Reply With Quote
what?
Dean Baker asks the question, "Why Is President Obama So Anxious to Cut Social Security?"
This question should be asked and reflected on by all, from Teapartiers to self-identified Liberals.
What a peculiar and troublesome time it is for those of us who have the misfortune not to be oligarchs. On the one hand, you've got "socialist," "big government" Obama, who can't wait to cut Social Security, cut taxes on the wealthy, prop up the Health Insurance Industry and thereby guarantee runaway costs, privatize public education, bail out wall street and make sure they're immune from prosecution, etc, etc.
On the other hand, you've got the Republicans and Tea Partiers who pretty much want to do all of the above as well, only more quickly and more brutally.
What a nice set of political options we have.
A telling line from the article that pretty much summarizes what Obama stands for:
"President Obama feels that these people need to make greater sacrifices."
The determination to cut Social Security is especially strange given the finances of the program. Under the law, Social Security is financed by the designated Social Security tax. It does not contribute to the deficit, since the law prohibits payments from being made if there is not money in the Social Security trust fund. That means that if the trust fund were drained, rather than contributing to the deficit, full benefits would not be paid.
And the date where this could be an issue is still relatively distant. The Congressional Budget Office just released new projections showing that the Social Security trust fund is fully solvent through the year 2038. Even after that date, the program would have enough money to pay 81 percent of scheduled benefits for the rest of the century. The folks who say that there will be nothing there for our children or grandchildren are just making it up or repeating the nonsense promulgated by some political hack.
- more -
what?
Social Security Trust fund
CC, why are the US bonds held by SS silly and worthless, but the same US bonds held by China or the US super-wealthy so sacred?
I guess you will have to ask someone that believes that they are sacred. I question the ability of the SS "trust fund" to actually turn those TRILLIONS of IOU's into REAL CASH when the time comes. That's what all those "plenty of money till 2038" projections are based on.
"sacred"
We can be sure that China, and the US wealthy (who hold 40%+ of all US bonds) "keep the faith" that those bonds sacred. Although the Repugs and tea baggers think defaulting on those bonds' interest payments is no big deal, disagreeing with the wealthy bond holders who vote Repug.
Admit that the attack on SS is a VRWC strategy to kill SS and suck those funds into for-profit Wall St where they will be perennially chewed to pieces in fees, and gambled in the Wall St rigged casino.
Most people would be surprised to know that 5 percent of the wage growth projected over the next three decades would be sufficient to keep Social Security solvent. After all, there is a well-funded and well-connected industry of people spreading disaster stories about Social Security and its massive deficit.
Many people will be taken aback by the idea of "projected wage growth," after all most workers' wages have been stagnant or falling in recent years. This is true. The projections refer to average wages, which had been rising, at least until the recession.
This brings up the fundamental point. The country has been and is getting richer. The reason that most people do not feel better off is that most of the money has gone to those at the top. Part of the reason is that they have been distracted by nonsense about the crushing burden of Social Security, so they have not paid attention to the policies that put more money in the pockets of the rich. Unfortunately, at the moment, President Obama seems to be working with the distracters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-b...comm_ref=false
The interest rates are different.
So you wrongies expect/think-its-OK for the US govt to default on bonds held by SS, but not on those held by super-wealthy Americans and China?
I could be wrong, but I don't think CC was talking about selective default so much as straight up default.
Selectively default only on bonds held by SS retirees, but keep paying on bonds held by wealthy Americans and foreigners?
Yes, that's certainly a selectivity CC would endorse.
Your idea, not his. You make a poor Edgar Bergen.
LOL boutons you suck so bad you are like the black hole of the political forum.
It's really pretty simple.
While the baby boomers were working social security collected more money than they spent.
They took that excess that was supposed to go into the "lockbox" and spent it on political crack and gave SS IOU's.
They kept giving SS IOU's and smoking that crack. Washington is firmly hooked on that crack now and still borrowing from SS and giving them IOU's.
The stack of IOU's keeps growing and growing. For every dollar that Washington spends they only have 60 cents of tax revenue and have to borrow the rest so they can keep smoking that spending crack.
When it's time to pay those social security benefits the whole system depends on Washington kicking that spending crack habit and turning those IOU's into real money.
All those projections of social security "solvency" count on that junkie going straight. Washington politicians are the Lindsay Lohan of fiscal responsibility. They will talk and talk and talk about it but they will never do it and just keep smoking that crack till they crash and burn.
Considering that the government can print it's own money to pay itself back because it owns most of it's own debt, I'm failing to see the problem here...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
