Obama, the Trojan Horse

[Cuchulain]

President Obama said in his press conference yesterday that he wanted to 'strengthen' Social Security. He clearly stated that he would not 'slash' it. Then he went on to blather about Reagan and Tipp O'Neill. Well, I've been listening to politicians talk for a lot of years, and my take on that is he IS willing to 'compromise' with repubs YET AGAIN by raising the retirement age. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it. He's caved on everything else.

SS has a 2.6 TRILLION dollar surplus. It won't run out for almost 30 years and in the worst case scenario, it will still be able to pay about 75% of current benefits. We now pay SS tax on only about the first $107k of wages. Change that so we pay SS tax on all income, including dividends and cap gains and SS is fine forever. Obama talked about raising the cap while he was running for Pres. Maybe he'll try for it now, but I'll bet he still gives in on raising retirement age.

Yeah, yeah, I know - the 'surplus' has already been spent. I don't give a damn. We paid into it in good faith all these years. We were promised our benefits.

Jesus, I'm sick of voting for Progressive-sounding candidates who turn out to be corporate whores.

Obama, the Trojan Horse.

[hippifried]

That's quite an ear, that lets you hear what isn't said.

If your ouija board is that good, why haven't you hit the lottery?

[Cuchulain]

If your ouija board is that good, why haven't you hit the lottery?

How do you know I haven't?

Silliness aside, I don't need a quija board to see through political doublespeak, and neither do you. Do you honestly think that Obama won't agree to raising the retirement age?
Hey, I hope I'm wrong - but I doubt it. It's also possible that even if Barry O is inclined to cave in to the repubs, the more Progressive members of his own Party or general public alarm will convince him that it's not the expedient thing to do. Time will tell, but I think we're about to get screwed.

[ed_jaxon]

Help me out.

People are living longer into their lifespans and what would kill them before now becomes chronic.

The cost of healthcare is going up because of this.

Fewer people are paying into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

More people are drawing out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Four options here:

Cut benefits for all or some.

Raise the amount collected through FICA and Medicare tax

Raise the retirement age

Do Nothing

Choose Now

[onmyknees]

President Obama said in his press conference yesterday that he wanted to 'strengthen' Social Security. He clearly stated that he would not 'slash' it. Then he went on to blather about Reagan and Tipp O'Neill. Well, I've been listening to politicians talk for a lot of years, and my take on that is he IS willing to 'compromise' with repubs YET AGAIN by raising the retirement age. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it. He's caved on everything else.

SS has a 2.6 TRILLION dollar surplus. It won't run out for almost 30 years and in the worst case scenario, it will still be able to pay about 75% of current benefits. We now pay SS tax on only about the first $107k of wages. Change that so we pay SS tax on all income, including dividends and cap gains and SS is fine forever. Obama talked about raising the cap while he was running for Pres. Maybe he'll try for it now, but I'll bet he still gives in on raising retirement age.

Yeah, yeah, I know - the 'surplus' has already been spent. I don't give a damn. We paid into it in good faith all these years. We were promised our benefits.

Jesus, I'm sick of voting for Progressive-sounding candidates who turn out to be corporate whores.

Obama, the Trojan Horse.

That's Ironic. I'm actually OK with him raising the age, I'm also Ok with him means testing it. But it has to be done ASAP so the changes can be phased in over many years and people can plan accordingly. My historical reading of SSI is was never intended as an entitlement, but that's irrelevent now. He can raise the age on me, but I want someting in return, I want the ability to invest a portion of my SSI in what I want to invest it in, after all.........it is my money. I'm a knowledgeable enough investor to turn my money over far faster than the government's 1920's style interest rate.

[trish]

Help me out.

People are living longer into their lifespans and what would kill them before now becomes chronic.

The cost of healthcare is going up because of this.

Fewer people are paying into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

More people are drawing out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Four options here:

Cut benefits for all or some.

Raise the amount collected through FICA and Medicare tax

Raise the retirement age

Do Nothing

Choose Now

Social Security was never and is not now a burden on the economy. There was a surplus at the end of the Clinton administration largely because of the payroll deductions collected for SS; but instead putting that money aside and investing it so that it can be withdrawn later by the clients of SS, it was spent on wars and tax gifts to the wealthy. We would've gone into debt a decade earlier if there wasn't FICA money to raid. Why would we cut a successful program that solvent for the next twenty odd years?

Raising the age limit on SS seems exceptionally unfair. Many jobs are way to laborious to be working at until one is sixty eight or seventy, yet quitting a job to find one that is less physically challenging (and probably pays less) is easier said than done in this economy. Moreover, diminishing the retirement rate will keep the job market saturated, making it more difficult for younger job seekers to find jobs.

By far the military takes the biggest piece of budget. Before the Wall Street induced banking crises, the two off budget wars in the Middle East the put us trillions into debt. Solutions: pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell pull out of Europe. There's no military threat there anymore. Trim the military complex. And tax each and every trade made on Wall Street. Such a tax will bring in revenue, but more importantly, it will curtail the practice of computer programed micro-trading. We still haven't outlawed the kind of debt bundling known as derivative trading. Do that too. Until these steps have been taken, no one's being serious about the so called "debt crisis." They're all just mowing political hay.

[Cuchulain]

Help me out.

People are living longer into their lifespans and what would kill them before now becomes chronic.

The cost of healthcare is going up because of this.

Fewer people are paying into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

More people are drawing out of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds.

Four options here:

Cut benefits for all or some.

Raise the amount collected through FICA and Medicare tax

Raise the retirement age

Do Nothing

Choose Now

trish said it more eloquently than I can. Also, you're lumping SS in with Medicare. Regarding the funding of SS, please see the second paragraph of my original post. SS has not added one thin dime to the deficit, nor is it in any trouble atm.

[Cuchulain]

That's Ironic. I'm actually OK with him raising the age, I'm also Ok with him means testing it. But it has to be done ASAP so the changes can be phased in over many years and people can plan accordingly. My historical reading of SSI is was never intended as an entitlement, but that's irrelevent now. He can raise the age on me, but I want someting in return, I want the ability to invest a portion of my SSI in what I want to invest it in, after all.........it is my money. I'm a knowledgeable enough investor to turn my money over far faster than the government's 1920's style interest rate.

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.

[Stavros]

On the other hand you could describe Obama as a pragmatist who has to find modus operandi to make sure Congress doesnt grind to a halt -spending $7 billion a month in Afghanistan doesnt help your economic prospects either...

[hippifried]

Neither social security or medicare are insolvent. They have their own revenue streams. The big panic is a misread of the boomer phenomenon. There's going to be a 20 year bump in the number of retirees starting this year. It's not permanent. The idea that we need to come up with draconian changes in the system to make up for a temporary anomaly is just silly.

The problem is priorities. For the last 30 years, we've been going out of our way to cut revenues & increase spending at the same time. That hasn't worked out too well. We need to get out of the war biz. Maintaining an empire is ungodly expensive. The beneficiaries aren't footing the bill, & we're not reaping the benefit. We're in the process of trying to shrink the middle class. To what end? Where'd this idea come from that holding down wages boosts the overall economy, that's 70% consumer spending? This is still the world's largest market, but that'll go away a lot sooner than necessary or wanted if the working class goes broke. Derivatives have their place, but when there's more money in hedge bets than productive capital, something is definitely skewed. We've gotten so twisted up in crackpot theories that we've lost track of the realities that are right in front of us. None of this shit's workin'. We need a rethink.

[onmyknees]

Neither social security or medicare are insolvent. They have their own revenue streams. The big panic is a misread of the boomer phenomenon. There's going to be a 20 year bump in the number of retirees starting this year. It's not permanent. The idea that we need to come up with draconian changes in the system to make up for a temporary anomaly is just silly.

The problem is priorities. For the last 30 years, we've been going out of our way to cut revenues & increase spending at the same time. That hasn't worked out too well. We need to get out of the war biz. Maintaining an empire is ungodly expensive. The beneficiaries aren't footing the bill, & we're not reaping the benefit. We're in the process of trying to shrink the middle class. To what end? Where'd this idea come from that holding down wages boosts the overall economy, that's 70% consumer spending? This is still the world's largest market, but that'll go away a lot sooner than necessary or wanted if the working class goes broke. Derivatives have their place, but when there's more money in hedge bets than productive capital, something is definitely skewed. We've gotten so twisted up in crackpot theories that we've lost track of the realities that are right in front of us. None of this shit's workin'. We need a rethink.

Silly ?????? By 2016, Social Security will begin paying more in benefits than it will collect in payroll taxes. This trust fund will be exhausted by 2037. After 2017 the government will have to borrow money, or tap general revenues to meet the systems obligations. Those are facts provided by the Actuary. Facts....not suppositions. So your "what's the big deal" attitude is strange. Either we make some moderate changes now, involving difficult choices, and spreading the pain equally, or Aunt Nellie will truly be eating Alpo in 10 years ! Does the President have the metal? We shall see, but indications are...he'll keep kicking the can down the road.


With respect to privatazation....It's a classic difference in philosophy. You all prefer government solutions directed by Washington . Talk about things not working out too well !!!!!! I rely on the government for almost nothing. I'm perfectly willing to pay that portion of my SSI tax to keep the social contract with the elderly and widows and orphans, but why should the government be able to prevent me from investing a portion of my money ( and it is my money) into a few selected securities? Had I had that ability to invest a small portion, I could have increased that portion 10 fold over what SSI has done with the same money over the same time. . And I hate to be political, but when Bush's SS commission came out with recommendations, the liberals could get to the microphones fast enough to pander and scare. Chuck Schummer was particularily vocal, but he's never met a camera he hasn't fell in love with and he demagogued the issue. This despite that Patrick Moynihan provided many of these solutions. Any chance of serious discussions was vaporized. Those are facts....like them or not. I do submit that the American worker should not be coerced into planning his or her future on the edicts of Washington politicians and policy wonks. Social Security, like most government programs, offers one-size-fits-all solutions for a diverse nation of 300 million-plus and fosters dependency and conformity.

[hippifried]

It's not your money. It's a collective national fund with a specific putpose. Nobody's keeping you from investing your own money any way you want. You just don't get to play & gamble with the Social Security Trust. Even though the market's back with a vengeance, all that retirement income that was lost in '08 is still lost. That didn't happen to Social Security. 401Ks, annuity funds, & various mutual funds lost their butts or vanished altogether. I've been listening to the doom & gloom of how the fund's going to be in the red in 15 or 20 years for the last 30 or 40 years at least. Yet here we are, still in the black. Like I said, there's a 20 year anomaly starting due to the baby boom. This will pass. We had kids too. I'm a boomer. 2 of my grandchildren are starting to pay into the system. 2 more will start paying in over the next decade, & my first great grandchild is going to start her journey in another month or 2. I'm not even collecting yet, but I figure I'm covered by my own bloodline. The numbers can be skewed any way you like. There are no facts until they actually happen.

[ed_jaxon]

My point is that the problems with both Social Security and Medicare are being caused more by the aging of America than the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 1935 when Social Security began the average life expectancy was slightly over 60 and now it is almost 80. The age Tsunami is here and will subside when Gen X begins to draw in a little under 20 years.

If you are going to blame anyone blame your grandparents for fornicating when the war ended. Neither Bush nor Obama created this.

[trish]

I knew that was your point, but it's wrong. It's not like we just discovered the baby-boom. Ten years ago we had a budget surplus and SS was determined to be solvent well into the 21st century. That's how Bush sold us on giving that surplus to the wealthy in tax cuts (according to Bush it was their money to begin with...what balls!). After the tax give away and the two wars in the middle east, suddenly China is holding our purse strings. No, you can't lay this on our grandparents. It falls squarely on the shoulders of those who argued for tax breaks to the wealthy, who argued for the wars in the Middle East (and those who are keeping us there), and deregulation of the greedy on Wall Street.

[ed_jaxon]

How does the surplus have anything to do with Social Security. Money promised to workers needs to be paid if there is a budget surplus or deficit. We did not just discover the Boomers but they just started pulling in Social Security beginning in 2007.

Bush never raided the trust fund because THERE IS NO TRUST FUND! The government owes a debt on that money and would owe it regardless of any of the wars. To Hippi's point , the bill has not come due and we don't know what will happen between now and then.

In a simple example in 1940 one person got the first social security check and for a moment everyone else was paying in and one person was pulling out. In 2017 we are scheduled to be running deficits which simply means more people pulling out than putting in. 2040 or so is when the debt that is owed by the government is scheduled to run out. This happens regardless of Wall Street, tax breaks or wars.

For arguments sake lets say that social programs are cut, the wars end, the economy bounces back and the surplus is restored. We are still going to have problems with Social Security because we still owe the debt and people are going to be pulling more money out of it than previous generations because they are living longer into their lifespans. The fastest growing segment of the population is those over 85, designated as the old old.

We have raised the retirement age before as well as adjusted the FICA rate. Politically, it is a big deal but in the long run it's not, adjustments have to be made to fit current and future parameters that were not foreseen previously.

We just had a big tax increase here in Illinois and guess what, my check went up. Why? Because FICA just went down, part of the horse trading to extend unemployment benefits.

Bush did a lot of things (WMD's as an excuse to start an expensive war, budget surplus given away) but he was not responsible for the coming adjustments needed in Social Security.

My main point is this...too many on both sides want to blame the others rather than finding an equitable way out of this problem.

[trish]

When money is collected for a future purpose but isn't invested or set aside that's raiding. Bush wasn't the only one to engage in the practice. Defense budgets and the budgets of other departments have been balanced on the back os SS for decades. SS works. The problem is it worked too well and fell into the hands of "pirates". It's time now for the Defense Department to pay up and stop the wars. It time now to re-regulate Wall Street.

[Odelay]

I was for privatization of ss some time ago, but eventually I saw two problems arising from this and they both involved lining the pockets of rich people.

I. The republican proposals that onmyknees liked so much back in 2005 all involved directing those "private" funds to specific financial funds, which would involve paying fees to specific rich brokerage houses. There was going to be little or no choice involved. If you don't have control of your money, you won't get the imaginary returns that onmyknees envision. Since onmyknees likes to use the word fact, I'll use it here.... fact! Go look it up. Those Bush proposals funneled all privatization funds to specific financial funds that the government dictated, i.e. republicans... since they were controlling the legislation at the time.

II. There's a structural problem with taking a huge part of retirement funds out of the public pension, and putting them into the stock, bond, or funds market. On the day that it looks like the privatization will happen with subsequent signing by the President, all rich investors with money on the sidelines will flood into the market, artificially raising the value of stocks, bonds, funds, etc. Then once the privatization funds (from middle class investors) finally get invested into the market, those rich people that doubled down will sell back their inflated shares back to the middle class, causing a huge downtick in the markets. The rich will make huge profits from this simple arbitrage action. The middle class could see their privatized investments lose 10% to 20% right out of the gate. And there is no way to avoid this structural arbitrage.

[ConradG]

The Trojan Horse was made of wood, Obama is a man. He inherited a dysfunctional system -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.

[hippifried]

Uh, Ed. I don't know where you're coming up with these stats & whatnot, but you're way off base.

First of all, the baby boom only lasted for 10 years. From 1946 to 1956. It's not like there were no babies born before or after, It was just a 10 year spike. Unless they're disabled for some reason or they opted for early retirementat a reduced rate, the first boomers are starting to retire this year. They have 20 years on the outside. 15 on average.

Social Security isn't an annuity, a savings account, or an insurance policy. It's a trust fund, where the current payees are covered by the current payors. It's always run a surplus, & that surplus is invested in treasury bonds. The idea that anybody's "raiding the fund" is a misconstruence of the reality. What's being raided is the treasury, & the fund is being pressured to take on more bonds. There's a question of whether the treasuries can be liquidated in a timely fashion to keep up with the payouts. The fund isn't going broke. It's just not as liquid as it would like, & it will get tight over the period of retirement of the boomer spike, The spike is temporary, although it may deplete a chunk of the surplus by the time it levels back out.

As far as I know, the retirement age has always been 65. Throughout my lifetime anyway, & I've been here for a while. There's been talk about raising the age for the last 30 years. About the same time the deficits started getting out of control. About the time the out of control deficits were being proposed in '81 actually. Almost like today's financial problems were preplanned. Personally, I date it back to '71. August 15th to be exact, although I'm pretty sure the shock was preplanned too, & I have no way of knowing when it all started.

I know things are going to tighten up over the next 2 or 3 decades, but I'm not ready or even willing to panic. If y'all want to jump on Chicken Little's bandwagon, so be it. Most of these problems go away if you just raise the income cap.

[beandip]

SS has a 2.6 TRILLION dollar surplus. It won't run out for almost 30 years Where? Please provide an account number where this "surplus" is.

[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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boomer)

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_Security_%28United_States%29#Expansion_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 (http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=uk&n=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."

[BluegrassCat]

Do I think most of the people on SSI are scamming the system? ...the waste and fraud is usually in the 10-20 percentile. Doubt it...? I give you Medicare and Medicaid . Google Medicare Fraud.

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.




This is really too hilarious. Whenever you hear omk lead with "Here is an undeniable fact" it is almost always followed by flat out nonsense. Here's a perfect example.

So someone who saves a small percentage of his pay check every week will be a millionaire upon retirement? Let's just check the math on that.
Working from age 20 to 65 gives you 45 years to save 1 million $. 1 million divided by 45 is about 22 thousand, meaning you'd need to save $22K every year to meet your goal. But omk says 22k should only be a "small percentage" of your paycheck. So how should we define small? Well he seems to believe that the "10-20 percentile" range is unacceptably large so let's say 8%. If putting aside 8% of your paycheck nets you 22K a year, you're earning about 275k a year.

And since everyone in America makes 275k a year, I don't see any problem...waiiit a second. Median income is only 49k. Only the top 1.5% of Americans make 275k or more.

Maybe it's not so "undeniable" after all, maybe it's just bullshit.

[trish]

Maybe it's not so "undeniable" after all, maybe it's just bullshit. OMK excels at bullshit.

[Faldur]

This is really too hilarious. Whenever you hear omk lead with "Here is an undeniable fact" it is almost always followed by flat out nonsense. Here's a perfect example.

So someone who saves a small percentage of his pay check every week will be a millionaire upon retirement? Let's just check the math on that.

Wow, I see we have some mathematical geniuses here. OMK is spot on, "lets check the math!"

If someone earning the median income of $49k, and they save 8% of there gross per year. And don't tell me "a 20 year old would never earn $49k", were going to run the median amount for the entire life of the individual WITHOUT inflationary adjustments. The amount of money they would have based of 6% earnings over the life of the savings would be $667k, if they achieve 8% it would be $1.01 million.

OMK comes up with valid points and FACTS. You are so blinded by your hatred of those that refuse to drink your cool-aid you can't see any of them. Take a deep breath and remember we are all on the same team.

[BluegrassCat]

Wow, I see we have some mathematical geniuses here. OMK is spot on, "lets check the math!"

If someone earning the median income of $49k, and they save 8% of there gross per year. And don't tell me "a 20 year old would never earn $49k", were going to run the median amount for the entire life of the individual WITHOUT inflationary adjustments. The amount of money they would have based of 6% earnings over the life of the savings would be $667k, if they achieve 8% it would be $1.01 million.

OMK comes up with valid points and FACTS. You are so blinded by your hatred of those that refuse to drink your cool-aid you can't see any of them. Take a deep breath and remember we are all on the same team.


Did you know that by putting aside only $10 a year for 17 years you will be a millionaire? (as long as you find a bank to pay 90% interest). I don't know if you've checked rates lately but they're not 6%. Assuming a rather generous 1% interest you need to be earning 212k a year to hit the million mark.

Stop with all the hate and stop supporting people who want to sell you out, as well as your kids & grandkids. It's not late to make America great again.

[Faldur]

Did you know that by putting aside only $10 a year for 17 years you will be a millionaire? (as long as you find a bank to pay 90% interest). I don't know if you've checked rates lately but they're not 6%. Assuming a rather generous 1% interest you need to be earning 212k a year to hit the million mark.

If you can't get 6% on a long term investment you really need to be removed from the gene pool. Some selective neutering is needed.



Stop with all the hate and stop supporting people who want to sell you out, as well as your kids & grandkids. It's not late to make America great again.

Ok, not sure I see the hate but we'll agree to disagree on that one. "Stop supporting people", isn't this a free country? You have every right to formulate your own opinion, and to politically and publicly support any cause or individual you wish, and I sir have that same right. Peace..

[BluegrassCat]

You don't see the hate in the same post you call for the forced sterilization of millions of Americans? Ok.
& once again, I am not the federal govt, I have no power over you so my calls for rational self-interested voting are reasonable but they are not mandatory. You are free to support all the hustlers & bigots you like.

[Ben]

Op-Ed
Obama: A disaster for civil liberties

He may prove the most disastrous president in our history in terms of civil liberties.

By Jonathan Turley September 29, 2011

With the 2012 presidential election before us, the country is again caught up in debating national security issues, our ongoing wars and the threat of terrorism. There is one related subject, however, that is rarely mentioned: civil liberties.

Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic). While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/parties-movements/democratic-party-ORGOV0000005.topic), which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/presidents-of-the-united-states/george-bush-PEPLT000857.topic) years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/espionage-intelligence/central-intelligence-agency-ORGOV000009.topic) employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II (http://www.latimes.com/topic/unrest-conflicts-war/wars-interventions/world-war-ii-%281939-1945%29-EVHST00000110.topic).

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay (http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/prisons/guantanamo-bay-detention-camp-ORGOV00000127.topic) as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize (http://www.latimes.com/topic/arts-culture/nobel-prize-awards-8006070.topic) without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.

Ironically, had Obama been defeated in 2008, it is likely that an alliance for civil liberties might have coalesced and effectively fought the government's burgeoning police powers. A Gallup poll released this week shows 49% of Americans, a record since the poll began asking this question in 2003, believe that "the federal government poses an immediate threat to individuals' rights and freedoms." Yet the Obama administration long ago made a cynical calculation that it already had such voters in the bag and tacked to the right on this issue to show Obama was not "soft" on terror. He assumed that, yet again, civil libertarians might grumble and gripe but, come election day, they would not dare stay home.

This calculation may be wrong. Obama may have flown by the fail-safe line, especially when it comes to waterboarding. For many civil libertarians, it will be virtually impossible to vote for someone who has flagrantly ignored the Convention Against Torture or its underlying Nuremberg Principles. As Obama and Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. have admitted, waterboarding is clearly torture and has been long defined as such by both international and U.S. courts. It is not only a crime but a war crime. By blocking the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for torture, Obama violated international law and reinforced other countries in refusing investigation of their own alleged war crimes. The administration magnified the damage by blocking efforts of other countries like Spain from investigating our alleged war crimes. In this process, his administration shredded principles on the accountability of government officials and lawyers facilitating war crimes and further destroyed the credibility of the U.S. in objecting to civil liberties abuses abroad.

In time, the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties. Now the president has begun campaigning for a second term. He will again be selling himself more than his policies, but he is likely to find many civil libertarians who simply are not buying.

Jonathan Turley is a professor of law at George Washington (http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/george-washington-PEHST002264.topic) University.

[Ben]

Paul Craig Roberts, former assistant Treasury Secretary in the Reagan administration, has a deep distaste for both the Republican Party (not really a political party anymore; this kooky clan simply serve the super-rich) and the Democrats (who simply placate Wall Street investors -- :))

Paul Craig Roberts: Obama is more of a war monger than Bush/Cheney - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f2mem3J61M)

[Stavros]

I don't know who this idiot man is, but his analysis of the situation is remote from the discussions being held around the world. He is out of touch with reality, but the problem is that ignorance is no barrier to political sloganeering, and I have no doubt the Republicans will use the 'Strike Iran Now!' option not for realistic military objectives, but to make Obama look weak and indecisive on a country that doesn't make friends least of all with the USA.

Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, but when it has the ability to actually stick one on the end of a missile we dont know, but it isn't imminent. Before anyone even starts talking about a strike against its facilities, they need to know where they are -and even the Israeli's aren't sure. Indeed, Neyanyahu's military option was leaked to the press last week by -its own military! Generals serving and retired have baulked at mad-boy Netanyahu and kill-crazy chum Liberman's gun-ho plans and are doing what they can to make it impossible. Nobody knows precisely where the nuclear weapons faciltiy is or if its spread out in more than one location, so nobody knows how to hit it, or what the consequences would be, which makes it, as a military operation, too vague to be authorised.

And there are other options:

Iran is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel, of course is not since it is a law unto itself), and under the terms of the NPT it can be forced to disclose the state of its nuclear industry, and if other members are not satisfied sanctions can be imposed -in addition to which the International Atomic Energy Authority can seek clarification, and UN Weapons Inspectors, if given the power by the Security Council can carry out their own investigations. There are also elements in Iran who are opposed to the creation of nuclear weapons, if not a nuclear industry, which the US was at one time going to support, when its favourite, the Shah was in power.

Iran is trying to establish itself as a regional presence to counter Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but apart from its influence in Iraq, Lebanon and Syria, Iranians have been noticeable by their absence in the Arab Spring -because they are not welcome in most of the Arab countries. This does not diminish their capacity for meddling, but the nuclear build-up is now going regional, with US allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia developing plans for nuclear capability which will, inevitably, include nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is receiving help from France (who helped build Israel's first nuclear reactor in the 1950s) via the Gulf Co-operation Council
(http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/02/23/138860.html)

My personal view is that the Middle East should be a nuclear-free zone, because the provision of nuclear enery always carries with it the potential for nuclear weapons capacity. Historically, deterrence as a strategy was aimed at preventing the use of weapons and succeeded, but the astronomical costs, and the potential for accidents not to mention theft or sabotage, makes this a literally explosive issue in the region. Unfortunately, Israel has the capacity, and I don't know if it is now possible to prevent an arms race from taking place; its bad enough knowing rogue states like Israel and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, the emphasis on foreign policy should be to slow the arms race, not heat it up.

[MeDicTib]

The man insults America with every speech he makes. Everything is a PR stunt with no substance, and he insults all of us whenever he thinks we are all dumb enough to go along with it.

The democrats think their plan is sound and the public isnt buying it because of a marketing problem. Thats why they will fail over and over and over again because they will keep polishing the same turd and it will keep getting shut down. How many times has the "raise taxes on the rich" and "pay their fair share" been repeated from Obama and how many times has it failed to go anywhere? Now yesterday its the more of the same and it will fail the same. It will never ever get through Congress so why is he even doing this?

[Jonny29]

[QUOTE=Faldur;1013495]Wow, I see we have some mathematical geniuses here. OMK is spot on, "lets check the math!"

If someone earning the median income of $49k, and they save 8% of there gross per year. And don't tell me "a 20 year old would never earn $49k", were going to run the median amount for the entire life of the individual WITHOUT inflationary adjustments. The amount of money they would have based of 6% earnings over the life of the savings would be $667k, if they achieve 8% it would be $1.01 million.

Wow. You actually understated it. The example originally was for 45 years. Based on my calculations the $667K you presented was for 40 years. 45 years is over $900k. BAsed on these calculations compounded interest is quite impressive. Of course its quite scary to be on the other side of this and to owe money on a credit card where the companies are earning much more than 6% ( at least mine is).For US debt at least I think we are "only" paying around 2-3% but this exercise certainly gives me pause on my own finances and what I need to do and that I need to also pay attention to how the politicians plan on reducing the US debt, if they have a plan at all on the table. Thank you Faldur and OMK

[Ben]

The man insults America with every speech he makes. Everything is a PR stunt with no substance, and he insults all of us whenever he thinks we are all dumb enough to go along with it.

The democrats think their plan is sound and the public isnt buying it because of a marketing problem. Thats why they will fail over and over and over again because they will keep polishing the same turd and it will keep getting shut down. How many times has the "raise taxes on the rich" and "pay their fair share" been repeated from Obama and how many times has it failed to go anywhere? Now yesterday its the more of the same and it will fail the same. It will never ever get through Congress so why is he even doing this?

He could be suffering from senility -- ha ha ha! ;) Just kidding.
But Paul C. Roberts is spot on when it comes to America offshoring its economy, its tax base and its middle class jobs.
Remember. It's just one person's opinion. You can disagree or agree. Again, I think he's right on some issues. On others, well, I disagree.
I'm not entirely sure if Obama really wants to raise taxes on the rich or the super-rich. (I think the problem isn't -- IS NOT -- the 1 percent of income earners. But the staggering gains -- because of the financialization of the economy -- have been made by the top 0.01 percent. All the massive gains are being made at the very top, as it were.
Both Buffett and Gates [the two richest people in America] have called for the raising of their taxes.
Anyway, Obama needs cash. For his campaign. And where is it gonna come from? Well, the financial sector. Which are quite adamant about their taxes NOT being raised. And, well, you don't bite the hand that feeds you.
And this is the corruption that the occupiers are fed up with. Which is understandable.
America's democratic system has been usurped by the corporate elite. Which is great for them. But bad for the majority of the population.
But corporate executives internalize the corporate institution. So they feel that they're good people -- and they're doing something that's good. That's what happens in a corporate group setting. You, again, internalize it. And really feel that you're good and you're doing good work.
It's part of the system, and the institution, as it were -- :)