On Obama’s threats, and the ‘guarantee’ of Social Security
What really ought to scare Grandma? How about that President Obama has made it clear that her Social Security is “guaranteed” only if those in Washington feel like paying up?
From an editorial in Investors Business Daily:
Obama beat everyone … with his scaremongering claim that Social Security checks are at risk if he doesn’t get his way on the debt ceiling. “I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on Aug. 3 if we haven’t resolved this issue,” he told CBS News, “because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”
Wait! What happened to Social Security’s “guarantee”? You know, the iron-clad assurance of Social Security benefits in exchange for paying into the program your whole working life? It’s something Democrats constantly talk about, particularly when attacking Republicans who propose privatizing the program.
As Nancy Pelosi once put it: “Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits, and Democrats will fight to make sure that Republicans do not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble.”
The AFL-CIO warned in 2005 about “President Bush’s plan to replace Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with risky private accounts.” The AARP describes Social Security as “the guaranteed part of your retirement plan.” Etc., etc.
Turns out, this “guarantee” is a lie.
This is an excellent point that I touched on when Obama and the lame-duck Congress agreed last December to a one-year cut in the federal payroll tax (you know, the last time Obama called Republicans “hostage takers”). The cord between payroll taxes and Social Security benefits is being severed ever more.
If your payroll taxes truly entitle you to Social Security payments when you retire, then how could Obama withhold those payments from retirees now? Even if you understand that today’s workers pay for today’s retirees, but believe the politicians’ assurances that excess payments are safely ensconced in a trust fund, then you might wonder how Obama could avoid making Social Security payments when payroll taxes are still coming in and there’s all that trust fund money to make up the difference. (In fact, the politicians have already spent almost all of the trust fund money, and would have to use new tax revenues to pay back the trust fund.)
What’s more, Reuters’ James Pethokoukis earlier this week posted a chart demonstrating that projected tax receipts through the month of August would be enough to cover all interest payments on the debt, Social Security payments, Medicare payments, “essential” defense spending about about $50 billion of “other” for the month. As I’ve said before, that doesn’t mean there wouldn’t be a price, maybe too steep a price, to pay for failing to raise the debt ceiling — but it does mean there will be “the money in the coffers” to keep up Social Security payments. As he does too often, Obama is using a patently false example to make what otherwise is a defensible point.
Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program.
So, which is it?
And are you still so sure that giving individuals more control over their own retirement funds is such a bad thing?
– By Kyle Wingfield
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
193 comments Add your comment
Mike
July 14th, 2011
3:02 pm
First of all, this debt celling problem has been going on for a very long time since the days of Younger Bush was in office, and as Pres. you have to take that responible for all the previous problems of the president that you took over from that including debt, wars and everyting else, if anybody else wants to take a job like that, all power to you.
People need to realize that reason why nothing can be done in Washington, no action and alot of finger pointing (look at all the threads before mines and you get the picture), we are blame Obama/DNC/RNC(excluded TP) for a debt celling problem that been going on since the days of GWB, no action but the only thing yall hearing is mud-slinging from everybody across the alisie (sound like something familiar, right NBA and NFL(they are atleast trying). Like Dave R., when you take that Oath of Office for president, you will have the biggest target in the world on you.
For the piece, I look at those Obama interviews and I didnt hear one word about the stuff you were writing down. At the end, its America’s problem and somebody have to put their foot down and get things done. President Obama is doing that and he is going to risk it all to get this done.
Susan Furman
July 14th, 2011
3:03 pm
THe
CJ
July 14th, 2011
3:03 pm
Mark: “…so many want to believe rather then be properly informed….Government employed individuals do NOT pay in NOR take from the SS fund.”
Talk about not being properly informed…
– All members of Congress, the President and Vice President, Federal judges, and most political appointees, were covered under the Social Security program starting in January 1984. They pay into the system just like everyone else. Thus all members of Congress, no matter how long they have been in office, have been paying into the Social Security system since January 1984.
–All federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984 are mandatorily covered under Social Security
So there are still some Federal employees, those first hired prior to January 1984, who are not participants in the Social Security system. All other Federal government employees participate in Social Security like everyone else.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html
MrLiberty
July 14th, 2011
3:04 pm
Anyone that thinks there is an ironclad promise regarding SS should keep in mind that the program began by taxing only 3% of the first $3000 in earnings and you qualified at 65 for payments. The age has been raised, the tax has been raised, the percent has been raised, the benefits have been cut, the benefits are now taxed above a certain income level, etc. If congress decided tomorrow to stop paying everyone they could. There is nothing in the Act to prevent that. The pyramid scheme has been going on for nearly 80 years. All the people who got in first got big payoffs. The next group did quite well too. Now that it is our turn we find out that the pyramid is hollow and that only worthless IOU’s are left for payment and that now barely 3 people pay for each recipient rather than the 16 that used to pay in to cover folks back in the 30s when this scam started.
Yes, plenty of people benefitted, but at what price? You are seeing the price. The best is yet to come.
Get Real
July 14th, 2011
3:05 pm
No Longer Repblican actually try spell check Republican
Please disengage your head from your a$$
brad
July 14th, 2011
3:08 pm
Mr. Liberty, how is providing supplemental retirement income “pure evil”? And in an economic collapse, everyone gets hurt. Unless of course you count the Koch bros, et. al.
Tom(Independent)
July 14th, 2011
3:08 pm
Since I paid into SS for over 45 years before I chose to use it, can I sue Obama and the federal govt for non-payment? Or at least try to get my contributions to SS back, along with interest?
Mark
July 14th, 2011
3:08 pm
By the way, as our baby boom generation(the largest generation in the country estimated to be between78-80 million strong) is turning age 65, who can possibly be surprised to think what happens as that block of our population evolve from contributors to that fund to beneficiaries of that fund!
Last Word
July 14th, 2011
3:10 pm
Hey Kyle:
courtesy of their friends at the Wall Street Journal editorial board:
“Republicans who say they can use the debt limit to force Democrats to agree to a balanced budget amendment are dreaming. Such an amendment won’t get the two-thirds vote to pass the Senate, but it would give every Democrat running for re-election next year a chance to vote for it and claim to be a fiscal conservative.
We agree with those who say that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner can cut other federal spending before he allows a technical default on U.S. debt. No doubt that is what he will do. We’d even support a showdown over technical default if we thought it might yield some major government reforms. But Mr. Obama clearly has no such intention.
Instead he and Mr. Geithner will gradually shut down government services, the more painful the better. The polls that now find that voters oppose a debt-limit increase will turn on a dime when Americans start learning that they won’t get Social Security checks. Republicans will then run like they’re fleeing the Pamplona bulls, and chaotic retreats are the ugliest kind. By then they might end up having to vote for a debt-limit increase and a tax increase.
The tea party/talk-radio expectations for what Republicans can accomplish over the debt-limit showdown have always been unrealistic. As former Senator Phil Gramm once told us, never take a hostage you’re not prepared to shoot. Republicans aren’t prepared to stop a debt-limit increase because the political costs are unbearable. Republicans might have played this game better, but the truth is that Mr. Obama has more cards to play…..
We’d far prefer a bipartisan deal to cut spending and reform entitlements without a tax increase. But if Mr. Obama won’t go along, there’s no reason Republicans should help him dodge the political consequences by committing debt-limit harakiri.”
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
3:13 pm
Kyle,
Based on the logic behind ALL of your writings, I’m convinced that you are either delusional or not very smart. “Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program. So, which is it?”
You know dam well that the Republican’s refusal to compromise is endangering social security checks and what a disaster it would have been if social security was directly invested in the market during the 2008 collapse.
Are we in the “no spin zone” or the Outer Limits? So, which is it?
gm
July 14th, 2011
3:16 pm
Let see Bush raised the Debt ceiling 22 times and the hypocrites on the right never said a word.
I agree with President Obama no other President would have sat down with these clowns: Talking about leader ship wow, his problem is he is to nice to these idiots and retards on the right.
How many people are going to line up and vote for these right wing nut jobs?
Moderate Line
July 14th, 2011
3:19 pm
Either Obama’s not being truthful when he says Social Security payments might be at risk, or he and his fellow Democrats have been lying when they assail Republican plans to reform Social Security as attacks on an otherwise rock-solid program.
So, which is it?
And are you still so sure that giving individuals more control over their own retirement funds is such a bad thing?
++++++++++
Based on 2010 spending these are the things that would not be shutdown based on the revenue for 2010. GDP revenue for 2010 was 14.9 and spending was 23.8 which means revenues equal 62.6% of revenues.
Now look what gets us to the magically 62.6 figure.
National Defense 693,586 0.200678025
Net Interest 186,902 0.054077107 0.254755132
Administration of Justice 53,436 0.015460853 0.270215985
Veterans Benefits 108,384 0.031359178 0.301575163
Medicare 451,636 0.130673659 0.432248823
Social Security 706,737 0.204483057 0.63673188
We are now over the 62.6%.
Look at what would have to be shut down.
All Transportation spending including Air Traffic Control which would completely shutdown the airlines.
All international affairs.
All General Science, Space, and Technology.
All energy which would include TVA and Western Area Power Administrations which produces electricity. .
All Natural Resources and Environment spending.
All Agriculture spending.
All commerce and housing spending.
All income security include unemployment insurance which by the way is a payroll tax.
Dave R.
July 14th, 2011
3:22 pm
“If payroll taxes aren’t income taxes and are for Social Security and Medicare, then those commitments need to be kept to everyone who has paid in.”
Keeping a commitment isn’t the same as keeping a certain level of payments; just means the programs continue.
This Started w/Bush
July 14th, 2011
3:23 pm
I can’t believe all of you Bush voter’s bashing Obama, and it all started w/Bush, plus you’ll voted him in twice. Shame on you all. I don’t care if Obama fixed majority of the problems you’ll still wouldn’t be satisfied. No matter what Obama is doing a better job in office than Mr. Retarded Bush.
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
3:24 pm
Moderate Line: That’s a great list — it’s part of what I meant when I wrote there’d be a price to pay for not raising the debt ceiling. If Obama had listed those things, I’d have had no problem with it. I wonder why he didn’t?
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
3:25 pm
Big Government Conservatives really struggle with reality don’t they? This idea that default doesn’t mean anything, that it’s just that darn President Obama whipping up fear is so very sad. At best, none of us really knows what the consequences would be if we default because there is no precedent. That is one reason why this little missive is not completely honest.
Of course this could all go away today if Republicans would take the $4 Trillion deal and run, or just raise the ceiling cleanly, you know as they did multiple times when President Bush was in office and we were told that “deficits don’t matter”. Y’all do remember that from the former Vice President don’t you?
No folks, this little theater is a Republican production. They have run up the debt consistently and now, when they say we must cut the deficit they help create, they don’t want to do it because they signed pledges they hold more dear than our Constitution.
You folks need to listen to the Wall Street Journal editorial board. You lost! Raise the ceiling already and stop inflicting pain upon yourself. They are quite correct, once granny doesn’t get that check, you will be blamed as it is quite clear that it is not President Obama whose signature is on those pledges to the devil.
If you people really aren’t Big Government Conservatives, you take the $4 Trillion deal and do it now. If you can’t do that, then do what you usually do and raise the ceiling cleanly. No more, “President Obama is a meanie blah blah blah..”. This is all on you now. You clearly picked this fight and now you clearly are losing. So do the country and the world economy a big favor. Act like responsible adults and end this already. You are embarrassing yourself. Pull up those pants and stop showing your behinds. The country has deficit fatigue and is ready to move on.
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
3:25 pm
gm: 22 times? I’ll assume that was a typo.
Road Scholar
July 14th, 2011
3:25 pm
Karen: Boo HOO !
yuzeyurbrane
July 14th, 2011
3:26 pm
Let’s face it, someone is not going to get paid if revenues cover only 60% of expenditures. Certainly, there is some discretion in determining who and who does not get paid or if pro rata payments are made but you can’t square this circle completely Kyle. As far as distorting statements, you Kyle are guilty here. Certainly SS is as close to a guaranteed payment as you can get thanks to the successful rejection of Repub efforts to invest its funds in the stock mkt. It has, until this year, always run at a surplus of revenues over payments. Even this year, the difference was met by the interest on the Treasury Bonds it holds. Indeed, there is a $4.5 trillion aggregate surplus in the SS Trust Fund. And do those funds just sit there? Of course not, they have been invested in US Treasury bonds to earn income. Until now that has been the world’s safest investment. Still, it is projected that revenues plus interest will cover all payments for at least 10 more years and that revenues, interest and bond redemptions would cover 100% of payments for at least another 25 years. And, with minor adjustments which should be made in the normal legis. process (hearings, votes, etc.), SS can remain solvent for another 75 years or longer. But now the failure to raise the debt ceiling would jeopardize the world’s safest investment, US Treasury Bonds. It is interesting that it is Republicans who are suggesting that the interest on the debt (i.e. US Treasury Bonds) be paid first before SS. Are they suggesting that Treasury Bonds held by the SS Trust Fund are not as valuable as those held by private investors, banks and even foreign countries like China? Are they suggesting, as you do Kyle, that they are essentially worthless IOU’s? When you begin to choose wealthy investors and China over the Seniors who worked hard their whole lives and are the ones who disproportionately paid the FICA taxes that made the SS Trust Fund possible then we are in a country with a perplexing moral dilemma. Kind of a reverse Robinhood. Which ties into your other recent column re the declining moral standards in this country. Hypocrite.
RenaP
July 14th, 2011
3:28 pm
The republicans need to ditch the “Robin Hood” theory. They are always trying to take from the poor to give to the rich.
keekee
July 14th, 2011
3:29 pm
Being that so many American people read these articles and get caught in the hype to hate what President Obama is doing for the country, Kyle I hope that it is never your grandma or grandpa that needs their SSI.
JohnnyReb
July 14th, 2011
3:31 pm
In negotiations such as on the debt limit, it is important to know when your opponent is lying.
Do you know how Boehner can tell when Obama is lying? His lips are moving!
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
3:37 pm
yuzeyurbrane @ 3:26
Bravo! Well written, logical arguments. They will be lost on this crowd.
Ramzad
July 14th, 2011
3:41 pm
I suppose that the “equal time” doctrine demands that the AJC keeps Kyle around to dish out Republican propaganda,
but are Social Sercurity payments more important that payment to the troops in the bushes? Does Social Security trumps
FBI agents tracking Arab terrorists? Does Social security payments trump the payments to those who guide airplanes through American skies?
The answer is a resounding no, but typical of Republican propagandists you go for the lowest denominator- seniors who
can be reported to and informationally manipulated to “see” the demon Obama is. Go Kyle! You have your propaganda methodology down to a science.
Jack
July 14th, 2011
3:45 pm
I don’t think Obama got much sleep last night.
DB
July 14th, 2011
3:56 pm
Wow, so many conservatives are drinking the Kool-Aid. The main sticking point of the debt ceiling debate is that the conservatives don’t want to break a promise of super low taxes so they can get re-elected. We are in this mess due to deep tax cuts in the first place. Domestic and defense ’spending’ only accounts for 15% of this mess that we are in; the bulk comes from lack of revenue (The Bush tax cuts and the extension of those cuts by Obama). I’m not a dem or a repub, but the Dems have it correct; they agreed to cut spending AND realize that our country needs more REVENUE; a balanced approach. Anyone with half a brain can see that this is the route that we should take. But the conservatives are playing ‘politics’ by not looking at the big picture and would like to fill their constituents heads with nonsense. Two key takeaways about the current conservative nonsense machine… Bush raised the debt ceiling 7 times during his tenure; so why such a hard stance now? Next… The Republican ‘Messiah’, Pres. Reagen actually raised taxes during a recession because he was smart enough to realize that the Federal govt needed to increase revenue to get out of the deficit. But now that the hated Obama is doing the SAME thing that Repubs in the past did with success; they try to spin it like he’s trying to run the country into the ground. It’s not that difficult to see the mind games that the conservatives are playing on the American people right about now. Again; I’m an Independent, but I vote according to which party is the lesser of two evils. At the moment, the Repubs are the more evil; just open your eyes and minds and you’ll see the same.
Hurry up 2012!
July 14th, 2011
4:00 pm
Democrats and Republicans are going to have to find a middle ground in the debt-limit debate. It is going to take a simple compromise where the rich, poor and old all feel the pain. That’s what this recession still hasn’t taught Americans. Recessions are often called “hard times.” And these “hard times” are going to hurt everyone…from those receiving social security to those receiving welfare…but every American needs to be affected. While these preposterous debates on Pennsylvania Avenue have been very frustrating, I have become more frustrated with these politicians, particularly Mr. Commander-in-Chief, having their own political re-election agendas during the debate. Don’t mind the fact we are about to default on our national debt, but rather focus on your big election next year…nice, real nice. Illinois seems to be in pretty bad shape; perhaps they will welcome him back with open arms in January 2013?
Neal Kelley
July 14th, 2011
4:01 pm
How is it that everything under the sun is Obama fault. IT IS THE REPUBLICANS that has and is still taking hostages. They have an attitude of our way or the the highway. Obama is simply doing his job and not given into the republicans partisan demands. I am tired of the Rich get Richer theme from the repubs… If you do not believe me.. simply google republicans and debt ceiling.. and you will a flood of topics saying how the republicans refuse to budge…
Kyle Wingfield
July 14th, 2011
4:04 pm
yuze: I never said we could “square the circle completely” — when you’re borrowing about 40 cents of every $1 you spend, of course you can’t keep spending as much money if the credit card is cut up. Nor have I advocated that course of action. What I’ve said today are two things: a, the president is making even clearer than before that SS is not a “guaranteed” thing, and b) he’s resorting to politics and scaremongering at the same time he’s calling himself the only adult in the room.
Finally, when did I say the IOUs to the trust fund are worthless? What I said is that it will take new tax revenues to pay them off, which is true. Now, if those tax revenues don’t materialize, for whatever reason, then I guess those IOUs might become worthless. But imo, the fact that it’s going to take a lot more tax revenue in the future to make good on SS’s promises is all the more reason not to raise taxes now to pay for other government spending that’s gotten out of hand.
The whole situation is out of control, and it’s unbelievable to me that the GOP’s very reasonable request to cut spending over *10 years* by the amount that the president wants to borrow over the next *18 months* has turned out this way.
JAP
July 14th, 2011
4:04 pm
I agree with RenaP. The republicans’ purpose has always been to make the rich richer. I don’t understand why people cannot see that. Why do you think the republicans in congress do not want a tax increase? Because it will only affect rich – you know who they are, right? The people who make money in their sleep. God forbid they have a tax increase!! The world will really go under then. I pray the president does not cave in. After all, all of this is because republicans cheated in 2000 and the most terrible president of all time was elected – George W. Bush. You want someone to blame for all of this – blame him!!!
Neal Kelley
July 14th, 2011
4:04 pm
And another point i want to express.. people have been screaming bloody about Obama health care plan. Saying it is socialist in nature.. yet we already have a government sponsored health care system.. it is called medicaid and medicare. Wake people.. and stop sniffing what the repubs are selling..
Rafe Hollister
July 14th, 2011
4:05 pm
The Republicans need to protect themselves here, as the Fibber in Chief is going to do whatever he can to embarass them and place them in a disadvantage for the election. The money will be there for SocSeC, Medicaid, Military Pay, and interest on the debt, however, he may use his power over the agencies under him to delay or stop payment in any of these categories, in order to make his point.
Someone, I believe it may have been Dick Morris, said the Rep house can prevent this by immediately passing a special appropriation bill funding only the program, he says we can not maintain. They could do this on a monthly basis. The same bill would then raise the debt ceiling by that amount. If the Senate refused or he refused to sign, the voters would know who was stopping the checks.
Bud Wiser
July 14th, 2011
4:08 pm
DB writes: … We are in this mess due to deep tax cuts in the first place…
Not up on the facts there, are you? No left wing tool ever is. Obama and the tools in Congress have quadrupled the debt amassed by their predecessor in just 1/4 the time.
You could take every penny from the top 25% of the wage earners, who coincidentally pay @ 78% of all income taxes collected, and not even scratch the surface of just one expenditure called Obamacare.
Repeal that costly piece of garbage, and the current crop of fools in DC could in fact just sit on their thumbs (pointed skyward, no doubt) until 2012 elections, then do some real work after the democrats ranks have been substantially reduced.
Unfortunately, the odds of that happening are about as long as, say, you suddenly growing a new and totally functional brain.
Rafe Hollister
July 14th, 2011
4:12 pm
JAP
The heated retoric over the rich, who make money in their sleep, according to you is fasionating to me. Barry sturs everyone up with his class warfare about corporate jets and millionaires and billionaires paying just a little more. Then when someone asks for specifics, he always says no one making more than $200,000 a year will be hurt, so why are you bitching. We quickly go from people described as billionaires to 200,000. When the rules are finally put on paper, the $200,000 may decrease significantly.
So the question is, are you rich? Should I dispise and hate you and root for your demise?
RGB
July 14th, 2011
4:14 pm
What–there’s no Social Security lock box?
Next thing you know folks will say Algore didn’t take the initiative to invent the Internet or that man-made global warming is based on junk science.
We are the ones we’ve been waiting on.
John
July 14th, 2011
4:14 pm
Kyle, doesn’t the US also guarantee our creditors? What about the guarantee the US has made to members of the military? Which guarantee should take president?
Rafe Hollister
July 14th, 2011
4:17 pm
facinating and stirs, I can spell most of the time inspite of gov school education.
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
4:18 pm
@ Bud Wiser 4:08
I’m not really sure how to get the numbers to prove you wrong but there is no way “you could take evey penny from the top 25% of wage earners…and not even scratch the surface of…Obamacare”. Now I don’t have access to how much money the top 25% completely earn but I know for a fact that it’s more than the yearly costs of Obamacare. Do you mean taking 100% of the top 25% income once won’t pay for Obamacare over, say, 200 years? Maybe that would be correct but you didn’t say that.
CJ
July 14th, 2011
4:29 pm
“Take one scenario: choosing to protect the safety net programs, Treasury could conceivably pay interest on the debt, Social Security benefits, Medicare and Medicaid provider payments, food stamps and welfare, rent for those on low-income rent assistance, unemployment insurance benefits, Veterans Affairs programs, special education grants, and tuition assistance – and nothing else. Defense vendor payments would be delayed, the active duty military would not be paid, IRS refunds would stop flowing, all federal employees would be furloughed, and the Departments of Justice, Labor, Commerce, Energy, Interior, and Health and Human Services would all be left unfunded.
Complicating matters further, the above scenario relies on the premise that Treasury can mechanically prioritize payments in such a fashion. Treasury makes 80 million payments a month through a computer system that is not designed to prioritize one payment over another. Treasury Secretary Geithner has questioned even the notion that it is feasible.
Moreover, if Treasury immediately has to stop 44% of all federal spending, financial markets world-wide are likely to notice. As a recent USA Today article describes, ‘the picture gets worse: Layoffs and lawsuits. Market reaction and media glare. A possible downgrade in the U.S. credit rating, perhaps followed by the loss of market access and the demise of the dollar.’
Treasury securities are considered to be the only risk-free financial asset in the world, and as such, form the basis for millions of investments. If a deal to raise the debt ceiling is not reached by the X Date, interest rates on Treasury securities could rise to reflect the presence of risk. Higher rates would, in turn, immediately lower the values of many Americans’ retirement funds, savings, and investments. Under these circumstances, the cost of borrowing would increase, and the global financial system could reel.”
http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/2011/07/bpc-report-highlights-dangers-breaching-debt-ceiling-%E2%80%9Cx-date%E2%80%9D
Mike
July 14th, 2011
4:33 pm
Honestly, I am figure out why I dont like stuff like this, from Health Care to this, Mr. Obama has been bombed and been Single point of blame for everything. He is doing his job as President and that poor guy cant get a break from anybody.
Havent we learned from the past about superpowers that came before us like Persia, Rome and other great nations that failed because of internal crap like this. Nobody is perfect, President’s job is the toughest of any job in America, it is a single point of failure and blame for any problem. Obama’s is a tough man, because I would got on national T.V. and tell it how it really is, holding no punches back.
Just maybe we shouldnt do nothing about it, maybe we should hit default, maybe we should just blame everybody, while America is getting left behind by China, Russia, heck even Japan(with earthquake and all)in everything, what we do about it, complain about it and place blame on person that is trying his best. Maybe that is what America right now, a very good shock treatment, that placing blame isnt going to solve this problem or take care of you and families(if yall have some) needs and wants.
Everybody need to get their collective heads out of their butts, from Senate and HoR, put aside poticial parties for once in their lives, dont worry about that damned election next year and work together as Americans to get this done right now. That including the 2012 Budget as well.
Sorry about this rant, but I think we need to stop placing blame and just get to work to make this country better for my daughter sake and for everybody that was born in the wonderful country that God has blessed.
brad
July 14th, 2011
4:33 pm
He made it up, Chuck. And if he keeps screaming at us loudly enough, we’re supposed to believe him.
MrLiberty
July 14th, 2011
4:34 pm
John – There are no guarantees. The government allows private companies to break their committments to employees and retirees and they are certainly a group with far lower morals. They would screw the military in a heartbeat if they had someone else (maybe all those private mercenaries they hired in Iraq and Afghanistan) to protect them. Back after WWI a huge group of veterans decended on Washington in protest of their unemployment during the Depression and empty guarantees by the government for service payments. The military at the time (led by Douglass MacArthur) murdered two of the 43,000 protestors when they resisted being removed. When the government is threatened, they don’t care about the folks they are supposedly working for. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army And the word is precedent, not president.
The suggestion that the US default on its debt obligations has been made before, most cogently by Murray Rothbard. It is a sound suggestion. The purchase of debt obligations issued by the US government is basically enabling the enslavement of the citizenry of the US. The government does not produce ANYTHING, so every penny it gets it gets through taxation/theft. In order to pay interest on bonds and similar, it must tax us even more than the amount of the principle it is borrowing. This in essence guarantees future enslavement of the population as the fruits of their labor will need to be taken to pay these debts.
As those who purchase these debts are enabling this enslavement, defaulting on those debts is little more than cancelling a portion of that slavery contract. Those who lent the US money were doing so based on faith and trust and those who have to do the paying never agreed to the debt in the first place and by defaulting are basically saying “too bad.”
The great positive of a default is that the US government would likely not be able to borrow any more money from ANYONE either ever again or for a long time and would certainly have to pay very high interest rates. This would finally FORCE some fiscal responsibility.
Chuck
July 14th, 2011
4:35 pm
I say call his bluff and see what happens. I can get by without my SS check but I bet it never happens.
brad
July 14th, 2011
4:35 pm
Hey, Mr. Liberty, take a look at some of your parasites:
http://downbutnotoutletters.tumblr.com/
But as long as the Koch brothers are OK, your world is fine, right?
DB
July 14th, 2011
4:37 pm
@bud wiser… As I said before; drinking the Kool-aid. PPACA (AKA ObamaCare) hasn’t fully rolled out yet, so umm, where are those numbers coming from? Corporate benefit plans have barely even risen from the biggest change so far (increasing the child dependent age). But if you listen to the Kool-Aid vendors, it’s cost our country 349823 trillion dollars so far.
Our debt is from 1st place; lack of revenue (Bush and Obama). 2nd place is the wars (Bush and Obama). 3rd place is domestic spending (Everyone). Obama has enough brains to look at his mistakes (giving in to keeping tax cuts) and ALSO cut spending where necessary. The repubs aren’t owning up to their mistakes; but just spewing political talking points that don’t make much financial sense.
Again, I’m not left wing by any means. I actually have an open mind. Note: I voted for Bush the first time around because he was by far the best candidate running at that time and he ‘talked’ a good game. Of course I didn’t know that Bush was Cheney’s puppet (I didn’t see that coming).
RGB
July 14th, 2011
4:37 pm
As Karl Rove said in his column today: “Mr. Boehner’s modest proposal was to trim that back 5.2% over the decade, but the president balked.”
RGB
July 14th, 2011
4:38 pm
“…ALSO cut spending where necessary”.
Where? Ever? Once?
I can’t believe people never read anything any more.
Truth Squad
July 14th, 2011
4:40 pm
Why have Republicans refused the $4 Trillion deficit reduction deal proposed by President Obama and until recently, Speaker Boehner? Can people get off the name calling and talking points and answer that simple question?
Why did all but nine congressional Republicans vote for Ryancare, a plan that the CBO says will add $6 Trillion in debt in the next ten years? That doesn’t sound like to me that all the Republicans want is, “..to cut spending over *10 years* by the amount that the president wants to borrow over the next *18 months….
This must be the place where facts and reality go to die.
MrLiberty
July 14th, 2011
4:41 pm
Mike – The other empires you mentioned didn’t fail because of infighting. They failed because they overextended themselves both geographically and financially. Currently we have over 1000 bases in over 180 countries around the globe. We spend over $1 Trillion a year on defense when you add up everything in every department that supports the military-industrial complex. We are sending hundreds of billions to foreign leaders to buy their loyalty (not to help their poor). Frankly the healthiest thing we can do is actually to discuss the issues and demand change.
Don’t let Obama off the hook. He came into office saying he was going to get rid of the Patriot Act, bring the troops home, retore our civil liberties, etc. (IN other words, be different from Bush). He is basically serving out Bush’s third term, and these have all been his changes, not something he was forced to take. He even promised to leave the medical marijuana clinics alone and just recently ordered a major crackdown. These are victimless crimes that have been legalized by the states and he is wasting federal dollars that we don’t have just to pad the salaries of DEA officials and employees along with the folks who run the federal prison system.
Obama deserves all the condemnation he is getting. Bush deserves all the condemnation he is getting. Both parties are working together to make sure they suck as much life out of america before it collapses. That their actions are going to be the contributing factors is of little consequence to them.
Ron Paul 2012. End the Fed.
Bill
July 14th, 2011
4:44 pm
Its just another ploy by crooked bankers and politicions to steel peoples 401ks by letting the stock market crash again.The millions of people with an average of seventy four thosand dollars in each account,they are going to make sure the average joe don’t get to keep a dime.It happens every time! Bend over seniors,here it comes again! Looks like we have us a one term president.