Originally posted by WajomaYou're the 5-star general of B.S.
The debate about SS has nothing to do with "serving the interests of corporations and wealthy". Try not to be so emotive and ranticidal, you'll make more sense. The debate about SS is concerned with freedom, i.e. people being free to set their own values and priorities. SS is just another tax, the gummint sayd give us 'X' now (or else, waving the stick) an ...[text shortened]... hat way people can opt out and try directing their resources to their own priorities.
Originally posted by badmoonThat's correct, but to do so he couldn't just separate out the tax rate cuts for those over $250k a year. So he had to admit the truth, that the Bush tax cuts were as much for the low and middle class as for the wealthy, and that tax rates were more, not less progressive as a result.
I believe that he could let them all expire.
When they expire again, he will be faced with the same dilemma, unless he is retired.
1 edit
Originally posted by Soothfast"You're like the rear admiral of B.S."
You're like the rear admiral of B.S.
Social Security has worked for something like three-quarters of a century, it still works now, and it can be made to work in the future. The only thing threatening it are the actions of those who despise it on principle, because it doesn't serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy. They'll do everything . Nope: grandma gets shoved off the cliff by the Rethuglicans every....single....time.
Tauroscatological ad hominem.
"Social Security has worked for something like three-quarters of a century, it still works now, and it can be made to work in the future."
That depends on what "worked" means. Clearly, it has worked politically to create a dependent class. If an insurance company had designed and sold such a flawed policy, everyone in that company would be jailed for fraud. To make it "work" in the future will require dramatic adjustments in the promises, or massive infusions of tax support, probably both.
"The only thing threatening it are the actions of those who despise it on principle, because it doesn't serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy."
What threatens it is the poor planning, lack of any serious underwriting, by its supporters and adherents not its opposition. I oppose it on principle, and I'm not owner of any corporate stock, and not wealthy, in fact I get a Social Security check, which I would gladly give up, if the program could be fixed permanently, so that it wasn't based on fraud and force.
The tax cuts for the wealthy is a lie, while the support of the military/industrial complex needs a closer look. Deregulation is a myth. It is the regulations that inevitably bring on the instability that hurts everyone. The 1998 Microsoft lawsuit (a travesty) cost Bill Gates individually some $20B and NASDAQ stockholders more than half their holdings, never mind the losses to the Dow. The meltdown of 2008 can be laid squarely on defunct government and quasi governmental agencies with tens of thousands of pages of regulations that failed to control the greed of folks like Jim Johnson and Harold Raines. In spite of the clear paper trail and near historical record of that debacle, some still want to blame the free market, when none existed. The full story is in "Reckless Endangerment".
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214767
Originally posted by normbenignBush was blasted for failing to enforce what's left of banking regulations and thus failed to prevent a recession which was based upon a pullback of investment when it was learned that banks had defrauded investors with years of glowing reports based upon assets which were crap. Deregulation and lack of enforcement, and companies like S&P giving banks with crumbling foundations AAA ratings are what caused the depression, and that was all done years before Obama became President.
I fail to see the humor. Bush was blasted at the beginning of his Presidency over the unemployment rates stemming from the year long recession of Clinton, including the lame duck period after the election.
Clinton is to blame for coalitioning with Republicans to pass trade deals which created an incentive for companies to move jobs to other countries.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 214767
Originally posted by normbenignBut what's especially hilarious is that idiots like Rush Limbaugh were calling it the "Obama Recession" weeks before he was even in power. I just love the conservative notion of where the buck stops!
I fail to see the humor. Bush was blasted at the beginning of his Presidency over the unemployment rates stemming from the year long recession of Clinton, including the lame duck period after the election.
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignI've read excerpts from "Reckless Endangerment" and fail to see how someone who wants virtually no regulation of private business can have the nerve to cite it. While the authors vastly overstate the influence of Fannie Mae on the subprime market (their share of the market sharply decreased in the years before the financial meltdown), their basic message is that the private market was poorly regulated not that regulation is "bad". Their thesis seems to be if the regulators were more aggressive, the financial meltdown probably never would have occurred.
"You're like the rear admiral of B.S."
Tauroscatological ad hominem.
"Social Security has worked for something like three-quarters of a century, it still works now, and it can be made to work in the future."
That depends on what "worked" means. Clearly, it has worked politically to create a dependent class. If an insurance company had designed e free market, when none existed. The full story is in "Reckless Endangerment".
That's hardly a "laissez faire" outlook.
EDIT: Here's a lengthy excerpt from the book that lambastes Wall Street firms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/gretchen-morgenson-reckless-endangerment_n_864841.html
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThe debate about Social Security is "concerned with freedom"? perhaps if one sees the world through the lens of Wajoma's surreal ideology that might well be the case, but I doubt any person inhabiting the real world would agree with this statement.
The debate about SS has nothing to do with "serving the interests of corporations and wealthy". Try not to be so emotive and ranticidal, you'll make more sense. The debate about SS is concerned with freedom, i.e. people being free to set their own values and priorities. SS is just another tax, the gummint sayd give us 'X' now (or else, waving the stick) an hat way people can opt out and try directing their resources to their own priorities.
Social Security by definition regards the alleviation of economic discrepancies, and the provision of financial assistance for those who would otherwise fall victim of poverty- people who are actually affected by social security schemes tend to think more about whether or not they'll be able to afford a decent living, and those who formulate public policy pertaining to such assistance tend to think about whether they're affordable and successful in accomplishing their goal. This version of freedom you consistently advocate, that of freedom from the state at all costs, simply doesn't figure prominently in any pragmatic debate. The mere idea that people who have no food on their table are capable of "setting their own values and priorities" frankly strikes me as ludicrous.
Problem is with inflation by the time you get to that certain arbitrary age "Y" dollars just aren't worth quite so much, the money is gone (it's value) and the polly that made the promise/demand is gone too
So your way of dealing with this perceived problem of the money being gone at some point is to not have the money to begin with, I see. What an ingenious solution to the many problems facing social security.
Originally posted by normbenignWhat you said is so idiotic I'm embarrassed for you.
I fail to see the humor. Bush was blasted at the beginning of his Presidency over the unemployment rates stemming from the year long recession of Clinton, including the lame duck period after the election.
The job losses were increasing month by month almost exponentially long before Obama was the clear winner.
Companies choose to hire or layoff employees based on profits and their labor needs. Your suggestion that companies were laying people off en mass because they feared Obama is 100% baseless.
Unless of course you believe they suddenly started hiring people back shortly after Obama took office because they were happy with him? Of course you don't believe that, because your "logic" twists and turns with whatever suits your hyper partisan needs.
Originally posted by generalissimoIn Wajomastan the elderly and infirm are supposed to work until they die, because that way they realize maximum personal freedom and opportunity.
The debate about Social Security is "concerned with freedom"? perhaps if one sees the world through the lens of Wajoma's surreal ideology that might well be the case, but I doubt any person inhabiting the real world would agree with this statement.
Social Security by definition regards the alleviation of economic discrepancies, and the provision of ...[text shortened]... with, I see. What an ingenious solution to the many problems facing social security.