Video: Laughter erupts after Dem Congressman claims Social Security “stable”
posted at 9:30 am on September 27, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Actually, what makes this even more funny is that it’s part of Russ Carnahan’s attempt to run against George Bush rather than Republican nominee Ed Martin, who gets the last word in this video. The Daily Caller notes that the debate turned into stand-up comedy (er, perhaps sit-down comedy) when Carnahan tries to claim that he rescued a stable system with no problems from the clutches of Bush’s reformers when he first got to Congress. It’s left to Martin to then remind everyone that Carnahan and Nancy Pelosi then continued to raid the Social Security fund to pay for the massive spending of the last two Democratic Congresses, and that is, of course, no laughing matter:
The Carnahans look to have a very rough election night in Missouri this year, and this is just one reason why.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Yeah, the crowd laughed ’til they cried.
kingsjester on September 27, 2010 at 9:32 AM
Bars Promote Youth Drinking by Installing National Debt Clocks
Mervis Winter on September 27, 2010 at 9:34 AM
Fat, dumb & stupid is no way to go through life, Russ.
OhioCoastie on September 27, 2010 at 9:35 AM
First Colbert, then this!
These Democrats are funny.
Not “ha ha”, like a clown, either.
NoDonkey on September 27, 2010 at 9:35 AM
These are the moments when I appreciate the ubiquity of video devices.
myrenovations on September 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM
We laugh only to keep the tears away.
rbj on September 27, 2010 at 9:38 AM
It’s more like- “hey, this crap sandwich tastes funny”
darwin-t on September 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM
darwin-t on September 27, 2010 at 9:39 AM
Tastes like stimulus.
NoDonkey on September 27, 2010 at 9:41 AM
Keep running against W, heh
cmsinaz on September 27, 2010 at 9:43 AM
STOP LYING, LEFTIST SCUM. Bush’s plan was for an OPTIONAL privatization of 1/6 of one’s OWN social security payments… that you spent anyway.
Privatizing a part of SS is not a “terrible idea” except to people who would then not be able to get their hands on the money… people like you.
Man, they think we’re stupid.
mankai on September 27, 2010 at 9:44 AM
What’s really scary is that Carnahan (and his libtard friends in Congress) really believe their own lies. I’d be laughing if I weren’t so busy pulling what’s left of my hair out of my head.
GrannyDee on September 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM
Carnahan siblings = TOAST in 2010
Next up? Clair (do I have to use my “mom” voice)McCaskill.
missouriyankee on September 27, 2010 at 9:47 AM
I think Stephen Colbert has secretly been put in charge of the DNC this year. They are strictly going for laughs to get reelected.
Don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m laughing. Of course my laughter now won’t compare to the belly-busting laughter I’m expecting while watching the Dems lose and MSNBC hosts heads explode on election night.
fogw on September 27, 2010 at 9:48 AM
In light of their recent interest in comedy, when all these Democratic incumbents are booted out of office in Novemeber, there will be work waiting for them at Ringling Brother’s Clown College.
pilamaye on September 27, 2010 at 9:49 AM
The Social Security “trust fund” is filled with non-recourse government bonds where cash ought to be. And this year the government will pay out billions more than it takes in. Only in the irrational mind of a liberal do these conditions mean stability.
flyfisher on September 27, 2010 at 9:50 AM
Well, I’m not impressed by Martin saying he doesn’t support privatization of SS only because I don’t trust Congress NOT to raid it even with a pledge or law (see PAYGO), but Martin is better than Carnahan any day.
Renwaa on September 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Social Security either has to be dismantled or modified. Only corrupt, thieving democrats would say anything else. People have been forced to pay into a system that over the years has expanded to include virtually every reason there is for someone to quit work and leech off others.
darwin on September 27, 2010 at 9:53 AM
If you privatize SS, then you don’t need to have money invested in the market when you are close to retirement. You invest in the market when you have at least 10 years til retirement.
People against privatization of SS are against people being in control of their futures. If I take the money I earned that was confiscated by the govt to pay for people who never planned ahead and invested it through a privatized SS and I lost everything in the economic downturn, whose fault would that be? MINE!
Instead the govt seizes my property and gives it to people who never planned for their future. On top of that, my whole life I have been told that I will never get that money back when I am 60, 70, 80, or 90. And if I or anyone else compains that we want equality or fairness, the Dems lie to us and insult us!
jeffn21 on September 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM
Yea, privatization of SS is a bad idea like VOTER ID is a bad idea…
golfmann on September 27, 2010 at 9:54 AM
It reminds me of Franks and Dodd talking about Fannie mae…
jbh45 on September 27, 2010 at 9:56 AM
What is this Sosh Kurty that politicians keep speaking of?
itsnotaboutme on September 27, 2010 at 9:56 AM
I’d rather get clobbered in a market than have those cretins continue to steal all of the money – and then some.
But the straw man lie abotu forced privatization, and the “stability” lie are even worse. We know the fund is toast – just stop lying to us about it.
This is why Christie and Ryan could do very well on a national level. I think the old rule that politicians have to lie to people and tell them only what they want to hear all the time is coming to an end.
forest on September 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Any time a Congressman/Senator even brings up the issue of social security demand he/she first answer the following:
“How much have YOU paid into SS over the past ___ number of years?”
If the answer is $0.00, “Why NOT??” “SS not “good enough for you?”
“Why do you object to the rest of us (peons) being allowed to “privatize” a portion of our own SS account – i.e. being allowed to treat that portion in exactly the same fashion as your entire ‘special’ pension plan?
“Is Congress allowed to raid your pension fund account and use the money to buy votes – as it has done with SS (thereby bankrupting the system)? If not, why not??”
alwyr on September 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM
…Emily Litella just told me they’re actually just mispronouncing Social Security.
Never mind.
itsnotaboutme on September 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Ok, Colbert “testifies” now this. Dems know that laughter is the best medicine and the only way to make the people happy in these hard times is to entertain them! Republicans are humorless old fuddy-duddies; no fun in them for these hard times that depress the electorate. Besides it was their biy Bush’s fault anyway.
cartooner on September 27, 2010 at 9:59 AM
What I find most galling is, the fact that Dems, no matter if they’re a politician, a pollster, an analyst, or whatever….they can look right into a camera or a persons eyes, and lie to them, and not feel any pang of guilty conscience.
I know this kind of crap goes on, on both sides…but never has it been more blatant over the past 3 years. And 99% of it comes from the Dems.
capejasmine on September 27, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Just consider the quantity of of taxes imposed and collected that was able to pay, until now, it’s obligations
imagine if the money wasn’t blown but safely invested
I know that nothing is totally safe but it certainly had advantages over outright blowing it and taxing at a confiscatory rate to cover the grift
somebody said in another post the the gov will not allow the middle class to amass trillions in collective wealth
Sonosam on September 27, 2010 at 10:01 AM
The truly scary part of that video is how many in the audience actually applaud the claim that Social Security is stable. Further proof that there’s absolutely no point in attempting to have a conversation with a liberal. Reality is out of their reach.
Gregor on September 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Anyone who says that we can count on social security is lying through their teeth. What is worse, is that Democrats want to seize our 401k accounts and make us totally dependent on the State when we get older. And with ObamaCare they punish us politically via health care when we have no more options.
Blue Collar Todd on September 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM
If ya can’t kick ‘em out of office, try laughing them out.
abobo on September 27, 2010 at 10:03 AM
Where are the jobs? When unemployment is high, contributions to SS fall.
seven on September 27, 2010 at 10:05 AM
The last time this guy got big laughs was when he was promising a six-billion dollar surplus after a decade of ObamaCare. Is he still using that punch-line? I can’t understand the “Carnahan” mystique. The guy is butt-ugly with those corn yellow teeth and has the brains of a gnat.
Marcus on September 27, 2010 at 10:12 AM
All that needed was for Barney Frank to walk out and say “Fannie and Freddie are sound!” to make it perfect.
JetBoy on September 27, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Your money is spent.
It is not ‘invested’.
There is no ‘lock box’.
The demographics will not support this system unless you modify it so that it only pays out on the day you die.
Our children and grandchildren will pay off our debt for a ‘secure’ retirement: we feel entitled to their money, their time, their effort, and make them pay off our debts since they cannot assent to it.
I don’t expect to see one red cent of my ‘investment’ in SSA and planned my life accordingly. I do not like being lied to about that and about the great ‘good’ it does for those seeking to ‘retire’ with health, wealth and a bumper sticker saying ‘we are spending our children’s inheritance’.
Thanks for nothing, for that is what we are getting. The family structure dissolved, a home being something no one wants to be in with their family, and our debt going into the universal depths as our children are yoked to service our good times in ‘retirement’.
Killing the system is painful.
Keeping it is horrific beyond all measure.
ajacksonian on September 27, 2010 at 10:21 AM
It seemed to me that the people started laughing after the Congressman claimed that Social Security is efficient. It turns out the Congressman is right about efficiency as defined by administrative cost. I favor privatization of Social Security and forcing people to invest in index stock and bond funds. It is almost certain that the administrative costs will be much greater. The Democrats will claim that this is less efficient. But we have to look at the big picture. Caring about the administrative cost saving from the current system is like stooping to pick up pennies on the floor when there are hundred dollar bills on the table for the taking.
thuja on September 27, 2010 at 10:32 AM
Exactly. Both Carnahan and Martin should be asked what part of the Constitution authorizes Social Security, Medicare, or any “entitlement” program, or authorizes the federal government to take care of me in any way. I don’t like losing the money I’ve paid in to SS, but I’m willing to let it all go if it means returning to a Constitutional government. Of course, I’ll be able to afford saving more for retirement if they’ll stop stealing from me.
DrMagnolias on September 27, 2010 at 10:35 AM
I know this kind of crap goes on, on both sides…but never has it been more blatant over the past 3 years. And 99% of it comes from the Dems.
capejasmine on September 27, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Mitch “DREAM’S” of his turn.
heshtesh on September 27, 2010 at 10:37 AM
Hasn’t anyone yet figured out what the real benefits of placing SS benefits in just 20% private/80% government for the past 35 years would have been?
They keep saying “The past couple of years would have been terrible”, but SS is over 35 years or so.
You get a 2% (maybe) return on your SS you paid in over 35 years…but what would it have been if it was 80/20?
right2bright on September 27, 2010 at 10:52 AM
I am a senior and paid into SS for 35 years (not by choice)
but when someone talks about reforming SS and letting the younger generation control their own contributions they are labeled as kooks,crazy,radical, ie: Angle,Paul?. The people now collecting would still be covered and die off but the younger generation would have a chance to protect their investment.
I believe the younger generation being still forced to contribute should have total/partial control over their contributions.
THE ONLY REASON POLITICIANS OBJECT,CALL IT CRAZY,RADICAL, is because then they couldn’t get their sticky paws on it and use for everything else.
The younger voting class should make sure this is done, and now
concernedsenior on September 27, 2010 at 10:55 AM
Social Security is “stable” in the sense that it’s filled with manure.
The Monster on September 27, 2010 at 10:59 AM
Social Security is a joke! Oh how I love these liberal who defend the pittance of social security! Everytime one of these libs or RINOs defends social security I would demand that they reveal whether they are relying solely on social security for their retirement?! Or do they have a 401k?! Of course they are not relying on social security because it is a joke!
Here’s an idea for the Republicans. Why not just start a movement to change the death benefit! The death benefit is a stinking $225! The government keeps everything you have paid into SS when you die! Why?! Changing the death benefit would have popular support and I’d love to see the Democrat defending the government keeping your money and the Pubs demanding the government give it all back! This would help expose the fraud that SS is and would help move in the direction of eliminating it altogether! When a person dies, their family should have all the money returned that the payee had taken from him!
JellyToast on September 27, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Correct. But the Left has successfully hammered this “narrative” myth into public consciousness, thanks mostly to gutless republicans — including MOST OF ALL George Bush, who gutlessly refused to defend the plan HE PROPOSED.
There is your evidence of the stunning success and legacy of RINOism. A lost opportunity, and years of punishing lies at our expense.
rrpjr on September 27, 2010 at 11:03 AM
It’s fairly easy to do what you describe. I know that Vanguard has tools available that enable you to forecast the distribution of your future nest egg under a wide range of scenarios. Having myself used an spreadsheet to compare the return from Social Security to average Stock Market returns, I can tell you that investing in stock market index funds will almost always be the better choice. I’m quite confident without running the numbers that anyone retiring today–despite the last few years of stock market performance–would still be better off with investing than with Social Security. I should dig out the old spreadsheets and get exact numbers.
However, these numbers ignore two other reasons–one minor and one major–why investing in the stock market is better. The first is that Social Security is mostly just for you, though there are some spouse benefits, but if you own the stock, you are able to bequest as you like. The second issue is that if the stock market truly does badly, exactly how is the government going to find the money to pay people’s full Social Security benefit?
thuja on September 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Dem congresscritters = lying for a living.
It’s natural, mandatory and effortless for them.
ontherocks on September 27, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Please say hello to Crr
CWforFreedom on September 27, 2010 at 11:17 AM
And yet is is not ever done…
right2bright on September 27, 2010 at 12:04 PM
Yeah, not “ha ha funny” but “uh oh funny”.
Still, it’s a good sign that so many people laughed. It’s shows that they’re informed and aware of the situation and aren’t fooled by the BS.
Yakko77 on September 27, 2010 at 12:38 PM
The whole federal govt should be ridiculed mercilessly to spur them into fiscal sanity.
Paul-Cincy on September 27, 2010 at 12:41 PM
Amen, amen, amen. Tired of these three stooges. They are an embarrassment to Missouri. They really do think we are stupid here in MO. And I’m with you on that Claire description. We don’t need a mother. We need legislators with integrity. Not this Carnahan team or McCaskill atrocity.
manateespirit on September 27, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Well, if you want we could do it together. Somewhere I have spreadsheets that reflected the data up to 1998 for Social Security, we could figure out how to update them. The other thing we would need to look at is the risky assets. I’m fairly sure that there is tool at Vanguard with everything already done. I’d say it would take us twenty to thirty hours to get everything close enough to right. I have an email at vayikra at ymail dot com.
thuja on September 27, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Groucho: The patient is now stable.
Nurse: But Doctor, the patient is dead!
Groucho: Do you think that’s likely to change?
Merovign on September 27, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Democrats count on the ignorance of their constituents to perpetuate the lies about “privatizing” Social Security. If young people really understood the time value of money, they’d be all for privatizing and controlling their own destiny. If a 22-year old, just starting out earning $30K per year, saved 6.2% of their income (their actual SS contribution and not counting employer’s 6.2% matching contribution), earned 5% on their money and received 3% raises every year, they would have almost $500,000 at age 65 and not be dependent on the government for a measly handout every month.
PatMac on September 27, 2010 at 2:16 PM
Well, technically it is stable. Their plan is to legalize everyone here illegally, and if the economy is still weak, print tons more to cover the difference.
V-rod on September 27, 2010 at 3:18 PM
He didn’t become a US Congressman by accident. Someone came up with enough money to fool his constituents into voting for him.
repvoter on September 27, 2010 at 5:32 PM
Lying, it’s the new truth.
Mojave Mark on September 27, 2010 at 6:54 PM
Yup. But at least manure is usable. An federal IOU may not be.
AshleyTKing on September 27, 2010 at 9:49 PM
While Russ Carnahan and every other Democrat go out of their way to blame Bush or make Bush the issue, his sister Robin has the balls to run ads here in Missouri accusing Roy Blunt of running against Obama instead of her.
JimRich on September 27, 2010 at 11:57 PM
Social security is in great shape? This is sort of like, Dodd, Frank and Waters saying that Fanny and Freddie were doing just great and there was no need to investigate. All those “no income” house loans were great for the economy?
Wills on September 28, 2010 at 7:35 AM