Carl was calling all non country club members as small people. Alan was referring to poor people. Lesser isn’t exactly the best choice of words, but it was a mistake of grammar, not elitism.

Haha, I see move-on has got Tommy on speed dial. Hey TC, I just emailed you guys a picture of a Dem candidate holding a obama as hitler picture that you overlooked. Maybe you could get on that one too. I’m sure if it were Palin holding it, it would have been up a LONG time ago.

So Tommy, do the Daily Kos, Media Matters and Move-on send you a list of questions they’d like you to ask each day?

Hey Tommy – was that on the list of pointless, irrelevant questions for the day? You seem to be specializing. I guess the oil spill, 2 wars, the economy, McChrystal and financial reform aren’t nearly as important as the word police.

MichelleF says:
June 23, 2010 at 10:35 am
Keeva says:
June 23, 2010 at 10:40 am
So once again your side evinces its true feelings and you attack the messenger, and I thought only liberals did that with Glenn Beck. You’re truly sad, ya know. If you don’t like the website don’t come. Otherwise stop posting the errant bullsh*t.

Keep E-MAILING those PIXXX MichelleF!!!!!11 You are doing SUCH important work keeping these LIB HACKS in line!!!!1 It’s almost as if you GET PAID to WRITE A BLOG like they do!!!1

Thanks for the advice RL, but I politely decline.

I’m curious RL, which do you find more offensive, what Simpson said or Obama using the term typical white person?

MichelleF says:
June 23, 2010 at 10:52 am
Of course. You’re a Republican. b*tching and moaning without any actual substance to your arguments is your forte.

I’ll take response as you don’t want to answer. Not surprised.

“GOP Leader Alan Simpson”???? He’s leading the GOP while working for Obama?

What is his GOP leadership role, Tommy?

What EVER.

I watched the whole thing and the guy lost his arguments time and again, and none of them addressed the caps on pay in to the system nor did they discuss caps on the pay outs to those who did not pay in at the full percentage rates imposed on the poor on up through the Middle of the middle class.

it is not healthy for the system to allow so much income to escape being collected at the high end of incomes, it is ECONOMIC and BENEFIT welfare for the rich and that aint fair or universally imposed at all.

MichelleF says:
June 23, 2010 at 10:57 am
I apologize, I missed your other question. I find it funny that you demand my response yet yourself fail to ever do so, oh, that’s the other Republican attribute; hypocrisy. But if you must know, Obama’s “typical white person” thing is something very different. Being that you are not an African-American you wouldn’t know. You’ve never been followed around in a store. And don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen. Am I saying that all white people are racist? NO! So don’t try to put that on me either. Furthermore, Obama didn’t characterize a group of people as a inferior as Simpson has. You may want to watch it with the red herrings there too, michelly

Great spin, RL.

MichelleF says:
June 23, 2010 at 11:11 am
Great lack of argument, Michelle. You neglect that you asked my opinion and I gave it. You know, I’m seriously beginning to think that you come here simply to annoy.

To “The Reasonable Lib

The only thing Reasonable about you is your name.

You argue like my teenage boy use to…Round and Round in a Circle, usually you are just agravating.

Here is $10… Now get out of the house and don’t come home for a while.

Better Alan Simpson as GOP leader than Obama as Lib leader.

But if you must know, Obama’s “typical white person” thing is something very different. Being that you are not an African-American you wouldn’t know.

Ah, so African-Americans wouldn’t know what I meant if I called one of them a “typical black person”? What kind of idiot thinks that you have to have a certain skin color to understand a plain English term?

I was wondering who the leader of the GOP was, and now I guess it’s this guy I never heard of (I didn’t know making an idiotic comment confirmed one’s leadership status). Thanks for letting me know, Tommy.

Does this make Blago the leader of the Dems? Perhaps Alvin Greene?

Tigerprez, I think this is the leader of the Dem party:

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/06/why-is-the-state-run-media-hiding-this-photo-from-you/

tigerprez, I think it’s Jimmy Carter.

Simpson may not agree with the interviewer, but he is making a decent argument in the fact that people do live longer than when the system was originally set up. At least he hung in there and defended his position.

I am one of the lesser people and I am not offended by his remarks. By lesser he meant poor or sick. He could have used a different word but that is not the crux of the argument.

Yes raising the retirement age is a cut in benefits but if people live longer they will get more out than they put in even if they retire at 70.

I don’t see why there is an income cap on the contribution. If the retirement age is going to be raised than so should the income cap.

Simpson should not resign. He is not doing this job for the money. He is doing it because he feels an obligation to fix a system that is broken. If he walked away who would replace him?

Aimlow Joe was here.
http://www.aimlow.com

Keeva,

guess you missed the rest of the briefing, and my 1st question.

Michelle,

it’s a free country, and all, but I wonder why you, and a number of other commenters here, when given an opportunity to actually interact with writers, instead resort to insults? (Granted, yours is comparatively mild) You care enough to read a story, why not then care enough to discuss it like an adult? For example, there’s a legitimate question (what’s the process by which I think up briefing questions) embedded in your insult, but who would ever engage in a discussion that starts with such bad faith?

It’s a shame, because the poo-flingers kinda ruin it for everyone else. Many writers just don’t bother to read comments at all because of the predominance of insults, robbing the civil commenters of the chance to interact with the writers, and vice versa.

The headline refers to Simpson’s leadership position on the Deficit Commission. There’s only so much info you can fit up top, that’s why we write an article underneath it.

T.C.
You know that when you slouch you could look like one of the little people. Just sayin…

I think that if one spends most of a lifetime in DC…one tends to lose track of what “real” people think….feel….the way they speak….the changes in the meanings of certain phrases….actually working for a living. This Simpson kerfuffle is just one more reason to look past what the lifers in Congress have to say….and another reason to hope for new blood.
Don’t get lost up there, T.C…..

You could have just used your original title: “Inept GOP Hates Poor, Old People.” That would have saved you five words and cut straight to your point. (Although I do give you credit for outing Simpson as the Leader of the GOP. That’s arguably the most important thing we learn in this piece, though I wish you had further developed that point. I wonder if Rush Limbaugh has been informed…)

Then shouldn’t it say Deficit Commission Leader and not GOP leader? The GOP is a political party. Simpson does not lead it. This is pretty simple, straightforward stuff.

Which leads me to a question: Does Mediaite have any editors hanging around?

If you look at the URL for this post, you can see the original headline. Yes, editors often edit headlines to make them more concise, as in this case.

I wonder why there is no article yet on Mediaite about Rep Paul Kanjorski recently saying that minorities are not “average, good American people.” Probably not because he’s a Democrat. No. Not that.

Using the same standard used with Alan Simpson, there should be a front page article saying “Dem Leader Kanjorski Says Minorities Not ‘Average, Good Americans.’” I won’t hold my breath.

Oh, here’s a link (with video), too. Just so you don’t have to do the research.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2010/jun/23/video-rep-kanjorski-finance-bill-will-help-good-am/

The problem here isn’t Simpson’s use of the word “lesser.” The problem is WHY he used that word. He states quite clearly that he sees Social Security as a welfare program for the poor and disabled. SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT WELFARE! It was never intended to be welfare. It was set up for ALL as an insurance program. We pay in, and if we live long enough, we expect money to supplement our retirement income. He conveniently leaves out what has happened to pensions. We’ve gone from defined benefit (you know in advance what you will get) to defined contribution (what you get depends on things like the stock market, interest rates, the viability and honesty of the company you work for, etc.). Some would be tempted to think that change was not an accident.

Simpson’s age may explain his use of the word “lesser.” It might even explain his [convenient] dismissal of the ’83 changes that were, indeed, planning for the retirement of the baby boomers. When he says no one could have foreseen that people would live into their 70′s, he’s talking about SocSec’s inception, not 1983. It’s true that different groups have different life expectancies. I might have talked about those whose work is physical – which becomes increasingly difficult as one ages.

As for what was said about the current state of the trust fund and how SocSec affects the budget, Mr. Simpson was talking nonsense and Lawson seemed to be trying to see if Simpson knew that. The way SS is accounted for isn’t simple, and it cannot be explained in a few seconds of talking or a few sentences of writing. Even Simpson agreed that there is enough money to pay expected benefits for the next 27 years. Does this sound like an emergency to anyone? If we do nothing for 10 years there will still be time to adjust (based on how the fund is doing THEN, which may be better). If you look around for truly non-partisan facts you’ll see that the projected SS shortfall could be fixed for an almost unnoticeable amount each month.

I’ll agree that his bluntness was “refreshing” and enlightening (to anyone who thinks this commission is really about deficits). Anyone who has done their homework and could get past the obvious partisan b*s* (regardless of their own affiliation) could see that Simpson does not understand how Social Security accounting works and is acting on talking points instead of knowledge.

To the extent that he, or anyone else, is in this to further a partisan attack on Social Security rather than to deal sensibly with future Federal budget deficits (in which SS is not even a part), then yes, they should not be on the commission.

Zurda: You have it RIGHT!!!

Simpson just doesn’t know what he’s talking about.