Cenk's "Liberal Demagoguery On Social Security" | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)
sorry (none / 0)
We had an annual social security surplus that Regan, Bush, Clinton and Bush used to offset the debt. Rather than spending the money on tax cuts for people who pay little or no social security tax we should have been reinvesting the money in housing and infastructure.

That way there would be actual principal and interest and no debt. As it works today. We simply hand the money back out with no strings and right an IOU in the form of treasuries.

by sisco66 on 09/08/2010 04:51:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are splitting hairs... (none / 0)

if I have a pair of pants with pockets on both sides.  I split my money between the pockets.  Does it matter which pocket I take the money from to pay the bills.  I still have the same reduction.  Pretending to allocate money between competing interests by matching the money coming in is simply fooling yourself. The pair of pants is still the same pair of pants.  There is a total amount taken in taxes which affects the economy.

Whining about spending too much money on defense 30 years ago is beyond discussion.  Instead, what are we doing with the money today.  Financing two unnecessary wars, paying doctors exorbitant fees so they can avoid lawsuits, and ending the requirement that people get health insurance through employers is one way to quickly reduce the structural deficit.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/09/2010 06:06:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
30 years ago? (none / 0)
How about the last 8? Clearly you have no clue about what has gone on hear for the last 30 years. Defense is only a small part.

Do you remember the "locked box". That was Al Gore trying to prevent Bush from using the social security surplus for tax cuts.

You may be a socialis but you are sounding more and more like a Rand libertarian.

by sisco66 on 09/09/2010 07:26:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm a realist... (none / 0)

you can't pretend to say that any President has some how protected the social security funds.  They have always invested the money in treasury bonds which is US govt debt without purpose.  If they invested the money in student loans or Mortgage securities or railroad bonds, then you could talk about allocation.

Debt is debt.

Socialists believe in doing away with all government including banks and money, converting property rights to community rights.  Libertarians believe in doing away with all government and keeping property rights.  Although I haven't a clue how they intend to enforce them.

There is a difference between what I want and what I accept as the current state of affairs.  That's why I might sound conservative on economics.  But I'm the guy that wants to end free-trade, boost unions and shut Chinese manufacturers down.  Not very Libertarian.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/09/2010 08:34:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
my original suggestion... (none / 0)
was to reinvest the money rather than using it to offset the debt. That said, the concept of using the social security to offset debt came from Greenspan back in the 1980's. That is when the real wealth redistribution started.

Regan passed massive tax cuts and then had to repeal part of them as well as hide some of the effects with the social secuirty surplus.  I don't agree with debt being debt of income being income.  When you say that you are justifying what they did and opening the door for more of it.

by sisco66 on 09/09/2010 03:52:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You are putting your fingers in the holes at the.. (none / 0)

dam to keep the water from breaking through.  I have never heard of a politician that could keep his hands out of the cookie jar.  What should have been done about 70 years ago is there should have been a sovereign investment fund setup like Norway.

The Democrats chose not to so they could raid the cookie jar.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/09/2010 10:32:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
not fingers (none / 0)
just some common sense ideas to do something other than hand the money out to people who ar not paying into the system, or paying very little.

The Norway plans sounds good as well. I think that is similar to what Gore was suggesting before Bush stole the election.

by sisco66 on 09/10/2010 06:46:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
We can't have a society of haves and have nots. (none / 0)

Whether you paid into the system or not is irrelevant.  It's an old age pensioners program.  If you start segregating people by those that worked and paid and those that stayed home and took care of their families, what does that say about our society.

We only value work and not family?

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/10/2010 07:16:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
off point again (none / 0)
Dude you are all over the place. The social security surplus was used to justify tax cuts on dividends and capital gaines. There is no social security tax applied to either one of those.

by sisco66 on 09/13/2010 09:36:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry, I don't follow... (none / 0)

you want to only pay benefits to people that paid into the program.  What about stay at home moms?  In any case, I don't see the link between the tax cuts and the surplus of social security.

We should not forget that.

The 2001 Economic Growth and Recovery Tax Act was George Bush’s version of Barack Obama’s stimulus plan. However, instead of creating a bunch of temporary government jobs and subsidizing the expansion of government, it cut tax rates, increased the child tax credit, increased the standard deduction for married couples, and increasing contribution caps for a variety of savings programs. The result? The recession ended in November of 2001. (Source)

But, September 11, 2001, happened as the economy was recovering and throughout 2002, the economy grew at an anemic rate. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 revved up the 2001 tax cut package and cut taxes again on dividends and capital gains.

http://www.redstate.com/eri ck/2010/07/27/the-facts-abo ut-the-bush-tax-cuts/

If there is any link, it is only casual.  There has never been any tax on dividends or cap gains for social security.  You can't make a case for not having something when it never existed.

 

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/14/2010 04:01:57 AM EST

[ Parent ]
no, no, no (none / 0)
You are 100% off on the history, the tax distribution as well as the subject matter. The lion’s share of the Bush tax cuts went to the wealthy either in the form of bracket reductions, dividend tax reductions or capital gains reductions....and they did not end the recession. It was the record low interest rates and Wall Street speculation that ended the recession. What the tax cuts did was fuel to the speculation creating and even bigger bubble.

There are no social security taxes paid on dividends and only a small portion is paid in by those in the upper tax bracket yet it was the surplus Bush used to promote tax cuts during the election and after he got elected. Yes he handed out some token money to the middle class, but that is just buying votes.

Don't forget that the Enron Scandal that Bush helped extended the recession well before 911 occurred.

Bush cut dividend taxes by %50, leading BOD/CEO's to loot over reinvest. He also cut capital gains taxes by 25% leading to even more looting, particularly by hedge fund managers. He also cut the inheritance tax by 10% per year until it went to nothing this year. And no, it does not belong to the families, at least not all of it. People don’t make money in a vacuum, there is a public infrastructure that was used to make that money. That infrastructure has now been depleted because the wealthy have systematically raped the system rather than being stewards of it.


We have beaten this to death. Apparently I am unable to convey my point to you. Sorry

by sisco66 on 09/14/2010 05:57:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
What does all of that have to do with... (none / 0)

social security?  Other than the fact that part of social security and medicare is paid from the general revenues.  You could just as easily blame excess defense spending for the frittering away of the money.

Whether or not the Bush tax cuts had a positive effect or a negative one is meaningless for social security.  The government has always including their revenues in the general budget to understate the true deficit.  The government uses cash accounting, not accrual accounting.

Don't waste your vote, vote Green or Independent in the next election.

by mcamelyne on 09/14/2010 10:14:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
full circle (none / 0)
that has been my point all along...it was not supposed to be that way. Greenspan and Regan pulled a fast one way back in the 1980's after the plan was put in place. After Clinton balanced the budget (+/-)Gore wanted to fix it, but lost. Then Bush spent all the money, most of it going to rich people living on paper trading who don't pay into the system to begin with.

Greenspan and Bernanke are ideologs who took academic theories with very strict boundary conditions and unleashed them on the world gutting what few boundary conditions (regulations) were in place along the way. They have been using the fed to cover the flaws in their ideology ever since.


by sisco66 on 09/15/2010 06:42:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Cenk's "Liberal Demagoguery On Social Security" | 32 comments (32 topical, 0 hidden)