Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs

Talking Points Memo: House Democrats are going to force Repubicans to vote on a resolution opposing the privatization of Social Security. The Dems are putting their full political muscle into painting Repubs as enemies of Social Security. They'll use chief GOP budget writer Rep. Paul Ryan's plan to cut Social Security benefits as evidence. It's the sort of tough political vote that Democrats have rarely pushed Republicans on since winning back control of Congress in 2006, and similar to resolutions the GOP constantly forced the Democrats to take positions on when they were in power.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

Doc_Sarvis

MORE STORIES

Special Features

Poll Results

Democrats' move to force GOP pols to go on record as being either "for" or "against" a resolution condemning the privatization of Social Security _____.

is smart politics, 3 votes (23.08%)
is good because it gives GOPers a chance to stand up for their principles, 1 votes (7.69%)
is good because it forces GOPers to put their money where their mouths are, 3 votes (23.08%)
promises comic relief as GOPiggies scurry hither and yon, 5 votes (38.46%)
is stoopid - what business is it of theirs anyway?, 0 votes (0%)
is Obama\'s fault, 0 votes (0%)
is Bush\'s fault, 1 votes (7.69%)
is just another comsymp, socialistic plot, 0 votes (0%)
is another reason for me to tell you, , 0 votes (0%)

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

Here's the resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives against severe changes to Social Security.

Whereas Social Security has successfully and efficiently provided the foundation for Americans' retirement security for generations and should be preserved for generations to come;

Whereas for 6 in 10 seniors, Social Security provides the majority of their retirement income, and Social Security provides nearly all of the income received by four out of ten widows and other non-married seniors;

Whereas Social Security's essential protections for workers and their families cannot be matched by private savings, which are a complement to, but not a substitute for, Social Security's guaranteed benefits;

Whereas, as one such protection, Social Security provides a guaranteed benefit that one can never outlive, and unlike private savings or investments, is not subject to the ups and downs of the stock market;

Whereas, as another such protection, Social Security benefits are indexed to inflation to maintain purchasing power over time, which is particularly important for women because they live longer on average than men, and the impact of inflation compounds over time;

Whereas, as another such protection, Social Security provides family benefits, protecting not only the worker but dependent children and the surviving spouse;

Whereas, as another such protection, Social Security not only provides a secure foundation of retirement, but it provides essential income to workers with severe disabilities and to survivors, representing, for a typical young family, a $413,000 disability insurance policy and a $430,000 life insurance policy;

Whereas, as another such protection, Social Security's progressive benefit formula ensures that those with the least opportunity to make supplemental provision for retirement receive the greatest degree of protection from Social Security;

Whereas, for 75 years, Social Security has never been a day late or a dollar short;

Whereas the American people made clear in 2005 that they did not seek severe change in Social Security when they resoundingly rejected President Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security in favor of preserving a secure, guaranteed foundation of retirement income free from the risks and losses of the stock market;

Whereas the current minority party plan for Social Security is even more extreme than the plan they advanced in 2005: (1) it cuts guaranteed Social Security retirement and survivor benefits for all workers, whether or not they wish to have a private account; (2) it diverts trillions from the Trust Fund into private accounts--eventually, four out of every ten dollars of Trust Fund contributions would be diverted to private accounts--threatening the ability of the Trust Funds to pay benefits to today's seniors; (3) it increases Federal borrowing by $4,100,000,000,000; and (4) it subjects workers' basic retirement security to market volatility and the risk of losses; and

Whereas privatizing Social Security means benefit cuts, diversion of Trust Fund resources, subjecting individuals to market risk and losses, and increasing federal borrowing by trillions of dollars: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Congress should stand with the American people to reject severe changes to Social Security, including any and all attempts to privatize Social Security, and instead should commit to work bipartisanly to make common-sense adjustments to Social Security to strengthen it for future generations while preserving its guarantees of secure income and family protection in the event of a worker's death, retirement, or severe disability.
tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com

Only a dumbass Democrat can believe that you can keep up the level of Social Security benefits. When the Ponzi Scheme comes crashing down, hopefully by then we'll consider votes like these to be criminal offenses, and we'll string up these douchebags.

Until then, we'll have to be content with just turning them out of office.

So how would you vote on this resolution? For or against:

Resolved, That the Congress should stand with the American people to reject severe changes to Social Security, including any and all attempts to privatize Social Security, and instead should commit to work bipartisanly to make common-sense adjustments to Social Security to strengthen it for future generations while preserving its guarantees of secure income and family protection in the event of a worker's death, retirement, or severe disability.

Against. If you're going to save it, it needs radical changes. Dramatically move up the retirement age, for starters.

But it's just dog-and-pony anyway. The Dems are looking at a once-in-a-generation ass-kicking in November, and want to say that they at least voted to do nothing on Social Security, along with everything else.

"Only a dumbass Democrat can believe that you can keep up the level of Social Security benefits."

Only a math-challenged Republican would believe you can't fix SS with a tweak of a percentage point or two.

"Dramatically move up the retirement age"

Do you mean the number, or the date?

Whereas privatizing Social Security means benefit cuts, diversion of Trust Fund resources, subjecting individuals to market risk and losses, and increasing federal borrowing by trillions of dollars:

* * * *

And that's just what's happening anyway. Just because it's invested in Treasury bills doesn't mean it's not subject to market losses, the Trust Funds are being diverted into General Fund spending, and in order to make up the difference, the feds will be borrowing trillions of dollars.

One day there will be criminal prosecutions for running this scam. Hopefully it'll be a capital offense.

Minimum age of 70 for eligibility of Social Security retirement or Medicare. When FDR was busy bankrupting future generations with the New Deal, the lifespan was 65. Social Security was necessary because by the time you reached that age, it was assumed you couldn't work. Now, you've got 18 years of life left--if you're white, that is. If you're a woman, a little longer.

70, and index it to increases in longevity. Until then, it's just another free giveaway to people it wasn't intended for.

"One day there will be criminal prosecutions for running this scam."

If any other Trustee did to their pension plans what Congress has done to ours, they'd be in jail.

"Minimum age of 70 for eligibility of Social Security retirement or Medicare"

I agree that's where it needs to get, but I don't think doing it overnight is fair. How about adding one month for every year someone is under 65? A 59 year-old will have to wait an additional half-year, a 53 yr old an additional year, etc.

"and index it to increases in longevity."

GREAT point. And one of the major flaws in almost ALL pension plans.

That's the way it is already. Full retirement age in my case is 67 1/2. My point is that you should be able to receive benefits at all until much later.

You can fix it now, or it'll fix itself later. Either way it's getting fixed. But the Democrats are just kicking the can down the road, playing games.

There is no chance the political class will privatize SS. They don't think that way. I think, they'll nationalize the $15 trillion private pension market. That would enlarge the Pyramid Scheme and push the day of reckoning into the future. THAT'S how they think.

Perhaps after the stock market collapses, they'll come riding on their white horses with promises of pension bailouts. The money would presumably be put in "safe" treasury bonds. It's the perfect way for the feds finance their massive deficits while keeping long term interest rates down.

They already are. There are proposals now to force IRA and 401k owners to buy Treasuries. No doubt, they'll call it something like the "Retirement Income Security and Protection Act", when it's really another way they can borrow trillions of dollars with guaranteed bond buyers at the auctions.

In a civilized country, Frank and Dodd and Pelosi and Geithner and Paulson would already be in prison, or dead.

"70, and index it to increases in longevity. Until then, it's just another free giveaway to people it wasn't intended for."
#7 | Posted by rightisright

Figures. It's not enough that Americans work more hours than anyone else in the West, this greedy fucker wants to keep granny working at Mcdonald's, preventing an opportunity for a 16 teen year old. That makes a lot of sense when trying to reduce unemployment.

Figures. Another liberal who believes that as soon as someone reaches the age of 65, her only benefit to society is to make way for some 16 year old who wants her job. A collectivist mentality, but one that says that it's economically smart to pay granny not to work, so that a pimple-popper can take her minimum wage job. Or something.

You're funny. Stupid, but funny. A baby boomer, I'm guessing. High percentage of those. Did you vote for Obama too? Because your kind of high-level thinking should put you on his Council of Economic Advisors.

Corporate shills like Rubeisrube love high unemployment. Keeps wages low and profits high. Plus keeps prices down. He would be glad to see unemployment double if he could save 10 bucks on consumer goods and services a month.

Corporate shills like Rubeisrube love high unemployment.

High unemployment is associated with a weak economy and people are buying fewer goods, meaning less profit for the 'corporate shills'.

Brilliant as usual, dull.

"Another liberal who believes that as soon as someone reaches the age of 65, her only benefit to society"

If someone age 65 wants to retire, they should be encouraged to do so. High unemployment will be the norm, not the exception, as global competitors like China continue to develop.

Encourage away. But you think it's smart to pay them to retire.

Obamanomics, I guess. This is the kind of thinking that says that the economy can lose another 20,000 jobs, but the unemployment rate fall by 3 tenths. And we could improve the economy by paying people to quit working, even though they've got many productive years left. Heck--maybe we should drop the retirement age to 50, make it mandatory--imagine what the unemployment rate would be then! Negative maybe! Better still, we could create a world like on Logan's Run! We could save the country by killing everyone over 30!

Libbie economics. Anything's possible!

"Corporate shills". I was the one saying that we should let CitigroupMorganStanleyGoldmanS
achs AIGFannieMaeFreddieMacGeneralM
otors go bankrupt, and was attacked by you libbies as being heartless. Or something. Now they are bankrupt, but continue paying out billions of dollars worth of bonuses, all because they gave a lot of money to Democrats in the Senate, and to Obama's campaign.

You're a tool of the corporatists, and you're too stupid to even know it.

"Heck--maybe we should drop the retirement age to 50"
...
#17 | Posted by rightisright


That ought to be the goal of any society; to maximize leisure time and reduce mindless labor. Shills for big business want the biggest pool of labor possible. Always have. They fought the 40-hour work week for that reason.

I'm a shill for little business. And we want the biggest pool of labor possible also. We also want the biggest pool of investment capital and credit, too. But that ship's already sailed, tool. When Obama keep the gravy train rolling for his big contributors at Citigroup and Goldman and GM and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that's several trillion dollars that can't go to small Main Street firms.

You're the shill. You probably didn't know what to think about all that, until Obama voted for the bailouts. Then you figured it was fine, until lately, when he starts saying how much he hated them.

Keep believin'!

#20 | Posted by rightisright

Obama's bailouts has nothing to do with it, fool. I'm talking about the big picture and the long-term economy and you just want to engage in partisan hackery. Moron.

If someone age 65 wants to retire, they should be encouraged to do so. High unemployment will be the norm, not the exception, as global competitors like China continue to develop.
#16 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Excessive debt encouraged by government's many tax and regulatory policies will do that.

"Excessive debt encouraged by government's many tax and regulatory policies will do that."

#22 | Posted by Ray

Bullshit. You could cut business taxes to zero and China would still have a competitive advantage. Maybe if you bring back sweatshops, a right-libertarian dream, though.

Nulli --

So you all ready for our one month road trip? to help find me a place to relocate? It'll add a little extra to your income with the "help CC move" fee I'd be paying you. And I'll toss in a month's supply earplugs so you don't have to listen to me yapping away for miles while you're trying to drive. LOL

j/k

#23 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

The Bretton Woods dollar reserve system gave the US the ability to buy foreign products by creating new money to pay for them. This gave American consumers the ability to buy cheap foreign goods, to live off the production of those countries in exchange for depreciating dollars.

Manufacturers in this country could not compete if they stayed in this country, so they had to move offshore to survive. That's why we have massive balance of payments deficits. That's the facts.

If you continue to believe government is innocent of all crimes, you will continue to be deluded.

So you all ready for our one month road trip? to help find me a place to relocate?
...

#24 | Posted by CalifChris

Anytime, babe. I'll bring plenty of herbs and concentrates--hash--for one month. :)

I'm sure it's driving the Republicans nuts that SS funds are tied up where they're so hard to steal. Privatizing would, of course, put that money into the market, where wholesale theft is not only easy, but inevitable.

To any politician who wants to pursue this idea: FUCK YOU in your ungreased rectum. With a fist. Then another fist. Then the two fists should shake hands. Got it?

"So you all ready for our one month road trip?
#24 | Posted by CalifChris"


Grass, gas, or ass - nobody rides for free.

#27 gets a newsworthy.

The solution to the SS issue is one of the easier ones---push back the ages of qualification over time.

The Democrats have a better idea. After they force control of a part of everybody's 401k they would like to do this:

"Won't you please help grow our federal bureaucracies? President Obama wants you to receive your tax refund in Savings Bonds"
directorblue.blogspot.com

"In his regular Saturday radio address this week, President Obama outlined a list of "common-sense steps" that would make it easier for US workers to save for their retirements....
One of the proposed changes? Allowing people to request that any tax refund be sent as a government savings bond instead of a check.
This change will be active as of 2010, and will require a simple check of a box on your tax return to enroll in the program.
If you opt in to this program, then the government will send you your tax refund in the form of Series I Savings Bonds."
2009-09-07
"Is this a novel new way of helping Americans save for their retirements?
Or is this a desperate attempt to try and raise more funds to help pay for a seemingly endless stream of future deficits?"
www.davemanuel.com

Democrat's minds are always looking for ways to get their grubby hands on other people's money.

I'd propose 2 reforms to SS that would be almost guaranteed to fix it...and would be opposed by most Repubs...

1) eliminate the income cap on FICA contributions. Perhaps reduce the rate but apply FICA to all earned income and end it's regressive nature.

2) Needs test Social Security benefits. SS was designed as a social insurance program to guarantee a minimum level of income at retirement, disability or to your family at death. Set a limit to other income that you can have and still receive SS...say $150,000 or so.

These proposals combined would make the program less regressive in it's taxation, bring in billions in income to the plan and cut benefit payments by billions without hurting the people it's intended to help.

On reflection, I should never have said what I said in Post # 27.

I meant "arm wrestle" instead of "shake hands."

Both good ideas dcinma, put hardly fair. However I agree in tough times tough choices MUST be made.


BTW I'd take an S+P 500 private account anyday over the current system. I LOVE how danni mocks the idea. Even with a terrible decade I'd be fair better off having contributed to SS since 1983.....

The truth is unless we break fed and state employee pension and benefit contracts, we are all going to lose everything to the unfunded liabilities.

This stupid social security vote is just another example of dems total lack of ideas.

Yeah, GOPiggies have been positively brimming with ideas. Their "idea" about being the "part of fiscal responsibility" was one of the better (and funnier) ones.

I really do hope the Dems manage to get this resolution to a vote. In ads coming up to November the incumbent GOPers will probably be labeled as either "letting Wall Street have a chance to grab your Social Security money" or "s/he was for giving Wall Street your Social Security money before they were against it."

Lol.

#35 | Posted by fwthom

Record a vote from each member and see what grandma and grandpa voter think is the better way to go with SS.
This isn't one of the dozens of meaningless GOP Congress 'patriotism test' votes.

don't screw with social security because i will be getting in the wagon next year,tired of pulling it.

toss out the welfare ssi program that dems.laid on the social security fund and it would be half fixed.

This is another deceitful idea instigated to deceive the retirees "old folks no longer wanted to work" against their retirement of serving the American public that they are intilted to, over the many years that they have PAID INTO, and have been promised faithfully for their payments into Social Security by governmental regulators, for 65 years plus of their working lives as insurance to protect themselves in their elderly years to existing in and surviving in our presant society's ignorant and unapproved governmental lying world of deceitful promises...

Now the government plans deceitful ways to CHEAT them "the elderly" "unable to support themselves"
"because of extreme age" in spite of their faithful payment into Social Security for their entire lives, into old age retirement, from 16 to 65 years of their lives, and does so with no remorse, or ligitimate excuse whatsoever...

Such an immoral society and government that supports such has no mercy, moral values, or heart, or remorse upon it's own peoples or families...

And will reap what they so freely sow...

It's coming wheather we believe it or not,
justice will come, justice will come, justice will come... Please God Almighty bring justice soon...

The repugs love to RAID social security funds to provide more money for the pentagon and their war/oil corporation owner/operators.

Funny how they claim SS is unsustainable, yet, instead of raising taxes to pay for their war toys, they raid a program designed to help working Americans insure they can survive in retirement.

>>>

The first major confrontation over Social Security occurred in the early 1980s during the Reagan presidency. Reagan had promised to balance the federal budget. But the budget that he sent to Congress in 1981, because of the heavy expenditure on the military, would have led to record deficits, despite deep cuts in social expenditures. David Stockman, Reagan's budget director, decided that the only possibility of avoiding these huge deficits would be to raid Social Security. Rather than state this openly in the budget, however, he included forty billion dollars in "future savings to be identified." As Stockman later admitted, this was nothing but a euphemism for budgetary reductions to be won by "storming the twin citadels of Social Security and Medicare" (Stockman, The Triumph of Politics, p. 124-125). The Reagan administration's frontal assault on Social Security began on May 12, 1981. It included substantial reductions in benefits for those seeking early retirement at age sixty-two, plus cuts in basic benefi ts--altogether forty-five billion dollars in "savings."

findarticles.com

Though reagan claimed this was needed to pay down our national debt, he and his successor ghwbush QUADTRUPLED our national debt.

>>>
Bush continued to sing the same tune once he became President. He continued to insist that Social Security revenue would be used only for Social Security. In his first State of the Union address on February 3, 2001, Bush said, "To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone." Four days later, Bush said, "We're going to keep the promise of Social Security and keep the government from raiding the Social Security surplus."

Because of all the rhetoric and news coverage of the Social Security trust fund issue during the campaign, and in the early months of the George W. Bush presidency, the American people came to believe that the Social Security trust fund was no longer being raided. But nothing changed with the inauguration of George W. Bush. Despite his pledge to protect the Social Security money, Bush spent every dime of Social Security surplus revenue that came in during his presidency. He used it to fund his big tax cuts for the rich, and much of it was spent on wars.

dissidentvoice.org


American workers paid into Social Security and bush gave the money to the richest 1%, (141,000 people who average $7.4 million a year) many of them legacies who never worked a day in their lives.....

fuck this moron..allowing private industry to take over social security will all but guarantee a pillaging.

allowing private industry to take over social security will all but guarantee a pillaging.

Yeah sure, the feds would never do anything like that to their great Pyramid Scheme.

Next in Line for a Bailout: Social Security
finance.yahoo.com

Blankfein wants to manage that money. He promises to tend it very responsibly.

'd propose 2 reforms to SS that would be almost guaranteed to fix it..

1) eliminate the income cap on FICA contributions

2) Needs test Social Security benefits.

That would fix it. At the very least we should remove the regressive income cap.

I can see some validity to the argument that the means test is unfair to the wealthy who have paid in but get nothing out.

But that's a selfish way of looking at it, and in reality a lot of people pay in and never get anything out, like my cousin who died leaving behind his young children and wife but didn't work long enough in this country for them to get benefits.

Which is better: Depositing your money in a social security account and when you go to collect it there is an IOU from Uncle Sam or depositing it in an IRA and when you go to collect it there is one million dollars.

Social Secuurity is a ponzi scheme created by demorats.

It still hasn't dawned on fuckwad what Wall Street did to everyone's 401Ks. The damage is anything but over. We are in respite, created by flooding Banks with free money for "Lending", which they have promptly dumped into treasury notes and stocks. The private sector having washed its hands of Pensions 401Ks became the next logical target. After all they're no longer welcome in the countries around the world they've taken to the cleaners. Organized crime is thriving in the USA.

take any 40 year period of time, invest the same amount of money in the stock market and into the social insecurity plan... and see what would give the best return on investment.

Better yet, just drink a little more of the obama kool-aid and bitch how everything is bush's fault.

Which is better: Depositing your money in a social security account and when you go to collect it there is an IOU from Uncle Sam or depositing it in an IRA and when you go to collect it there is one million dollars.
Social Secuurity is a ponzi scheme created by demorats.

#46 | POSTED BY FWTHOM AT 2010-02-06 10:16 PM |


If SS is a "scheme", it's one that has worked now for over 50+ years.

If it's so inefficient, tell us why EVERY repug potus has RAIDED it and used the money for other things like tax breaks for the rich and unnecessary wars.

WHO is profiting from Social Security.....?? (except the repug potus' who raided it and want to privatize it?) It's not a for profit idea, but to help working Americans survive retirement.


Think about what happens to IRA's when the market crashes.

Social Security was set up to PROTECT Americans against those crashes.

Why do repugs always place PROFIT above their own best interests?

Why do repugs always place CORPORATIONS above our govt of, by and for the people?


Oh, yes. A couple other thingys.


How did privatizing the VA work out?
(Walter Reed scandal was due to privatized section of that hospital)

How did privatizing Medicare work out?
(part D ADDED costs to the program while enriching corporations)

It still hasn't dawned on fuckwad what Wall Street did to everyone's 401Ks.

It still hasn't dawned on people that 401(k)'s are exactly the sort of fleece-the-working-class scam privatization of Social Security is... except it actually happened.

Let the boomers buy into the market, and right before they have to retire... poof!

take any 40 year period of time, invest the same amount of money in the stock market and into the social insecurity plan... and see what would give the best return on investment.

Those with money to spare have already done just this, or found another investment vehicle to match their risk tolerance.

Everyone should be in the stock market? Even someone who lives paycheck to paycheck? I don't think so. I shouldn't even be in there, but I was suckered in by the employer matches and the historically high rate of return.

401K's were indeed a scam. Elsewhere on Shady Schmuck Lane CEO's raid pension plans and replace them with IOU's so they can fund their own multimillion dollar pension plans:

Companies Tap Pension Plans to Fund Executive Benefits

Why do repugs always place CORPORATIONS above our govt of, by and for the people?
#49 | POSTED BY WOKE

Why does Woke fascinate that government gives a shit about the people?

Why does he imagine that the Democrats are resistance to corporate money.

This is the first year SS payments exceed revenue. From now on the difference comes out of general revenue. Why does Woke imagine that the Federales have an unlimited amount of funds to finance this Pyramid Scheme?

Companies Tap Pension Plans to Fund Executive Benefits
#53 | POSTED BY AMERICANUNITY

Be warned. The Feds are working out a plan to nationalize private pensions. The money is too much to resist. Of course they have to do it in a way to convince the sheep it is in their interests.


Baaaaa.... They've been cooking that scheme for a long time now. They missed a good opportunity for that when the market bottomed out. They could've socialized it for a bargain then.

Another good reason to keep some gold under the mattress?

They missed a good opportunity for that when the market bottomed out. They could've socialized it for a bargain then.

Another bottom is what they have in mind. (coming soon?) Who could pass up the chance for government to subsidize your losses?

Why does Woke fascinate that government gives a shit about the people?
Why does he imagine that the Democrats are resistance to corporate money.
This is the first year SS payments exceed revenue. From now on the difference comes out of general revenue. Why does Woke imagine that the Federales have an unlimited amount of funds to finance this Pyramid Scheme?

#54 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2010-02-07 09:48 AM


Why does Ray choose to support the corporations who are defouling our govt over our govt itself?


Does Ray really believe that the corporations that are fking up our govt by their monetary influence, are better to support than our govt itself?

Doesn't Ray understand the problem with our govt not being responsive to it's citizens is directly caused by those corporations he supports OVER our govt?


Does Ray think throwing the baby out with the bathwater is smart?

Does Ray think our govt cannot be fixed by getting the undue influence of corporate money out of it?

Why does Ray hate our govt, of, by and for the people?

Again, if Social Security was set up by dems as an inefficient ponzi scheme:


1. Why did reagan, bush I and bush II all RAID it's funds and use the money for other purposes.....tax breaks for the rich, unnecessary wars?

2. Who was supposed to benefit at the top of the ponzi scheme, disenfranchising those who paid into it?


Do tell.

Why does Ray choose to support the corporations who are defouling our govt over our govt itself?

Duh. They're partners in crime.

Why does Ray hate our govt, of, by and for the people?
#58 | POSTED BY WOKE

I have a moral bias against liars, crooks and murderers. Learn the hard way dream boy.

Do tell.
#59 | POSTED BY WOKE

I don't give a crap about political parties. SS was set up as an old age welfare program and operated as a Ponzi Scheme for seventy years by both parties as an extra source of revenue. It was only a matter of time before payments would fall behind revenues. That time is this year.

"It still hasn't dawned on people that 401(k)'s are exactly the sort of fleece-the-working-class scam privatization of Social Security is... except it actually happened.


Let the boomers buy into the market, and right before they have to retire... poof!"

This is called hitting the nail on the head.
I could actually hear laughing when we went through the bursting of the housing bubble and the crash of the stock market. They are still laughing but are actually amazed that so many Americans are still thinking Republicans represent anyone except the wealthiest fat cats.

They need to tax people on 100% of their income and SS would be doing much better but the rich won't have it.

"It was only a matter of time before payments would fall behind revenues. That time is this year."

Guess it's past time to raise the amount of income subject to SS tax. Gee, that wasn't hard. Next problem.

"They need to tax people on 100% of their income and SS would be doing much better but the rich won't have it."

I don't agree that it should tax 100% but I do agree the rich don't want SS to be solvent. They want it to collapse along with every other part of the safety net because they simply do not care if the vast majority of Americans live in abject poverty.

The rich want the masses to work for next to nothing but who will purchase their products if nobody can afford them?

Guess it's past time to raise the amount of income subject to SS tax. Gee, that wasn't hard. Next problem.
#64 | POSTED BY DANNI

HAHAHA. I can just see that rebound Danni has been expecting.

They need to tax people on 100% of their income and SS would be doing much better but the rich won't have it.
#63 | POSTED BY JACKASS

Why not? It's working swell in Cuba.

why should I pay on 100% of my income but you shouldn't Ray? Is that fair?

Poor Ray.

He has been bamboozled by the huge global corporations and their media into believing that our government is the problem, instead of the corporate $influence$ on our elected reps, which outweigh's the citizens right to be represented.

Ray believes supporting and spewing the pov of those corporations somehow is better than FIXING the problem....which his repug/corporate masters are loathe to do.


Throw the baby out with the bathwater, eh Ray?

Not while those of us who fought for it are still alive.

Woke

Don't make false accusations. I've already noted the corrupt partnership between government and business. I've long advocated a separation of commerce and state in the same way church and state are separated.

Government has an inherent monopoly on force, a monopoly given to it by the people on the unfounded belief government will protect their person, property and liberty. As history has proven over and over again, when government has too much power it becomes an enemy of person, property and liberty. It operates on a moral code akin to a crime syndicate.
Business doesn't have that power - unless government gives them license. Government has the power. Corporations have the money. It's a perfect symbiosis. For those reasons, honest people do not get into political office. Rather, it attracts psychopaths.

Our political system has deteriorated past the point of no-return. After it collapses, then hopefully, we can rebuild something better.

Most probably explaining this to a deluded sheep like you is a waste of time. That's all I have to say to you today.

Somalia has no govt. Maybe we can operate like that.

why should I pay on 100% of my income but you shouldn't Ray? Is that fair?
#68 | POSTED BY JACKASS

Since you believe that's where you should put 100% of your income and I don't, it most certainly is fair.

Somalia has no govt. Maybe we can operate like that.
#71 | POSTED BY JACKASS

We do.

Ray we do have govt. If we didn't you wouldn't have your gold. Somebody would have taken it long ago. Be thankful we have a strong govt that employs many police so you can keep all your possessions.

BTW we're not as poor as Somalia yet, but we're working on it.

Ray we do have govt. If we didn't you wouldn't have your gold. Somebody would have taken it long ago. Be thankful we have a strong govt that employs many police so you can keep all your possessions.

Duh. Possessions on record are continually subjected to loss or confiscation. The purpose of gold is to hide it from the police.

Our political system has deteriorated past the point of no-return. After it collapses, then hopefully, we can rebuild something better.
Most probably explaining this to a deluded sheep like you is a waste of time. That's all I have to say to you today.

#70 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2010-02-07 11:24 AM


Poor Ray, thinks there is a better result had by throwing the baby (our govt) out with the bathwater (corruption in our govt).

Yet, he has NO IDEA of what would occur if that happened, nor does he propose any govt to replace it.

Ray hates our government and obviously wants to bring it down based on his statements.

Why not start your own country somewhere else Ray?

How about Grenada?

Duh. Possessions on record are continually subjected to loss or confiscation. The purpose of gold is to hide it from the police.

#76 | Posted by Ray at 2010-02-07 11:38 AM

Ray you idiot you post on here all the time how much Gold you have. If we didn't have police the proletariat would show up at your house and take your gold. There is nothing you could do.

Ray hates our government and obviously wants to bring it down based on his statements.

I meet some of the stupidest people on this site.

Ray you idiot you post on here all the time how much Gold you have. If we didn't have police the proletariat would show up at your house and take your gold. There is nothing you could do.

I took the police into consideration. They would tear my house apart looking for it right in front of me. A common thief would try to get in and out fast when I was away.

Democrat's minds are always looking for ways to get their grubby hands on other people's money.

OIC, but republicans would never think of doing such a thing. They are all so socially minded, it is practically obscene.

Ray hates our government and obviously wants to bring it down based on his statements.
I meet some of the stupidest people on this site.

#79 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2010-02-07 12:09 PM


Right, cause who could possibly suggest you are saying our govt is no good and should be replaced??


Our political system has deteriorated past the point of no-return. After it collapses, then hopefully, we can rebuild something better.

Most probably explaining this to a deluded sheep like you is a waste of time. That's all I have to say to you today.
#70 | POSTED BY RAY AT 2010-02-07 11:24 AM

Baaaaa, eh?

One day there will be criminal prosecutions for running this scam. Hopefully it'll be a capital offense.

#6 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-06 12:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sure, because politicians are going to vote for a law that might put them to death. Sure. Brilliant!

"Their ideas would end the program as we know it and put the retirement security of millions of America's seniors and workers at risk."


I got news for you nothing could be worse than letting the democrats keep stealing the money people have put into the trust fund only to promise to repay it later with you guessed it money from taxes from the same people who payed it into social security in the first place!PONZI SCHEME!

I don't understand why anyone would consider a retirement plan that does not pay interest a sound retirement strategy.

you democrats sure do oppose success and self reliance.

Woke do you really believe democrat presidents like Carter and Clinton never got their greedy hand on social security trust money and spent it. You are crazy if you believe that.

You are nothing but a democrat shill.

The private sector will always outperform government when it comes to investment.

The government does not pay any interest on social security. They stole the money in the trust fund a long time ago and have promised to pay it back with future tax revenues. If tax revenue falls short they will have to raise taxes and the retirement age.

No one brings poverty to the masses like the democrat party!

I love these Liberals bashing the stock market; it's that attitude that exists in California and New York and we all know how well they're doing.

The NY Attorney General is suing companies in his state, and all the Liberals on this board loved this. Hows economic growth in the state of NY? Shrinking. I wonder why

Keep on believing the Stock Market is evil and you'll be working at Wall Mart when your 65.

I love these Liberals bashing the stock market;

(in best Chico Escuela voice)

"The stock market been very, very good to me"

"If tax revenue falls short they will have to raise taxes and the retirement age."

Or, they could do the right thing. Repeal the REagan/Bush tax cuts for the rich and pay back SS the money the federal government owes.

"I got news for you nothing could be worse than letting the democrats keep stealing the money people have put into the trust fund only to promise to repay it later with you guessed it money from taxes from the same people who payed it into social security in the first place!PONZI SCHEME!"

Republican administrations borrowed far more from SS than Democrats ever did.

Democrats have already cut Social Security cost of living increases for the next two years, while medicare health insurance has increased, and when the two years are up still have the mindset to cut social security completely out for old folks, and only unmarried women with illigitment children, and illegal aliens will be allowed medicade, food stamps, and welfare benifeits, the elderly that have paid into SS for 50 years or more are already fucked, and don't realize it yet...

Figures. Another liberal who believes that as soon as someone reaches the age of 65, her only benefit to society is to make way for some 16 year old who wants her job. A collectivist mentality, but one that says that it's economically smart to pay granny not to work, so that a pimple-popper can take her minimum wage job. Or something.
You're funny. Stupid, but funny. A baby boomer, I'm guessing. High percentage of those. Did you vote for Obama too? Because your kind of high-level thinking should put you on his Council of Economic Advisors.
#13 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-06 02:03 PM

Stockman was quoted as referring to the Reagan Revolution's legacy tax act as: "I mean, Kemp-Roth [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' So the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory." Of the budget process in his first year on the job, Mr. Stockman is quoted as saying: "None of us really understands what's going on with all these numbers," which was used as the subtitle of the article.
WIKI

both my parents paid into SS for years and they both died at age 63; who go their money? sure as hell wasn't me!!

both my parents paid into SS for years and they both died at age 63; who go their money?

my grandmother, who died at age 96. she collected 10 times what she paid in.

Post a comment
Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2010 World Readable