Obama, the Trojan Horse

[beandip]

I defy anyone to come up with a solution in one term to the accumulation of problems left to him by your Grand Old Party.

Cut Fedgov, State and Local by 50%. That would be a start. Too many leachfucks sucking off private businesses. Drug test all those getting Welfare, section 8 etc...if they're on drugs, then the taxpayers of this country are paying them too much.

[Cuchulain]

Where? Please provide an account number where this "surplus" is.

The surplus is in the form of Treasury bonds held by two funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund.

If your argument is that these securities are just worthless IOUs, then you have to make the same argument about every other form of US security owned by both domestic and foreign investors.

Yes, our government borrowed from these trust funds. It must be paid back in full, plus interest. We can't cheat or short-change the people who paid into SS, anymore than we can cheat or short-change anyone else who bought US govt. securities. Raising the SS retirement age or lowering benefits would be doing exactly that.

[onmyknees]

I don't recall any figures on what such semi-privatization would do to the funding of SS, but it stands to reason that removing money from the pool would make funding harder. Remember, SS is not a retirement plan. It's a social compact between the American people and those too old or sick or disabled to work. Fortunately, the Obama admin HAS said that they would not allow any type of privatization. I agree with you about means testing, although I'm not sure how much that would save.

trish already mentioned the unfairness of asking someone in their mid to late 60s to keep raking concrete or tossing around a 90lb. jackhammer.

" It's a social compact between the American people and those too old or sick or disabled to work. " ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

No....it is a retirement plan for many Americans...rightly or wrongly they have come to rely on it for thier major source of retirement income because that's what they were told. Imagine if there was a politician 30 years ago who had the foresight, or the balls to tell workers to start putting a mere 20 dollars away per paycheck because SSI would not be a liveable retirement income. And it was never intended to be passed out to drug addicts too strung out to work.
In the case of privatazation...look at any graph showing the growth of one's SSI contributions versus even the most conservative of securities portfolios. It's not even close. The thought behind privatization is obviously the performance factor, plus that annoying little fact that it is my money !!!

[Cuchulain]

" It's a social compact between the American people and those too old or sick or disabled to work. " ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????

No....it is a retirement plan for many Americans...rightly or wrongly they have come to rely on it for thier major source of retirement income because that's what they were told. Imagine if there was a politician 30 years ago who had the foresight, or the balls to tell workers to start putting a mere 20 dollars away per paycheck because SSI would not be a liveable retirement income. And it was never intended to be passed out to drug addicts too strung out to work.
In the case of privatazation...look at any graph showing the growth of one's SSI contributions versus even the most conservative of securities portfolios. It's not even close. The thought behind privatization is obviously the performance factor, plus that annoying little fact that it is my money !!!

You have a gift for twisting things. SS is not a retirement plan. It IS a social compact. It's the American people saying that it's not right for people too old or too sick to work to starve to death in the streets. It's been very effective in that regard, greatly lowering the number of elderly living in poverty.

Do you really think that most, or even many, people receiving SS Disability benefits are scamming the system? Do you know how hard it is to get those benefits? I had a buddy who almost died waiting for a liver transplant. It took a very long time for his Disability claim to go through.

Privatization is just another joke to let Wall Street get it's hands on the SS money. It doesn't matter if YOU could do better by investing the money yourself - maybe you could or maybe the Big Crooks would crash the economy again and leave you with nothing. Removing cash from SS would only hasten the projected shortfall. Stop thinking of it as YOUR money; it's not, any more than the other taxes you pay. Call it the cost of living in a civilized society. Your obligation to the rest of us is greater than to merely stomp down as hard as possible with your bootheel as you climb over us.

Btw, I hereby nominate you for the award of being the HA poster to use more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and ?????????????? than anyone else in the history of the site.

[hippifried]

So what if some people use SS as a retirement plan? That just means they don't have anything else. What with the rate that people's pension funds, IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, etc are being depleted out from under them, that's going to happen. That's what the compact's all about. Y'all fanatics make it sound as if folks strive to be poverty stricken in their old age.

There's a similar phenomenon with the IRS, that they gripe about to no end. People deliberately understate their payroll deductions so they can get a bigger refund the next year. They use it as a savings account. It's worth it to them to forego interest in order to deprive themselves of the ability to tap it into oblivion during the year. People who've never been in a situation without disposable income have trouble understanding this thought process. It works for them.

[ed_jaxon]

[QUOTE=hippifried;882685]Uh, Ed. I don't know where you're coming up with these stats & whatnot, but you're way off base.

Baby boomer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Mergefrom.svg" class="image"><img alt="Mergefrom.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Mergefrom.svg/50px-Mergefrom.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/0/0f/Mergefrom.svg/50px-Mergefrom.svg.png

I know the Boomer generation has been defined as cut off at 1964. The spike was earlier but the generation is defined as ending with those born in 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_..._and_evolution

The above referenced wikipedia entry details the changes over the years.

We have made the adjustments before and we will make them again. Its a political third rail that will take balls to change because politicians need to be re-elected.

See here is my problem with this whole thread on both sides. If you are going to accuse one side of using the money for Social Security you have to accuse the other side as well because that has always been the system. The money is lent to the government and needs to be paid back at a later date (plus interest) to cover older people.

If you lived say 10 years after retirement you pulled in a certain amount of money through Social Security. Problem is people are now living 20 and 25 years into their retirement. I mean doesn't it make sense that someone who lives 20 years as opposed to 10 years will get more money in the long run?

Where does this money come from?

The system needs to occasionally be adjusted to cope with the changing demographics of the nation.

Now as to my bonafides on this issue I have one more class to finish up a social work degree with a concentration on Older Adults here at a major university here in Chicago. My future is as a policy wonk studying this very issue.

Stop pointing fingers people. On this issue it don't help.

And Hippi I like you as I am a bit of a Hippie myself.

[Odelay]

Ed Jaxon, the wonk. Cool. Maybe Rahm's right hand man.

[onmyknees]

You have a gift for twisting things. SS is not a retirement plan. It IS a social compact. It's the American people saying that it's not right for people too old or too sick to work to starve to death in the streets. It's been very effective in that regard, greatly lowering the number of elderly living in poverty.

Do you really think that most, or even many, people receiving SS Disability benefits are scamming the system? Do you know how hard it is to get those benefits? I had a buddy who almost died waiting for a liver transplant. It took a very long time for his Disability claim to go through.

Privatization is just another joke to let Wall Street get it's hands on the SS money. It doesn't matter if YOU could do better by investing the money yourself - maybe you could or maybe the Big Crooks would crash the economy again and leave you with nothing. Removing cash from SS would only hasten the projected shortfall. Stop thinking of it as YOUR money; it's not, any more than the other taxes you pay. Call it the cost of living in a civilized society. Your obligation to the rest of us is greater than to merely stomp down as hard as possible with your bootheel as you climb over us.

Btw, I hereby nominate you for the award of being the HA poster to use more !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and ?????????????? than anyone else in the history of the site.

Again...you're not reading carefully. Social Security IS a retirement program. It's irrelevent how it started out, or what the original intent was. It is what it is...If you know anyone over the age of 70....a huge percentage of them rely on SS for the lions share of thier montly income. What's the problem understanding that?

Do I think most of the people on SSI are scamming the system? As usual you either don't read the post carefully, or as is a habit of many on here...twist my words to fit your preconcived ideas about fiscal conservatives. I never said that "Most people" were scamming the system...since you were talking about the original intent, I pointed out it was not the original intent to give SSI to junkies. If there's one on SSI...it's one too many, but as with any government program...the waste and fraud is usually in the 10-20 percentile. Doubt it...? I give you Medicare and Medicaid . Google Medicare Fraud.

You liberals make me laugh. You fume at a portion of one's SSI and privatization....because of your fear and loathing of Wall Street. How the hell do you think American companies raise capitol for expansion and job creation? Who do you think is going to resolve the energy problem? Pubically held companies with capitol raised by investment...that's who. Not your failed stimulous ! Your beloved government is still subsidizing Ethonal. A failure even by Al Gore's standard. And in full knowledge of the rise of food prices because of corn shortages ! FAIL
Wow...what a concept...huh? A free marketplace.The US stock market is the engine of more individual wealth creation than any institution in the history of the world. That's why every Fortune 500 company have their employees 401K and retirement plans invested there as well as every Police and Fire Department I know of. And the beauty of it is you too can join in the fun. All you need is a few bucks and some common sense !! Instead of complaining about it and creating boggy men...invest ! And again...it's my money...my withholdings. Let me invest that portion of my contributions which is mine. What don't you get about that?
Here is an undeniable fact....one worker at 20 years begins his work life by choosing not to save for his retirement, and does little except to contribute the mandatory SSI withholding. His coworker contributes a small percentage of his pay every week , every month, every year. Both reach retirement age simultaneously. One will be a millionaire, and one will be receiving about 1200 bucks a month from Social Security. Undeniable.

You hit precisely on the difference between conservatives and liberals. You despise the free market and Wall Street and look to the government. I'll put my money in the free market and outperform you every day of the week. And let me say it again...........It's my money ! Who the fuck else's is it? My neighbors? LMAO
Other than my employers share of SSI, it sure the fuck is my money.

And if people are too irresponsible or too ignorant to plan for their retirement, in this day and age..that's not my problem. And don't give me some sob story about most folks who are unable to. You can start at 20 bucks a week. That's all it takes. Hell, most of these people are spending that on cigarettes and beer !
You put your faith in government, you'll be broke or disappointed, or both every time. And again...we're not talking about widows and orphans and those too disable to work, so don't play that cannard.

[Cuchulain]

I've reconsidered; you're penchant for twisting things goes way beyond a mere gift. Your posts make me think of a couple of quotes from Al Swearengen in HBO's 'Deadwood': "You want a donkey’s attention, you bring a fucking pole down between his ears"...and "Over time, your quickness with a cocky rejoinder must have gotten you many punches in the face".

You and the other CONs have a certain worldview - one that I will always believe to be vile. You go on and on about a 'free market' which doesn't exist. It's been bought by the bogey men you dismiss as figments of my imagination. Yep, I despise Wall Street. They've earned it. I look to government to regulate against the crooked behavior of the Captains of Industry you idolize.

I wondered how long it would take you to dredge up the canard that the poor spend their money on beer and cigarettes. You forgot lottery tickets. I'm sure in your next post you'll resurrect Ronnie RAYGUN's fictitious welfare queen.

I'm still trying to figure out what you think will happen to SS if you get to privatize a portion of it. Do you want to reduce benefits (silly question, you want to end them completely, except for widows, orphans and the disabled) or do you want to increase the SS tax to make up for the shortfall?

[Ben]

Can't wait for 2012... where I can vote for: President Wall Street Obama... I mean, President Barack Obama....
Be curious to see who gets more money from Wall Street: Obama or the Republican candidate. And whoever gets the most money wins and that's called elections -- ha ha ha!

Wall Street puts its money behind Obama
By Emily Kaiser
WASHINGTON | Thu Jun 5, 2008 10:50am BST

(Reuters) - Wall Street is putting its money behind Democrat Barack Obama for president, despite worries that his administration would raise taxes and take a tougher line on trade and regulation.
The signs Wall Street reads point to Democrats prevailing in the November presidential and general election as voters punish the incumbent Republican Party for a flagging economy and lengthy Iraq war.
And the fact that Obama began raking in a bigger share of the cash as his campaign picked up steam suggests that investors simply want to back the eventual winner.
Illinois Sen. Obama, who captured the Democratic presidential nomination on Tuesday after a lengthy primary battle against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, has received $7.9 million (4.1 million pounds) n contributions from the securities and investment industries, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
His opponent, Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, banked a little under $4.2 million, putting him behind fellow Republicans Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, who have long since dropped out of the race.
Overall, Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from the securities and investment industry. If that trend continued through November, it would mark the first time since 1994 that they have drawn more Wall Street cash than Republicans in a presidential election year, according to the data complied by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Although the money flow has shifted dramatically this year, that Democrats have raised more than Republicans may say more about the nature of this race than Wall Street's allegiances. Obama and Clinton needed more cash to fund their protracted battle for their party's nomination.
At the end of 2007, Clinton topped the cash list from Wall Street with $6.3 million. Obama was third, behind Giuliani, CRP data shows. McCain was a distant sixth.
Robert Boatright, a professor at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, who studies campaign finance, said McCain's numbers could be distorted if Wall Street were making donations to the Republican National Committee, instead of his campaign, out of concern that campaign finance rules would restrict his access to the cash.
COLLISION COURSE
Investing is all about betting on what the future may hold, and presidential elections are no exception, and traders are giving the Democratic candidate an edge in November. Dublin-based Intrade, a Web site where contracts tied to real world events are bought and sold, gives Obama a healthy advantage over McCain.
That also helps explain why Wall Street cash is piling up in his coffers, even though many of his policy positions are less than popular among big investors.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, which represents more than 650 securities firms, banks and asset managers, has come out in favor of making permanent the tax cuts implemented during President George W. Bush's tenure. Obama has vowed to let them expire.
If Obama picked Clinton as his running mate, that might ease Wall Street's fears that his administration would hike capital gains and dividend taxes, said Michael Darda, chief economist at MKM Partners in Greenwich, Connecticut.
Not only has Clinton proposed less aggressive increases in those taxes, but when her husband Bill Clinton was president, he lowered them, Darda noted.
"If those taxes go up sharply, that would be a significant blow not only to the stock market but to the economy and productivity and living standards. It would be a real mistake and hopefully Obama will change his view on it," he said.
The other hot-button issue is trade. SIFMA supports passing free trade agreements with countries including South Korea, something Obama has opposed.
Trade is particularly important to Wall Street now because it is by far the healthiest segment of the U.S. economy. Exports accounted for the bulk of economic growth last quarter, and virtually all of U.S. corporate profits.
"Without international trade, the economy would be in significantly worse condition," said Joseph LaVorgna, chief U.S. economist with Deutsche Bank.
Obama and Clinton sparred over who would be tougher on trade as they battled over manufacturing-heavy states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, where many voters blame globalization for job losses. Both said they would renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, to add more labor protections.
Andrew Busch, a global foreign-exchange strategist with BMO Capital Markets in Chicago, said the campaign rhetoric about trade could cool now that the long primary season is over.
Rewriting NAFTA "would be a disaster," Busch said. "We can't go back to our trade partners and say we don't like this or that aspect of it. Our trade partners will have a few things to say about what they don't like."