Dow is up over 7,200% in that time.

Of course, the actual return on social security isn’t 1.2%–it’s negative.  There’s already nothing left-it’s all been spent by the government in other places. But, if you’re worried that you’re going to wind up with nothing unless someone implements a plan like privatization—don’t.    Ending up with nothing—is actually far better than what we’re going to wind up with.  We’re getting debt.  Trillions of dollars worth.  We will pray for the blessing of only receiving nothing.

So, now that I’ve turned one sentence of a commercial into well over 1,000 words–what have we learned about this claim (in one run-on sentence)?

As long as you ignore that you had to be less than 55, and that the plan was completely optional, and that you’d still be up if it started in 2005, and that you couldn’t invest more than $1,000 per year, and that you could never invest more than a third in privatization, and that you couldn’t empty the fund all at once, and that you’d be transferred out of a risky fund automatically as you neared retirement,  and that you couldn’t empty the fund early, and that benefits wouldn’t be cut, and that Bush didn’t support the type of indexing they’re referring to, and that they mysteriously doubled the non-existent cuts, and that it would only effect someone today if they lived to 130 years old, and if you ignore the long term track record of the market, and if there was any actual money left in social security, and we could pay for it—then the commercial was completely truthful.  Good job democrats!

Read more, as if this wasn’t long enough, here and here.

*(Using the Dow as a simplified tool throughout.)