The article manipulates the conclusions and leaves out essential information, common right-wing tactics. What the article refers to as "raising taxes" includes lifting the cap on contributions -so that the rich actually pay the tax on ALL their income - and that by itself would fix the Soc. Sec. shortfall. Medicare and Medicaid could be fix by doing the above IF it is paired with doing something which Soc. Sec. already does: denying benefits to those who are earning enough in retirement to not need them. I think the vast majority of the public would find these solutions quite "palatable", politically or otherwise.
There are two problems with your argument. WSJ reported that when the numbers are crunched, even if we were to raise the SS cap on the rich it would only cover 1/3 of the long term deficit. This was before the market crash in October when we still had loads of rich people, albeit only on paper. Most of them are gone now. The second problem is that Social Security does not deny benefits to the rich and nor should they. Our country operates on principals of fairness and as far as I’m concerned, if you pay your taxes and pay into the system, why should I deny you your SS benefits? You paid into the system, so you should get them. That’s the point of Social Security. In fact we only charge rich people up to $102,000 precisely because they can take care of their own retirement. Although I hear that many rich people choose not to accept their SS benefits, but others do. And I’m know we have people who do not play fair, but I will not sacrifice individual liberty and access to personal success to jump in a witch hunt of “let’s get those rich bastards.”
The main problem with our society is that many people want something for nothing. In fact the situation is playing itself out now with the current credit crisis. We’ve been a nation (government and her people) that relies too much on credit. We used to be a producer nation and are now a consumer nation. But the ride could only last so long and will unfortunately lead to a very messy and bad end. However, that is what we’ve have been collectively doing- from the over leveraged hedge fund, to the middle class family $10,000 in debt, to the person who decided to live on welfare. (And do not jump on me. The truth is there are some who actually decide to live off welfare. And don’t tell me “no” because I’ve actually talked to them.) Most of us, me included, became a nation of “I want it now” and will reap the consequences. Like it said in the article, “The casual dismissal of these numbers in the short-term and the long-term is just mind-boggling,” DeHaven said. “It probably won’t resonate with the American people until it hits them across the head with a two-by-four.” I was already hit with my 2x4, others have it coming.
The truth is we are going to have to get back to basics. People are going to have to learn to live within a budget and that includes the government. I enjoy the people who think “that long-reaching budget reforms should come only after the economy has turned around” and that doing so would be “kick[ing] the economy when it’s down”, per the article. This is just a way for them to never start budget reform. Since this thing is heading into a wall, I think it’s the perfect time to start.
I don’t think any amount of spending is going to stop this train and the best thing to do is to slash the government budget. And I mean slash. We need to encourage private business growth, because despite government spending on jobs, the jobs won’t be there if the country goes broke. So what’s the point? People despise laissez faire capitalism, but that’s precisely what’s needed. Government should reduce its footprint and stop hindering growth. I think people need to face the reality, given the nature of the human condition; there will be winners and losers when it comes to money- whether capitalist, socialist or communist. And it is the responsibility of the community, sometimes acting through government, to take of the losers and to ensure that the losers are minimal. Anytime you have massive groups of people on the government teat, it only creates more losers. And one only has to look at history to find examples.
The name Pete Peterson should make your Spidey sense tingle. He has an agenda, and it's not yours. See http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/2008/02/pete-peterson-false-messiah.html and http://www.ctj.org/taxonomists/taxonomist19940600.pdf. He's had a lot of op-eds in the NY Times. He wants to end Social Security and similar entitlement programs, sending the money to him and his kind.
I'm not addressing the facts in this piece one way or the other, just suggesting that anything coming from Peterson should be examined with extreme skepticism.
We've had thirty years of blind adherence to laissez faire capitalism, other than having bubbles that bust what has it gotten us? So can you tell me how something that hasn't worked is going to work if we just do more of it?
Explain how more deregulation improves anything in this criminal environment. It's like saying when there is more crime, we need fewer cops, so people will be inspired to not commit crime. Which is exactly what we have going on in the financial markets.
There are two problems with your argument. WSJ reported that when the numbers are crunched, even if we were to raise the SS cap on the rich it would only cover 1/3 of the long term deficit.
Well, the Congressional Budget Office says they are wrong, and I believe them over the anti-Soc.Sec. WSJ.
This was before the market crash in October when we still had loads of rich people, albeit only on paper. Most of them are gone now.
Also incorrect. The market crash didn't affect the rich (nor did the housing crash). They make money if the market goes up OR down. Also, they have a separate level of investment opportunity which makes such fluctuations inconsequential. (I have run a small investment firm since 1999, so it's my business to know such things)
The second problem is that Social Security does not deny benefits to the rich M
Surprisingly, you are actually partly correct here: The Republican Congress of 1999 changed this as of Jan 1 2000 in a deliberate attempt to destabilize Social Security. (It didn't work, however (see above)). However, past a certain income level, benefits are taxed as income, so the rich ARE denied some of their benefits. We need to return to the previous formulation, i.e. you don't need it, you don't get it.
The main problem with our society is that many people want something for nothing.
Which, by your own admission, doesn't apply to Social Security. You pay in, it pays out; same as Medicare and Medicaid.
(And do not jump on me. The truth is there are some who actually decide to live off welfare. And don’t tell me “no” because I’ve actually talked to them.)
"Provisions PRWORA The bill's primary requirements and effects included:
Ending welfare as an entitlement program; Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits; Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds"
So if your HAVE met someone like that, they are either within the limit, or they are breaking the law, or they are lying. In any case personal welfare accounts for well under 1% of spending. (I note you purposely didn't mention corporate welfare, which is 17 times as much).
People despise laissez faire capitalism, but that’s precisely what’s needed.
We had that up until the New Deal. The result? Incredibly unsafe working conditions, 100-hour work weeks, child labor, the common use of mass murder and rape to supress worker uprisings, and a "deep poverty" rate of over 92%.
Social Security reduced poverty from 92% to 30%, and Medicare and Medicaid reduced it to 11% (it has since crept back up slightly, but even 15% is a far cry from the 92% of lf capitalism) ; today Soc.Sec. by itself keeps 2/3rds of seniors out of poverty.
7 comments:
The anti-climax is deafening in it's silence.
Maybe if they'd sell us on lay-away...
The article manipulates the conclusions and leaves out essential information, common right-wing tactics.
What the article refers to as "raising taxes" includes lifting the cap on contributions -so that the rich actually pay the tax on ALL their income - and that by itself would fix the Soc. Sec. shortfall.
Medicare and Medicaid could be fix by doing the above IF it is paired with doing something which Soc. Sec. already does: denying benefits to those who are earning enough in retirement to not need them.
I think the vast majority of the public would find these solutions quite "palatable", politically or otherwise.
Sergei Rostov
Sergei,
There are two problems with your argument. WSJ reported that when the numbers are crunched, even if we were to raise the SS cap on the rich it would only cover 1/3 of the long term deficit. This was before the market crash in October when we still had loads of rich people, albeit only on paper. Most of them are gone now. The second problem is that Social Security does not deny benefits to the rich and nor should they. Our country operates on principals of fairness and as far as I’m concerned, if you pay your taxes and pay into the system, why should I deny you your SS benefits? You paid into the system, so you should get them. That’s the point of Social Security. In fact we only charge rich people up to $102,000 precisely because they can take care of their own retirement. Although I hear that many rich people choose not to accept their SS benefits, but others do. And I’m know we have people who do not play fair, but I will not sacrifice individual liberty and access to personal success to jump in a witch hunt of “let’s get those rich bastards.”
The main problem with our society is that many people want something for nothing. In fact the situation is playing itself out now with the current credit crisis. We’ve been a nation (government and her people) that relies too much on credit. We used to be a producer nation and are now a consumer nation. But the ride could only last so long and will unfortunately lead to a very messy and bad end. However, that is what we’ve have been collectively doing- from the over leveraged hedge fund, to the middle class family $10,000 in debt, to the person who decided to live on welfare. (And do not jump on me. The truth is there are some who actually decide to live off welfare. And don’t tell me “no” because I’ve actually talked to them.) Most of us, me included, became a nation of “I want it now” and will reap the consequences. Like it said in the article, “The casual dismissal of these numbers in the short-term and the long-term is just mind-boggling,” DeHaven said. “It probably won’t resonate with the American people until it hits them across the head with a two-by-four.” I was already hit with my 2x4, others have it coming.
The truth is we are going to have to get back to basics. People are going to have to learn to live within a budget and that includes the government. I enjoy the people who think “that long-reaching budget reforms should come only after the economy has turned around” and that doing so would be “kick[ing] the economy when it’s down”, per the article. This is just a way for them to never start budget reform. Since this thing is heading into a wall, I think it’s the perfect time to start.
I don’t think any amount of spending is going to stop this train and the best thing to do is to slash the government budget. And I mean slash. We need to encourage private business growth, because despite government spending on jobs, the jobs won’t be there if the country goes broke. So what’s the point? People despise laissez faire capitalism, but that’s precisely what’s needed. Government should reduce its footprint and stop hindering growth. I think people need to face the reality, given the nature of the human condition; there will be winners and losers when it comes to money- whether capitalist, socialist or communist. And it is the responsibility of the community, sometimes acting through government, to take of the losers and to ensure that the losers are minimal. Anytime you have massive groups of people on the government teat, it only creates more losers. And one only has to look at history to find examples.
The name Pete Peterson should make your Spidey sense tingle. He has an agenda, and it's not yours. See http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/2008/02/pete-peterson-false-messiah.html and http://www.ctj.org/taxonomists/taxonomist19940600.pdf. He's had a lot of op-eds in the NY Times. He wants to end Social Security and similar entitlement programs, sending the money to him and his kind.
I'm not addressing the facts in this piece one way or the other, just suggesting that anything coming from Peterson should be examined with extreme skepticism.
Hey Dark Gravity,
We've had thirty years of blind adherence to laissez faire capitalism, other than having bubbles that bust what has it gotten us? So can you tell me how something that hasn't worked is going to work if we just do more of it?
Explain how more deregulation improves anything in this criminal environment. It's like saying when there is more crime, we need fewer cops, so people will be inspired to not commit crime. Which is exactly what we have going on in the financial markets.
DarkGravity said...
Sergei,
There are two problems with your argument. WSJ reported that when the numbers are crunched, even if we were to raise the SS cap on the rich it would only cover 1/3 of the long term deficit.
Well, the Congressional Budget Office says they are wrong, and I believe them over the anti-Soc.Sec. WSJ.
This was before the market crash in October when we still had loads of rich people, albeit only on paper. Most of them are gone now.
Also incorrect. The market crash didn't affect the rich (nor did the housing crash). They make money if the market goes up OR down. Also, they have a separate level of investment opportunity which makes such fluctuations inconsequential. (I have run a small investment firm since 1999, so it's my business to know such things)
The second problem is that Social Security does not deny benefits to the rich M
Surprisingly, you are actually partly correct here: The Republican Congress of 1999 changed this as of Jan 1 2000 in a deliberate attempt to destabilize Social Security. (It didn't work, however (see above)). However, past a certain income level, benefits are taxed as income, so the rich ARE denied some of their benefits. We need to return to the previous formulation, i.e. you don't need it, you don't get it.
The main problem with our society is that many people want something for nothing.
Which, by your own admission, doesn't apply to Social Security. You pay in, it pays out; same as
Medicare and Medicaid.
(And do not jump on me. The truth is there are some who actually decide to live off welfare. And don’t tell me “no” because I’ve actually talked to them.)
"Provisions
PRWORA The bill's primary requirements and effects included:
Ending welfare as an entitlement program;
Requiring recipients to begin working after two years of receiving benefits;
Placing a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds"
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act ]
So if your HAVE met someone like that, they are either within the limit, or they are breaking the law, or they are lying. In any case personal welfare accounts for well under 1% of spending. (I note you purposely didn't mention corporate welfare, which is 17 times as much).
People despise laissez faire capitalism, but that’s precisely what’s needed.
We had that up until the New Deal. The result? Incredibly unsafe working conditions, 100-hour work weeks, child labor, the common use of mass murder and rape to supress worker uprisings, and a "deep poverty" rate of over 92%.
Social Security reduced poverty from 92% to 30%, and Medicare and Medicaid reduced it to 11% (it has since crept back up slightly, but even 15% is a far cry from the 92% of lf capitalism) ; today Soc.Sec. by itself keeps 2/3rds of seniors out of poverty.
Sergei Rostov
Post a Comment