Math doesn’t work on privatizing Social Security
Over the years, most if not all of the current Republican presidential field have advocated reforming Social Security by guaranteeing the benefits of those in or approaching retirement while giving younger Americans the option of putting at least some of their contributions in personal or private accounts.
Rick Perry, for example, has called Social Security “a monstrous lie” for young people, although he has backed off that recently. Michele Bachmann last year also talked of wanting to wean younger Americans off the program, although she too has softened that rhetoric. In the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney repeatedly endorsed the privatization approach suggested by President Bush, repeating that support in his 2010 book. (Yes, he too has now changed his tune to a degree.) And Herman Cain has consistently advocated using the example of Chile as a model for how to privatize the program here in the United States.
Like President Bush in 2005, however, none of the candidates addresses the enormous financial challenges of such a transition. It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.
Here’s the problem: To finance benefits at promised levels for those 55 or older, we would need to continue to collect payroll taxes from today’s working-age population. However, we would also propose to divert a significant share of those payroll tax into personal accounts. In effect, we would be trying to spend the same dollar twice, and we would do it trillions of times.
When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.
Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.
To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.
In a study exploring the possibility of copying the Chilean example here in the United States, the Congressional Research Service outlined some of the major obstacles:
Absent other measures, keeping Social Security’ s commitments would require the government to raise taxes, cut spending on other programs, or borrow more from private financial markets. Put another way, a generation or two would have to pay twice, bearing both the cost of pre-funding the new system and the costs of benefits under the old system.
The United States already is faced with chronic budget deficit problems, leaving little or no room for the massive tax hikes or public borrowing that would be necessary (the Social Security Administration estimates if all workers currently under age 40 were to stop paying into Social Security, the system would need an infusion of $6.9 trillion in order to pay promised benefits to those remaining in the system).
That was written in 1998, at a time when — to put it mildly — our nation’s finances were in considerably better shape than they are today. That $6.9 trillion figure would also be considerably higher today, considering inflation and the fact that the Baby Boomers are now 13 years closer to retirement than they were in 1998.
All in all, a reasonable ballpark estimate of $10 trillion in additional resources would probably be needed to finance such a transition. So until you identify a source for that kind of money, talk of personal or private accounts is mere wishful thinking.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
518 comments Add your comment
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
The Chilean model is great.
Yeah, we probably don’t have people with the political guts to do it. But it permanently fixes the liability mismatch created by demographically driven Social Security.
“That $6.9 trillion figure would also be considerably higher today, considering inflation and the fact that the Baby Boomers are now 13 years closer to retirement than they were in 1998.”
Yeah, cause we keep kicking the can down the road. The further you defer the decision and pain, the worse it gets.
Everyone in my generation already knows we get to pay for the current generation of retirees, as well as ourselves. Might as well fix the problem openly and permanently while we’re at it.
“a reasonable ballpark estimate of $10 trillion in additional resources ”
NSS. That’s true of the current system too.
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:07 pm
“So until you identify a source for that kind of money” then I guess we should stop Social Security payments immediately until Jay identifies a source for its deficit as well.
That goes for Medicare and Medicaid too.
stands for decibels
September 26th, 2011
3:09 pm
It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.
shocking, that.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
3:09 pm
“So until you identify a source for that kind of money” then I guess we should stop Social Security payments immediately until Jay identifies a source for its deficit as well.
Sure, jm. Raise the payroll tax ceiling to $150,000 and adjust the COLA.
OK, I’m done.
Yoda
September 26th, 2011
3:11 pm
Educate yo-self fool
http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=asset+liability+duration+mismatch
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:12 pm
Jay 3:09 – good. We’ll use that dough now to privatize SS. Problem fixed.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
3:14 pm
Your math is a little off, jm. You’re once again trying to spend the same dollar twice.
CJ
September 26th, 2011
3:15 pm
I have a better solution than Jay’s above. Eliminate the payroll tax ceiling entirely and leave the COLA alone. Non-crisis averted.
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:19 pm
Jay 3:14- ummmmm. no. You just “created” more tax revenue to fix the problem. I don’t like how you did it, but you did. It is doable, especially over a 10-15 year time frame.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
3:19 pm
And we all know how much Americans love MATH! It’s right up there with SCIENCE on our list of priorities.
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
Social Security is the least of our problems. It should be fixed.
But Medicare is the 800 pound gorilla sitting on Uncle Sam’s lap.
CJ
September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
By the way, here’s an excellent explanation of why we should oppose COLA adjustments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/defazio-social-security-cpi_n_905623.html (scroll down and watch the short video of Congressman Peter DeFazio’s explanation).
TaxPayer
September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
Math, like science or economics, is not a prerequisite for being Republican so claiming that the math does not work out, although a factual statement, is irrelevant with respect to any and all statements presented as though they were fact by Republicans. You just gotta have a little faith. Well, maybe not a little faith. Perhaps a whole lotta faith. Well, maybe a whole lotta faith will not do either. Make that blind faith. That one works every time.
Granny Godzilla
September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm
I don’t think jm actually read Jay’s post……
Mighty Righty
September 26th, 2011
3:21 pm
Jay, Every time a Republican suggests a fix for social security the Democrats who offer nothing just flop around on the floor like a dead fish. Your suggestion is to raise the revenue and cut the benefits which no Democrat has the stomach to even discuss. They prefer to use social security as a vote gathering tool.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
3:21 pm
jm: But Medicare is the 800 pound gorilla sitting on Uncle Sam’s lap.
Goal post movement and “My topic is more important than yours” ALERT!
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
3:21 pm
Jay — ” the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.”
Since our conservative friends have started citing the Chilean model so much lately, I smile to myself every time they bring it up — for exactly this reason.
Granny Godzilla
September 26th, 2011
3:22 pm
Math IS a science afterall….
Jay
September 26th, 2011
3:22 pm
Really, jm?
First of all, raising the payroll tax ceiling to $150,000 won’t generate anything close to $10 trillion. And again, that revenue is already spent, so to speak, making the current program actuarially sound. You can’t then turn around and ALSO spend it on private accounts.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
3:24 pm
If Social Security is abolished, do I get a refund?
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:24 pm
Adam 3:21 – um. no, try again. its the truth. but we can talk SS all day if Jay wants….
carlosgvv
September 26th, 2011
3:25 pm
From the time FDR started social security until now, Republican conservatives have been unhappy with the concept of SS. This intense rejection of social security compares in feelings with those who totally oppose abortion and the death penality. It is a fundamental part of Republican dogma and will never go away. So, trying to reason with Republicans on this issue makes about as much sense as trying to get anti-abortion or anti-death penality people to compromise in any way. It won’t work. Republicans will never stop trying to get rid of social security just as Arabs will never stop trying to destroy Israel. This kind of mind set can only be fought, never reasoned with.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
3:25 pm
jm: Switching topic to Medicare instead of SS = “My topic trumps yours” and also is moving the goalposts. Which you did very very fast, btw. We’re not even half a page down yet
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
3:27 pm
I agree that Social Security can continue in its present fundamental form as long as changes are made. These include reducing the COLA amount and raising the retirement age. I do not think means testing should be considered because of the law of unintended consequences: you actually discourage people from being more self-sufficient by penalizing them for doing so. Also, that “full faith and credit” thing the government always talks about. Also, can we stop pretending the trust fund is anything but an accounting mechanism that tells us how much money one part of the government owes another part of the government? The money has been spent.
Medicare is a completely different story, however. Fundamental change is needed there.
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:27 pm
Jay 3:22 – really Jay? Well then you still haven’t fixed the problem then have you. Because Social Security as it is has a $21 Trillion “minor” problem.
“The $21.4 trillion unfunded liability represents the difference between all taxes that will be paid and all benefits received over the lifetimes of everyone in the system now — workers and beneficiaries alike.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-debt-chart-medicare-social-security_n.htm
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:29 pm
Journalism majors don’t get math…..
Generation$crewed
September 26th, 2011
3:30 pm
Why are we forced to pay into SS?
If we had a choice to choose not to and could privately invest our money, with a clause about not being able to claim any benefits if none were paid in it may work better or more efficiently.
jm
September 26th, 2011
3:32 pm
And isn’t this a blast from the past. Exhibit A in why we need a new president.
“President Barack Obama has called for a bipartisan debt commission to deal with the country’s fiscal obligations, and has said “everything is on the table.””
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/89255-funding-gap-rising-debt-put-new-focus-on-social-security-reform
Lord Help Us
September 26th, 2011
3:36 pm
Man, those butterfly ballots in FLA were expensive…Just think, without that screwup:
-no bush tax cuts
-no war in iraq
-no medicare part d
Oh well, certainly the GOP learned something from their screwups…
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
3:37 pm
GS,
Or not.
Advocates of privatization assume that a privatized retirement system would be more efficient and cost effective than a government managed program. But in reality, Social Security’s administrative costs are very low, at less than one percent of income revenues. In comparison, the Chilean system, which often is cited as a model for privatizing Social Security, has average administrative costs of about 13 percent of worker contributions.
http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/ssprimer/
Jay
September 26th, 2011
3:37 pm
jm, you’re playing dodgeball, and not playing it very convincingly either.
Libertarian
September 26th, 2011
3:38 pm
So basically………we’re stuck with this and there’s no way to fix it. Great.
(ir)Rational
September 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
Libertarian – That seems to be what Jay is saying.
Granny Godzilla
September 26th, 2011
3:40 pm
“we’re stuck with this and there’s no way to fix it”
arrrggghhhhhh, the you know what…..it hurts
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
3:41 pm
Lord Help Us@3:36,
If the implication of your post is that we wouldn’t be in this mess with Social Security and Medicare if it wasn’t for those 3 things, you are mistaken. Medicare and Social Security dwarf everything else in the budget, other than interest.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
3:41 pm
Libertarian, do the words “too big to fail” sound familiar?
Libertarian
September 26th, 2011
3:42 pm
Generation$crewed
September 26th, 2011
3:30 pm
Yes except we always feel sorry for those who make bad choices.
stands for decibels
September 26th, 2011
3:43 pm
Just think, without that screwup:
[...]
no war in iraq
I’d sure like to think that Gore wouldn’t have been conned into an invasion/occupation by HIS neoconservative Veep, but I guess one never really knows.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
3:44 pm
Plenty of ways to fix it, Libertarian. Just the most irresponsible of those ways is gutting it or getting rid of it.
PUHLEEEZE
September 26th, 2011
3:45 pm
I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance
Way to twist it, Jay. You aren’t purchasing insurance. You are being forced to save money. And the money you are saving is not being spread around to other people. It is your’s to keep.
With Healthcare, you ARE purchasing insurance. One purchased, you don’t see any of it back… ever… unless you have some health problem. And the governement will take tax dollars and supplement other people’s insurance.
But to the main crux of your argument (rather than the idiotic slam on Cain that you attempted)… Yes, it would be prohibitively expensive. To get rid of SS, someone who has ALREADY paid in a fortune and has had no benefit whatsoever is going to get screwed. Young people are not going to get screwed because they have very little money in the system. Those older than 55 are not going ot get screwed because their benefits have been taken “off the table”. It is those who are 45-55, who are past their maximum earning years, who have already paid hundreds of thousands (each) into SS and Medicare, who have just had their savings beaten by two rececessions and a housing market collapse, who are trying to invest safely in a climate of zero percent interest rates, who only have a bit more than 10-15 years left to invest, who are trying to maintain a job in a society that worships at the alter of Ageism, who never voted for either program, that everyone is trying to nail with the entire burden of this Socialist Experiment known as Social Security and Medicare.
Jack
September 26th, 2011
3:46 pm
I was kinda wondering when Bookman would get on Cain’s case. If Cain happens to be the GOP candidate, it would cause all kinds of problems for the Left and present some difficult decisions for black voters. This voter would be delighted to vote for Cain.
Scooter
September 26th, 2011
3:47 pm
Social Security is a system that benefits politicians over the people, so I’m not surprised Jay isn’t interested in reversing that relationship.
How about Galveston, Texas’s opting out of SS in 1980 and creating their own plan that is far outperforming SS? Their plans are theirs, and theirs alone. Their plans can also be part of a person’s estate upon death… no meddling politicians can get their vote buying hands on it. The fact is, politicians pulled a fast one on the American people with SS’s unsustainable promise and Jay seems to be just fine with that, as well as other political promises. I guess those promises are all the hope the masses need to stay passive. keep HOPE alive?
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
3:47 pm
There is a way to fix it – take it back to what it originally was intended to be. When SS was started, the life expectancy was at least 10 years less than it is now. But the age people start receiving SS has not changed. It was not meant to supplement retirement income for 10 or 15 years, it was meant to make sure the last few years of a person’s life were not destitute.
Raise the retirement age, and tie it to life expectancy in some way. Also the COLAs are too high.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
3:48 pm
“Medicare and Social Security dwarf everything else in the budget, other than interest.”
Not really. For fiscal 2011:
Medicare; $494 billion
Social Security $748 billion
Defense $768 billion
Interest: $206 billion
St Simons - we're on Island time
September 26th, 2011
3:50 pm
FICA tax – flat tax cheer for the flat-taxers – past 90k to infinity
Medicare for All
Done & done. Everybody knows it.
Shrimp & Grits for everyone. Let’s go surfin jm
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 26th, 2011
3:52 pm
And Herman Cain has consistently advocated using the example of Chile as a model for how to privatize the program here in the United States.
Just ask him what he thinks about “right of return” for Mr. Pinochet. Bwuaaaa haahahahahahaahahahahahahah bwahahahahahahahahah.
What a crock.
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
3:52 pm
Jay, thanks for the correction.
OK, I forgot defense. But interest rates are historically low and that number is going to only rise. Of the 4 things you listed, only defense is discretionary. My point was that Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and other things are not the big problem. Entitlements are.
Granny Godzilla
September 26th, 2011
3:52 pm
Jack
And this liberal would love you to have that chance….
Palin 2012 Oh please Oh pleaseBachmann 2012 Oh please Oh pleasePerry 2012 Oh please Oh pleaseCain 2012 Oh please oh please
It’s a damn dessert buffet for democrats!
Jay
September 26th, 2011
3:53 pm
Social Security is a system that benefits politicians over the people, so I’m not surprised Jay isn’t interested in reversing that relationship.
Go tell it to Grandma, Scooter. Go tell it to the four out of five Americans who oppose any cuts in Social Security that it doesn’t really help them.
You too Gordon. Try to sell your proposal to the American people. And good luck on that.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
3:53 pm
All you cons coming out against Social Security: If you hate it so much, you are free to move to a more capitalist country than ours and invest your money however you see fit!
Oh wait….
Lord Help Us
September 26th, 2011
3:54 pm
Gordon,
‘If the implication of your post is that we wouldn’t be in this mess with Social Security and Medicare if it wasn’t for those 3 things, you are mistaken. Medicare and Social Security dwarf everything else in the budget, other than interest.’
The only implication is that I believe (just my opnion) that we would be much better off today if Gore had been elected instead of GWB – (irrespective of the buffoon his veep choice turned out to be…)
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
3:58 pm
PUHLEEZE — “Way to twist it, Jay. You aren’t purchasing insurance. You are being forced to save money. And the money you are saving is not being spread around to other people. It is your’s to keep.”
Social Security is and has always been insurance. It’s even in the name of the program, OASDI.
josef
September 26th, 2011
3:59 pm
“jm
September 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
The Chilean model is great.
Yeah, we probably don’t have people with the political guts to do it.”
The Chilean system was imposed under Pinochet…G-d, I hope we don’t have the people with those political guts…
Jay
September 26th, 2011
4:00 pm
That would also be incorrect, Gordon. The Iraq war alone cost $2 trillion, according to the CBO. How can you possibly say that hasn’t helped to drive the debt up?
The tax cuts cost $2.8 trillion, again a CBO number. That didn’t drive the debt up?
You can’t simply pretend these things didn’t happen.
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 26th, 2011
4:00 pm
Jay: “Sure, jm. Raise the payroll tax ceiling to $150,000 and adjust the COLA.”
Wealth envy!!! Wealth envy!! You’re trying to tax the job creators!!! You’re taxing me to deaaaathhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh….. croak ..
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
4:01 pm
Jay,
Are we going to do the right thing or the popular thing? Means testing is just flat out wrong, because people have for decades been forced to put after-tax dollars into SS and told one day they will receive benefits. It’s become all to easy to just tell the rich to pay for it (see St Simons @3:50). This is the biggest problem with government programs – they create dependency.
Gradually raising the retirement age is the only way. I guess that calls for a leader – something we haven’t had in Washington in decades.
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
4:04 pm
Don’t know about y’all but I like crackers in my Chile.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
4:05 pm
Hi, I’m Jon Stewart. (♫ Sarah McLachlan’s “Angel” plays in background) Will you be an angel for a helpless multi-millionaire? Every day, James Merriwether Phillips, Meester James to his domestic staff, and thousands more like him live in fear that the top marginal tax rate will be raised from its current 35% to 39.6%.
(multi-millionaire starts crying)
But you can help. For just most of what you earn in a year, you can help James make up that difference. Call now, because he wants the money now.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
4:05 pm
You can’t simply pretend these things didn’t happen.
Wanna bet?
Jay
September 26th, 2011
4:06 pm
“I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance
Way to twist it, Jay. You aren’t purchasing insurance. You are being forced to save money. And the money you are saving is not being spread around to other people. It is your’s to keep.
———————
Wrong, PUHLEEZE. Of the 13.3 percent, 10 percent goes into the personal account. The remaining 3.3 percent is mandated to be spent buying disability and life insurance on the private market, just as I reported.
Twist it as you will, them’s the facts.
Lord Help Us
September 26th, 2011
4:06 pm
Gordon,
‘I guess that calls for a leader – something we haven’t had in Washington in decades.’
See Clinton, Bill: inherited record deficits and left office with (soon to be squandered) record surpluses.
What do you think happened to that surplus…
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
4:07 pm
Joe Mama, 3:58 Well said.
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 26th, 2011
4:07 pm
Gordon: “Gradually raising the retirement age is the only way. I guess that calls for a leader – something we haven’t had in Washington in decades.”
No it’s not. As Jay said, all you gotta do is ….. raise the CAP!! Which is so simple, I just outed myself as a wild-eyed Socialists noooooooooooooooooooo!! Shhh don’t tell anybody! They’re throw me in the mental ward. Bwahahahahahahahahahahah ….
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
4:08 pm
“Don’t know about y’all but I like crackers in my Chile.”
Me too, the oyster kind…
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
4:10 pm
Me too, the oyster kind…
I like my chili over rice. In fact, I made a big ol’ crock-pot of it last night.
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
4:11 pm
Jay @4:00
Did I say those things didn’t drive the debt up? No. I said in relation to entitlements, they are much smaller. That should give people an idea of how bad the entitlement issue is.
The Iraq war costs do not project into the future the way the entitlement costs do – those costs will end (some can be transferred to interest on that debt). How much do the tax cuts cost per year (not the total cost) assuming there is absolutely no economic benefit of people having more money in their pockets? Now compare those numbers going forward with the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
4:12 pm
Kamchak,
I did the same! Rice and all! I like oyster crackers in my chili, but none were available, so we settled for Jasmine rice.
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
4:14 pm
“No it’s not. As Jay said, all you gotta do is ….. raise the CAP!! ”
Translation: “all you gotta do is get someone with more money than me to pay part of my retirement income”. After all, there’s more of us than them, so we can outvote ‘em. I know, lets tax left handed people – I think only 4% of the population is left handed, so who cares what they think?
Pathetic.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
4:15 pm
Bosch
Last night seemed to call for chili up here in this small hamlet in the N.C. Mtns.
Kinda cool, a touch of fall in the air.
Gonna freeze some of it for this winter.
josef
September 26th, 2011
4:17 pm
Just to be clear…the government still maintains a strong role in the retirement system, providing coverage of those not in a private pension plan and bailing out failing plans, “guarantees” the Chilean taxpayers “underwrite.”
Granny Godzilla
September 26th, 2011
4:17 pm
Chili?
Friday we had family chili competition night instead of steak night.
We all won. None of any of the recipes left!
(Course I mandated that 10% went to TUMS and 3.5 % went to PEPCID)
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
4:18 pm
Sorry Jay, no more chili talk.
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 26th, 2011
4:18 pm
Said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, in his infinite pontificatory wisdom, on the declining virtue of our good Roman I mean American people:
Speaking of safety net programs like SS, he said:
These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.“
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
4:21 pm
Lord Help Us,
You forget 2 things about the late Clinton years when most of the deficit reduction occurred:
1) Republicans were in charge of both sides of Congress. They get no credit -right?
2) The dot com explosion basically doubled the stock market in just a few years. People made money and payed taxes on it.
That fact of the matter is that the budget was NOT balanced, or was it even close. During that time, as is true for all times, the liabilities for entitlement programs were growing but were not being counted on the government books like they have to be for a private company. The company I work for has a pension program and must record future obligations as a liablility. In cash flow terms, the federal government broke even for a couple of years there, but in fact we were going deeper into debt. The debt you hear about (14.5 trillion) DOES NOT include the shortfall between expected revenues and expenses to pay entitlement obligations, and is in fact a very small percentage of it. The reason the government does this is because it is not required by law to pay those debts. It could come out tomorrow and say it won’t be paying any more Medicare or Social Security. So please don’t talk to me about squandered surpluses – they never existed.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
4:21 pm
Yes, Josef, and under Pinochet the military somehow forgot to include itself and the national police under this great privatized system and in fact is covered under a “paygo” system much like Social Security.
Why did they do that, I wonder? A great personal sacrifice on their part, no doubt.
josef
September 26th, 2011
4:22 pm
IMAM
Who’s Kramer and what don’t you tolerate? You tolerate wishing fatal accidents on some of us by others who find your favor….
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
4:22 pm
In Michigan, especially Detroit there are scores of Coney Isalnds that serve great Chile. A lot of people like cheese & onions on top.
Try Lafayette coney island if ever in Detroit, they’re great.
Sorry Jay, but it’s getting near dinner time and I like Chile.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
4:23 pm
thanks kam
Jm
September 26th, 2011
4:24 pm
Jay not sure how u think I’m playing dodgeball but whatever
Granny 1:33 cause Romney doesn’t need to put in his money this go round. Oy
josef
September 26th, 2011
4:24 pm
JAY
Relative to that Chilen model…I just find it hard to swallow given who came up with it and when…
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
4:25 pm
Trotsky,
RE: Rubio — well, yeah! Sure! We would all love those things to happen and cats and dogs would get along and foxes would stay out of hen houses, but we don’t live in an episode of Father Knows Best.
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
4:25 pm
Wasn’t Kramer on Seinfeld? what in the hell is he doing here?
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
4:27 pm
“If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues.”
But one thing Rubio is simply forgetting, while yes, we don’t live in the perfect world in many instances — those things still happen.
Lord Help Us
September 26th, 2011
4:29 pm
Gordon,
‘You forget 2 things about the late Clinton years when most of the deficit reduction occurred…’
If you wish to opine, please get chronologically oriented. Clinton’s Deficit reduction bill was passed when the Dems still controlled Congress…with almost zero GOP support…and, with dire predictions of how it would ,’blow a hole in the deficit.’
Sorry…no dice…
Granny Godzilla
September 26th, 2011
4:29 pm
poison pen
worked in the motor city….couldn’t decide which I liked better the coneys on Gratiot or the pierogis in Hamtramak.
(Same mandate for tums though…..)
Keep Up the Good Fight!
September 26th, 2011
4:30 pm
Surprising that the Republicans make great glossy brochures and nice photoshots but there is no substance to their “plans.” Somewhat ironic in how they yelp about Obama’s “missing plan” over and over and over. Much like the so-called RyanPlan that has a nice 36 page glossy brochure and no substance, the “repeal Obamacare first, then we’ll figure something out” and now the Cain “let’s do this Chile plan and we’ll include a mandate that we already claim is unconstitutional”. Daily we see the cons get conned and they whine about “libs” “ilks” etc………. So how is that 2010 Republican Jobs Plan coming?
Jm
September 26th, 2011
4:30 pm
Jay for the record as I have stated 6 dozen times here, I believe SS needs to bs preserved, albeit in A much different form. Private accounts would also be a part of that.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
4:31 pm
Financed how, jm?
Lord Help Us
September 26th, 2011
4:31 pm
Gordon,
more specifically, the Deficit reduction act of 1993:
It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.[2]
It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments
Zero Republicans in the House of Representative members voted for this bill.
Do not try to give credit to GOP when none deserve any…
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
4:32 pm
Granny, They were both great. My wife went to school in Hamtramak. It was a nets town as was Detroit many, many years ago.
Granny Godzilla
September 26th, 2011
4:32 pm
Jm
or perhaps he’s not too confident?
as Max Bialystock says…”Never put you own money in the show!”
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
4:32 pm
Should have been ..Great towm.
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
4:33 pm
Man, I need some Chile to correct my spelling.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
4:34 pm
Gordon: The Republicans most certainly DO get credit for being reasonable and forging compromise deals after a failed attempt to shut down the government to force their way. It ended up being a winning proposition for them, as they were able to keep getting elected and finally got a R president in office. And then they spent like drunk sailors like they always wanted to do and got thrown out of office for it.
BUT they DID compromise. So they do deserve credit for actually running the government reasonably back then.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
4:35 pm
Kamchak — “I like my chili over rice. In fact, I made a big ol’ crock-pot of it last night.”
Hawaiian style! That’s how the folks in the Aloha State like their chili.
/lei
josef
September 26th, 2011
4:35 pm
Financed how? Why, by the government, of course…silly boy…
Adam
September 26th, 2011
4:36 pm
With that, I’m out. See you all later
Peadawg
September 26th, 2011
4:37 pm
So what’s your solution, Jay? Leave it how it is and hope for the best while complaining about everything?
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
4:39 pm
Adam……whose correct.. you or “Lord Help Us”?
Jm
September 26th, 2011
4:39 pm
Jay 4:31 by reducing the liability side of the equation
Means testing
Cola
And flattening the benefits payout even more than it already is
Raising the retirement age to 80% of life expectancy which is about what it already is
Jm
September 26th, 2011
4:40 pm
Granny u can make that argument if you want
I disagree and frankly don’t care
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
4:40 pm
Joe Mama
I hope “over rice” is the only thing that Hawaiians do.
Be a damn shame to put pineapples in chili.
josef
September 26th, 2011
4:42 pm
jm
80% of WHOSE life expectancy? Is there a sliding scale here? Do men get their bennies earlier than women? Do European Americans have to wait longer than African Americans? Can fat folks get in line ahead of skinny folks?
getalife
September 26th, 2011
4:43 pm
Never ever let corrupt congress get their hands on our programs.
You are scaring the Seniors.
Stop.
“They want to play politics with human beings,” he said. “I would blame both parties.
“There’s plenty of money in Washington, D.C. to offset anything that we need to spend on FEMA. I would make sure that FEMA got the money that it needed, and if I have to go find the offsets later, find it later.”
And he blasted the behavior of Congress saying, “Stop playing with people’s tragedies.”
Good move Cain.
Jm
September 26th, 2011
4:46 pm
Josef 4:42 average, same as it is today
That way u can’t accuse me of gaming the system, which already screws men in favor of women, and screws black people in favor of white people
Jm
September 26th, 2011
4:47 pm
Josef if u don’t want to screw people who live shorter lives, then u should be in favor of private accounts
Trotsky Foxtrot
September 26th, 2011
4:49 pm
Bosch, our Roman virtue must be preserved!
Jm
September 26th, 2011
4:50 pm
“go find it later”
Congress never does mr Cain
Jay
September 26th, 2011
4:53 pm
jm, that doesn’t even begin to cover the cost of a.) financing a system that is allegedly (but falsely) “unsustainable” financially AND b.) funding a separate, parallel system of personal accounts on top of that.
And you know it. Once again, you’ve followed a little trail of bread crumbs into a box canyon with no escape.
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
4:53 pm
One point I want to “clarify” in regards to Gordon’s comment that the botched Iraq war “costs do not project into the future.”
Not true.
WASHINGTON – A group of noted physicians predicted yesterday that healthcare for Iraq veterans could top $650 billion, another warning of a looming social crisis as thousands of veterans struggle with mental and physical disabilities and other disruptions to family life.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/11/09/iraq_veteran_healthcare_could_top_650b/
The war-lusting chickenhawks have left behind tens of, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of maimed Americans, including those with PTSD, and financially ruined families.
The second cost is the higher price of oil, which has had a devastating effect on our economy. When we went to war in Iraq, the price of oil was under $25 a barrel, and future markets expected it to remain around that level. With the war, prices started to soar, by 2008 reaching $140 a barrel.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-111hhrg61761/html/CHRG-111hhrg61761.htm
That adds up to HUGE losses going forward.
All because some dipsh*t from Texas wanted to clear his daddy’s name, play toy soldier and convinced millions in the 101st Chairborne that he had an inkling of what he was doing…
Jm
September 26th, 2011
4:55 pm
Perry can’t be looking forward to the next debate
He’s regretting this idea of his supporters….
Shawny
September 26th, 2011
4:55 pm
SS….grrrrrrrrrr
Medicare………grrrrrrrrr
Not to us; no more entitlements. They only get more expensive per dollar of income over the years (even at the same base rate).
josef
September 26th, 2011
4:57 pm
jm
So, what’s to complain…if everybody’s getting screwed!
Seriously, though, so far I’ve not seen anything any better than what we’ve got now…flawed though it may be…
And while I was just kidding about the life expectancy thing, once it goes into the private sector, I can see that kind of “death panel” being set up. The insurance companies already do it.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
4:58 pm
All because some dipsh*t from Texas wanted to clear his daddy’s name, play toy soldier and convinced millions in the 101st Chairborne that he had an inkling of what he was doing…
But…but…but…WMD, the smoking gun is the mushroom cloud, it won’t last six months and besides it’ll pay for itself, we’ll be treated as liberators….
Jefferson
September 26th, 2011
5:00 pm
Nothing wrong with the social program we have, just as thing change so will the funding need changing. This is a great program that services many americans. Only the greedy don’t want to play.
Jm
September 26th, 2011
5:04 pm
Jay 4:53
Wrong
All dependson where one sets the means testing limits. Which you yourself USED to be in favor of (means testing)
Furthermore, if u want to debate this further then you’ll have to go hire an actuary that can mediate
Which you’re not going to do
TaxPayer
September 26th, 2011
5:04 pm
And you know it. Once again, you’ve followed a little trail of bread crumbs into a box canyon with no escape.
Wait! What’s that. A sign post up ahead. It says “Cliff.” Republicans proceed straight over the edge thinking that they are just on their way to visit a friend.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
5:05 pm
Social Security
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.
Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable wages will grow rapidly from 11-1/2 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17 percent in 2035, and will then dip slightly before commencing a slow upward march after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled roughly 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and are projected to increase gradually to 6.2 percent of GDP in 2035 and then decline to about 6.0 percent of GDP by 2050 and remain at about that level.
The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.22 percent of taxable payroll, up from 1.92 percent projected in last year’s report. This deficit amounts to 17 percent of tax receipts, and 14 percent of program outlays.
I don’t how many times I have to post this, but I’ll keep posting as long as I have to. (Medicare follows)
Jm
September 26th, 2011
5:07 pm
4/10 of SS beneficiaries have incomes over $60k per year and don’t need SS in my book
Boom. Huge savings.
Jay prefers cutesy language to divert and deflect
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
5:07 pm
Kamchak — “I hope “over rice” is the only thing that Hawaiians do. Be a damn shame to put pineapples in chili.”
I didn’t see pineapples used in anything freaky out there, though they do use the cores as swizzle sticks in drinks. Take the core and slice it in quarters lengthwise. They’re too fibrous to eat, but they can flavor a drink.
Grilling them and putting them on sandwiches was about the weirdest thing I saw done with them. They’re too sweet and tasty to waste on anything weird.
Hawaiian pizza does not = ham + pineapple. Hawaiian-style pineapple is ALL THE MEATS YOU CAN FIND, including some you can’t usually get on the mainland.
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
5:07 pm
Kam, the entire thing just makes me want to spit. Even all these years and corpses down the road.
And the gutless neo-con cheerleaders have never, ever truly held that bungling idiot’s feet to the fire on any of it.
And these louts here think Carter is even in the same league as that deadly buffoon and his cast of lying imbeciles?
Puhleeze…
Jay
September 26th, 2011
5:09 pm
1. Private accounts tend to harm lower-income beneficiaries compared to SSI, which offers them a better deal.
2. Life expectancy increases have been concentrated among high earners. At 60, a high-earning male born in 1941 had a life expectancy of 85.4. His counterpart among low earners would have a life expectancy of 79.6.
3. Longer life expectancy does not translate into longer ability to perform labor.
josef
September 26th, 2011
5:09 pm
“Furthermore, if u want to debate this further then you’ll have to go hire an actuary that can mediate”
I read that the first time as can mediTATE! That, too!
Lord Help Us
September 26th, 2011
5:10 pm
‘read that the first time as can mediTATE!’
or MEDicate…
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
5:11 pm
Medicare
Relative to the combined Social Security Trust Funds, the Medicare HI Trust Fund faces a more immediate funding shortfall, though its longer term financial outlook is better under the assumptions employed in this report.
Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) are projected to grow substantially from approximately 3.6 percent of GDP in 2010 to 5.5 percent of GDP by 2035, and to increase gradually thereafter to about 6.2 percent of GDP by 2085.
The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 0.79 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.66 percent projected in last year’s report. [The current Medicare tax is 2.9%. Thus, an increase in the Medicare tax to 3.69% of payroll would render Medicare solvent for the foreseeable future.] The HI fund fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected assets drop below one year’s projected expenditures early in 2011. The fund also continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. Medicare’s HI Trust Fund is expected to pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all future years. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2024, five years earlier than estimated in last year’s report, at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 90 percent of HI costs. The share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues is projected to decline slowly to 75 percent in 2045, and then to rise slowly, reaching 88 percent in 2085. Over 75 years, HI’s actuarial imbalance is estimated to be equivalent to 21 percent of tax receipts or 17 percent of program outlays.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
5:12 pm
“4/10 of SS beneficiaries have incomes over $60k per year and don’t need SS in my book
Boom. Huge savings.
Jay prefers cutesy language to divert and deflect.”
Sure, jm. You go sell the politicians on that one. See if Romney will support you. Or Perry. Or Bachmann. You know they will run from that as fast as possible.
Again, if the proposals you offer are politically impossible, you have no proposals in the first place, just pipe dreams.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
5:13 pm
Correction to above — Hawaiian-style pizza is ALL THE MEATS YOU CAN FIND, including some you can’t usually get on the mainland.
josef
September 26th, 2011
5:15 pm
LHU
That, too!
josef
September 26th, 2011
5:17 pm
OK…chili is not a dish. It’s a sauce.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
5:18 pm
One thing I have noticed consistently is the use of ad hominen attacks by the Righties on this blog.
When confronted with an undeniable truth, the attack the other poster. I don’t how many of the Righties on this blog realize that such personal (ad hominen) attacks are simply an acknowledgement of defeat to those who know what to look for.
You may want to think about it before you attack someone personally in the future.
Scooter
September 26th, 2011
5:19 pm
Jay, I would love to tell it to my grandparents but they’re dead. They paid into SS their whole lives and died before receiving one red cent from it. The politicians won!
Jm
September 26th, 2011
5:20 pm
Jay 5:12
I realize u can’t change overnight
Which is why EVERYONE including republicans have said current retirees are protected
Phase it in over 15 years for people who are not within 5 years of retirement
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
5:20 pm
Hawaiian-style pizza is ALL THE MEATS YOU CAN FIND
A lot like Brunswick stew in that regard.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
5:21 pm
Chili (con carne) is actually just meat stew-meat, onions, peppers,and water- anything else it’s not actually chili
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
5:22 pm
OK…chili is not a dish. It’s a sauce.
Shorthand for chili con carne.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
5:23 pm
Once again, jm:
Funded how?
Your claim is that we can’t afford the system we’ve got, yet we can somehow afford to fund TWO systems. It makes no sense.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
5:23 pm
Scooter
Yeah my mom got almost one whole year of hers before she died.
yomama
September 26th, 2011
5:24 pm
3. Longer life expectancy does not translate into longer ability to perform labor.
Every time some politician says “raise the age”, I have to remind people that this means 69-year-olds commuting to work at manual labor jobs.
I have known 80 year olds that could easily handle a 40 hour work week, and 60 year olds that were on their death beds.
When the retirement age was 59, nearly every single person could work to the retirement age. At 69, this is not true.
If a 50 year old loses his job, there is still at least the possiblity that he can get a job in his field. How many people are going to hire an out of work 60 year old as the chief engineer on a bridge, or a high rise building, or for a new software development project? Ageism is alive more today that at any time in our history. There are no high-tech high-paying jobs waiting for the unemployed 65 year old.
The idea of raising the retirement age is a farce. Try again.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
5:24 pm
Kamchak — “A lot like Brunswick stew in that regard.”
I’ve had goat and wild boar on pizza out there, and I don’t doubt they’d be equally at home in Brunswick stew.
dbm
September 26th, 2011
5:25 pm
Social Security definitely needs to be abolished, for at least two reasons. Should it be abruptly cut off or gradually phased out? Ethically, it is possible to argue for either position; this is an example of how improper government action creates difficult binds. Will it be abruptly cut off or gradually phased out? The latter will probably be politically feasible long before the former is. But even the latter will not be politically feasible until one of two things happens.
It may be politically possible to eliminate Social Security, one way or another, if the system has a catastrophic collapse. That doesn’t seem to be imminent, but it may happen down the road.
It will be politically possible to eliminate Social Security if enough people come to understand the nature of government and what this implies about government’s proper functions. We are very slowly moving in that direction. I don’t expect to live to see it. Maybe nobody reading this will live to see it. That doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
TaxPayer
September 26th, 2011
5:26 pm
If we get rid of social security and use the savings to give the job creators a tax break, then we can use the extra tax revenue to fund social security. I think that is pretty much the Republican plan, in a nutshell.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
5:27 pm
And if you have any friends from Texas, don’t ever make the mistake of putting tomatoes in chili while they are present.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
5:29 pm
What happens if you do that, Bosch?
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
5:30 pm
I don’t think the attitude of the country has changed since 2005 when Bush went on his “Privatize SS Magical Mystery Tour” and was laughed off the figurative stage. If anything, I’m willing to wager support for SS has increased since then.
josef
September 26th, 2011
5:30 pm
No. It’s salsa chili…chili con carne, is beef (usually) with salsa chili, chile con pollo, chili con frijoles, chili con guajilote, chili con queso, chili con huevos…
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
5:32 pm
Joe,
I think it’s a cardinal sin to most Texans to put tomatoes in chili, at least it is to my friend and he gets a little testy.
yomama
September 26th, 2011
5:32 pm
BTW folks, there are two things plaguing SS:
1) SS disabililty. (enuff said)
2) “little old white lady” syndrome. By this, I cite my ex-wife’s mother. Her husband died at age 49 after working the minimum required time to collect SS. He never had a consistent job in his life. When he died, his wife was 42 with three children. She has now collected Social Security going on 50 years. (she is 92). I once estimated that she had collected (between SS and Medicare) nearly $750k in her lifetime, and her husband had put in a mere $10k.
As long as we allow folks to collect 10x or 100x or 1000x what they put into the system, It will fail.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
5:32 pm
Joe Mama
I’ve been scouring the interwebs looking for a Brunswick stew recipe and regardless of who claims to be first with the concept, squirrel meat was one of the original ingredients along with pork and chicken.
I think it has evolved into a stew that Bar-b-que joints can sell to use up left over chicken, pulled pork, and ribs.
While the pork they use isn’t wild it is still technically the same animal as boar. I’d bet wild boar is quite a bit gamier than domesticated pigs, probably stringier too.
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
5:33 pm
Bosch – That sounds more like competition chili…meat, chilis, and water
Jm
September 26th, 2011
5:34 pm
Jay 5:23
True, we need to fix what we have.
Then, over time, the current generation of workers (me) will also have to engage in forced savings (similar to chile) on top if SS payments. Simultaneously and gradually, a portion of the SS tax would be phased down in size, but not eliminated.
Its just math and all about how much of this or that you want and how fast. It can be done.
pogo
September 26th, 2011
5:34 pm
But Jay, what you failed to mention is many of us never did believe the government lie about them providing our “social security” and we worked and we saved and we provided for own. It’s called self-reliance, something you liberals will never understand. What is sad about our society is that so many are willing to leave their lives in the hands of politicians and all of their lies. I know up to a point we have to have government for our national security but anyone that relies upon the
government for their fiscal livelihood and that plan their life around their lies are either naive or lazy.
Starting in 2013, the “baby boomers” are going to find out just how big a lie they have fallen for.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
5:35 pm
yomama
While I agree with that in theory, there are those like my mother who died way young and didn’t get hardly anything from it, now I don’t think there are more cases like my mom, but it does happen, and that offsets some of that problem.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
5:36 pm
Kamchak — “I’d bet wild boar is quite a bit gamier than domesticated pigs, probably stringier too.”
I’ve had it many times, and the best description I can come up with is this — you know the difference between white meat chicken and dark meat chicken? It’s the same difference between domesticated pork and wild hog. The wild product tastes like ‘dark meat’ pork.
Generation$crewed
September 26th, 2011
5:37 pm
Bosch
I have seen that study before. But that is not what my question was.
If I wanted to could I not pay my ss tax without there being a legal problem? Even if I invested an equal amount of my own money into my own investments and swore to never take a penny from any ss fund? Is that legal?
If it is illegal, why? Seems less people on the roles would be a good thing, and I don’t make much so it shouldn’t hurt the fund too much…. unless I am somehow paying for the retirement of someone who makes even less than me, and thus ain’t contributing much to the pile at all.
thewindwhistler
September 26th, 2011
5:39 pm
I receive $419.00 a month and i live like a middle east potentate. Have it all, there is a secluded little village south of the border where sea side home and maid is 200a month. mangoes and papayas for breakfast, broiled sea bass for lunch and crabs casino for dinner. Have a absolutely perfect girl for my personal trainer. At the end of the month i put a little in the bank for a rainy day and it never rains.
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
5:40 pm
Hello?
Is anybody home?
Wall Street just pulled off the Crime of the Century and “disappeared” $3,000,000,000,000.00 of other people’s money and you gullible nuts want them to have complete control over your destiny when you’re old and broken down?
Wow.
To call you boys slow learners is an insult to slow learners…
Jm
September 26th, 2011
5:40 pm
Jay why soupy rhomboid generation puts $ in 401ks and ira’s? We know SS won’t be around because DC is too incompetent and entrenched AARP interests with dems
Jm
September 26th, 2011
5:42 pm
Oh lord autocorrect
josef
September 26th, 2011
5:42 pm
Wild hogs depend on where they’re from as far as taste, texture of meat, etc. Also has to do with how they’re dressed. Wild sow or shoat is not much different than the domestically raised, the boar, though, is different and so is its proper preparation due to not being castrated…
One of my life’s “magic moments” was when I was on Corsica doing a translation of a Holocaust memoir and “in my honor” a friend of the author’s, herself a member of the Resistance, and a restauranteur, contracted for a wild boar (the hunt is seriously limited) and fixed it for me…her restaurant was facing Napolean’s birthplace! Even the dogs strolling in and out with their unwashed owners were part of the romance of that day…
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
5:44 pm
Joe Mama
As to the goat thing — if it’s anything like lamb, count me out. Way too rich for my simple palate.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
5:46 pm
GS
Again, I think it’s simple theory v. reality- in theory yes, it would be nice if we could do what we want with our own money, but the reality is that the markets are so uncertain and it would be more inefficient to have two systems, plus not to mention that SS is the most efficiently administered “pension plan” there is.
And there will always be a bigger segment of the population who will just not be able to save enough for retirement which in the long run hurt our economy far worse for many reasons. Think about simple demand- today we see a drop in demand due to stagnant wages, and that stands to worsen if you don’t subsidize the working force.
I think that’s what many people fail to see when considering entitlements, forget the morals, if you look at pure finances, it simply makes more sense to subsidize the middle and lower class to keep a larger pool of viable consumers- that money gies straight back into the economy.
ODD OWL
September 26th, 2011
5:48 pm
Rick Perry’s presidential bid is analogeous with that piece of space junk that fell back to Earth the other day… Ricky Perry soared high and mighty for a short period of time. Then his orbit begin to deteriorate and finally he fell back to Earth, crashed and burned. S.S. is well funded and solvent for the next 26 years. We the People will allow a later Congress to make any reforms if they’re needed. (tax the rich people for every dollar they earn) Herman Cain is in great shape to win the Republican nomination for President. Democrats have stealth candidates running as Republicans.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
5:48 pm
The main thing I have noticed on the part of the Righties on this blog relative to the Social Security debate is this cavalier attitude about Social Security when they retire.
I’d be willing to bet my last dollar that the Righties who complain the loudest about Social Security now will be the first in line when it comes time to collect.
Oh, and that example of the lady who husband died: she can only collect Social Security based on the amount her husband paid in. Just like all the rest of us.
Take my word for it. Even the most “independent” Righties on this blog will welcome that Social Security check when you’re old and feeble and can’t work any more.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
5:52 pm
Come to think of it, there was a “wild bore” at our dinner party the other night! Just wouldn’t quit talking!
josef
September 26th, 2011
5:53 pm
Sooth
They’re not on the endangered species list, are they?
Brad Spencer
September 26th, 2011
5:55 pm
Re: means testing.
It already exists. I receive Social Security. If a recipient has other income over a certain amount then the Social Security benefits are subjected to a special tax. I pay that.
I’m not complaining: it’s not a bad idea. I am simply pointing out that as constituted Social Security already has means testing. This also means that for Social Security recipients the incremental tax rate can be far more severe than for anyone else.
If I have a gripe it is with those who chant “means testing, means testing” while obviously totally ignorant of the fact that it is part of the current system.
Generation$crewed
September 26th, 2011
5:56 pm
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
5:46 pm
“I think that’s what many people fail to see when considering entitlements, forget the morals, if you look at pure finances, it simply makes more sense to subsidize the middle and lower class to keep a larger pool of viable consumers- that money gies straight back into the economy.”
But at what point is the ratio of those providing the entitlments to those who are getting them a negative effect on the economy?
Guntrisha
September 26th, 2011
6:01 pm
In addition to increasing the income threshold to $150K and tweaking the COLA formula (Jay’s suggestions) SS should be strictly limited to the people it was intended to benefit – retirees, survivors and their eligible children, and the truly disabled.
Walk into the waiting room of the SS office downtown on W. Peachtree. You’ll see where the $ is really going.
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
6:03 pm
Lord Help Us,
It wasn’t Clinton’s Deficit Reduction Bill that did most of the work in balancing the budget, it was a doubling of the stock market in a very short time due to the dot com bubble. That was a unique event (stocks trading at 400 times earnings). Once that stopped, the deficits came back very quickly BEFORE anything that can be blamed on Bush had time to take effect. And I by no means defend Bush’s spending and never have.
kayaker 71
September 26th, 2011
6:03 pm
On Jan 18, 1981, Galveston County Texas opted out of the social security system and established a system of their own. It was entirely voluntary, collected the exact amount of money that traditional SS collected and provided benefits to retired personnel. Each contribution was kept in the name of the contributor and careful records were kept to ensure that monies that were contributed were allocated to those that made the contribution. Benefits could be collected any time and at any age but were encouraged to be taken after age 62.
Estimated payments for a worker making about 24,000/yr under traditional SS are about 415/mo. Under the Galveston plan, they were triple that. For those making upwards of 65,00/yr, the monthly rate of return was just under 3,500. For those in the top tier making upward of 100K/mo, benefits were as high as 6.000/mo. whereas, under traditional SS, they would be no higher than 2,500/mo.
And one of the best parts of the plan….. if you didn’t use all that you had contributed, your estate was given the remainder.
There were no politicians stealing all of the money, there were financial planners hired to invest the money wisely and participants were given monthly statements confirming that the planners were doing their job. One difference…. there were no payments made to dependent children. The plan favored couples with no dependent children.
The report was written by Theresa Wilson, Office of Policy, the SS Administration and is on Google for your review. The plan is working to this day with lots of very happy retirees from Galveston, TX. It would appear after reading this report seeing the results that there are indeed credible alternatives to traditional SS…… payment on the interest on the debt alone would make it very attractive.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
6:06 pm
G$ — “If I wanted to could I not pay my ss tax without there being a legal problem? Even if I invested an equal amount of my own money into my own investments and swore to never take a penny from any ss fund? Is that legal?”
No. And you’re thinking about this the wrong way. SS isn’t an investment. It’s insurance.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
6:06 pm
Ah yes, the Galveston plan……..been addressed here many times.
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
6:07 pm
AmVet,
How does the Iraq war account for higher oil prices? Many other factors account for that. Why haven’t they come down since the end of the war? Think the economies of China and India have anything to do with it?
And even taking those things into account, you are not in the same ballpark as entitlements. Not even close. That was my original point.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
6:08 pm
GS
I’ll leave that question for someone smarter than me, but it seems to me that if you stop these programs, the impact to our economy will be catastrophic- again, it just seems smarter in the long run to ensure a bigger chunk of the population has some money to spend.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
6:11 pm
“Walk into the waiting room of the SS office downtown on W. Peachtree. You’ll see where the $ is really going.”
And unless you have reason other than your own prejudices to believe otherwise, or a magic crystal ball, that is who those people in the SS office are.
Jm
September 26th, 2011
6:14 pm
Brad u r correct, but its not a very big part
Gordon
September 26th, 2011
6:16 pm
“The idea of raising the retirement age is a farce. Try again.”
The purpose of the program was NEVER to pay for someone’s retirement. It was to make sure people weren’t destitute in their final years. No one expected SS to pay for their retirement. This is the best case of why entitlement programs are a disaster. They create dependency, and morph into something they were never intended to be. There have been calls for HOPE to be needs based, but it was intended to be merit based. Social Security was supposed to be there for EVERYONE who contributed, now people want it to be needs based as well. Can’t you see how where this leads? You’re setting up a system that rewards failure and punishes success, so naturally you get more failure and less success.
Bosch
September 26th, 2011
6:18 pm
Wow. Kayaker is advocating for a small localized system to be imemented on a national scale- where else have I heard of such a thing? Help me out here, it was started by a Republican whose name rhymes with Womney and the wingnuts refer to it as Obamacare….interesting.
Too bad the wingnuts are allergic to the concept known simply as “consistency.”
Frankiev
September 26th, 2011
6:18 pm
Bookman is obviously a tool for the Dumbocrats. Republicans on stage refused to acknowledge the hecklers for their racist views. Good for them. And I think Republicans are known to be more supportive of the military than their appeasers on the left.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
6:21 pm
K71 — “The plan is working to this day with lots of very happy retirees from Galveston, TX. It would appear after reading this report seeing the results that there are indeed credible alternatives to traditional SS…… payment on the interest on the debt alone would make it very attractive.”
If you’re not a high earner, the difference isn’t that sweet. The report you speak of discusses payout levels for people approaching *30 years* in the program, which is plenty of time for *any* retirement plan that relies on compound interest to produce good results. The participants could have done as well by taking part in a qualified 401k plan.
The negative difference comes from what happens if you get disabled on the job, because by opting out of the SS system, you’re also opting out of SS disability benefits. The disability benefits for middle- and high-wage earners were better, but the bennies for low-wage earners were worse. Plus, and more ominously, there were *time limits* on how long you could collect for certain kinds of disabilities — time limits that don’t exist for OASDI.
Go ahead, read the GAO’s analysis for yourself.
http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99031.pdf
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
6:21 pm
Bookman is obviously a tool for the Dumbocrats.
Aannnnnnnnnnnd I quit reading.
Thomas
September 26th, 2011
6:26 pm
OPM commits to stopping payments to dead people
Oh goody. You really can’t make this stuff up.
Doggone/GA
September 26th, 2011
6:26 pm
“As to the goat thing — if it’s anything like lamb, count me out. Way too rich for my simple palate”
It isn’t, it’s more like deer meat
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
6:29 pm
“Estimated payments for a worker making about 24,000/yr under traditional SS are about 415/mo. Under the Galveston plan, they were triple that.”
So, let me see if I’ve got this straight: a worker making $2,000 a month places $1,245 of that gross amount into a retirement fund. Leaving just $755 a month to live on. Are you sure about that?
Once again, a Rightie trots out some obscure example that is supposed to “prove” their argument relative to a much larger issue. Give me a break!
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
6:30 pm
I’m not even gonna read the posts, as I’m sure I’d feel like I wasted time afterwards.
When it comes to SS, there’s two ways of looking at it…
1 – Money going into SS is used to purchase US Treasuries. That, in turn, gives our government money to function. When it’s time for your benefits, the government is still there, and you receive your benefit.
2 – Money diverted into private accounts will go towards funding companies. There is no guarantee of any type of return and/or benefit when you retire. Your money is at the mercy of the market, and we’ve seen how trillions can be wiped out of the market in a matter of moments.
If your retirement years required you to depend on your SS check, which system would you choose?
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
6:30 pm
Doggone/GA
Deer meat, huh?
Yummy.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
6:31 pm
For those who elected George W. Bush, I’d be careful how I use the word “dumb.”
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
6:32 pm
AmVet @ 5:40
My thoughts exactly on privatizing SS. The people who need it most can not afford to get screwed by Wall Street. Those SOB’s won’t be happy until they control 100% of our economy/finances.
Jm
September 26th, 2011
6:32 pm
Sooth u don’t understand what he was saying
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
6:34 pm
Your money is at the mercy of the market, and we’ve seen how trillions can be wiped out of the market in a matter of moments.
Up or down, the players will still take their transaction fees.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
6:36 pm
Up or down, the players will still take their transaction fees.
And the gullible who advocate private accounts don’t have a friggin’ clue. They don’t give a sh*t whether you make money or lose money because they’re paid either way.
josef
September 26th, 2011
6:36 pm
Galveston is a city of 50,000, pretty well off and fairly well educated. What may work there is not applicable in another, larger, less economically privileged and less educated society.
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
6:37 pm
I understand your point Gordon, albeit your “omitting” the gargantuan, fraud-riddled, terminally corrupt, redundant, abusive and hyper-wasteful DoD budget in the equation.
My point was that your contention about there will be no costs “going forward” related to Iraq, was dead wrong. (Probably a poor choice of adjectives given the tragic and needless American loss of life caused by the inept neo-cons, huh?)
As for the rapid increase in oil prices after the bungled shock and awe, take it up with esteemed gentlemen who wrote the paper I linked.
i presume you looked at it?
If not:
In our conservative $3 trillion estimate, we attribute only $5 to $10 of the per-barrel-price increase to the war. However, we now believe that a more realistic estimate of the impact of the war on the oil price over a decade is at least $10 to $15 per barrel. That translates into at least an additional $250 billion increase in the cost of war above the numbers in our book.
Thirdly, the war added substantially to the Federal debt. It is the first time in America’s history where a government cut taxes as it went to war, even in the face of continued government deficits. When the crisis began, the global financial crisis, the debt reduced our room to maneuver. It does so even more today, with the results of a deeper and longer recession.
But the link between the war and the crisis is even stronger than that. The crisis itself was, in part, due to the
war. The increase in oil prices reduced domestic aggregate demand. Money spent buying oil abroad was money not available for spending at home, for instance. Loose monetary policy and lax regulations kept the economy going through a housing bubble, whose breaking brought on the global financial crisis.
Simply put, George Walker Bush was arguably one of the absolutely worst presidents ever. In every measurable way and in every aspect of governance.
And the historians all agree…
Frankiev
September 26th, 2011
6:40 pm
W had the guts to kick ass in Iraq.Medicare part D a great program for elderly that has come in at 25 percent of CBO cost projections. Tax cuts were great for economy until Barney and friends ruined housing. But if Florida had not voted the right way, we would have utility bills four times greater than now, tax rates more excessive for people who choose to work, and we would have tried appeasement as a solution to the bombing of the World Trade Center.
ragnar danneskjold
September 26th, 2011
6:41 pm
This is not a math issue, but a moral one. The source of the funds is the democrat-advocated “lockbox” for those contributions of those for whom the system will not change; if that promise was untrue, as I suspect most of us suspect, that is not the fault of the reformers. And I suspect almost anyone under age 40 would welcome the opportunity switch system.
As to the fundamental question, mere abolition of a lot of the regulatory forces will provide sufficient funding for the shortfall. You would not have to make it up in one year, so we should prepare ourselves for a generation without an EPA and an SEC and an FDA.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
6:41 pm
The payments under a traditional SS arrangement would be $306 a month — including Medicare. (using the old rules, i.e. before the “reduction.”) Please explain where you get $415 a month. Why on Earth would anyone put $1,245 of a $2,000 a month salary into a retirement account?
Jm: please explain to me what I don’t “understand.”
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
6:43 pm
And I think Republicans are known to be more supportive of the military than their appeasers on the left.
Not meant to be a factual statement.
Unless by supportive one means getting thousands and thousands needlessly KIA’d and maimed to feel good about their never-served selves.
And then screwing with veteran’s benefits and generally making the families’ lives a living hell.
Nope, in my extensive reading and experience on the topic, these craven neo-cons are absolutely the worst enemy the troops and vets can have…
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
6:44 pm
josef — “Galveston is a city of 50,000, pretty well off and fairly well educated. What may work there is not applicable in another, larger, less economically privileged and less educated society.”
Not to mention that the GAO considered people with 35- and 45-year careers with the applicable county governments. I don’t wish unemployment on anyone, but good luck keeping *any* job that long in your life. It’d be hard even to stay in the military that long unless you were an E-9 or a flag officer (general- or admiral-grade, for you civilians).
josef
September 26th, 2011
6:46 pm
Frankiev
Were you on the ground in Iraq, kicking ass?
It was only Barney and friends? He must be a really popular guy…
If people in Florida what? If the Supreme Court hadn’t voted “the right way, maybe…”
I doubt we would have gone for “appeasement” following the WTC. I suspect whoever else was in would have followed much the same plan…as they have since the change of regimes in DC…
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
6:49 pm
“W had the guts to kick ass in Iraq.Medicare part D a great program for elderly that has come in at 25 percent of CBO cost projections. Tax cuts were great for economy until Barney and friends ruined housing. But if Florida had not voted the right way, we would have utility bills four times greater than now, tax rates more excessive for people who choose to work, and we would have tried appeasement as a solution to the bombing of the World Trade Center.”
“W” led us into a war costing $trillions of tax dollars on false pretenses
Medicare part D is a costly giveaway to Big Pharma that helped W double the national debt in just 8 years.
Tax cuts helped double the national debt in just 8 years.
The so-called World Trade Center “bombings” were the “New Pearl Harbor” devised by the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) to draw us into a never-ending war costing and estimated $4,000,000,000,000.00 to date to benefit the materiel suppliers who run this country.
Vinny
September 26th, 2011
6:49 pm
Listen all you numb nut liberals. The U.S. government piddled away every dime you put into SS, and you want to trust them to manage it one day more?
What a bunch of idiots.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
6:52 pm
Frankiev — “until Barney and friends ruined housing.”
I’d love to stick around and explain to you just how inaccurate this statement is, and explain to you what caused the housing crash (hint — it wasn’t political), but I think I’d rather go home and play with my wife.
Perhaps we can discuss it tomorrow. You’d probably benefit from such a discussion, as I saw some of what went on from the inside, and I’m not talking about real estate sales or a local bank writing mortgages. I’m talking about a much, much higher level than that.
kayaker 71
September 26th, 2011
6:52 pm
I am not saying that the Galveston Plan is a perfect solution. It is not. However, Bookman states that “Math Doesn’t Work on Privatizing Social Security”, which is absurd. Imagine all of that money taken away from the politicians and put into the hands of private enterprise. It scares them do death.
Joe Mama
September 26th, 2011
6:55 pm
K71 — “Imagine all of that money taken away from the politicians and put into the hands of private enterprise. It scares them do death.”
Imagine all that money, currently safely sequestered from commercial interests, being given to the same sort of people who flew the housing and investment banking industries into the ground in 2007-2008. It makes them drool and sets their stomachs to growling.
Out now. All be well and drive safely.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
6:55 pm
“Listen all you numb nut liberals. The U.S. government piddled away every dime you put into SS, and you want to trust them to manage it one day more?
What a bunch of idiots.”
Why, gosh Vinny, I didn’t know you were an expert. Maybe you should do some research before shooting your mouth off.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
6:57 pm
…so we should prepare ourselves for a generation without an EPA and an SEC and an FDA.
Great — no clean air or water, tainted food and drugs and a financial sector that would collapse under the weight of greed in less than four years.
kayaker 71
September 26th, 2011
6:59 pm
Why don’t you think that politicians have not revised this insane tax code that we have? They would then, under the Flat Tax or Fair Tax , have to depend on the states to contribute tax monies to the Congress rather than collecting it directly from the people. Takes away a lot of their power….. something that they don’t want to lose. They could have done it anytime in the last 75yrs or so but have not.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
6:59 pm
Kamchak @ 6:34
Anytime this debate comes out, I always go back and read something that Hillbilly D posted. I saved the interview/article as a favorite because it opened my eyes to things I didn’t even know, and I try to know everything there is when it’s my dollar on the line.
John C. Bogle
Founder, Vanguard mutual fund firm
Investors should realize [they] don’t get the market return. In a 9 percent market, we all share 9 percent before we pay the cost of financial intermediation, and after we pay those costs, which are about 2.5 percent a year, we get 6.5 percent on a 9 percent market.
So if I do your average, what percentage of my net growth is going to fees in a 401(k) plan?
Well, it’s awesome. Let me give you a little longer-term example: … an individual who is 20 years old today starting to accumulate for retirement. That person has about 45 years to go before retirement — 20 to 65 — and then, if you believe the actuarial tables, another 20 years to go before death mercifully brings his or her life to a close. So that’s 65 years of investing. If you invest $1,000 at the beginning of that time and earn 8 percent, that $1,000 will grow … to around $140,000.
Now, the financial system — the mutual fund system in this case — will take about two and a half percentage points out of that return, so you will have … a net return of 5.5 percent, and your $1,000 will grow to approximately $30,000. One hundred ten thousand dollars goes to the financial system and $30,000 to you, the investor. Think about that. ****That means the financial system put up zero percent of the capital and took zero percent of the risk and got almost 80 percent of the return, and you, the investor in this long time period, an investment lifetime, put up 100 percent of the capital, took 100 percent of the risk, and got only a little bit over 20 percent of the return.*** That is a financial system that is failing investors because of those costs of financial advice and brokerage, some hidden, some out in plain sight, that investors face today. So the system has to be fixed.
I’ve got to unscramble what you just said. You said that in the case of the $1,000 invested for 65 years, the financial system is taking 80 percent of the money. But most of us aren’t doing that. In the first place, at 20 we’re out spending it; we’re not putting it away. But set that aside. We’re really talking about people who are probably saving from 35 or 40 or 45 at best for retirement at 55, 60 or 65. and they are plunking the money away into 401(k)s. I’m just asking you, in that system, roughly what chunk of it are people getting back themselves out of their gains, and what chunk of that is going to go to the financial system for managing their money?
Well, in the long run, it’s 80 percent to the financial system, 20 percent to you. In a given year, it’s about 80 percent to you and 20 percent to the financial system, so if you look at 10 years or 15 years, you’re probably talking about 60 percent to you and 40 percent to the financial system maybe over 20 years, something like that. But the longer the period, the greater the impact of that tyranny of compounding costs is.
How do you get costs out of the system? …
Easy. You own [a market index fund]: the entire U.S. stock market or maybe 25 percent international, the entire U.S. bond market, or just simply go to government intermediate-term bonds and don’t pay anybody for those services. … It is all you need to pay to own the market.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement/world/401k.html
*** Emphasis mine…
Instead of keeping fees to a minimum, there are those who advocate turning over upwards to possibly 80% of taxpayers money to private companies just to kill Social Security. That’s just a damn shame…..
Frankiev
September 26th, 2011
7:00 pm
Pogo, I am afraid you are going to be proven right. What the liberals fail to say is that privatization would be optional for every individual, or to put it another way, it would be a choice. Isn’t that what liberals like when it comes to abortion.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
7:04 pm
Well, of course, Brosephus, that’s what it’s all about isn’t it? Just the like the “healthcare” debate. The “percentage these greedy entities take is the real issue. If we eliminate the insurance companies and the brokerage houses, all of a sudden it makes sense.
Frankiev
September 26th, 2011
7:04 pm
Joe, there isn’t any money being sequestered from private enterprise. It has been pissed away by politicians. The lockbox is.in Kansas with Dorothy and the Oz.
kayaker 71
September 26th, 2011
7:08 pm
Brocephus,
I have never bought a load fund. Anyone who does is their own worst enemy. Your post, however, is spot on. But there are other ways to invest the people’s money. Taking out the huge investment fees is a good first start. This could be done with SS funds. But it would be the biggest and baddest fund in the country and subject to more corruption and fraud than anything that we have seen yet. I can see all of the money managers rubbing their hands together and drooling.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
7:10 pm
Sooth
As Kamchak said earlier, people tend to forget that those investment firms make money when you make money, and they also make money when you lose money. They’re paid by the transaction, so if you want to really make them uber-wealthy, then just turn over the retirement accounts of about 300 million people. It’s the same fundamental principle behind the health insurance mandate. Those two ideas are nothing but the government selling it’s people to the corporations.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
7:10 pm
I LOVE IT!Once again, and as per usual, the Righties come over here walking the talking points they heard from Lush, Bellow, Speck, Vannity, Doorkz and just can’t understand why they continually get “shot down.”
Here’s a suggestion: what they’re telling you is a pack of lies. Why else would all of your arguments wilt under the slightest examination?
Maybe you should try a different information source.
Paul
September 26th, 2011
7:10 pm
“It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.”
Welcome to the primaries.
Fox Luntz focus group in Atlanta after the TP debate. Audience went for Perry. Luntz was shocked. Reeled off the disconnects in Perry’s answers. Audience: but he believes what he’s saying and he says it so convincingly!
Next focus group turned on Perry.
The audience is hearing what it wants to hear. I’ve an idea that Romney knows the numbers. In fact, I think he ‘got it’ within a few seconds. It’s what he does. And what he’s doing now is trying to secure the nomination.
So it’ll be all ‘rah rah’ and ‘yeah yeah’ and after the election, I’m still hoping there’ll be a plain-talk dose of “okay, folks, time to get real.’
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
7:13 pm
But it would be the biggest and baddest fund in the country and subject to more corruption and fraud than anything that we have seen yet. I can see all of the money managers rubbing their hands together and drooling.
That’s why I adamently oppose privatizing any of SS at all. People who suggest that obviously didn’t learn the lessons from the housing bust with the derivative sales and stuff. There are people who are gonna see dollar signs and all ethics and morals are out the window. We’ve seen what Congress does with that kind of money, and I damn sure don’t want to see that money in the hands of some private investment firm with little to no oversight.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
7:14 pm
Just a farm girl with that electric smile.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
7:17 pm
Bill Clinton and obama played a round of golf together today. I bet I know what they shot…….A lot of BS.
kayaker 71
September 26th, 2011
7:17 pm
Listened to the whole speech that Bozo gave to the CBC. There is nothing worse than someone speaking before a bunch of black people who tries to sound like a Baptist preacher. Al Gore tried it and sounded like Eddie Murphy imitating Buck Wheat. The cooker was the applause, or lack of it. I really think that black America is waking up. Those folks just are not happy with their Messiah. His most loyal supporters and they are not happy campers.
JKL2
September 26th, 2011
7:19 pm
-private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.
Increase minimum wages to the point nobody can hire workers and increase spending out of sight. I’m surprized obama hasn’t already proposed this. It sound like a cornerstone of the Demwit party.
dbm
September 26th, 2011
7:20 pm
yomama
September 26th, 2011
5:32 pm
In a legitimate insurance system (which Social Security is not), some people will collect more than they put in. This is called spreading out risk, and in a legitimate insurance system, it normally works. The problem with Social Security is not the existence of what you call “little old white ladies”, but the fundamentally fraudulent, unsound approach of using the money currently being paid in to pay current benefits, instead of pooling and investing the money and paying it out to those, among the ones who paid it in, who meet the criteria.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
7:22 pm
Sooth,
I was surprised to hear from someone last week that Marilyn apparently used to shave down one high shoe (not the other) to make her hips sway. Hmm. Is that physics or physique?
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
7:26 pm
kayaker,
If Obama supporters are unhappy, it is because he has been too conservative and too willing to compromise with those on the right who are unwilling to do anything for the country. Don’t you worry. Come election time, those same supporters will not be punching in anyone with an “R” after their name.
dbm
September 26th, 2011
7:27 pm
@ Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
5:48 pm
If I am leading a basically productive life and the government takes from me, I am entitled to take back what they are willing to offer. That doesn’t mean that I support the program involved, or that I should support it, or even that it is morally permissible for me to support it.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
7:27 pm
“I really think that black America is waking up.”
You shore is right massa kayaker (my apologies in advance to Brosephus), us “blacks” is shore gonna line up to vote for King Dumbass the Second ’cause we sho’nuff knows he’s gonna look out after us.
Certainly ain’t no Democrat gonna be a’lookin’ out after us. Get on away from here, massa kayaker! Ain’t no way I’m gonna be a votin’ for no Democrat in 2012!
RW-(the original)
September 26th, 2011
7:28 pm
Can you get to the Chilean model on that Intercontinental railroad Obama keeps claiming we built?
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
7:29 pm
Did anybody ask Jay about the location of the thread on political malfeasance in relation to this??? Or is it one of those, if it’s not Atlanta, Dekalb, or Clayton politicians, then it’s ok type things???
All three candidates for Alpharetta mayor say they’ll reimburse the city for the Verizon Wireless Amphitheatre concerts they attended at taxpayers’ expense.
Their decisions follow a joint investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and Channel 2 Action News that found that a fifth of the nearly $150,000 worth of tickets and VIP parking passes purchased by the city’s Convention and Visitors Bureau in 2008 and 2009 went to the mayor and council members.
[...]
The tickets were intended to be to distributed to hotels, restaurants, event planners and radio stations, among others, to promote sales tax-generating tourism. But several officials acknowledged attending concerts themselves.
Soon after WSB started asking questions, CVB President Janet Rodgers quit keeping records and didn’t document what happened to another $127,600 worth of 2010 and 2011 season passes, the investigation found. At some point in 2010, she erased what data she had, a possible violation of a state law forbidding destruction of public documents.
http://www.ajc.com/news/alpharetta-candidates-say-theyll-1189228.html
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
7:29 pm
In Cain’s social security laboratory, Chile, half of the erstwhile heroic miners are unemployed.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
7:31 pm
Can you get to the Chilean model on that Intercontinental railroad Obama keeps claiming we built?
Thinking about the last Chilean model I saw…
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
7:33 pm
theyeshaveit@7:26 They may not go Republican but they may stay home.
RW-(the original)
September 26th, 2011
7:35 pm
Thinking about the last Chilean model I saw
Damnit SoBro, you got me thinking there’s a tunnel on that line and everything I want to type will get me banned.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
7:35 pm
Bro,
Was it the one that Mark Sanford was courting? Ah, wait she was not a model and she was from neighboring Argentina. Never mind. But she did look mighty nice.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
7:38 pm
Steve,
Some might stay home, but when one considers the consequences – a Perry or a Romney in the White House – I believe you’ll see them make it to the polls.
kayaker 71
September 26th, 2011
7:41 pm
Sooth,
I am not saying that they are going to line up to vote for King Dumbass. You can dodge this issue all you want but they are not happy. I think that when faced with the choice between Herman Cain, or Chris Christie (if he was running) they just wouldn’t show up. 2008 was a signal event…. 2012 will not be the same.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
7:43 pm
Just a thought…
But for their indiscretions, we might have seen this in 2012: Edwards versus Sanford. Well, at least half of that.
Jefferson
September 26th, 2011
7:45 pm
A 9% national sales tax is about the worse idea anyone can support. To augue for it is a waste of good air. Save the air, its is a gimmick that just is bad.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
7:45 pm
Kayaker: with all due respect, if you think blacks are going to vote for any Republican candidate, you are sorely mistaken.
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
7:46 pm
Theeyeshaveit@7:43
Just a thought……
We could have an infidelity tax, our problems are solved!!!!!!!
Schrodingers cat
September 26th, 2011
7:47 pm
Kam and josef – did I hear goat?…baby goat is in my top 5 best meals…got turned on to it in Switzerland but since found in many parts of EU especially Italy..It’s like what veal is to beef…oh I could go on and on…it is the best…I’ve made it a few times but it ain’t cheap
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
7:47 pm
Steve,
LOL.
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
7:48 pm
I don’t believe in the 9-9-9 but I do like seeing people come up with ideas that are out of the box. I’ll give him some love for actually having a plan. The more original thought the better.
JMHO
kayaker 71
September 26th, 2011
7:51 pm
Sooth,
I didn’t say they would. But they will stay home instead of voting for Bozo. It sure won’t be the 92% that he enjoyed in 2008. They have been his most loyal supporters and he has let them down and they know it. They might profess their solidarity in public but behind the scenes I would venture that the CBC rhetoric was a bit more wild than Maxine Water’s rant. People outside the CBC speech when interviewed called Cain an Oreo, an Uncle Tom and a traitor. No, he won’t get the black vote but Bozo will struggle to get what he got in 2008.
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
7:53 pm
Kayaker – I am with you on this one. There will not be the same emotional drive as there was in 2008.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
7:54 pm
Bottom line is that despite the fact that these big gubment programs like SS and Medicare are broke or going broke you still have people clamor for more of this crap along with people who defend systems that should have been changed/reformed a long time ago to the Chilean system when we could see this coming. It really is nothing short of amazing when you stop and think about it.
Jay
September 26th, 2011
7:55 pm
Kayaker, I just don’t think you’re the most credible interpreter of black America’s innermost sentiments.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
7:55 pm
Kayaker: if you think blacks are going to willfully stay home and allow a Republican to be elected, you’re delusional.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
7:57 pm
RW
eyes
I wish I could host a live feed at work some days. I’m not saying I condone what Sanford did…. but I understand.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
7:59 pm
“Bottom line is that despite the fact that these big gubment programs like SS and Medicare are broke or going broke you still have people clamor for more of this crap along with people who defend systems that should have been changed/reformed a long time ago to the Chilean system when we could see this coming.”
Thulsa, please post an authorative link that substantiates the claim you just made. If you can’t, please don’t make it again.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:00 pm
It really is nothing short of amazing when you stop and think about it.
Well, it is amazing that any GOP candidate would want to supplant the social security systems when the vast majority of Americans have indicated that they don’t want any politician messing with it. And my guess is that by the time we have a GOP finalist for 2012 that candidate will not be be talking about privatizing social security.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
8:03 pm
This one’s for you, Thulsa! I’ll have one of those Jill Jones (in black leather) to go with a side order of legs!
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
8:03 pm
SS is one of those things that works but people fail to appreciate it because they have never seen the alternative. I for one am glad that Iwe don’t see elderly people begging for food on the street corners. Let’s keep it that way.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:03 pm
Bro,
I really understand, but with the threat of Steve’s infidelity tax, I can only commit adultery in my heart. Now, who said that?
pogo
September 26th, 2011
8:04 pm
You have to laugh at the dumb&$$ Geithner. He said today that the US government should keep on spending and in the next breath he lectured the Europeans about cutting government spending or else they will take the world down with them. The world has to be sickened by the Obama administration and it’s arrogance.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
8:04 pm
did I hear goat?…baby goat is in my top 5 best meals
Mmmmmmmmmmmm barbequed goat sammiches…..
As far as the Black vote, Obama will get, at a minimum, 90% of the Black vote simply because he is the Democratic candidate. It has nothing to do with his race, and it’s all because of the party he’s representing. As a Black American with a middle of the road type view, I don’t see the current Republican Party garnering more than 10%-15% of the Black American vote. Most of the vote they get will probably come from either high earners or first generation Black Americans.
The Republican Party does nothing to garner more than that support. By default, most Black Americans will vote Democratic when it comes to electing a President. Things may differ a bit on the local and/or state level, but the GOP will not garner a huge group on the National Federal level.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:04 pm
Brocephus,
Yes. We are paying a significant amount in fees to investment management companies for 401ks, mutual funds, etc. 2-2 1/2% is a little ridiculous and personally I think everyone should have a discount stock brokerage account where they buy their own stock rather than mutual funds.
A few points to be made on these fees and investing.
1- the after tax return of 6-7% that you mention still beats the hell out of the 1% return on your money from SS.
2- Perhaps the liberals in NY where Wall St is and Obama’s biggest campaign contributor Goldman Sachs can lead a charge to bring fees on retirement accounts to a more reasonable level such as 1% or 3/4 of 1%. I think the biggest opposition to this would be Democrats believe it or not. As much as they rail against Wall Street they are clearly owned by the street.
3- If everyone could just take their 401k funds and invest in individual stocks through discount brokers that mirror mutual funds they would most likely be better off. The problem here of course is the profound ignorance and financial incompetence of the everyday American in regards to managing their own money. There’s a reason Robert Kiyosaki is rich now.
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
8:06 pm
Jay – “Kayaker, I just don’t think you’re the most credible interpreter of black America’s innermost sentiments.”
Jay just as I don’t believe you to be a credible interpreter for the “right”…no offense, but the same rules apply…just sayin’
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:07 pm
Brosephus™ – Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
8:04 pm
did I hear goat?…baby goat is in my top 5 best meals
Mmmmmmmmmmmm barbequed goat sammiches…..
Brocephus,
You ever tried ox tail at a Jamaican or Carribbean restaurant? Very tasty.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:08 pm
pogo,
Its the old “Do as I say not as I do” top down arrogant approach of the limousine librul crowd.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:08 pm
Sooth,
BTW, there is this news today…
http://www.football-strip.com/legendary-funk-singer-sly-stone-homeless-and-living-out-of-van-report-says.html
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
8:09 pm
I’ve heard epic things about ox tail…
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
8:11 pm
An informed, empowered, engaged electorate is a neo-con’s worst nightmare. (It’s where their xenophobia really bites them in the ___.)
Who, for example here, proffers the idea that more and more Americans should NOT vote in our elections?
I, like many progressive, liberals, moderates, independents and non-Republicans promote and do the exact opposite.
Get registered! And vote! Everyone! Every election!
That is the beauty and somewhat unfulfilled promise of America…
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
8:12 pm
I really understand, but with the threat of Steve’s infidelity tax, I can only commit adultery in my heart. Now, who said that?
Doom
1. That 6-7% isn’t guaranteed, whereas that 1% is pretty sound. Most people will go with sound over possibility anyday. I’ve had my money sitting on government bonds since the upheaval over the debt limit debate. While I’m not making much as far as interest, I’m not losing any of what I’m contributing right now either.
2. That will happen when hell freezes over. Wall Street is neither liberal nor conservative. They’re all about making money regardless to whomever is in office. They hedge their bets each and every election. They donate more to whomever they think will be the clear winner, but they also donate to the other side too. Check those disclosures for proof. Only those with a partisaned point to prove will label them as either liberal or conservative.
3. The problem here of course is the profound ignorance and financial incompetence of the everyday American in regards to managing their own money.
It’s not as much as the profound ignorance of the average American, it’s the sleight of hand that’s done by those who make the rules. Investment should not be something very complicated, but those in control make it that way to limit who can get in and manipulate the system to their advantage. They’d be stupid if they didn’t. It’s no different than Congress writing 2300 page bills to decide what color to paint bathrooms. It doesn’t have to be that complicated, but those on the inside make it that way to limit outsiders from encroaching into their world.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:13 pm
Bro,
Similarly, Hispanics, though not particularly enamored of Obama due to the lack of results on immigration reform, will, nevertheless, be voting for him come 2012. There simply is no viable alternative in the GOP.
Soothsayerc
September 26th, 2011
8:14 pm
Well, my post just got “et.”
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
8:15 pm
Well, let’s try it again. This one’s for you, Thulsa.
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
8:17 pm
theyes – I’ll bet the majority of legal Hispanics will vote R…maybe secretly but they will..they are very pro small business..and very Christian…
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:22 pm
Thulsa,
Goldman-Sachs bets on the horse they think will win. Over the years they have contributed to both the GOP and the Dems. By they way, I read an interesting report from Goldman-Sachs that has China passing up the US GNP by the year 2050. Moreover, the so called emerging 7 will also include India, Brazil, Russia, Indonesia,and Mexico.
Jefferson
September 26th, 2011
8:23 pm
Why would anyone belive the GOP won’t just do what they did from 2000-2008 and run up a big deficit and commits troops to foreign lands. Grow the gov’t. Why would anyone belive different? Because they told you so??
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
8:23 pm
Well, gosh, let’s see who’s gonna be votin’ for ol’ Rick of the superior intellect come 2012:
Hispanics: uh, no.
Blacks: uh, no.
Displaced union employees: uh, no.
The elderly: uh, no.
The young who can’t find jobs: uh, no.
Right-wing tea-party fringe voters: uh, yes.
Don’t look too promising does it?
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
8:24 pm
Wow Jefferson..an 8 yr prospective…this isn’t global warmig….I snark me
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:25 pm
Brocephus,
I understand what you’re saying about the sleight of hand but its not that much sleight of hand. A prospectus can be fairly intimidating but once you read the meat of it its not that hard to understand.
I agree with you that the overall charges on 401ks and retirement accounts are simply unreasonable and quite frankly a company managing a fixed income bond fund charging 2 1/2 % is nothing short of an obscenity. Only a fool would invest in such instruments and only a crook would sell them.
But how hard is it to read and understand how much the management fee and 12b-1 fees are on a mutual fund and how much they add up to? I can teach a monkey the basics of stock and mutual fund transactions and costs in no time at all.
Now as far as picking companies, looking at balance sheets, economic and industry trends, and understanding various financial ratios that indicate a companies good health or growth that is a different thing that requires education. But someone can learn the basics of investing in a couple of days and learn what to look for in buying companies by simpling reading a few books from the likes of Peter Lynch. Its really not that hard. I just think people are our education system has failed us abysmally in terms of financial literacy and in addition to that there are too many people who just don’t want to get off their duff and take care of their business.
josef
September 26th, 2011
8:25 pm
Love goat! Another one you best know what you’re doing when fixing it, though!
Don’t much care for ox tail. Unmentionable and his Caribbean cronies cn have my share of it…
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
8:26 pm
low and slow josef…low and slow
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:27 pm
theyes – I’ll bet the majority of legal Hispanics will vote R…maybe secretly but they will..they are very pro small business..and very Christian…
Cat,
Well, as someone here said, unless you’re part of that group it’s hard to be a credible interpreter for that group. I say the Hispanics, as they have always been wont to do, will come out for Obama in 2012, but perhaps not as eagerly nor with as many numbers. I see Hispanics staying home before voting for anyone in the GOP.
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
8:29 pm
touche theyes touche
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
8:29 pm
I’ll bet the majority of legal Hispanics will vote R.
?????????????
Things are always subject to change, but it would be a huge change.
In the past five presidential elections the GOP has never once garnered more than 39% of the Latino vote and Obama took 67% of their votes in 2008.
My advice? Put that bet back in your pocket…
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:30 pm
By they way, I read an interesting report from Goldman-Sachs that has China passing up the US GNP by the year 2050.
the eyes have it,
One of us must be crazy. Because I thought I heard from the latest report that at present rates that China will surpass us as early as 2016 in total GNP. Cant remember where I saw that though. They already passed Germany last year as the world’s 3rd largest economy. I think they have us plainly in their gunsights and 2050 sounds way too far off if you look at present economic growth rates of both ourselves and China. Hopefully I’m wrong but I don’t think so.
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:31 pm
cat,
I may be wearing my reading glasses, but I have a good eye.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:32 pm
Don’t much care for ox tail.- josef
josef,
I guess different strokes for different folks.
Schrodinger's cat
September 26th, 2011
8:33 pm
just sayin’..the legal Hispanics match up better with the R..IMHO…when the curtains close who knows…
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
September 26th, 2011
8:35 pm
Well, if I need to be made to buy insurance I don’t need to go to Chile. I can just wait till Obamacare starts.
Anyhow, me and my buddy Jim Earl and my other buddy Joe Bill was at Billy Bob’s Saturday night and started talking about Social Security. Joe Bill pointed out that when SS started people wasn’t suppose to live past 68 or so. Now they hang on till they’re 80 or more and all that extra time they’re drawing SS checks and using up Medicare.
Well, we agreed the Job Creators shouldn’t be made to pay SS and Medicare tax on more of their income. That would put the jobs they’re suppose to create at risk and dry up the yacht and country club business to boot. Not to mention putting the luxury car business under water.
Then Joe Bill started asking where’s the Godfather when you need him? He said if people don’t have the decency to die at 68 like they’re suppose to, well, maybe they need a little help. Then the light bulbs went on in our heads. I’m not saying we should ought to go out and murder old people. But it wouldn’t hurt too much to not help them out when they’re hitting a slick spot or maybe not stepping on the brakes so fast when they’re crossing the road. You know what I mean. We wouldn’t need to “off” all of them. Just helping a few see Heaver quicker would save Social Security and Medicare. Not to mention keeping our taxes low.
Anyhow, it’s something to think about. Have a good night everybody.
Common Sense
September 26th, 2011
8:35 pm
The math for public social security doesn’t work either.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
8:36 pm
Ok, let’s say we do away with Social Security in favor of “private accounts” invested in the stock market.
What are you going to do if we have a crash like the March 2009 or the 1929 crash? What if you are totally and completely wiped out? Then, what are you going to do?
Remember that after the crash of 1929 stocks did not recover the previous values until 1954.
Do you really want to bet on that?
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:36 pm
Thulsa,
China did not pass Germany for number 3. It DID pas Japan for number 3. I first saw that report from Goldman on a Japanese site. Here is a link to a LONG pdf file on the subject.
But then again, 2050 is a long way out, things can certainly change dramatically before then. In fact, I read a story about an Atlanta businessman who is starting to rethink his relationship with Chinese factories. He is now seriously considering creating higher quality products for an emerging Chinese middle class consumer. He want to make the products in Georgia, thereby creating jobs for Americans, and exporting TO China. What a novel idea.
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/world-2050/pdf/world2050emergingeconomies.pdf
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
8:37 pm
Thulsa Doom – You need to remember the guidelines of this blog. There are 3 groups out to destroy America 1. Republicans 2. Wall Street 3. Corporations.
Believe it or not they seem to think no Democrats work on Wall Street and no Democrats own Corporations. That is to painful of a thought for them to accept. Evil is always the “other” guy.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:38 pm
sooth,
I’m digging the videos but I still gotta disagree with you on both SS and Medicare and their financial situation. I believe this year SS is now putting out more money than it is taking in and I think that’s a pretty well known fact. To me that’s broke or going broke. Those IOUs in a vault somewhere? Just paper IOUs.
On a more distressing note in the funk world Sly Stone is homeless and living out of his van. Damn depressing to see that happen to a legend.
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
8:40 pm
Under Obama, Sly is now everyday people.
..please tip your waitress.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:41 pm
Steve- USA,
Somehow or another it looks like you fell into a copy of their playbook- the evil ole triumvirate of repubs, corporations, and Wall Street banding together to be the scourge of America while the Democrats fight tooth and nail for the common man against overwhelming odds.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
8:41 pm
For those of you who keep talking about the last few seconds of the President’s speech, I wonder if you actually watched the whole thing
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
8:41 pm
“That would put the jobs they’re suppose to create at risk and dry up the yacht and country club business to boot. Not to mention putting the luxury car business under water.”
Once again, our own trailer park Voltaire speaketh the truth in his own inimitable way. How dare these selfish old people live past their actuarial age of 68.
And, therein lieth the problem. We just got to keep old folks from living so long. I’m open to suggestions.
Jefferson
September 26th, 2011
8:42 pm
The stock market would be the worse place for public funds. Slight increases in the FICA tax on both sides would go a very long way. People can always invest their saving how they wish, SS is a program that makes america better for it, never a money for nothing scheme.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:43 pm
I know it aint friday but it seems appropriate. A tribute to Sly and the family stone. Tanks for the suggestion Steve USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVOR28iG_o
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
8:43 pm
Thulsa – to be perfectly honest I am not to happy with the Dem’s or the Rep’s but the self love some of these people gives themselves puts narcissists to shame.
kayaker 71
September 26th, 2011
8:44 pm
Steve,
Only 25% of the really rich in this country are Repubs. The rest are Democrats…… Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Larry Elison, All of the Waltons…. all of these people are part of the evil rich. Where do you think that Bozo is going to get his billion dollars to run in 2012?
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:44 pm
Steve,
Here is the scoop on Sly Stone. As I suspect you suspected, Obama nothing to do with Sly’s present situation. Bad business deals did.
http://www.tmz.com/2011/09/25/sly-stone-homeless-van-sylvester-stewart/#.ToEpwOx5E0k
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
8:46 pm
theyeshaveit,
Yeah…it was more of a chance to tell a really lame joke.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
8:46 pm
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow.
Thulsa: now it’s your turn. Post something authoratative to back up your statements or pack it in.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:48 pm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a9P1peF6QeOg&refer=home
The eyeshaveit,
According to this article China surpassed Germany in 2007 for the # 3 spot. Point is that it looks like they are creeping up on everyone. I can’t remember who is no. 2 if its not Japan.
Steve - USA
September 26th, 2011
8:50 pm
Time to hang with the wife. I’m out
Health and Happiness to everyone no matter who you vote for.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:50 pm
The eyeshaveit,
According to this IMF report China will surpass the U.S. in economic output in 2016. This must have been the news I saw. Scary aint it?We all better brush up on our Mandarin.
http://rt.com/usa/news/imf-china-surpass-usa-five-years/
josef
September 26th, 2011
8:50 pm
Imam
I thought you didn’t like posting under different tags and then praising your wisdom. Oh,well, what should we expect given, well, you know…
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:54 pm
Thulsa,
China flew by Japan (now 3) to take the number 2 spot behind the USA this year. But the USA still enjoys a considerable lead over China. So, at the current pace (China is growing at a 5% rate per year), it will still take some time to catch the US. But there are some signs now that the China express may be slowing down.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:56 pm
soothsayer,
I’ll counter that with info directly from the CBO saying the system is broke. Does it get any more authoritative than the CBO? Included is an explanation as to why your source is wrong. The article is from national review but the info is straight from the CBO.
By Kevin D. Williamson
Tags: Despair, Entitlements
Today’s CBO report has some bad news about the deficit. But CBO has some really, really bad news about Social Security: It’s officially broke.
The CBO’s revenue/expenditure estimates now place the program in permanent deficit. There had been some hope that payroll taxes would recover sufficiently post-recession to put the program back into the black (the theoretical black) for at least a few more years, putting off the day of reckoning for an election cycle or more. No more: The new CBO estimates put Social Security in the red for as far as the eye can see.
But there’s a bit of camouflage attached: If you include the “interest” that the federal government “owes” the fictitious Social Security “trust fund,” then the program is in the black. *Which is to say, if you think that borrowing another $1 trillion from the bond market to shift money from one government account to another government account makes the nation $1 trillion richer, then everything’s hunky-dory.* But if you compare the program’s tax income to its benefit outlays, without the “interest” owed, as CBO does, what you get is deficits from this year forward to 2021 of $45 billion, $30 billion, $28 billion, $30 billion, $31 billion, $33 billion, $44 billion, $59 billion, $77 billion, $98 billion, and $118 billion — by my always-suspect English-major math, about six-tenths of a trillion dollars in the hole.
http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/258075/cbo-social-security-now-officially-broke
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
8:57 pm
Open questions to the forum:
Do we now live in an American plutocracy?
Do we now live in an American corporatocracy?
If so, why? If not, why not?
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:59 pm
josef,
hmmm. People here are using a doppelganger? What is the blogosphere coming to?
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
9:01 pm
theeyeshaveit,
I would like to think we have a significant lead over China. We do not. And the IMF is not the only source that has China passes us very shortly. Now there are other reports that have the date that China passes us as far into the future as 2035. But most have them passing us before 2020.
Also I believe you simply mistakenly read the report you mentioned incorrectly. That report has China *doubling us up* by 2050. That is what it looks like you may have read.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2008/07/08/china-will-surpass-u.s.-economically-by-2035-double-by-midcentury/adw
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:02 pm
Sly should have concentrated more on the Family, and less on the Stoned.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:02 pm
Thulsa: really! National Review! My post is from the Social Security Administration itself. Yours is conjecture from the Nation Review of all people! Get real!
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
9:02 pm
I’m out for a little while. Yall have fun fretting over the red juggernaut on the horizon to the west.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
9:05 pm
Doom
Haven’t had ox tail before. I’ve heard differing opinions on it, but it wasn’t something that was regularly on the menu back home.
On the financial thing, I don’t think it’s the fault of the educational system or a lack of education. I see it as simple as some people get it and others don’t. One person can strip a small block V8 and rebuild it while the man next to him can’t change a tire. All the education in the world won’t help you set your timing if you don’t know what you’re doing.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
9:05 pm
Sooth,
Please read the article. It quotes the CBO directly. Also if you believe that switching monies from one gubment account to another to make it look like SS isn’t really broke then you would likely believe in the tooth fairy as well.
There is no conjecture and if you can’t understand that they are CBO numbers and that transferring money between accounts doesn’t make the overall govt finances any more sound then I don’t know how I can help you. I can’t make it any simpler.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:07 pm
Conservatives …………….. 2+2=4
Liberals ………………………. 2+2= However much you need to say it is.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
9:08 pm
Brocephus,
If you’ve got any Jamaican buddies have one take you to get some- a couple good places downtown/midtown. I like it myself but when I had it it was in Miami with a jamaican friend so I like to think we were eating at a pretty authentic Jamaican cuisine restaurant. Haven’t had it up here. I can only say that if josef doesn’t like it then it must be good. I’m out for a little while.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:10 pm
Thulsa: I read the article. It’s by a self-professed “English major.” It proves nothing. It is simply conjecture.
Again, I challenge you to post something authoritative that proves your point. So far I have seen nothing that even comes close.
RB from Gwinnett
September 26th, 2011
9:12 pm
The problem we have isn’t just social security. It has it’s own issues, but the turd in the punchbowl nobody wants to address is the growing “less fortunate” class in this country that refuses to work an honest day’s work while demanding “living wage” and living conditions. We’re taking care of our seniors through social security and MILLIONS of these leeches who are dragging us into oblivion. And nobody wants to talk about it. The left are pandering to them for votes under the false pretense they’ll help them excape from their predicament and the right is afraid of being called mean. All the while the “less fortunate” are playing everybody for fools while they collect free stuff from hundreds of different angles.
I wonder if Chile has the same problem.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:12 pm
I understand what you’re saying about the sleight of hand but its not that much sleight of hand.
There’s your sign.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are you going to do if we have a crash like the March 2009 or the 1929 crash?
[...]
Remember that after the crash of 1929 stocks did not recover the previous values until 1954.
Do you really want to bet on that?
Just what I’m waiting for.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:14 pm
BADA:
“OBAMACARE HEADED FOR SUPREMES”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltIhcbwYUHc&feature=related
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:16 pm
Oxtails?
Any Jamaican restaurant will have it on the menu.
With black beans and rice, fried plantains and plenty of Red Stripe beer.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:16 pm
Scout: Conservatives – 2+2=WHY ARE WE ADDING OMG WE SHOULD BE CUTTING CUTTING CUTTING. CUT IT OR SHUT IT, CUT IT OR SHUT IT!
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:17 pm
kayaker: Once again, only you and some other conservatives are calling the rich “evil.” The rest of us do not use such terms.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:17 pm
Bro and josef @ ox tail……..I once worked in a grocery store. We had a butcher that would say anything. A woman pointed to a package of cow tongue and said that she would never eat anything from a cow’s mouth. The butcher replied ” Do you eat eggs’?
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:18 pm
Economic policy failed for three reasons: (1) policymakers focused on enabling offshoring corporations to move middle class jobs, and the consumer demand, tax base, GDP, and careers associated with the jobs, to foreign countries, such as China and India, where labor is inexpensive; (2) policymakers permitted financial deregulation that unleashed fraud and debt leverage on a scale previously unimaginable; (3) policymakers responded to the resulting financial crisis by imposing austerity on the population and running the printing press in order to bail out banks and prevent any losses to the banks regardless of the cost to national economies and innocent parties.
[I]n the last 10 years, the US lost 54,621 factories, and manufacturing employment fell by 5 million employees.
Most emphasis is on the lost manufacturing jobs. However, the high speed Internet has made it possible to offshore many professional service jobs, such as software engineering, Information Technology, research and design. Jobs that comprised ladders of upward mobility for US college graduates have been moved offshore, thus reducing the value to Americans of many university degrees. Unlike former times, today an increasing number of graduates return home to live with their parents as there are insufficient jobs to support their independent existence.
All the while, the US government allows in each year one million legal immigrants, an unknown number of illegal immigrants, and a large number of foreign workers on H-1B and L-1 work visas. In other words, the policies of the US government maximize the unemployment rate of American citizens.
Republican economists and politicians pretend that this is not the case and that unemployed Americans consist of people too lazy to work who game the welfare system. Republicans pretend that cutting unemployment benefits and social assistance will force “lazy people who are living off the taxpayers” to go to work.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:18 pm
0311……Is Diana Ross still with them?
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:19 pm
Adam:
“Scout: Conservatives – 2+2=WHY ARE WE ADDING OMG WE SHOULD BE CUTTING CUTTING CUTTING. CUT IT OR SHUT IT, CUT IT OR SHUT IT!”
I agree …………… as long as 2-1=1
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:20 pm
Scout: Also,
Liberals……. 1.4 + 0.7 = more money to fund things.
Conservatives …… 1.4 is too much. We need to cut more of that and 0.7 doesn’t really do enough so we shouldn’t bother with that. But we can get 0.00004 from the poor to prove that you’re not full of class warfare.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:21 pm
BADA:
Who cares ……………. all I know is my Marine Corps black buddies played that stuff in Nam until I thought I would go out of my Jarhead mind !!!!
I couldn’t get thirty seconds of Little Jimmie Dickens in !
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:22 pm
Adam:
Sounds good ………… everyone pays a little something.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:22 pm
0311……I keep hearing about the ‘Arab Spring’. I want to know about the ‘Arab Spring Break’. Will it be in Panama City? Will they get tattoos and get ‘Arab Spring Break 2012′ t shirts?
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
9:23 pm
Doom
I’ll keep that in mind. I have a few good friends from the islands.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:26 pm
New for 2012 Arab Spring Breakers
“I Raised Hell in Panama City, 2012″ Prayer Mats
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:27 pm
High inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions.
A mounting body of research shows that, left unchecked, a growing income gap affects the rich, the poor and everyone in between.
No matter your political leanings, most people understand that endless concentration of income, wealth and power is bad for the economy. After all, businesses rely on rising purchasing power of the many, not the few, to deliver growth and profits.
No one knows the tipping point, but lock enough people out of the promise of gains and at some point, instead of stability and growth, you get social unrest.
History has shown us, time and again: When too much is controlled by too few, something has to give. Continuously rising inequality is unsustainable.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:28 pm
“Where the Hell is Mecca” Shot Glasses
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:29 pm
I see BADA is still chasing tail….
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:30 pm
“I Got Bombed in Panama City” bumper stickers.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:30 pm
Well, it seems we are digressing into frivolity.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:31 pm
BADA:
WASHINGTON (AP) — “Rep. Maxine Waters says she’s not sure who President Barack Obama was talking to when he told black Americans to quit complaining and follow him into the battle for jobs and opportunity.”
Uh oh, Barry …………. you got Maxine on your case …………. you are asking for it !!!
Kinda like Aunt Esther after Fred !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiiG0KNgDi0&feature=related
RB from Gwinnett
September 26th, 2011
9:32 pm
“We had a blast in Panama City” Jihad turbans!!
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:32 pm
For the ladies
Arab Spring Break T Shirts
” Does This Burka Make Me Look Drunk?”
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:33 pm
BADA:
I just hope “Islamafreaknic” doesn’t show up here in Atlanta !
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:34 pm
“Well, it seems we are digressing into frivolity.”
Just like the current administration.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:35 pm
0311…….Did you hear obama’s speech where he told the poor and unemployed to “Get over it”? He basically told everyone to “Walk it off”.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:38 pm
“Well, it seems we are digressing into frivolity.”
Just like the gooey Drudgey goodness.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:38 pm
“I was partying my ass off in Panama City, and Allah got was this lousy T shirt”
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:39 pm
“I was partying my ass off in Panama City…
STILL chasing tail.
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
9:39 pm
” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t dispute a Harvard economist’s estimate that each job in the White House’s jobs plan would cost $200,000, but said the pricetag is the wrong way to measure the bill’s worth.”
And he also pointed out, in an interview today with ABC News’ David Muir, that there is no other option on the table for getting the economy moving and putting more people back to work.
“You’ve got to think about the costs of the alternatives,” Geithner said when asked about Harvard economist Martin Feldstein’s calculation that each job created by President Obama’s American Jobs Act would cost taxpayers about $200,000.
Maybe this dyck head should just give 4 people $50,000 and then it would create 4 times as many jobs.
This coming from a tax cheat.
RB from Gwinnett
September 26th, 2011
9:41 pm
“Palestine Jack” t-shirts and sunscreen.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:44 pm
RB….glad to see you join in. These bores on here can be depressing. They wouldn’t know frivolity if it gave them a head start.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:44 pm
Scout: It’s not good. But thank you for your opinion.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:44 pm
Kammie:
Take it up with CBS, MSNBC, ABC, The Washington Post and The New York Times …………. or Drudge for posting their articles.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:44 pm
You know, when you think about it, it all makes perfect sense!
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:46 pm
BADA:
“0311…….Did you hear obama’s speech where he told the poor and unemployed to “Get over it”? He basically told everyone to “Walk it off”.”
I read it ………… I can’t stand to listen to or watch him. The arrogance from him is just too overwhelming.
Translation of what he said: “Let Them Eat Cake (Twinkies)”
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:47 pm
Adam:
Thank you sir for your civility.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:49 pm
Well, let’s try this one more time.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:49 pm
Drudge to le petit caporal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bwW07sCwoY
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:53 pm
MORE “UNFETTERED LIBERALISM” !!!
(Kammie: USA Today)
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. – “This proudly liberal city has been out front on gay rights, protection of animals and limits on handguns, and even declared an upcoming “Go-Go Dancer Appreciation Day.”
But its latest move has the fur flying in a catfight between animal-rights activists and fashionistas.
A unanimous City Council vote last week to ban the sale of fur apparel has outraged the fashion industry, one of the primary businesses this tiny city, wedged between Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, has worked hard to attract.”
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:53 pm
Most popular Tramp Stamp
Arab Spring Break 2012
“Slam, Bam, Thank You Imam”
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:54 pm
You’re what!? Oh! Lord! say it ain’t so!
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:55 pm
New York Times to Kammie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkcYKC8ANt8
Jm
September 26th, 2011
9:55 pm
Jay, you seem to have recently been pointing out the supposed contradiction between the polls and some conservative policy ideas.
If your intention is to defend the status quo, under the premise that reform isn’t possible because something isn’t popular, I would submit to you that is not acceptable. The status quo is not sustainable.
But rather, if your intention is to point out that republicans have not engaged in the requisite conversation to help the public understand the scale of our challenges, then you might have a bit of a point.
Though with talk of ponzi schemes and entitlements, match Daniels new book, you can’t say they haven’t started trying.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:56 pm
BADA:
“Keep Your Camel Nose Out of My Tent”
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:56 pm
0311……What is the difference between US girls and Arab girls at Spring Break? US girls get stoned before having sex.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:57 pm
Sorry ………… can’t help it 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLB15kBvn_c
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:57 pm
BADA, Scout: You should probably watch the speech instead of reading it. Your interpretation is way off.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
10:04 pm
Ponzi — SQUIRREL!
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
10:06 pm
2nd Most Popular Tramp Stamp
“If You Can Read This, I Want To Vote”
out of the blue
September 26th, 2011
10:10 pm
“We’re taking care of our seniors through social security and MILLIONS of these leeches!”
Charming comment. So people who are collecting social security are leeches…..if you say so AssHat!
Jm
September 26th, 2011
10:12 pm
I see budget shenanigans continue, oh well.
At least one day, maybe, maybe, we’ll get to the big kahunas
Aaaand it looks like obamacare is headed to the scotus
Fun times, interesting indeed
Jm
September 26th, 2011
10:15 pm
Bada
Jm
September 26th, 2011
10:17 pm
Kam. Fun movie. Now pay attention. Shhhhhh
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:17 pm
Jay,
Got a NEWS FLASH for you.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, the federal government overall: it’s all going broke together.
The status quo isn’t anymore sustainable, than your idea that privatizing isn’t, but I’m glad to see you taking a serious stab at it, even if all your serious stabs at conservative issues amount to nothing more than a rhetorical sneer. Reform is necessary, and your singular solution: naysaying is as witless as it is brainless. If the country is going to move forward, there is little point in saying “NO” to those who are actually debating issues , like “should we cut benefits, increase age or offer means testing?” to save things.
I think that as much as Warren Buffett is supposedly begging Obama to raise his taxes (Why doesn’t he just start giving his damn billions to the government, anyway?) I’m sure there are lots of people out there willing (as I’ll bet WB ought to be willing) to gladly accept cuts in benefits to save the nation?
Nah, this is demagoge-Bookman-supporting-a-loser-President central, isn’t it, Jay?
Jimmy Carter part deux, anyone? Talk about someone who’s worth sneering at!
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:20 pm
Sooth @ 9:49,
If I had one word to describe you it’d be “crazy,” but “delusional” is a close second and may in fact, cover all that there is to see. Too bad I don’t know you any better.
Well, that’s not too bad, I guess, for me.
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:23 pm
Kamchak @ 1004,
giggle giggle
This forum for you really IS a chatroom.
Please take the ubiquitous advice of someone else here: getalife.
cmac22
September 26th, 2011
10:24 pm
Dishonesty from the ajc. Look at the city of Galveston, TX when they opted out of SS system in early 80’s!
yuzeyurbrane
September 26th, 2011
10:25 pm
Jay, you are so much on point. They also don’t mention that when Chile hit an economic down period for awhile that the value of their investments dropped so dramatically that people were clamoring to get back onto their old system. Some still had that option. Flaws also show up in the so-called risk free experiment for Gavleston, Texas city employees. Studies done on it show that higher paid employees have done better than they would on SS but lower paid employees do worse. And it is always the lowest paid who need the SS safety net the most. The basic flaw is both conceptual and ideological. SS was meant to simply be a safety net that folks could rely on. It was not structured as an investment acct. If they wanted to play the market and take risks they were free to do so but on their own. So critics are comparing apples and oranges. In fact, as a safety net it has worked admirably for 75 years. It is not just a question of leaving today’s seniors alone and transitioning younger folks to investment accounts. With minor adjustments SS can remain a fiscally sound safety net for today’s children and grandchildren for another 75 years or more. The only losers would be the Wall St. stockbrokers who salivate at the commissions they would earn off of trillions of dollars shifted from SS and those who see a socialist behind every bush.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
10:26 pm
Adam:
Your country is being had.
Time to wake up !
BG
September 26th, 2011
10:33 pm
Obama will figure this out. LOL
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
10:36 pm
BG:
I hear you but it’s actually not funny because he has figured it out …………… long ago.
Marxist/Socialist upbringing, education, friends mindset and now implementation.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
10:36 pm
Excuse me: “friends, mindset”
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:43 pm
“Marxist/Socialist upbringing, education, friends mindset and now implementation.”
Scout, please post one link that supports this statement. Just one link.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:45 pm
1811,
Well done. That song directed at kammie was wayyyyy too funny. Kammy the poo aint too happy with ya.
Atlas Shrugging
September 26th, 2011
10:46 pm
This house of cards is falling. Europe then the US. Wake up DEM-wits and REP-ugnants!
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:47 pm
In fact, I’ll make it easy for you. Just post one link that supports your claim that Obama was raised as a Marxist/Socialist. Just one link.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:47 pm
Sooth,
Why would scout provide a link to you. It could be from the CBO and you would then say it doesnt count. So what’s the point. And before you complain again let me remind you yet again that it was a national review article that simply quotes what the CBO itself put out there. Figured I would get that outta the way early.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:50 pm
Because your post wasn’t from the CBO, it was from an English professor who was “interpreting” the CBO data. Why would I believe something from an English professor over the actual Social Security Administration data that I furnished?
If you want to debate this issue until tomorrow morning, I’m ready!
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:51 pm
sooth,
Its widely known that Obama’s father had Marxist beliefs and also that his childhood mentor was a member of the American communist party.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a
“secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But
what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood
mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
In
his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into
contact with Marxist literature
However,
through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone
who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The
record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where,
at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son,
with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting
advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
The
reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist
who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951
report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a
CPUSA member.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:52 pm
The fact is, you Righties post outlandish claims that you heard on Lush but have nothing but a bunch of conjecture to back it up. Which, unfortunately, is typical of your entire belief system.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:55 pm
Why would I believe something from an English professor over the actual Social Security Administration data that I furnished?
Sooth,
Nice deflection Sooth. But it matters not what kind of professor the man is. What matters is that the info he cites comes straight from the CBO. Do you have a problem with CBO data? Why you have such a difficult time understanding this defies explanation. I can’t make it any simpler for you.
Soothsayerc
September 26th, 2011
10:57 pm
Thulsa: that’s the biggest pile of steaming pile of horse excrement I’ve ever seen!
You really expect me to believe that a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School is a communist?
Give me a break!
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:58 pm
“Do you have a problem with CBO data?”
Why don’t you post the CBO data? That would be authoritative data.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:59 pm
Tell ya what Sooth. If you can explain to me how transferring monies from one govt account to another govt account makes the overall financial picture of SS better than please go ahead and try. You’ll have a hard time making logic of the illogical.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
11:01 pm
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.
Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable wages will grow rapidly from 11-1/2 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17 percent in 2035, and will then dip slightly before commencing a slow upward march after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled roughly 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and are projected to increase gradually to 6.2 percent of GDP in 2035 and then decline to about 6.0 percent of GDP by 2050 and remain at about that level.
The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.22 percent of taxable payroll, up from 1.92 percent projected in last year’s report. This deficit amounts to 17 percent of tax receipts, and 14 percent of program outlays.
I’ll do ya one better, Thulsa. I’ll post the actual Social Security Administration data for the 3rd time tonight.
Please post your CBO data.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
11:03 pm
Sooth,
Please point out to me where I myself stated that Obama was a communist. My contention is that he is not a communist but rather has socialist leanings and beliefs such as income redistribution. And I base this upon the fact that his father had marxist beliefs as did his mentor Frank who Obama regarded in his own book as a father figure. And the fact that Obama himself readily admits to having attended socialist conferences, meetings, etc.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
11:06 pm
Thulsa: this is becoming an exercise in futility. Do you really believe that Obama has Socialist leanings? Get real!
I’m outta here!
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
11:11 pm
Sooth,
This is getting tiresome sir. What is it that your mind cannot seem to fathom. Read the sentence in the middle that states that in 2022 that SS will begin redeeming trust fund assets( in effect IOUs) from the general fund of a federal govt that is running deficits as far as the eye can see and is BROKE BROKE BROKE. Hell I’m using your own link to destroy your specious argument.
Secondly even if we do accept your faulty premise that these IOUs are as good as gold the trust fund still goes broke in 2036. After that taxes would be needed because only 3/4 of scheduled benefits would be able to be met according to your own link. Perhaps you need to r -read your own link.
just sayin'
September 26th, 2011
11:13 pm
Jay says “Math doesn’t work on privatizing Social Security”
Math doesn’t work on Obamacare either.
luangtom
September 26th, 2011
11:13 pm
I love to read all of the bickering and finger-pointing. It’s Bush’s fault…..Gore would not have gotten us into an ill-conceived war…….Well, I do remember a certain President Clinton and VP Gore telling us that the troops from Kosovo and Bosnia would be home by Christmas of 1996……my neighbor’s son just returned from serving in Kosovo and I believe it is 2011……………..let’s all finger-point some more and blame the other guy.
WAW
September 26th, 2011
11:14 pm
“It was nearly 50 years ago when, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American people reached a great turning point, setting up the social security system. F.D.R. spoke then of an era of startling industrial changes that tended more and more to make life insecure. It was his belief that the system can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts. Today we reaffirm Franklin Roosevelt’s commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity.” Ronald Reagan March 22, 1983
You know, this guy was a real Reagan Republican. But the compromise that led to the “fix” did not include the Lock Box. The bulk of the current debt is owed to Social Security, so pay for the money borrowed over the last 28 years. Social Security is not the problem.
Dave R.
September 26th, 2011
11:25 pm
Since Jay’s math skills can’t make the FairTax work without making numbers up, why do we think he could make privatizing SS work in his mind?
woo woo woo woo
September 26th, 2011
11:45 pm
What makes the red man red?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk
PJ
September 26th, 2011
11:46 pm
Buck – seriously, knock off the Buffet-bashing. He could give all $50B to the gov and it wouldn’t make a difference, and it would all be gone in 1 year. Better he give it away with Gates and eliminate diseases around the world. That is making a real difference.
His point about raising taxes on higher earners like him is that it will increase revenue each year (like eliminating the Bush cuts will add $80B+ each year). And since revenue has been under 15% for the last 3 years, we really do have a revenue problem.
BTW- spending has been over 19% every year in the last 30 (except for the 5 years of the tech bubble when GDP was high). Even then, it was over 18%, but so was revenue so we had a surplus.
As for the point of Jay’s post, he’s right. SS is not driving the budget mess, especially for the next 2 decades. Guess what, Medicare Part D (passed by R’s without any funding mechanism) costs the general fund more than SS ($65B vs $45B in 2010). And SS has $2.5T owed to it, with interest over $100B/year, so it really isn’t adding to the debt.
Small changes like upping the tax limit and means testing would make SS solvent for even the boomers. Reagan created the SS surplus by upping the tax rate and the retirement age. Why can’t Republicans do that now? To quote: “This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security,” Reagan announced when he signed the bill.
An example: If you make less than $110K, you pay SS taxes all year. That’s about 90% of us. Someone that makes $1M pays them for only 5 weeks. Why? You really think they’d notice the difference in their $20K weekly paycheck. Wonder how that would change the math for SS long-term.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
11:53 pm
Sooth: @ 10:43
You need to get out more !
TAPS !
Normal
September 27th, 2011
6:43 am
Happy Tuesday to all y’all!
http://news.icanhascheezburger.com/2011/09/26/political-pictures-occupy-wall-street-cannibalism-cormac-mccarthy-approves/
http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/09/26/funny-pictures-wrong-guess-again/
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:13 am
mornin’. I haven’t skimmed the evening comments; I am gonna go out on a limb and assume that the usual suspects are still in denial about the math.
meanwhile–
What media coverage omits about U.S. hikers released by Iran
In prison, every time we complained about our conditions, the guards would remind us of comparable conditions at Guantanamo Bay; they’d remind us of CIA prisons in other parts of the world; and conditions that Iranians and others experience in prisons in the U.S.
We do not believe that such human rights violation on the part of our government justify what has been done to us: not for a moment. However, we do believe that these actions on the part of the U.S. provide an excuse for other governments – including the government of Iran – to act in kind.
Sucks having that mirror held up in front of us, doesn’t it?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:18 am
More from the link. (And you guys who whinge and moan about Teh Librul Media? for the record? can suck it.)
Unsurprisingly, one searches in vain for the inclusion of these facts and remarks in American media accounts of their release and subsequent press conference. Instead, typical is this ABC News story, which featured tearful and celebratory reactions from their family, detailed descriptions of their conditions and the pain and fear their family endured, and melodramatic narratives about how their “long, grueling imprisonment is over” after “781 days in Iran’s most notorious prison.” This ABC News article on their press conference features many sentences about Iran’s oppressiveness — “Hikers Return to the U.S.: ‘We Were Held Hostage’”; “we heard the screams of other prisoners being beaten” — with hardly any mention of the criticisms Fattal and Bauer voiced regarding U.S. policy that provided the excuse for their mistreatment and similar treatment which the U.S. doles out both in War on Terror prisons around the world and even domestic prisons at home.
Their story deserves the attention it is getting, and Iran deserves the criticism. But the first duty of the American “watchdog media” should be highlighting the abuses of the U.S. Government, not those of other, already-hated regimes on the other side of the world. Instead, the abuses at home are routinely suppressed while those in the Hated Nations are endlessly touted. There have been thousands of people released after being held for years and years in U.S. detention despite having done nothing wrong. Many were tortured, and many were kept imprisoned despite U.S. government knowledge of their innocence. Have you ever seen anything close to this level of media attention being devoted to their plight, to hearing how America’s lawless detention of them for years — often on a strange island, thousands of miles away from everything they know — and its systematic denial of any legal redress, devastated their families and destroyed their lives?
This is a repeat of what happened with the obsessive American media frenzy surrounding the arrest and imprisonment by Iran of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, convicted in a sham proceeding of espionage, sentenced to eight years in prison, but then ordered released by an Iranian appeals court after four months. Saberi’s case became a true cause célèbre among American journalists, with large numbers of them flamboyantly denouncing Iran and demanding her release. But when their own government imprisoned numerous journalists for many years without any charges of any kind — Al Jazeera’s Sami al-Haj in Guantanamo, Associated Press’ Bilal Hussein for more than two years in Iraq, Reuters’ photographer Ibrahim Jassan even after an Iraqi court exonerated him, and literally dozens of other journalists without charge — it was very difficult to find any mention of their cases in American media outlets.
What we find here yet again is that government-serving American establish media outlets relish the opportunity to report negatively on enemies and other adversaries of the U.S. government (that is the same mindset that accounts for the predicable, trite condescension by the New York Times toward the Wall Street protests, the same way they constantly downplayed Iraq War protests). But to exactly the same extent that they love depicting America’s Enemies as Bad, they hate reporting facts that make the U.S. Government look the same.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:24 am
Anyhow, here’s the original Democracy Now reporting on the hikers’ press conference that prompted the Salon bit I posted.
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/26/freed_us_hiker_shane_bauer_iranian
(includes transcript.)
Normal
September 27th, 2011
7:27 am
Stands,
Good post!
Bill Orvis White
September 27th, 2011
7:27 am
Why can’t WE THE PEOPLE invest our OWN DOLLARS the way WE see fit? I just don’t get it! SS is the ultimate Ponzi Scheme whereby BIG GOV’T takes our hard-earned dollar$ and attempts to invest them to their advantage. What happened to choice? Hussein Obama wants choice for a pregnant 13-year-old to end her baby’s life, but “he” won’t let us invest our own money? I JUST DON’T GET IT!
GOOD NIGHT,
Bill
Normal
September 27th, 2011
7:31 am
I think I finally get it. Bill Orvis White is really a parrot.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
7:31 am
“It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.”
Wow…the irony of you saying this, Jay, is that is could fairly be applied to a whole lot of things said and done by politicians (and people in general – maybe even to some of your columns). We are all of us idiot savants.
Jimmy62
September 27th, 2011
7:33 am
I’ve got a miracle idea… Let’s get rid of it altogether and let people keep their money!
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:35 am
Buck – seriously, knock off the Buffet-bashing.
Anyone who posts or says some variant of “Buffet needs to write a check” has surrendered the debate and can be ignored.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:36 am
Let’s get rid of it altogether and let people keep their money!
you can also ignore these knuckle-draggers. Because even knuckle-draggy people like this guy know that you cannot go out on the private market and buy a guaranteed annuity for yourself on anything like the terms you get from paying into FICA.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
7:37 am
Okay, so I think it was DDR yesterday who wanted to call the claim (by some conservatives on this blog) that if you don’t vote for Obama you’re racist a lie. I responded that it is clear that some people on the left view opposition to Obama as racist. Now, apparently, even an accurate transcription of his speech to the CBC is being called racist: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/associated-press-transcription-obama-cbc-speech-racist-173438340.html.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:38 am
oh, and as Paul likes to remind me–you “let’s keep our own money” people have to factor in survivor benefits as well.
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
7:39 am
stands for decibels
“Sucks having that mirror held up in front of us, doesn’t it?”
Oh sure. It is totally comparable to torture two kids for hiking as compared to known terrorist caught on the battlefield.
Liberal logic. At times this place would make your average asylum look reasonable.
Ronnie Raygun
September 27th, 2011
7:40 am
It’s funny how the right-wing “solutions” to medicare and SS always involve raising the qualifying ages. They try to justify this by stating that life expectancy has gone up. But the main reason life expectancy has gone up over the past 60 years is that infant mortality has gone down dramatically, not that people are living much longer. For someone who works at an office, two or three extra working years might not be a strain, but to someone who does manual labor, it can be out of the question.
Speaking of retirement ages, why aren’t the Cons concerned about the skyrocketing cost of military pensions and medical benefits? In the military, you can retire with a full taxpayer funded pension and $400 a year family medical benefits for life at age 37. So the taxpayer get to fund 40-50 years of vacation for some government workers that pay nothing into the system, but we have to cut the benefits for the self-funding system we paid into our entire adult lives. Sounds like some people are milking the system.
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
7:41 am
stands for decibels
Perhaps if Buffet had not fought the IRS for years to avoid paying almost a billion in taxes, he would have had a bit more credibility.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:44 am
Strawman, your link doesn’t work. This one does, though.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/44679355#44679355
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
7:46 am
Strawman
Wanna try that link again
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:47 am
terrorist caught on the battlefield.
ha ha ha.
Filed under “more stupid crap conservatives choose to believe.”
Normal
September 27th, 2011
7:48 am
GLL,
Torture is worng, period. It is against the Geneva Convention. The day we started to torture, we lost the moral high ground that made our country great. When we began to torture we became just like the terrorists we were fighting. If you can’t see that, well, that would be seriously sad. Of all the things George Bush and Dick Cheney did,
losing us our moral and spiritual standing in the world was the worst.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
7:48 am
Good Little Liberal
You are pro-torture?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:51 am
They try to justify this by stating that life expectancy has gone up.
Yeah. Such folk lie about two things:
1) they want you to ignore life expectancy from age 65 onwards, which has climbed only a few years in the past fifty years; and
2) they want you to imagine that these things called “actuarials” didn’t exist back in the olden days, when dinosaurs and FDR roamed the earth, and that the New Dealers had NO. IDEA. that demographics would indicate an aging overall population.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
7:55 am
You are pro-torture?
only (snort) if they’ve been “caught on Teh Battlefield!”
that one never fails to crack me up. These people have no friggin’ clue of the circumstances under which we’ve arrested people and held them without charge, without due process, in an absolute mockery of what we claim to stand for.
and no, I do not give Obama a pass for carrying on this Cheneyite monstrosity over the years. How the President squares that with his supposed conscience, I have no idea. See also:
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/03/the-flustercluck-doctrine/
and what the heck, this too:
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/05/the-true-story/
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
7:55 am
“Anyone who posts or says some variant of “Buffet needs to write a check” has surrendered the debate and can be ignored.”
Huh? How do you figure? If Buffet claims he should be paying more taxes and then does not voluntarily do so, he is NOT putting his money where his mouth is. Let’s make this simpler by analogy. If one keeps saying “I should give money to help the poor in my neighborhood” but does not (when there is ample opportunity), what can be concluded? He is not serious about doing the thing he said – plain and simple.
Just to be clear, I am not opposed to taxing those wealthy individuals more who are NOT directly creating jobs in some fashion (those who are should be be rewarded with lower tax rates). But be honest: for Obama to repeatedly use Buffet’s statements as THE basis for his argument that ALL wealthy people are not paying their “fair share” of taxes is both specious and duplicitous. It’s much like when he made the two year tax break given corporate jet owners THE metaphor for tax exemptions gone wild (though they amount for a miniscule – almost microscopic – amount of lost tax revenue). It almost seems that Obama never took a logic class in college. Indeed he constant and excessively redundant allusion to both Buffet and corporate jet owners show that he is not trying to persuade people by reason but by rhetoric – perhaps because his arguments are unsound to begin with or he views people as stupid.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:01 am
Strawman
Obama NEVER used ALL.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:01 am
Huh? How do you figure?
well, I can go guilt-by-association, i.e., “because stupid people like Michelle Bachmann say it.”
But mostly it makes no sense. Taken this type of argument to its logical end, you can claim that nobody who supports this or that policy can’t speak to its efficacy unless he or she has personally contributed goo-gobs of personal wealth to support it him or herself.
It’s one of these.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:04 am
aw crud. it’s, um, one of these.
http://images.wikia.com/foundonthetapearg/images/4/41/Red_herring.jpg
Politi Cal
September 27th, 2011
8:05 am
Well, we’re all so smart, so what’s the solution? I am 65, and I’ve worked every day since I was 18 (including working my way through college and paying my own tuition.) I’m not an economist, nor a banker nor even a very good money manager, but I know a problem when I see one. We have one! Is there anyone smart enough to solve the SS poroblem without offending a generation of workers? (You name the generation.)
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:06 am
Obama NEVER used ALL.
But I’m touched by conservatives’ compassion for ALL the oppressed upper-two-percentiles, aren’t you? think I… need a… tissue… it’s beautiful, man.
Aurelius
September 27th, 2011
8:07 am
Social Security, as we know it, is a creatrion of German socialist and first put into place by
Otto von Bismarck. It is pure socialism. Brought to us by Democrats.
Medicare is socialism brought to us by Democrats and Republicans, the base bill by LBJ, the expansion of benefits by Ronnie and the prescription bill by George W.
Every president since Hoover has been a socialist. Why do we keep electing socialist?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:08 am
I’m not an economist, nor a banker nor even a very good money manager, but I know a problem when I see one.
Which problem is that–the one we’ll have in a couple of decades when we actually begin to start running in the red? How about we go about trying to correct it in a few years when our economy is in better shape and most everyone who wants to work at a job they’re qualified for, can do so?
It’s not like it’s all that hard to fix, but the solutions are going to involve raising revenue on some higher income earners, and there’s really no point in freaking out anyone over it in 2011 or 2012, really.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:09 am
“Obama NEVER used ALL.”
If he refers to wealthy people repeatedly without, in the same breath, repeatedly qualifying what he means then he is implicitly generalizing – because that is how people will understand him. If I go around saying Fords are junk (without saying all), how will you or anyone else interpret that? They will interpret it as if I meant all. Look, when Obama makes these statements he is not doing so in a casual moment to a few friends (where we don’t have to be so careful about what and ho we say things). He is making these statements to the nation as a whole. If instead of always saying “the wealthy” he said “a number of the wealthy” then I would be fine with that. But he doesn’t.
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:10 am
Anyone who posts or says some variant of “Buffet needs to write a check” has surrendered the debate and can be ignored
Ok- how about that Buffet evaded more than $1 billion of taxes through a loophole for the wealthy using a donation to the Gates foundation. Don’t mean to get in the way of the worship of the liberal gods-
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:11 am
Strawman
He NEVER said All.
YOU DID.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:13 am
how about that Buffet evaded more than $1 billion of taxes through a loophole for the wealthy using a donation to the Gates foundation.
“Evaded”? By spending a billion dollars?
You really have nothing.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:14 am
And as long as you’re crying about “evasion,” make sure you head to one of the biggest Bapto-plexs you can find on Sunday and tell everyone that they’re a bunch tax evaders for writin’ off their
country club feechurch contributions. Let us know how that works out for ya.Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:16 am
“But mostly it makes no sense. Taken this type of argument to its logical end, you can claim that nobody who supports this or that policy can’t speak to its efficacy unless he or she has personally contributed goo-gobs of personal wealth to support it him or herself.”
It makes not sense to you, it seems. Do you understand the concept of hypocrisy? It is basically judging others for not doing something that you yourself don’t do. It does not necessarily have anything to with money. But in Buffet’s case it does. If he really and truly believes he should have paid more taxes, then why hasn’t he? If I’m an employer and want to pay a new employee ten dollars an hour but don’t because the minimum wage is $7.25, but go around saying “they should raise the minimum wage,” what would you think of me?
Peter
September 27th, 2011
8:17 am
Would there be a need to fix SS if the Republican’s had a balanced budget all these years and didn’t start made up wars ?
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:18 am
“YOU DID.”
I stand by my statement.
Normal
September 27th, 2011
8:18 am
Peter @0817,
Well said and good point!
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:19 am
Strawman
If Buffett is a hypocrite for not volunterring a check, then you too are a hypocrite for not withholding your check.
Goose meet gander.
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:20 am
You really have nothing
too funny Flash Gordon. He “donated” more than $6 billion of Berkshire stock to Gates foundation. He could have easily sold the stock and paid the appropriate taxes.
Go back to your comic books, kneeling to your pseudo gods, and wallowing in your ignorance.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:20 am
“But I’m touched by conservatives’ compassion for ALL the oppressed upper-two-percentiles, aren’t you? ”
Just curious, what do you (or have you) personally do(ne) for the truly oppressed?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:21 am
Do you understand the concept of hypocrisy?
yeah. It’s something you drag out when you’ve lost the argument, usually. it’s the same brilliant argument made against, oh, what Al Gore may have said at a given moment about greenhouse gas emissions–”oh yeah well why did he fly a JET to pick up his NOBEL PRIZE Huh huh huh? why didn’t he row a kayak there instead! oh, and he’s FAT!”
…it’s just another way to deflect, and get people thinking about something else. like, say, Al Gore in a Speedo.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:22 am
Republicans should have learned math.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
He could have easily sold the stock and paid the appropriate taxes.
… and not accomplished something he wanted to do, legally. The dirty b@st@rd!
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
“If Buffett is a hypocrite for not volunterring a check, then you too are a hypocrite for not withholding your check.”
Huh? You lost me. Not withholding how?
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
what do you (or have you) personally do(ne) for the truly oppressed?
I rarely if ever get into personal-life stuff here, sorry.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:23 am
Go back to your comic books, kneeling to your pseudo gods, and wallowing in your ignorance.
Yup. He really really really really has nothing.
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
8:24 am
Buffet’s dead on about the wealthy not paying their share.. And you toadies hate him for it, because it flies in the face of your idiotic, ascetic ideology.
Loopholes, shelters, dodges, giveaways, handouts, bailouts, creative accounting, off-shore havens for the super-rich.
And you self-destructive fake conservatives couldn’t help them get enough of it could you? Hoping that it would all trickle down on you fools.
Now, you seem to have had some questions as to why after thirty plus years of this transparent absurdity, it isn’t happening for you.
WHAT? Gazillionaires pay a smaller effective tax rate than I do? How can that be?
You working class clowns make up the difference and eat cake.
And you think you’re so clever and classless and free
But you’re still f&cking peasants as far as I can see
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njG7p6CSbCU
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:26 am
Strawman
Ok try this…
“If Buffett is a hypocrite for not voluntering a check to pay extra taxes, then you too are a hypocrite for not withholding your check for the taxes you don’t think you should pay.”
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:26 am
anyway, I think I’ll bid a-doody, lessn’ Jay’s got something new for us. later…
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:27 am
“It’s something you drag out when you’ve lost the argument, usually.”
Ah…is that what hypocrisy is? Thanks for the enlightenment. Please define deflection for me next. And let us all know when your work on the OED will resume.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:30 am
I sure would like to see that Republican math for balancing the budget and paying off the debt. Is it still based on us reaching an inflation-free unemployment rate of less than four percent and it staying that way for ten years.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:31 am
““If Buffett is a hypocrite for not voluntering a check to pay extra taxes, then you too are a hypocrite for not withholding your check for the taxes you don’t think you should pay.”
That’s where I lost you…on your underlying assumption that I am either wealthy or don’t think I should pay taxes the taxes I now pay. You are wrong on both counts. GG, you can’t make a cogent argument if you don’t first clearly understand your opponent’s position.
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:31 am
facts are like gravity- unfortunately. The below from Forbes-
Exploiting the tax code
How does Buffett manage to exploit the tax code? He donates appreciated Berkshire Hathaway stock — which costs him pennies on the dollar — to charity, and receives a fat, juicy tax deduction at the appreciated price without having to pay a capital gains tax on the appreciation. (And, note that the money actually sits in his own charitable organization.) He’s saving income taxes with the ordinary deduction so it’s essentially a tax shelter
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:32 am
Strawman
So what ya’ bitchin about?
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:34 am
It’s so nice to finally see some of the Republicans promoting the elimination of tax loopholes.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:35 am
“I rarely if ever get into personal-life stuff here, sorry.”
Then, as far as I’m concerned, your judgements about other people’s concern (or lack thereof) for the oppressed have no proven merit. And I will disregard them accordingly.
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
8:40 am
Granny Godzilla
“You are pro-torture?”
I try to carry on logical conversations with liberals, don’t I?
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
8:41 am
Normal
It all depends on the definition of torture. Fraternity hazing is worst than what some people call torture.
JKL2
September 27th, 2011
8:42 am
AmVet- Loopholes, shelters, dodges, giveaways, handouts, bailouts, creative accounting, off-shore havens for the super-rich
How exactly does Warren pay less in taxes than his secretary?
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:42 am
“So what ya’ bitchin about?”
Buffet’s hypocrisy and Obama’s use of Buffet as almost a cornerstone of his argument for increasing taxes on the wealthy. I really dislike politicians using rhetoric instead of logic when pushing for policies. It makes me suspect and feel that their positions are fundamentally unsound. I’ll give you an example on the Republican side that bothers me just as much: the mantra that increasing taxes on (ALL – see I used that word again) the wealthy would hurt job creation. They make NO distinction between those wealthy individuals (like small business owners) who actually do create jobs and those who do not (like Brad Pitt). The former should be taxed less and the latter should not.
kayaker 71
September 27th, 2011
8:43 am
AmVet,
If you continue to bitch on about all of those loopholes and ways that the “evil” rich can avoid “paying their fair share”, why don’t you advocate changing the tax code to allow everyone to pay the same? This continued complaining gets old when you ignore the fact that we have the most outmoded tax code in history. I haven’t heard a liberal yet that advocates the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax as a solution or any other solution except “tax the rich”.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:43 am
“It’s so nice to finally see some of the Republicans promoting the elimination of tax loopholes.”
Let’s ditch the entire tax code and replace it with something much simpler.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:46 am
Good Little Liberal
Why so evasive?
Strawman
That’s the bug up your bonnet?
Good Lord.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:46 am
“I haven’t heard a liberal yet that advocates the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax as a solution or any other solution except “tax the rich”.
Good point. Are there any liberals who advocate a complete overhaul of the tax system? If not, why not (any posters here care to chime in)?
Normal
September 27th, 2011
8:48 am
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
8:41 am
That was the lamest thing you’ve said yet, and you are still a sanctimonious dit.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
8:49 am
The Fair Tax is not and never will be.
Paul
September 27th, 2011
8:50 am
excuse me, AmVet
kayaker 71
“f you continue to bitch on about all of those loopholes and ways that the “evil” rich can avoid “paying their fair share”, why don’t you advocate changing the tax code to allow everyone to pay the same?”
Is that not what Pres Obama essentially did when he said those with incomes of a million and up should pay the same effective rate as the middle class? And Republicans dismissed that out of hand?
George P. Burdell
September 27th, 2011
8:50 am
Thomas, let me get this straight. Let’s say Buffett gives $1 million to charity in appreciated stock that he originally paid $100,000. The $900,000 in appreciation is subject to the 15% capital gains tax which would be $135,000 making the entire investment net of taxes worth $865,000. On the other side, he gets the charitable donation write off which reduces his taxes at 35% on the $1 million so it has a value to him of $350,000. So the man is giving away something that has a value of $865,000 for a benefit of $350,000 and you somehow think he is “cheating the tax code”. Just because it sits in his own charitable organization doesn’t mean he has free rein with the money. Buffett didn’t get rich making these kind of deals and I wouldn’t recommend you use it for your own personal wealth plan either. Paying $865,000 to get $350,000 until rich does not work. If you disagree, I’ve got 3 five dollar bills for every twenty dollar bill you can find.
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:50 am
It’s so nice to finally see some of the Republicans promoting the elimination of tax loopholes
Everyone should be for it. Get rid of them. Simplify. Graduated rates. Earn more- pay more- but everyone knows what there bill is going to be. Stop the mind numbing credits. If you have an idea to make billions- you can find the money.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:51 am
Stawman
See the right of your screen, up some.
Jay’s archive.
Fair Tax, Flat Tax…not good ideas.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
8:52 am
I can quit any time, really I can. But, about this…
your judgements about other people’s concern (or lack thereof) for the oppressed have no proven merit. And I will disregard them accordingly.
Meaning you’d been lying awake, sick with worry over whether I really cared about this or that oppressed individual or group, heretofore?
…look, Strawman, I’ve covered this before, in detail, which is why I’m being so flippant now. It’s not you, personally, really, you actually seem somewhat bright (I like how you artfully set up the conditional sentence in your post @ 8.20, f’rinstance.) I’m just kinda tired of the rhetorical merry-go-round.
Because, sure–pointing out hypocrisy in others is good, clean family fun; we all do it. But I never really care all that much for it as a deal-maker argument. I don’t expect, for example, for anyone to really care that Michelle Bachmann benefits from farm subsidies, or that Sarah Palin’s supposed rough-and-tumble rugged-individualist, we-don’t-need-no-Gubmint! state of Alaska basically has to pay people to live there.
Such folk have plenty of other grotesque ideological flaws that need more careful attention.
Paul
September 27th, 2011
8:52 am
Normal
‘dit’?
Do you mean ‘git’?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=git
Altho I do think the British version is more colorful
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Git_%28slang%29
Doggone/GA
September 27th, 2011
8:54 am
“How exactly does Warren pay less in taxes than his secretary?”
Not “less in taxes”…a lower PERCENTAGE in taxes, as he, himself, said
Thomas
September 27th, 2011
8:55 am
Hey George- absolutely yes. He had the opportunity to a) sell his stock b) pay the tax and c) donate the after tax cash. He chose not to do so. He paid attorneys to devise a way to skip a) and b)- by definition a loophole. You are blending the accumulation of wealth with the use of the accumuated weatly. It is exactly the same as Accenture relocating to Ireland to avoid taxes. Anyway, tired of chasing rabbits by ignorant folks.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
8:55 am
“That’s the bug up your bonnet? Good Lord.”
Wow…Shakespeare understood very well the power of rhetoric (as seen in Julius Caesar), advertisers certainly do and I guess one could say Hitler did. But, given the critical state of things for our nation, my concern over politicians acting on impulse and rhetoric rather than reason and principal is just a “bug up my bonnet.” Allllrighhhhhttty then. I think I have a better understanding of you now.
kayaker 71
September 27th, 2011
8:55 am
Paul,
You could raise the tax rate for the “rich” to 60% and it still wouldn’t solve any of our problems if you don’t cut spending at the same time. To continue this insane spending and expect our deficit problem to disappear by taxing the rich to pay for it…… what a pipe dream. We could freeze government spending at the 2008 levels and pay off our debt in less than ten years. But do you think that any Congress, D or R;, would do this? Nope…. makes too much sense.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
8:56 am
Strawman
Ditto, dude.
Normal
September 27th, 2011
8:57 am
Paul,
yes, both of those too.
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
8:58 am
Granny, of course the blogger formerly known as George W is pro-torture.
It is part of his purity test. He refers to it as putting wet towels on somebody’s face, And if there was any karmic justice in this world, some federal agents would snatch him up in the dead of night, and give him some “wet towels” in some secret CIA black house. Then they could detain him FOREVER without ever telling him what the charges were. And of course, they would never allow him to see absolutely anybody in order to defend himself against these unspecified charges.
Then I assure you that the habeus corpus hating neo-con would sing a different song.
“…why don’t you advocate changing the tax code…”
Hello, 71?
Is anyone home?
I won’t bother reposting the many times I’ve written that very thing on this forum.
(Do a search on this site for the terms AmVet, pernicious and perverse.)
Our tax code is insane. And not by accident. it was written by whom and for the benefit of whom? Legalized thievery via income redistribution by plutocrats and oligarchs. And of course, our new masters – BIG business.
(Did you see where the Heisman Trophy now has the disgusting AFLAC logo smeared all over it?)
That the apparently brain-dead, self-loathing cons want more of this same shabby treatment is fine with me. But why drag down the rest of working class America with you?
No more welfare for the wealthy. What is so damn hard to understand about that?
Doggone/GA
September 27th, 2011
8:58 am
“if you don’t cut spending at the same time”
and spending cuts of from 3 to 1, to 10 to 1, cuts to revenue increases have been proposed…and shot down everytime.
TaxPayer
September 27th, 2011
9:00 am
We should cut spending. We should get rid of that unfunded prescription drug company benefit for starters. Do it.
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
9:01 am
“See the right of your screen, up some. Jay’s archive. Fair Tax, Flat Tax…not good ideas.”
I’ll check it out, but you might as well know that I don’t consider Jay (who I respect as a thoughtful, intelligent liberal) the final authority on such matters. Changing the tax code is no small matter and should be done with much care and deliberation. But one does not have to be a rocket scientist to see the current system is very deficient.
Paul
September 27th, 2011
9:03 am
kayaker 71
“You could raise the tax rate for the “rich” to 60% and it still wouldn’t solve any of our problems if you don’t cut spending at the same time.”
Which is what I believe Pres Obama calls “a balanced approach.’ Selective increases and cuts. But Republicans don’t like tax increases. Unless they’re called ‘tax reform’ (which increases taxes for some).
Y’know, it’s not just you, in fact, you didn’t do it here, but lots of people opposed to raising any rates (particularly on gazillionaires) use the phrase “you could confiscate all the money of all the job creators and it wouldn’t solve the problem.”
That’s like a doctor telling a patient ‘you could lose 100 pounds and it wouldn’t solve the problem.’
When what a doctor says is “if you do this and this and this and maintain that, over time your situation would dramatically improve.’
I agree, there’s not a lot of cooperation. But what I see bottom-line is, Democrats seem more willing to take a broad-brush approach to cutting spending, while Republican proposals (the serious ones, not the ‘eliminate foreign aid’ calls) seem to be directed towards protecting programs that represent income to high-income earners and to reduce programs that, by and large, represent income to the lower and middle classes.
That may not be correct, but that’s how it seems to distill to me.
Joe Mama
September 27th, 2011
9:03 am
Frankiev — “What the liberals fail to say is that privatization would be optional for every individual, or to put it another way, it would be a choice. Isn’t that what liberals like when it comes to abortion.”
You already HAVE a choice, Frankiev. You want a private account? Go out and open one up TODAY.
Paul
September 27th, 2011
9:05 am
Normal
The Brits do have a way with words, don’t they?
Adam
September 27th, 2011
9:05 am
Strawman: Are there any liberals who advocate a complete overhaul of the tax system?
yes, but not the so-called fair tax or flat tax. Income tax should be a progressive system that does not have a bunch of credits that can only be used by the wealthy. I am mostly opposed to ANY tax credits, but especially those for big businesses and wealthy people that are huge and reduce or eliminate tax liability.
Granny Godzilla
September 27th, 2011
9:06 am
Strawman
Yep, neither of us is a rocket scientist to be sure!
George P. Burdell
September 27th, 2011
9:07 am
Thomas you are mixing the two just as much. The only difference between the two is that the government gets $350,000 more, the charity gets $135,000 less, and of course Buffett loses $350,000. So the government essentially taxes the charity at over 38%. All of this misses the main point that Buffett also has the option of doing absolutely nothing which would mean the charity loses a million and the government loses its $135,000. And just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they are ignorant.
stands for decibels
September 27th, 2011
9:08 am
Frenemy sheets, bitches.
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
9:08 am
How exactly does Warren pay less in taxes than his secretary?
Tell me that this is a joke of a question. Please.
What part of the phrase “smaller effective tax rate” seems like quantum physics here?
You could raise the tax rate for the “rich” to 60% and it still wouldn’t solve any of our problems.
So? That is NOT the reason for doing so, 71.
Justice (remember that word?) IS the reason.
That it moves us in the right direction fiscally is just icing on the cake.
The American middle class is irrefutably getting decimated. I have listed example after example after example to make that point. It is not even debatable anymore.
All while the super-rich are enjoying staggering disparities and actively aggregating most of the nation’s wealth into fewer and fewer and fewer hands.
And according to Republican “conservatism” this is the natural and proper evolution of American capitalism.
To which I say, bull____.
Joe Mama
September 27th, 2011
9:12 am
DBM — “In a legitimate insurance system (which Social Security is not), some people will collect more than they put in. This is called spreading out risk, and in a legitimate insurance system, it normally works. The problem with Social Security is not the existence of what you call “little old white ladies”, but the fundamentally fraudulent, unsound approach of using the money currently being paid in to pay current benefits, instead of pooling and investing the money and paying it out to those, among the ones who paid it in, who meet the criteria.”
This is incoherent prattle. Social Security is insurance and is run as such. In any insurance pool, some will collect (who meet the criteria) and some will not (who don’t meet the criteria).
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
9:17 am
“Meaning you’d been lying awake, sick with worry over whether I really cared about this or that oppressed individual or group, heretofore?”
Nothing that dramatic (not even sure how you imagined it would be). I meant I will pay them no heed should I read them
“Because, sure–pointing out hypocrisy in others is good, clean family fun; we all do it. But I never really care all that much for it as a deal-maker argument.”
We are all of us hypocrites to some extent. There is only one difference between people in this regard: those who change when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them and those who don’t. I don’t take financial advice from someone who has gone bankrupt. I take the same approach to politicians – if their own house is not in order, how can I expect them to put our nation’s house in order? Sadly, few politicians come to the fore whose house is in order and we are left (almost always) with a choice of the lesser evils.
retired early
September 27th, 2011
9:18 am
Jay
The GOP plans to “fix” SS are not based on reality because they don’t want it to be “fixed”. As history has shown, they have fought SS since it’s inception. They throw out plans that only sound good to their constituents, who they know don’t care about the facts, just good sounding “sound bytes”. When you think about it…the whole GOP agenda is not based on reality…just good sounding “sound bytes”. This is, after all, a party led by a radio talk show personality.
Mighty Righty
September 27th, 2011
9:21 am
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
9:08 am
Please explain what is causing the middle class to be decimated and what is causing their disparity with the upper class.
Mighty Righty
September 27th, 2011
9:24 am
retired early
September 27th, 2011
9:18 am
Which political party took money out of social security to fund Obamacare and which political party cut social security funding within the last two years?
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
9:31 am
Holy cow, Righty.
AGAIN???
Are you serious???
How many times before it sinks in???
Read these posts of mine and get back with me.
AmVet
April 21st, 2011
9:24 pm
AmVet – Read my lips. No new Texans!
September 14th, 2011
6:24 pm
AmVet
October 25th, 2010
6:16 pm
(At Wingfield’s)
AmVet
June 28th, 2011
7:13 pm
AmVet
April 7th, 2010
3:31 pm
retired early
September 27th, 2011
9:41 am
Mighty
You need to draw a distinction between SS and Medicare. BTW, we pay for SS, it is not an entitlement but an “earned pension”….which should have remained in a trust separate from the general budget. Now, the gov “owes” the fund because it has borrowed from it to offset shortfalls in the general budget.
It needs to be “tweaked” occasionally to remain solvent, but it is a separate fund and should not be a part of any conversation about “reducing the Nat’l debt”…just “repay” what you “borrowed” from us and make it solvent again with whatever “changes” are needed. Now, The Nat’l Healthcare plan, when fully implemented, will absorb “some” of the cost for medical care now covered by Medicaid and Medicare, that is why those programs will be partially “cut”. This has “NOTHING” to do with SS…where there have been NO CUTS.
Normal
September 27th, 2011
9:52 am
Paul
September 27th, 2011
9:05 am
Yes indeed! My mother’s folks (scot/Irish) alway used the word “Dit” when calling me out for some sin or another. It may have come from “Git”, but I always thought it was short for “Determinedly Idiotic Tot” (or Teen, as I grew older).
Good little liberal
September 27th, 2011
10:09 am
Normal
name calling before 9 AM
You’ve reached the pinnacle of your debating skills really early today.
Mighty Righty
September 27th, 2011
10:13 am
retired early-Obama removed 500 billion dollars from social security/medicaid to help reduce the cost of obamacare. He then claimed an additional 500 billion in fictitious savings and social security and reported both savings to the CBO. The CBO cannot analize any figures and must make a determination based on figures given to them without regard to accuracy. So the CBO reported a trillion dollars in savings none of which actually exists. But the taking of 500 billion from social security is a fact. In addition, obama’s stimulous, more of which he is now touting reduces the amount paid by payrole deducation to the “trust fund”. Both of these cuts to revenue were by DEMOCRATS! I don’t know of a single cut ever to Social Security by a Republican, EVER. If you know otherwise, so state.
Mighty Righty
September 27th, 2011
10:24 am
retired early
September 27th, 2011
9:41 am
I hate to explain to someone who is retired how medicare works. Medicare is funded exactly the same way as social security by payrole deduction and employer contribution. In addition, a retired person who wishes to participate in Medicare does so voluntarily and pays a premium the same as for any health insurance. Further each retired person can select which insurance company they wish to use. There are no “end of life panels” determining whether or not the treatment will be approved as with obamacare.
dbm
September 27th, 2011
10:30 am
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
8:11 pm
You should ask them to get informed and engaged FIRST. THEN ask them to vote.
Mighty Righty
September 27th, 2011
10:31 am
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
9:08 am
Sorry. I don’t really need to see your previous posts. Using “justice” as a term to discuss confiscation of other’s wealth so you can use it for your own purpose tells me exactly where you stand.
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
10:39 am
You should ask them to get informed and engaged FIRST. THEN ask them to vote.”
Sorry, dbm, not much into that fascist thinking.
You can have it…
Righty, as does that fifth grade repost.
Wake up for once and look around.
And quit being so anti-justice and so pro-crime…
Mighty Righty
September 27th, 2011
10:54 am
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
10:39 am
Your idea of justice is comparable to a poor person with a gun robbing a wealthy person. Your economic philosophy is simply a belief in proven failed systems.
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
10:59 am
And your idea of debate is a childish joke.
Because you seem to be deluded into believing that you can actually speak on my behalf.
Hell, you can barely articulate YOUR position.
You ask for something and then refuse to even acknowledge the truth of it because it does not fit in with your sophistry and endless logical fallacies.
Tough t*tties…
dbm
September 27th, 2011
11:25 am
AmVet
September 27th, 2011
10:39 am
How is it fascist to say we get better results if voters are informed and engaged? How is it fascist to say people should think before they act? How is it fascist to say that if people don’t know what they are doing, there are likely to be bad results?
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
11:38 am
So the constitutionality of the health care bill will be decided before the 2012 election it seems:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html
Strawman
September 27th, 2011
11:46 am
Who was it yesterday that said Christie was out of favor with the people who elected him? This from Fox News:
“A new poll shows Gov. Chris Christie’s approval rating in the state has bounced back after taking a dip this spring during the state budget battles. The Fairleigh Dickinson-PublicMind poll released Tuesday shows 54 percent approve of the way Christie is handling his job; 36 percent disapprove. That’s up from up from May when 44 percent both approved and disapproved of Christie’s handling of his job. The polling came on the heels of praise for Christie for his handling of the response to Hurricane Irene in August.”
Tom Middleton
September 27th, 2011
12:00 pm
Thanks, Jay, for yet another expert commentary. Like all of your columns on important national issues, this one should be required reading for all Americans, starting with Mr. Cain himself.
And as for Republican math, it never adds up, starting with the Ol’ Gipper himself until now. The problem is that as long as they can win elections with a pile of fiscal crap, they really don’t care and never will!
Joe Mama
September 27th, 2011
12:28 pm
Righty — “There are no “end of life panels” determining whether or not the treatment will be approved as with obamacare.”
Again with the lies. The “end of life” benefit did no such thing.
Is it at all possible for you to be honest? Did you actually read the legislation, or are you just spouting what you’ve been told?
Adam
September 27th, 2011
1:21 pm
Mighty Righty: I don’t know of a single cut ever to Social Security by a Republican, EVER
That’s because the bills and efforts to make Social Security a private system did not pass. There certainly were plenty of EFFORTS to do so.
Jack Handy
September 27th, 2011
2:16 pm
The Math isn’t currently working on SS. Come on Jay. It’s going to hurt to get this fixed. It’s going to hurt more for some than others. It has to be done. It needs to be done and gosh darn it all, we need to stand up and fix this for our future generations. No more sweeping it under the rug. No more looking the other way.
Math doesn’t work on privatizing Social Security | Jay Bookman | Black Chapman Webber & Stevens Attorneys
September 27th, 2011
3:51 pm
[...] http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/09/26/math-doesnt-work-on-privatizing-social-security/ [...]