The Young Turks: Cenk's "Liberal Demagoguery On Social Security"

Come on, how awesome is that? Oh, and with regard to his first point about how we need to raise the retirement age because of increased lifespans, consider this. And keep in mind people are only taxed on the first 100k or so of income for SS.

< Regarding Eggs | this it what the progressives should be doing... >

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

strangs system (none / 0)

"And keep in mind people are only taxed on the first 100k or so of income for SS."

Because the weakest shoulders should carry the most weight?? Regressive taxation on ss, is that actually true? The US is a strange place....

Although our ss is proportional, where I believe it should be a progressive tax, as any person that had a christian education, I believe that it's only morally right that the strongest shoulder should carry the greatest burden and we should take care of our less-fortuned brothers and sisters.

sig:"TYT: no longer rinkydink"

by wouter666 on 09/07/2010 06:17:19 AM EST

It's suppossed to be an insurance program... (none / 0)

not a tax program. Do you pay a percentage of your pay check for your life insurance?

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

by mcamelyne on 09/07/2010 09:42:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]

Well no, but.... (none / 0)

Social Security like life insurance does depend on how much you pay into it.

For instance if you pay for $10,000.00 worth of coverage it will cost much less than if you pay for $100,000,00 worth of coverage. I'm sure the guy paying for $10.000.00 wishes he could afford the $100,000 policy.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 09/07/2010 10:08:19 AM EST

[ Parent ]

No, it depends on the profitability of... (none / 0)

the insurer. If the insurer offers coverage without sufficient resources, it will go out of business. However, no one is going to pay 500,000 for 100,000 in coverage.

The model is flawed and it needs to be paid for by something other than payroll taxes. This is an old age pension that has little to do with income. It should be paid for by a National Sales or VAT tax to decouple it from income.

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

by mcamelyne on 09/07/2010 09:55:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]

pyramid scheme... (none / 0)

sort of. The problem is that the cap has not kept pace with inflation. That, and as MrFred noted, Bush and Regan used the surplus to offest deficit spending on tax cuts and the war machine.

Just think, we could have used the suplus for direct lending for housing providing an actual return on inestment and avoiding the Goldman Sachs bucket shops and ponzi schemes.

by sisco66 on 09/07/2010 10:46:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]

You are not being imaginative... (none / 0)

Social security funds can only be invested in treasuries. They have always spent the surplus. If the govt actually paid off its debt, there would be nothing to invest social security money in.

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

by mcamelyne on 09/08/2010 01:48:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]

exactly why... (none / 0)

...I said housing. You could get rid of the GSE's and replace them with a stand alone entity.

by sisco66 on 09/08/2010 06:04:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]

You've lost me...what has housing and GSE's (none / 0)

got to do with social security?

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

by mcamelyne on 09/08/2010 06:26:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]

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 ]

if it's just an insurance program (none / 0)

where your benefits should be linked to your payment, then it should be privatised.

sig:"TYT: no longer rinkydink"

by wouter666 on 09/07/2010 11:08:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]

SS (none / 0)

If you want it private- sized. Why would you want the gov. to call the shots in a failing wall st. account .

by THE WATERSNAKE on 09/07/2010 09:22:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

I didn't say I want it privatized (none / 0)

because I don't believe it's just an insurance. Like health care insurance, if you believe it's just an insurance then it is ok if it's privatized. My point is actually that it's more than just an insurance, since supporting those in need also has a moral dimension to it. It's also more than an insurance because the economic ramifications of not providing a system of social-economic security can be quite dire not just on a personal level but also on a systemic level. Failing to provide it leads to the collapse of a middle class, the reduction in domestic buying power and ultimatly can lead to the dissapearance of a highly-skilled and highly productive workforce.

sig:"TYT: no longer rinkydink"

by wouter666 on 09/08/2010 10:12:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]

: Right! (none / 0)

"My point is actually that it's more than just an insurance, since supporting those in need also has a moral dimension to it."
And taking care of and healing the sick doesn't have a moral dimension. Obviously!
"The first thing Fascists usually try to do is silencing the opposition."
by opposition on 09/09/2010 09:21:07 AM EST

[ Parent ]

This is just sad (none / 0)

We actually aren't living that much longer than in 1930s.I heard a figure that said it was about 4 years longer.They misuse statistics. Those lower lifespan figures include the higher infant mortality and early deaths from disease and accidents (which in those days were more likely to be fatal).

The actual average lifespan is about 85 years and is probably our genetic limit (give or take a decade). That hasn't really changed and actuarial tables are adjusted for that so that they know how much to charge in contributions to provide for the correct amount in payouts.

All that stuff about weapons of mass destruction was crap then and it's still crap. Saddam himself may have believed that he had them but the rest of the world knew he didn't except of course the US population. Here in Canada, I remember thinking how could the Americans believe this? And for the past few years I've still wondered if they really did or just pretended they did.

I guess there were some who did and this guy is obviously one of them and he's still delusional.

Spending more money than you've got has been the traditional method of self-destructing empires, including Rome. Forget the decadence being the cause of Rome's downfall; it was their spending more than they had on wars that really did it.

by susanfrom on 09/07/2010 01:19:31 PM EST

This is just sad (none / 0)

I guess there were some who did and this guy is obviously one of them and he's still delusional.

by susanfrom on 09/07/2010 02:27:19 PM EST

Facts are silly things.... (none / 0)

In 2002 the GOP allowed the PAYGO requirements passed in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 and the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 budget bill plus the protections for the SSA trust fund to expire.

Total Federal spending as a percentage of GDP decreased each year from FY1991 through FY 2000, falling from 22.3% to 18.4%

PAYGO statute expired at the end of 2002. After this, the GOP Congress enacted Bushs 2003 tax cuts Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act

BTW the Medicare prescription drug benefit did not meet the PAYGO requirements.

Oh lets not forget the failed Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.

So after the surplus was spent...SSA payed for and is paying for Bushes tax cut medicare drugs and the first stimulus in 2008

Simple.

by MRFred on 09/07/2010 07:18:27 PM EST

nut job (none / 0)

that pretty much sums it up.

That said, I noticed he did not mention the union stock holders of GM who were prevented from selling as the stock went to zero.

How many middle class investors do you know that buy company bonds? Tax expempt muni-bonds if you know what you are doing but very rarely corporate bonds. However, the bond holders are always paid back before the stock holders.

So, not only is this guy a nut job, he is a fraud.

by sisco66 on 09/07/2010 11:01:34 PM EST

: Not true: Propaganda from the Cons (none / 0)

The top executives and major shareholders were prevented from SHORT SELLING, and selling shares because of inside information [insider trading] for a period of time, not from selling their shares. Preferred shares also have different rules from common shares.
Which day did Faux News have that talking point?

by zenie on 09/08/2010 11:17:37 AM EST

[ Parent ]

I'm on it. (none / 0)

Don't worry, I've got it under control.

by ninespine on 09/08/2010 07:20:02 AM EST

Social Security not insolvent (none / 0)

Soc. Sec. is projected to run out of money in 30 to 40 years, and can be easily fixed. First, it's an insurance program run and guaranteed by the federal government. Private companies can't do as well and still be guaranteed.

Even with the Bush Wall Street bailouts in 2008, several very large companies failed, and as a result, failed their investors who depend on private investments for their retirement.

Many middle class workers have lost company pensions and depend on their 410k plans that performed abysmally over the past few years,. It makes more sense to improve Social Security by removing the ceiling for contributions and lowering the contribution rate. Contributions are a regressive tax. This will make them slightly less regressive while keeping the Soc. Sec. trust fund solvent into the next century.

Conservatives and teabaggers who are against this are helping the rich get richer and themselves to become poorer.

by zenie on 09/08/2010 10:57:19 AM EST

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