billvon 3,114 #1 January 25, 2005 Quote yesterday from Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif: “We also need to examine, frankly, ... the question of race, in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race. And you ought not to just leave gender off the table, because that would be a factor.” Following the grand old tradition of Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott, I see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #2 January 25, 2005 Amazing. Do you have a link to the complete text? Context may change the statement some. One would hope anyway......---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #3 January 25, 2005 http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-cong/2005/jan/23/012309359.html Link to the AP story above (as printed in the Las Vegas Sun.) http://msnbc.msn.com/ID/6853606/ Transcript from MSNBC. The relevant part: MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you something else you said at the National Journal Forum that raised some eyebrows: "Women are living longer relative to men today than they were in 1940. Yet, we never ever have debated gender-adjusting Social Security. ...But, at some point if the age difference continues to separate and more women are in the workforce and you have more of an equality of pay structure in the workforce, at some point somebody might want to suggest that we need to take a look at the question of whether or not actuarially we ought to adjust who gets what, when, and how." A gender adjustment--what does that mean? REP. THOMAS: Well, it was one of my ways of getting people to focus on the issue of age. To move from 65 to 68, which we did in 1983, was a benefit cut. But it also creates hardships based upon the occupation that you have, and it creates inequities on who you are and how long you live. You could just as easily have a discussion about occupations as to when would be a fair or an unfair time to require. We also need to examine, frankly, Tim, the question of race in terms of how many years of retirement do you get based upon your race? And you ought not to just leave gender off the table because that would be a factor. Now, there are people who are saying, "Gee, this is great. We can get them into a box and maybe we can win some seats in the next election over this issue." This ought not to be about the next election. This is about how we have an opportunity given to us by the president, his willingness to work with us to solve some problems that are here and now, but will only get worse. If we're not in a crisis now, we're in a problem. Wait a few years. We will be in a crisis. We ought to examine all opportunities to solve the problem. Then we can dismiss them. But to not look at them denies us an opportunity to have yet another way to solve our problem. MR. RUSSERT: So if someone is a woman and they live longer, they would get less per year? REP. THOMAS: It's not that you would do it; it's something that you need to look at. Because if you extend the age beyond 78, if you go to 80 or 82, all of those concerns about race, occupation and gender are exacerbated. And you shouldn't just extend the age without understanding the additional complications and unfairness that you're bringing into the system. That's the point I'm trying to make. Don't look for a simple solution like shifting age without realizing you're creating additional problems for yourself down the road. Same thing with payroll tax. Same thing with individual accounts or other ways to bring additional revenue in the system. All of them should be examined. None of them should be labeled with the pejorative with an opportunity to try to gain seats in the next election. You are doing a disservice to the society if that's your intention in this debate. My goal is to get it as broad as possible, look for bipartisan support and give the president a bill on his desk that he can sign that addresses the real societal inequities that we have with seniors. MR. RUSSERT: Do you think Congress, Mr. Chairman, would accept any formula that said that people would be treated differently because of their gender or their race? REP. THOMAS: If we discuss it and the will is not to do it, fine. At least we discussed it. To simply raise the age and find out that you've got gender, race and occupational problems later, I would not be doing the kind of service that I think I have to do. You and I have been around quite a while. We went through the '80s. We went into the '90s. And now we're in the 21st century. We saw the choices that were made in the past. We went to the well over and over again with the same old solutions which really aren't solutions. We've reached the point where we have to fundamentally examine it in my opinion. The president has given us that opportunity. We ought to take it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #4 January 25, 2005 Wow. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, Bill. I can see why you didn't provide a link, Lord forbid anyone should actually read that quote in context since it might become clear to them that he wants to examine race since the lower average life expectancy of racial minorities may mean they get screwed by Social Security's flat retirement age, and he wants to address and remove an unfair inequality that is currently victimizing racial minorities when they pay into the system at the same rate as everyone else and cannot enjoy the same benefit because they typically die sooner. Even Chris Rock recognizes that. He's talking about fixing a discriminatory rule, which just happens to be the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are unfairly and dishonestly implying. But that wouldn't fit in very well with your reflexive stereotyping of Republicans, would it? Can't let the truth get in the way of our worldview I guess. edited to add: I see you posted the transcript while I was typing. Good for you. You are still wrong.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #5 January 25, 2005 >he wants to address and remove an unfair inequality that is >currently victimizing racial minorities . . . By treating them differently. Check out the definition of racism. >But that wouldn't fit in very well with your reflexive stereotyping >of Republicans, would it? I dislike racists rather than republicans. Why is your knee-jerk reaction to spring to the defense of a party I did not blame? A bit of guilt there? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #6 January 25, 2005 [To give this quote context, he was talking about Social Security benefits and the potential consequences of various changes.] and Bill, I have no idea how you're leaping to calling him racist/sexist here. It's not supported by the full quotes I'm reading off cnn. Two paragraphs higher, he says: "To move from 65 to 68, which we did in 1983, was a benefit cut, but it also creates hardships based upon the occupation that you have, and it creates inequities on who you are and how long you live," Thomas said." Raising the age definitely hurts black men, who have a life expectancy below either age. So unless you have more quotes from Thomas to suggest he had a plan to even further screw the black man, I'm just not seeing it. The longer life expectancy for women suggests that any equal year starting point benefits them...should that be altered? Should SS still be viewed as an insurance plan, rather than a retirement plan as most treat it now? It's not sexist or racist to ask those sorts of questions. I get the feeling the end result will be reduced benefits to those who actually planned for their retirement. But hopefully there will be at least some shifting away from the pay as we go concept. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #7 January 25, 2005 Hmmmm.... I find the context in which the statement was made to shed a whole different light on the subject. I see it as experssing the idea of adjusting certian benifits based on the longegevity of races and genders. I do not suport that no matter what the outcome. These days programs, rules, and laws suposing to "equalize" us, serve to do nothing more than distance the groups they seek to bring together.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #8 January 25, 2005 Quote >he wants to address and remove an unfair inequality that is >currently victimizing racial minorities . . . By treating them differently. Check out the definition of racism. >But that wouldn't fit in very well with your reflexive stereotyping >of Republicans, would it? I dislike racists rather than republicans. Why is your knee-jerk reaction to spring to the defense of a party I did not blame? A bit of guilt there? So tell me, how do you feel about Affirmative Action? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #9 January 25, 2005 Quote>he wants to address and remove an unfair inequality that is >currently victimizing racial minorities . . . By treating them differently. Check out the definition of racism. They're being treated differently now! And come on - your headline was grossly misleading, clearing implying old style racism against historic minorities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #10 January 25, 2005 Quote By treating them differently. Check out the definition of racism. While your condescension is appreciated, it is misplaced. I am well aware of the definiton of racism. Do you then think affirmative action is racist? Social Security is a benefit that systematically short-changes racial minorities already, by "treating them differently" as you put it and perhaps allowing them to retire sooner, or receive a larger benefit some other way, they may then on average receive the same benefit, and no longer be short-changed. I don't know that its a good idea either, but its at least worth looking at. He is in fact attempting to make sure we do not create an even more inequitable system. Quite the opposite of racism. I have several friends who have said to me, "Shit, I'm not even going to live to 65 - this is bullshit", or some variation thereof. Quote I dislike racists rather than republicans. Why is your knee-jerk reaction to spring to the defense of a party I did not blame? A bit of guilt there? Guilt? Are you trying not-so-subtly to call me a racist? If you knew me you'd think that was funny. I'm not a Republican, so no, no guilt there. My voting is all over the place. He is a Republican, and you automatically called him a racist because he had the temerity to mention that race may be a factor in retirement planning. Anyone with any brains takes their life expectancy into account when they plan for retirement. That calculation has to be different for minorities because the reality is they tend not to live as long, for whatever reason. If the government is going to do our retirement planning for us, then maybe it should take the same factors into account that we do. Its not racist to say that you need to take into account the fact that minorities are getting even more screwed as life expectancies creep upwards. Mindless finger pointing amid cries of "RACISM!" only keeps people from rationally addressing a potentially serious problem. He didn't even say it should be done, just that it should be looked at because it MAY be a problem. I think you seriously jumped the gun on this one. I understand the temptation. It was such a juicy little soundbite. Edited because I can't spell when fired up.--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #11 January 25, 2005 QuoteI think you seriously jumped the gun on this one. I think he's just stirring the pot. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vmsfreaky1 0 #12 January 25, 2005 I guess it also shows what kind of world politicians are living in. NOT THE REAL ONE!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #13 January 25, 2005 QuoteSo tell me, how do you feel about Affirmative Action? It's racism. ***rac·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (rszm) n. 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #14 January 25, 2005 Quote QuoteI think you seriously jumped the gun on this one. I think he's just stirring the pot. - Jim Are you accusing a moderator of trolling their own forum! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #15 January 25, 2005 QuoteAre you accusing a moderator of trolling their own forum! Shocked Absolutely. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #16 January 25, 2005 Taking a good look at it could yield a methodology that is entirely race neutral. Maybe the way is to say that you can retire whenever you want, but only get X years of benefit for every Y years you paid in, or something like that. I'm sure that alone has plenty of problems I haven't thought about since I came up with it a minute ago. But it does show that realizing there is a systematic racial disparity could possibly yield a race-neutral methodology that works with a little rational thought. You do like rational thought, right Bill? Can rational thought about race happen around you without horrible accusations?--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #17 January 25, 2005 Is the Progressive Media Project racist? Maybe the Urban Institute is a bunch of racists? Maybe they aren't, but we KNOW that those cross-burners at the NAACP are DEFINITELY a bunch of racists for being against raising the retirement age because blacks have lower life expectancies. For all we know, the guy was wrong and there isn't a real problem due to other factors he is not aware of. But it is certainly reasonable for a non-racist to think that Social Security's current structure and proposed solutions might be a problem with respect to race and say its worth looking at. This is unreal. Some poor Republican representative can't even suggest looking into ways to fix a potential but very subtle systematic bias against minorities without being excoriated by an obviously very intelligent liberal. Many are so convinced Republicans are a bunch of racists they won't believe it when evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face. So tell me, what's a Republican to do?--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ahegeman 0 #18 January 25, 2005 Oh, and you forgot Robert "Grand Wizard" Byrd (D) in your list of racist politicians. Are you sure you weren't talking about Republicans?--------------------------------------------------------------- There is a fine line between 'hobby' and 'mental illness'. --Dave Barry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vallerina 2 #19 January 25, 2005 Just don't take ageism and locationism away from me, and I'm good. Oh...wait...I still need sexism, too. It's interesting....where that line of being too disriminatory lies.There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACMESkydiver 0 #20 January 25, 2005 QuoteHmmmm.... I find the context in which the statement was made to shed a whole different light on the subject. No shit, huh? Reminds me of those front page headlines of 'The Star' or 'The Globe' in the supermarket check-out line...~Jaye Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwslut 0 #21 January 25, 2005 QuoteJust don't take ageism and locationism away from me, and I'm good. Oh...wait...I still need sexism, too. It's interesting....where that line of being too disriminatory lies. It is indeed. Women use over 70% of health care dollars. In addition, -Increased their Medicaid enrollment from 1987 to 1996. -Represented a higher proportion covered by Medicaid both in 1987 and 1996 compared to men. -Used more health services than men in 1996. -Had more functional limitations than men in 1996. One way of looking at it is to charge women more for insurance, another would be to accept that all of us are equa and split the costs 50/50. I prefer the latter.What could possibly go wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crwslut 0 #22 January 25, 2005 Quote>he wants to address and remove an unfair inequality that is >currently victimizing racial minorities . . . By treating them differently. Check out the definition of racism. >But that wouldn't fit in very well with your reflexive stereotyping >of Republicans, would it? I dislike racists rather than republicans. Why is your knee-jerk reaction to spring to the defense of a party I did not blame? A bit of guilt there? Seems to me, ahegeman has a valid objection, Bill.What could possibly go wrong? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 36 #23 January 25, 2005 Exactly what JP said, it's racism. So is affirmative action. Dictionary definitions are quite exact. Incidentally, affirmative action was conceived to assist minorities, which is now a quirky irony in South Africa in that it's currently being used to discriminate against minorities. -No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,587 #24 January 25, 2005 I'm afraid I'm with them. And with the whole context thing. One might consider things that are reprehensible, illegal, impractical, or some other negative word. Otherwise, how do you know when your boundaries have moved, and how do you get different viewpoints. What you do about it is a different question. If you see that women are living longer but in poor health, then it might bear looking into why men live less, and why women have poorer health. Exercise, stress, whatever. You can make it illegal to charge more for some groups. By and large, it should be illegal. But considering their impact on a system is worthwhile. Really. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #25 January 25, 2005 You are way off base. After reading the entire transcript you clearly pulled a "Moore" and edited it to have the reader take in a different message than the speaker intended."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)