George McGovern: "When people tell me they don't like liberals..."

[G_j]

[sabrina 1]

1. How true. I can't think of a Republican who has wanted to do something to help people.

So it's strange that half the country still supports them. My feeling is that Democrats are far too respectful to them and do not publicly attack them on their anti-people policies. Instead we keep hearing about working WITH them.

Senator McGovern according to several people who knew him personally said recently that he was never afraid to say what he believed from the POV of being a Democrat, no matter how unpopular it was so do so. Not that what he said was unpopular, but apparent SAYING things, such as the quote in the OP, seems to be unpopular even among Demcorats.

Too bad that good Democrats like McGovern did not get the backing he needed at least from his own party when it came to telling the truth about Republicans.

[Cooley Hurd]

4. TR, Ike, Javitz...

In other words, extinct.

[sabrina 1]

14. Yes, I thought of TR and Ike but they are dead. There were decent Republicans

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:38 AM - Edit history (1)

apparently in the past, but I can't think of one who is currently serving or who has served over the past decade or more.

[G_j]

7. What It Means to Be a Democrat

http://www.amazon.com/What-It-Means-Be-Democrat/dp/0399158227
```
George McGovern: Touchstone of Liberalism

John Nichols on October 21, 2012 - 10:54 AM ET
http://www.thenation.com/blog/170712/george-mcgovern-touchstone-liberalism#
..snip..
McGovern took it all in with a humility that was uncommon in American political life. He was always on a mission. He appreciated accolades but did not slow down to accept them. To the last, McGovern remained engaged, still mixing politics, history, literature and humanity in ways that only a handful of American presidential contenders—Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, Eugene Victor Debs (about whom McGovern the historian wrote), Henry Wallace (whose advocacy for international cooperation inspired McGovern the young World War II), Adlai Stevenson (with whom McGovern campaigned) and his dear friend John Kennedy—dared attempt.

In the last of his many fine books, What It Means to Be a Democrat (Blue Rider Press, 2011), McGovern maintained that mix. In my favorite passage, McGovern says, “During my years in Congress and for the four decades since, I’ve been labeled a ‘bleeding-heart liberal.’ It was not meant as a compliment, but I gladly accept it. My heart does sometimes bleed for those who are hurting in my own country and abroad.” ..more..

[sabrina 1]

16. Thank you, I have not read that but I will definitely buy it. I read his book about

his daughter Terry a few years ago. It was a heart breaking story.



Anyone, especially family members, who has ever dealt with the addiction of someone they love, should read that book.

[joycejnr]

2. Now if the Conservative sheeplets responded to logic...

...we'd have a whole new ballgame! But sadly, they're genetically predisposed to stupidity, and the more we ignore how many stupid people there are out there, the more likely we are to get it in the "end."

http://www.searchlores.org/realicra/basiclawsofhumanstupidity.htm

[liberal N proud]

3. Words to stand by

[porphyrian]

5. . n/t

[RobertEarl]

6. George believed in sharing

Two thirds of this country believes they built this city and they are kings and queens. When in reality they are all puny micro-organisms that have barely evolved.

Harsh, yes? But if they were evolved, why would they spend so much time making war? Why the passion for killing?

Had we voted for George and made him president, we would have evolved somewhat. As it is, we are stuck in the mud.

[wilt the stilt]

8. My first and my most cherished vote

I always loved George McGovern and all he stood for. Barack was my second favorite vote a very close second but you never forget your first love. The interesting aspect of McGovern's political philosophy was he was originally a republican and he met his wife(Eleanor) and she was dirt poor. She changed George and he gives her all the credit.

[msongs]

9. hard to believe liberals ever mattered in our party, but we did once upon a time nt

[hfojvt]

10. not a good quote, sorry

First of all, many people do not like social security, especially now when so many people have been told over the last twenty years, again and again and again and again, that it is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme which is gonna go broke before they collect anything on it.

And especially now when the taxes/benefits ratio is not very good. When I ran the numbers myself, Social security paid less than a 3% return on the money that I and my employer put into it. And not only did it pay less than a 3% rate of return, unlike a system which allowed me to keep that money and invest it in t-bills, with social security, I don't get to keep the money. My spreadsheet showed that at a 3% rate of return, my taxes would accumulate a nest egg of $170,000 and 3% of that $170,000 was less than the benefits I was promised. (Hmm, now I notice that my math is not working, perhaps I should dig out the spreadsheet instead of working from memory) So, not only did it pay less than 3% but I will not get to keep the $170,000, or pass it on to my heirs.

Finally, no matter how satisfying it is, you do not make friends or influence people by telling them to shut up.

[sabrina 1]

12. So you are calculating what you put into SS ONLY from YOUR own

Last edited Tue Oct 23, 2012, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)

pov? What about those who don't have enough money to invest and make it grow? Do you object to taxes also? Do you not see the benefits of living in a society where there are no people dying of poverty and starvation, where the most vulnerable are helped by the rest of us?

I'm sure we could all do some calculations and figure out that we are paying more into the system than we will get out of it, as far as MONEY goes. And if all people value is money and they don't see the consequences to a society that does not do anything for the Common Good, where each individual only looks out for themselves, and how that will affect THEM should they get to keep that money, while the most vulnerable members of society, the elderly, children, the disabled, go back to dying as thousands did before there was SS, then all I can say is they don't understand the basic premise of what a civil society is.

You are totally wrong about the popularity of SS btw. Every poll taken shows that SS and Medicare are two of the most programs. The only people who hate SS are the small minority who see every dollar as THEIRS to gamble on Wall Street. And we've all learned now what happens when you let them do that as opposed to the SS program which does exactly what it was intended to do.

If you should ever be unable to contribute to the SS fund, you would still benefit from those of us who are more than willing to contribute to it. Compared to the benefits for society from this program, the numbers of lives saved, I am more than willing to contribute whatever I can afford because I know that what I get back is worth way, way more than whatever profit I might make should I keep that money.

So let me ask you this, what would you substitute SS with, or do you think it's every person for themselves? I'm not getting your objection to a society that works for all of its citizens and is willing to contribute to make sure that no one starves or dies for want of Health Care eg?

[hfojvt]

17. the point is that if it is a bad deal for ME

then it is also a bad deal for many OTHERS who are just like me.

And me, happens to be a very low income worker. In 2008, my FICA income was $12,604, and my lifetime earnings were $240,902 after 22 years of post college work. So projecting forward from 2008 at $12,604 a year amd by the time I am 62 in 2024, my contributions, invested at 3% are worth $94,052. Invested at 5% they are $139,256. At 5% that works out to $6963 in interest income per year or $580 a month. Social security is promising me only $592 a month - a mere $12 a month more.

But it is the government that keeps the $139,256 not me. I, and others of my income (to say nothing of those who make more) would be better off keeping that money ourselves.

Of course, that does ignore all the fools of the world. Some, if they got to keep a retirement nest egg of $139,256 would not prudently manage it for the rest of their lives, but would quickly burn through it, and there they would be at age 66 with no income AND no nest egg.

Others would be scammed out of it. A manager at the credit union was telling me about a guy who was draining his IRA account for some internet girlfriend that he had never met. Others might be kidnapped, or otherwise robbed.

Of course, too, now a safe 5% investment is hard to find. Used to be you could get more than that, 6 or 7% from a bank CD. Now you are lucky to get 1.5% from such an investment. Still, even a 3% rate of investment would leave me with $94,000 by the time I am 62. I think that I would be better off with $94,000 than with $592 a month.

Yes, social security is a much better deal for the disabled. According to my report from 2009, if I became disabled I could collect $870 a month. If, instead, I work for another 16 years at my then current pay, I collect a mere $592 a month. 16 years of work nets me $278 a month less. Not to mention that the $240,120 that I would collect in untaxed benefits over the 23 years is almost more than my lifetime earnings over the last 23 years of hard work which was only $240,902.

As to what to replace it with, that is not really relevant to the plain statement, or calculation, that it is not a very good deal even for a low income worker like myself.

[schmice]

11. I voted for McGovern. I really thought that he might win.

Next morning.................................... uhhhhhhhhhhh.

[cyberswede]

13. Me too - in first grade.

He won my elementary school. If only...

[madokie]

15. July 19 is our wedding anniversary

I knew there was something special about this day.

[bobthedrummer]

18. Rec #65 kick, n/t