Socialism: When The Rubber Hits The Road

[Smiling Assassin27]

When government owns and controls all methods of production, people suffer.

October 21, 2010 6:38 AM
Chinese Freeze Before Gov't Turns on the Heat

Since the Communists came to power, November 15 has been circled in red on many Beijing calendars. It's not Mao Zedong's birthday. November 15 is the day when city officials dutifully flick the switch to turn on the capital's centrally-controlled heating system, supplying warmth to most of Beijing's 22 million residents.

In one of the last vestiges of collective living, Beijing's coal plants pump heat to city apartments on a strict schedule, from November 15 to March 15, every year. Since the 1950s, the schedule has rarely changed, even if temperatures plummet before the appointed day.

After enduring record heat-waves this summer, with the mercury soaring to its highest mark in 60 years, and thick pollution in the fall (which the government blamed on "fog"), Beijingers are now suffering through the early onset of bitter cold. China's state-run media reported October 18 as the city's coldest autumn day since 1986, with temperatures peaking at 48 degrees and then dropping to 44.

Many residents of the capital city are counting down the days to November 15 hunched over their computer keyboards, commiserating about the frigid weather and lack of government-provided relief.

"I can't function in Beijing's October without a hot-water bottle and an electric blanket," complains one Chinese internet user. Others employ greater creativity to stay toasty.

"I highly recommend doing slow-motion exercises while surfing the internet in order to stay warm," suggests one energetic web chatter. Most local apartments don't have thermostats, so residents have no idea whether it's warmer inside than outside. Many use electric space heaters and turn their air conditioners to the "warm" setting to thaw their icy homes.

There is one silver -- or green -- lining to weeks of goose bumps. Beijing's power plants burn through 41,000 tons of coal every day to keep the city's residents warm in winter. That energy is saved each day the government keeps the radiators turned off. Beijing officials grumble that last year, the heating was turned on a few days early but then the weather warmed up again, wasting precious resources.

Until the grim mid-November countdown is over, Beijingers have little to do but sit, shiver and, ironically, pray for extremely cold weather. Local officials have promised to turn on the heat if the mercury dips below 40 degrees for five days in a row, or if the city is blanketed in snow.

And those wishes may be answered soon; a cold front is expected to hit Beijing on October 23. Miserable meteorologists warn, however, the capital won't likely be blanketed in snowflakes... but sheets of cold rain instead. That probably won't get the heat turned on.

This story was filed by CBS News correspondent Celia Hatton in Beijing.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

When government owns and controls all methods of production, people suffer.

Under "things you have to believe to be a republican."

Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Under "things you have to believe to be a republican."

Wow, I made no political statement with regard to this story, I just wanted you to know what the average resident of Beijing suffers through that you and I take for granted. Leave it to LABF to go all Chris Matthews on us. LOL

As for Cuba, the offer's always open to PM me and discuss it, dude. We don't not trade with Cuba because they're communist but I get the idea that you know zilch about this 'embargo'. I'm lucky enough to have family from there, so if you care to learn something, take the first step.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dueling Quotes

When government owns and controls all methods of production, people suffer.



Wow, I made no political statement with regard to this story...

[Smiling Assassin27]

Dueling Quotes

That's an economic statement, fool.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

That's an economic statement, fool.

No - it's an implicit condemnation of socialism, nitwit.

We already know that's your position anyway - why try to hide it now?

[barryr]

Under "things you have to believe to be a republican."

Wow, your stupidity just grows and grows each day.

[barryr]

No - it's an implicit condemnation of socialism, nitwit.

We already know that's your position anyway - why try to hide it now?

Yeah, socialism has been such a resounding success around the world. Of course only in your demented, racist, warped sense of reality.

[shakenbake]

I am in Beijing as I type this, it isn't that cold.

But the article is correct, actually I think it is worse living in Shanghai than Beijing in the winter. Shanghai is considered a southern city and therefore off the heat grid. This despite pretty damn cold winters! I have to rely on my a/c unit for heat which sucks.

Chinese people don't seem to mind so much, they just put on more jackets.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wow, your stupidity just grows and grows each day.

Yet you offer no actual rebuttal to the post you quoted.

Just a little word of advice:

We already have one Rush Limbaugh - we don't need a tenth-rate copycat like you around.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yeah, socialism has been such a resounding success around the world. Of course only in your demented, racist, warped sense of reality.

But dumb sh*t:

I wasn't arguing the merits of socialism - just challenging the OP's claim that he wasn't making a political statement.

Why do right-wing half-wits like you have trouble with such distinctions?

[shakenbake]

Socialism doesn't work. Thats why it isn't in place in China anymore and the country has taken off. Sure there are some things like this heating in place...

All those European countries that are giving Socialism a run will be flat out broke in no time. It is already starting to happen now. We are going broke because we are following the same path.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

All those European countries that are giving Socialism a run will be flat out broke in no time. It is already starting to happen now. We are going broke because we are following the same path.

Funny how you blame socialism when, in fact, the real culprits are the purveyors of the same economic weapons of mass destruction that caused our own crisis.

[shakenbake]

Funny how you blame socialism when, in fact, the real culprits are the purveyors of the same economic weapons of mass destruction that caused our own crisis.

No it is socialism...

[shakenbake]

Funny how you blame socialism when, in fact, the real culprits are the purveyors of the same economic weapons of mass destruction that caused our own crisis.

Yes, exactly! A society where the masses think that government owes them something just by existing. Where you can take from one group of performers and give it to the group that doesn't..... Socialism

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, exactly! A society where the masses think that government owes them something just by existing. Where you can take from one group of performers and give it to the group that doesn't..... Socialism

Wow - you really are a product of Fox News and the right-wing corporate media, aren't you?

Meanwhile, here in reality, the same Goldman Sachs crooks who caused our own crisis have been wreaking havoc on Europe with the same weapons of economic mass destruction.

Greece would be the most recent example.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

GS has not only (a) been betting against the mortgage-based securities it was selling its own clients, but (b) deeply implicated in the almost-and still-pending collapse of AIG, the largest insurance company in the world, and (c) helping to worsen the already bad crisis in the Eurozone (http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/eurozone-crisis-will-PIIGS-get-a-blanket-06-02.html).

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Wall Street tactics akin to the ones that fostered subprime mortgages in America have worsened the financial crisis shaking Greece and undermining the euro by enabling European governments to hide their mounting debts.

As worries over Greece rattle world markets, records and interviews show that with Wall Street’s help, the nation engaged in a decade-long effort to skirt European debt limits.

One deal created by Goldman Sachs helped obscure billions in debt from the budget overseers in Brussels.

As usual, the guys from GS waste no time and do work in ingenious ways – and eerily parallel to the tricks they and their buddies on Wall Street used to help get the US in the great shape it’s in today.

In early November — three months before Athens became the epicenter of global financial anxiety — a team from Goldman Sachs arrived in the ancient city with a very modern proposition for a government struggling to pay its bills …

The bankers, led by Goldman’s president, Gary D. Cohn, held out a financing instrument that would have pushed debt from Greece’s health care system far into the future, much as when strapped homeowners take out second mortgages to pay off their credit cards.

And apparently, the same sort of sordid maneuvers that worked so well in the US also go over just as easily in Europe.

It had worked before.

In 2001, just after Greece was admitted to Europe’s monetary union, Goldman helped the government quietly borrow billions, people familiar with the transaction said.


That deal, hidden from public view because it was treated as a currency trade rather than a loan, helped Athens to meet Europe’s deficit rules, while continuing to spend beyond its means.

Hmmmm … does that sound familiar ???

Using accounting sleight-of-hand to help people spend beyond their means – at least for a while, until the whole house of cards comes tumbling down – where HAVE we heard this before ???

Once again, the main culprits are what St. Warren of Buffet has called “economic weapons of mass destruction” – DERIVATIVES.

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/goldman-made-greece-eurozone-crisis-worse-for-big-profit-16-2.html

[epicSocialism4tw]

LABF is a tool and a moron.

Expect his posting to increase exponentially heading into the elections. He and his handlers think that he's making a difference here with his propaganda and thread derailing.

He is making a difference. He's making me more determined than ever to vote his morons out of office.

[shakenbake]

Wow - you really are a product of Fox News and the right-wing corporate media, aren't you?

Meanwhile, here in reality, the same Goldman Sachs crooks who caused our own crisis have been wreaking havoc on Europe with the same weapons of economic mass destruction.

Greece would be the most recent example.

Who is in power in Greece?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF is a tool and a moron.


I just exposed you as a shameless liar on your latest "blame the crisis on Fannie and Freddie" thread - and now all you have left in the tank is ad hominem.

You're pathetic. :oyvey:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Who is in power in Greece?

Wow - now that was a dodge!

No answer for anything I just posted about your GS pals?

[epicSocialism4tw]

I just exposed you as a shameless liar on your latest "blame the crisis on Fannie and Freddie" thread - and now all you have left in the tank is ad hominem.

You're pathetic. ::

You havent explained anything to anyone. You continue to post garbage leftist propaganda and then try to make people look bad for calling it left wing propaganda.

People are much more intelligent than you give them credit for.

Your stuff is garbage.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You havent explained anything to anyone. You continue to post garbage leftist propaganda and then try to make people look bad for calling it left wing propaganda.

People are much more intelligent than you give them credit for.

Your stuff is garbage.

ROFL!

On the contrary - I provided FACTS that disproved your bogus contention that FM&FM were the primary culprits in the housing debacle.

In any case, it's always amusing to watch you froth at the mouth like a mental case when the shaky foundation of your ideological house of cards is rattled. Ha!

[epicSocialism4tw]

ROFL!

On the contrary - I provided FACTS that disproved your bogus contention that FM&FM were the primary culprits in the housing debacle.

In any case, it's always amusing to watch you froth at the mouth like a mental case when the shaky foundation of your ideological house of cards is rattled. Ha!

"Facts", eh?

You keep talking about this stuff like nobody sees that your garbage articles and cartoons are spam.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

"Facts", eh?

You keep talking about this stuff like nobody sees that your garbage articles and cartoons are spam.

You have been reduced to a lot of sound and fury - signifying nothing.

Never have I seen someone with such an ability to make facts go away by simply labeling them "propaganda," "spam," etc.

[shakenbake]

Wow - now that was a dodge!

No answer for anything I just posted about your GS pals?

Actully, in would classify them as Obama's pals seeing how he continues to put them in positions of power.

But it is not a dogde it is a direct question. Whomis in power in Greece ?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Actully, in would classify them as Obama's pals seeing how he continues to put them in positions of power.


Funny - I don't recall you having a problem with those people being in positions of power when GeeDubya was in the WH.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Funny - I don't recall you having a problem with those people being in positions of power when GeeDubya was in the WH.

Thats because you have no idea what his positions were when Bush was in office.

[Garcia Bronco]

Socialism as a form of government and economic policy has always been a failure.

[Rohirrim]

And corporate feudalism is fantastic. Right?

[Obushma]

And corporate feudalism is fantastic. Right?

There are other options, you think it's one or the other?

[Rohirrim]

There are other options, you think it's one or the other?

Nope. No other options. Haven't you heard? Because we have social security, we are a socialist nation. Soon, the government will be controlling the light switches in your home. You must have missed the rhetoric of the Right for the last thirty years. Once we get rid of all that socialism, everything will be alright.

[Obushma]

Nope. No other options. Haven't you heard? Because we have social security, we are a socialist nation. Soon, the government will be controlling the light switches in your home. You must have missed the rhetoric of the Right for the last thirty years. Once we get rid of all that socialism, everything will be alright.

Well, you now see the failures of a system that's been in place for much longer then 30 years. The legislation enacted by the Progressives before them, is what gave the Neocons power.

How pissed you think I am that i'm paying into a system that i'll never see a dime from? I'll pay your SS till you die Ro and never ask for a dime, as long as my kids don't have to pay into that ****ty program.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Thats because you have no idea what his positions were when Bush was in office.

Not true, McLiar.

My memory isn't that bad (that would be your side's problem.)

[Rohirrim]

Well, you now see the failures of a system that's been in place for much longer then 30 years. The legislation enacted by the Progressives before them, is what gave the Neocons power.

How pissed you think I am that i'm paying into a system that i'll never see a dime from? I'll pay your SS till you die Ro and never ask for a dime, as long as my kids don't have to pay into that ****ty program.

You think you have something to whine about? The Boomers paid for the generation ahead of them AND THEMSELVES. The next generation wouldn't have had to spend a dime on us. We built up a $1.5 trillion dollar surplus in 1983 that would have paid full benefits until 2042.

You probably had full confidence in your government's commitment to you until that fateful day of February 25, 2004 when Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, sent shock waves throughout the nation with his first call for Social Security benefit cuts. This is the same Alan Greenspan who headed the 1982 presidential commission on Social Security to fix the baby boomer problem. He and his fellow commissioners foresaw at that time the potential problem that would exist when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010, so they urged Congress to enact their recommended solution to the problem. Congress did so in 1983.

The solution was quite simple. TAX, TAX, TAX THOSE BABY BOOMERS UP FRONT! Hit them with a double whammy by making them pay enough taxes to prepay the cost of their own retirement in addition to paying for the retirement of the preceding generation.

The baby boomers did all that was asked of them. Their extra tax dollars have generated approximately $1.5 trillion in Social Security surpluses since 1983, and continue to generate surpluses of more than $400 million each and every day. By the time they retire, the baby boomers will have paid for their own retirement in addition to having paid for the retirement of the previous generation. The trust fund should contain a large enough reserve to pay full benefits until 2042 when the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old.

So why is President Bush now making scapegoats out of the baby boomers and telling the public that the boomers are the reason the system needs reform? Why is the president quoting worker-to-retiree ratios when that calculation was done back in 1983, at the time taxes were raised to take care of the worker-retiree imbalance that would occur with the retirement of the baby boomers?

He is doing so because the government has been "borrowing" and spending (embezzling) all those baby boomer surplus tax dollars for the past two decades. Although both Bush and Gore promised to end the practice during the 2000 presidential campaign, and Bush repeated that pledge in his first State of the Union address, he "borrowed" and spent $509 billion of the baby boomers' retirement contributions in violation of both federal law and his pledge to the American people. Even as he publicly blames the baby boomers for the Social Security problems, Bush continues to misappropriate more than $400 million of their retirement money each and every day.http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Opinion/5-01-17BabyBoomerRipoff.htm

So please, at least you rightards can have the decency to stop whining about Social Security.

[Obushma]

So please, at least you rightards can have the decency to stop whining about Social Security.

Hey ****tard, you're the one who brought up SS. Dumb ass boomers, you let the government take your money.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Not true, McLiar.

My memory isn't that bad (that would be your side's problem.)

You dont remember anything about that poster.

[chadta]

He is doing so because the government has been "borrowing" and spending (embezzling) all those baby boomer surplus tax dollars for the past two decades.

so after 8 years of clinton, 8 years of bush, and 2 years of the savior himself, this is still going on, and this is somehow a right wing problem ? why didnt clinton do anything about it ? why hasnt obama done anything ?

its the same crap the liberals up here pull, talking about doing something about high gas taxes, and high gas prices, the oil companys are in collusion, well that didnt seem to matter for the 13 years they formed the government but now its a dire emergency when somebody else is calling the shots.

[gyldenlove]

This as opposed to when private power companies flick the switch to cause rolling brownouts?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You dont remember anything about that poster.

Miss Cleo speaks.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_0SWl0hRdg4A/STaWHw_xN5I/AAAAAAAAHkc/E6r2nLOMIak/s400/Miss_Cleo.jpg

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You think you have something to whine about? The Boomers paid for the generation ahead of them AND THEMSELVES. The next generation wouldn't have had to spend a dime on us. We built up a $1.5 trillion dollar surplus in 1983 that would have paid full benefits until 2042.

You probably had full confidence in your government's commitment to you until that fateful day of February 25, 2004 when Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, sent shock waves throughout the nation with his first call for Social Security benefit cuts. This is the same Alan Greenspan who headed the 1982 presidential commission on Social Security to fix the baby boomer problem. He and his fellow commissioners foresaw at that time the potential problem that would exist when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010, so they urged Congress to enact their recommended solution to the problem. Congress did so in 1983.

The solution was quite simple. TAX, TAX, TAX THOSE BABY BOOMERS UP FRONT! Hit them with a double whammy by making them pay enough taxes to prepay the cost of their own retirement in addition to paying for the retirement of the preceding generation.

The baby boomers did all that was asked of them. Their extra tax dollars have generated approximately $1.5 trillion in Social Security surpluses since 1983, and continue to generate surpluses of more than $400 million each and every day. By the time they retire, the baby boomers will have paid for their own retirement in addition to having paid for the retirement of the previous generation. The trust fund should contain a large enough reserve to pay full benefits until 2042 when the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old.

So why is President Bush now making scapegoats out of the baby boomers and telling the public that the boomers are the reason the system needs reform? Why is the president quoting worker-to-retiree ratios when that calculation was done back in 1983, at the time taxes were raised to take care of the worker-retiree imbalance that would occur with the retirement of the baby boomers?

He is doing so because the government has been "borrowing" and spending (embezzling) all those baby boomer surplus tax dollars for the past two decades. Although both Bush and Gore promised to end the practice during the 2000 presidential campaign, and Bush repeated that pledge in his first State of the Union address, he "borrowed" and spent $509 billion of the baby boomers' retirement contributions in violation of both federal law and his pledge to the American people. Even as he publicly blames the baby boomers for the Social Security problems, Bush continues to misappropriate more than $400 million of their retirement money each and every day.http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Opinion/5-01-17BabyBoomerRipoff.htm

So please, at least you rightards can have the decency to stop whining about Social Security.

There you go confounding the Bush Youth with more of those pesky fact things. ;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dumb ass boomers, you let the government take your money.

Odds are you have some unresolved mommy and daddy issues.

Instead of confronting your hippie parents in Ashland, OR., you spend all your time attacking an abstraction, i.e., "the boomers."

[Obushma]

Odds are you have some unresolved mommy and daddy issues.

Instead of confronting your hippie parents in Ashland, OR., you spend all your time attacking an abstraction, i.e., "the boomers."

Actually my mother died when I was 1, my father never left the island and we have a good relationship...so no, it's just the fact that American boomers are politically the stupidest generation to ever walk the face of the earth.

What's your excuse? Your Dad and Uncle Cookie couldn't find a job after the show flopped?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

...so no, it's just the fact that American boomers are politically the stupidest generation to ever walk the face of the earth.

What's your excuse? Your Dad and Uncle Cookie couldn't find a job after the show flopped?

Excuse for what?

I'm not the one using an absurd broad brush to paint an entire generation of people.

[JJJ]

You think you have something to whine about? The Boomers paid for the generation ahead of them AND THEMSELVES. The next generation wouldn't have had to spend a dime on us. We built up a $1.5 trillion dollar surplus in 1983 that would have paid full benefits until 2042.

You probably had full confidence in your government's commitment to you until that fateful day of February 25, 2004 when Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan, sent shock waves throughout the nation with his first call for Social Security benefit cuts. This is the same Alan Greenspan who headed the 1982 presidential commission on Social Security to fix the baby boomer problem. He and his fellow commissioners foresaw at that time the potential problem that would exist when the baby boomers began to retire in about 2010, so they urged Congress to enact their recommended solution to the problem. Congress did so in 1983.

The solution was quite simple. TAX, TAX, TAX THOSE BABY BOOMERS UP FRONT! Hit them with a double whammy by making them pay enough taxes to prepay the cost of their own retirement in addition to paying for the retirement of the preceding generation.

The baby boomers did all that was asked of them. Their extra tax dollars have generated approximately $1.5 trillion in Social Security surpluses since 1983, and continue to generate surpluses of more than $400 million each and every day. By the time they retire, the baby boomers will have paid for their own retirement in addition to having paid for the retirement of the previous generation. The trust fund should contain a large enough reserve to pay full benefits until 2042 when the youngest of the baby boomers will be 78 years old.

So why is President Bush now making scapegoats out of the baby boomers and telling the public that the boomers are the reason the system needs reform? Why is the president quoting worker-to-retiree ratios when that calculation was done back in 1983, at the time taxes were raised to take care of the worker-retiree imbalance that would occur with the retirement of the baby boomers?

He is doing so because the government has been "borrowing" and spending (embezzling) all those baby boomer surplus tax dollars for the past two decades. Although both Bush and Gore promised to end the practice during the 2000 presidential campaign, and Bush repeated that pledge in his first State of the Union address, he "borrowed" and spent $509 billion of the baby boomers' retirement contributions in violation of both federal law and his pledge to the American people. Even as he publicly blames the baby boomers for the Social Security problems, Bush continues to misappropriate more than $400 million of their retirement money each and every day.http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/Opinion/5-01-17BabyBoomerRipoff.htm

So please, at least you rightards can have the decency to stop whining about Social Security.

Social security is primarily a demographic problem.

This urban myth about Bush stealing from the social security system is just complete garbage. It never was and never has been in a lock box. There were lots of babies in the boom, thus the term. Lots of workers and naturally a surplus of contributions was generated. But is important to remember is was a surplus of contributions and a surplus on one account of the government books. But every administration since SS was enacted has used the funds to pay for daily business. There was never anything in the SS lockbox except IOUs from day one.

In 25-30 years there won't enough workers to support all the boomers through their latter retirement years. Only solution is delay the start of retirement ala France or needs test it.

Bush was the only one who actually tried to put SS into the hands of the individual so he could control his own investments and ROI. His privatization proposal is the only real real lockbox solution because just like a 401k it was going to be put into your own personal retirement account.

Every other solution leaves the money (the IOUs really) in a pool in the hands of the government and politicians and you know it is not safe in that regard.

Bush recently said not getting this SS reform through was his greatest failure as president and I think that is true.

[barryr]

It was the democrats and liberals all around who believed SS was doing quiet well and not a problem while Bush was president. Another lame attempt to just blame Bush for the problems when all in DC are to blame.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Social security is primarily a demographic problem.



SS wasn't a "problem" until your boy Red Ink Ron started looting from the fund in order to make up for the revenue shortfalls created by his massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

The rethug strategy has always been to rob SS blind and then claim the resulting problems are evidence that the program was flawed in its conception.

[JJJ]

SS wasn't a "problem" until your boy Red Ink Ron started looting from the fund in order to make up for the revenue shortfalls created by his massive tax cuts for the wealthy.

The rethug strategy has always been to rob SS blind and then claim the resulting problems are evidence that the program was flawed in its conception.

Again, nobody ever looted anything. Cold hard cash or any tangible assets were never in or secured the fund even in Ike's day. It is secured by government issued securities to the two trusts that make SS, i.e. government IOUs.

It is a bookkeeping surplus. Whether the fund is in surplus or not really has no bearing on the government's ability to pay the current payments.

Here is a quote from Bush that is true and has been since day one of SS.

Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.

And by the way Ronnie actually increased SS taxes in 1983 to shore up the "fund" per Greenspan's recommendation.

Really you shouldn't make statements you really don't know anything about. Study up a bit and come back when you have your facts straight.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Again, nobody ever looted anything.

Still covering for The Gipper, eh? tsk tsk

Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40K/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund to make up for the gigantic revenue shortfalls created by his tax cuts for the wealthy.

Face it - you're nothing but an apologist for reverse Robin Hood policies.

[Atwater 27]

Again, nobody ever looted anything. Cold hard cash or any tangible assets were never in or secured the fund even in Ike's day. It is secured by government issued securities to the two trusts that make SS, i.e. government IOUs.

It is a bookkeeping surplus. Whether the fund is in surplus or not really has no bearing on the government's ability to pay the current payments.

Here is a quote from Bush that is true and has been since day one of SS.

Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust.

And by the way Ronnie actually increased SS taxes in 1983 to shore up the "fund" per Greenspan's recommendation.

Really you shouldn't make statements you really don't know anything about. Study up a bit and come back when you have your facts straight.

That's some ****ing OWNAGE right there. LOL

[Rohirrim]

Social security is primarily a demographic problem.

This urban myth about Bush stealing from the social security system is just complete garbage. It never was and never has been in a lock box. There were lots of babies in the boom, thus the term. Lots of workers and naturally a surplus of contributions was generated. But is important to remember is was a surplus of contributions and a surplus on one account of the government books. But every administration since SS was enacted has used the funds to pay for daily business. There was never anything in the SS lockbox except IOUs from day one.

In 25-30 years there won't enough workers to support all the boomers through their latter retirement years. Only solution is delay the start of retirement ala France or needs test it.

Bush was the only one who actually tried to put SS into the hands of the individual so he could control his own investments and ROI. His privatization proposal is the only real real lockbox solution because just like a 401k it was going to be put into your own personal retirement account.

Every other solution leaves the money (the IOUs really) in a pool in the hands of the government and politicians and you know it is not safe in that regard.

Bush recently said not getting this SS reform through was his greatest failure as president and I think that is true.

I doubt you'll read this, but I'll throw it out there just for yuks:

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.

Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.

The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.

Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.

Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.

This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.

Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).

But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.

No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.

Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.

The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).

Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

As the Associated Press reported on April 6, 2005:

"PARKERSBURG, West Virginia. (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday used a four-drawer filing cabinet stuffed with paper representing government IOUs the president said symbolized the Social Security trust fund's bleak outlook for meeting Americans' future retirement needs. ...
"'A lot of people in America think there is a trust -- that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you,' Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg.

"'But that's not the way it works,' Bush said. 'There is no trust "fund" -- just IOUs that I saw firsthand,' Bush said...

"[Susan] Chapman [of the Office of Public Debt] opened the second drawer and pulled out a white notebook filled with pseudo Treasury securities -- pieces of paper that offer physical evidence of $1.7 trillion in treasury bonds that make up the trust fund."

Later, Senator Rick Santorum made an odd admission for a Republican: ""You can't pay benefits with IOUs," he said on the Senate floor. "You have to pay it with cash."

And where will that cash - now nearly two trillion dollars - come from over the next decades as Boomers begin to retire?

Technically (and legally) it's simple - the Social Security Trust Fund will give back its IOUs to the Treasury Department and in exchange for them get cash to pay the Boomers' retirement checks. Practically, though, it'll be a crisis of biblical proportions. In order for the Treasury to come up with that kind of cash will require either massive tax increases or increased massive borrowing - at a time when we're already borrowing so heavily that China is propping up our economy with weekly loans.

Thus, Bush talks about a "crisis" in Social Security with some accuracy. But he doesn't dare tell us what the real "crisis" is, or how Reagan and Greenspan set it up, because when it becomes widely known that the real crisis is that Reagan set the course to steal Boomers' Social Security savings, it will destroy the reputation of both supply-side economics and the Republican Party for generations to come.

That Republicans and "conservative" Democrats have been able to perpetrate this fraud on America for the past 25 years tracks back to the initial and ongoing efforts of one man, Alan Greenspan, says Ravi Batra in his new book "Greenspan's Fraud: How Two Decades of His Polices Have Undermined the Global Economy."

And the Social Security fraud just outlined is only the beginning. Batra shows - in extraordinary (and easily understood) detail - how Greenspan has steadily worked for over two decades to sell out America's sovereignty and economic interests to those of the multinational corporations he so loves, and to sell out the working people of America (and their Social Security Trust Fund) to the super-rich who Greenspan has always represented.

Greenspan manipulated the stock market so his buddies could get rich, then warned them just in time to get out before it blew up. He's kept together tax cuts and pay increases for the CEO class by pumping cheap money into the economy so the Middle Class will go ever deeper into debt, setting up a housing bubble that could crash in a way that would make 1929 look like a mild bump in the economic road. And he's helped engineer and support international "free" trade policies that have disemboweled America's manufacturing and information technology sectors, with the happy result for Republicans that the once-politically-active and heavily unionized middle class is being replaced by a politically impotent mass of the working poor, too busy to worry about politics or challenge corporate news.

Most people, coming across this massive indictment of Greenspan, would probably react with skepticism. Why wasn't any of this in the paper? Why haven't I heard Democrats and liberals attacking Greenspan from the floors of Congress and in the progressive media?

As Batra points out, the truest testament to the power Alan Greenspan holds is that he's been able to do so much of this behind the scenes. He gently encourages and nudges, argues and lectures, leaks and pontificates. He suggests, rather than orders. And, of course, he holds the levers of the nation's money supply in his hands - making him a more fearsome threat to a sitting president or political party than J. Edgar Hoover ever was.

And, Batra documents, Greenspan has not been at all reluctant to use his considerable power to the benefit of those in office.

One example: During the Reagan and Bush presidencies, he was in favor of tax cuts. During Clinton's he was against them. During Bush Junior's he was again in favor of them.

Ravi Batra's book "Greenspan's Fraud" is not only required reading for all Americans because it so clearly lays out the crimes this man - and the Republican Party - have committed against the United States of America, but also because it's such a brilliant primer in macroeconomics overall. If you never were able to figure out, for example, what interest rates had to do with unemployment, or how the rich get richer in America while the poor get poorer, or why when the minimum wage is increased the economy gets better, Batra explains it all with elegance, wit, and comfortable clarity.

"Greenspan's Fraud" is one of the most important books you can read this year. Get two copies, because you're sure to have at least one friend you'll want to read this book, but your own copy will be so marked up and beloved that you'll not want to let go of it.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10015

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I doubt you'll read this, but I'll throw it out there just for yuks:

What do you do when you want to screw only the working people of your nation with the largest tax increase in history and hand those trillions of dollars to your wealthy campaign contributors, yet not have anybody realize you've done it? If you're Ronald Reagan, you call in Alan Greenspan.

Through the "golden years of the American middle class" - the 1940s through 1982 - the top income tax rate for the hyper-rich had been between 90 and 70 percent. Ronald Reagan wanted to cut that rate dramatically, to help out his political patrons. He did this with a massive tax cut in the summer of 1981.

The only problem was that when Reagan took his meat axe to our tax code, he produced mind-boggling budget deficits. Voodoo economics didn't work out as planned, and even after borrowing so much money that this year we'll pay over $100 billion just in interest on the money Reagan borrowed to make the economy look good in the 1980s, Reagan couldn't come up with the revenues he needed to run the government.

Coincidentally, the actuaries at the Social Security Administration were beginning to get worried about the Baby Boomer generation, who would begin retiring in big numbers in fifty years or so. They were a "rabbit going through the python" bulge that would require a few trillion more dollars than Social Security could easily collect during the same 20 year or so period of their retirement. We needed, the actuaries said, to tax more heavily those very persons who would eventually retire, so instead of using current workers' money to pay for the Boomer's Social Security payments in 2020, the Boomers themselves would have pre-paid for their own retirement.

Reagan got Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Alan Greenspan together to form a commission on Social Security reform, along with a few other politicians and economists, and they recommend a near-doubling of the Social Security tax on the then-working Boomers. That tax created - for the first time in history - a giant savings account that Social Security could use to pay for the Boomers' retirement.

This was a huge change. Prior to this, Social Security had always paid for today's retirees with income from today's workers (it still is today). The Boomers were the first generation that would pay Social Security taxes both to fund current retirees and save up enough money to pay for their own retirement. And, after the Boomers were all retired and the savings account - called the "Social Security Trust Fund" - was all spent, the rabbit would have finished its journey through the python and Social Security could go back to a "pay as you go" taxing system.

Thus, within the period of a few short years, Reagan dramatically dropped the income tax on America's most wealthy by more than half, and roughly doubled the Social Security tax on people earning $30,000 or less. It was, simultaneously, the largest income tax cut in America's history (almost entirely for the very wealthy), and the most massive tax increase in the history of the nation (which entirely hit working-class people).

But Reagan still had a problem. His tax cuts for the wealthy - even when moderated by subsequent tax increases - weren't generating enough money to invest properly in America's infrastructure, schools, police and fire departments, and military. The country was facing bankruptcy.

No problem, suggested Greenspan. Just borrow the Boomer's savings account - the money in the Social Security Trust Fund - and, because you're borrowing "government money" to fund "government expenditures," you don't have to list it as part of the deficit. Much of the deficit will magically seem to disappear, and nobody will know what you did for another 50 years when the Boomers begin to retire 2015.

Reagan jumped at the opportunity. As did George H. W. Bush. As did Bill Clinton (although Al Gore argued strongly that Social Security funds should not be raided, but, instead, put in a "lock box"). And so did George W. Bush.

The result is that all that money - trillions of dollars - that has been taxed out of working Boomers (the ceiling has risen from the tax being on your first $30,000 of income to the first $90,000 today) has been borrowed and spent. What are left behind are a special form of IOUs - an unique form of Treasury debt instruments similar (but not identical) to those the government issues to borrow money from China today to fund George W. Bush's most recent tax cuts for billionaires (George Junior is still also "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund).

Former Bush Junior Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill recounts how Dick Cheney famously said, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Cheney was either ignorant or being disingenuous - it would be more accurate to say, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter if you rip off the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for them, and don't report that borrowing from the Boomers as part of the deficit."

As the Associated Press reported on April 6, 2005:

"PARKERSBURG, West Virginia. (AP) -- President Bush on Tuesday used a four-drawer filing cabinet stuffed with paper representing government IOUs the president said symbolized the Social Security trust fund's bleak outlook for meeting Americans' future retirement needs. ...
"'A lot of people in America think there is a trust -- that we take your money in payroll taxes and then we hold it for you and then when you retire, we give it back to you,' Bush said in a speech at the University of West Virginia at Parkersburg.

"'But that's not the way it works,' Bush said. 'There is no trust "fund" -- just IOUs that I saw firsthand,' Bush said...

"[Susan] Chapman [of the Office of Public Debt] opened the second drawer and pulled out a white notebook filled with pseudo Treasury securities -- pieces of paper that offer physical evidence of $1.7 trillion in treasury bonds that make up the trust fund."

Later, Senator Rick Santorum made an odd admission for a Republican: ""You can't pay benefits with IOUs," he said on the Senate floor. "You have to pay it with cash."

And where will that cash - now nearly two trillion dollars - come from over the next decades as Boomers begin to retire?

Technically (and legally) it's simple - the Social Security Trust Fund will give back its IOUs to the Treasury Department and in exchange for them get cash to pay the Boomers' retirement checks. Practically, though, it'll be a crisis of biblical proportions. In order for the Treasury to come up with that kind of cash will require either massive tax increases or increased massive borrowing - at a time when we're already borrowing so heavily that China is propping up our economy with weekly loans.

Thus, Bush talks about a "crisis" in Social Security with some accuracy. But he doesn't dare tell us what the real "crisis" is, or how Reagan and Greenspan set it up, because when it becomes widely known that the real crisis is that Reagan set the course to steal Boomers' Social Security savings, it will destroy the reputation of both supply-side economics and the Republican Party for generations to come.

That Republicans and "conservative" Democrats have been able to perpetrate this fraud on America for the past 25 years tracks back to the initial and ongoing efforts of one man, Alan Greenspan, says Ravi Batra in his new book "Greenspan's Fraud: How Two Decades of His Polices Have Undermined the Global Economy."

And the Social Security fraud just outlined is only the beginning. Batra shows - in extraordinary (and easily understood) detail - how Greenspan has steadily worked for over two decades to sell out America's sovereignty and economic interests to those of the multinational corporations he so loves, and to sell out the working people of America (and their Social Security Trust Fund) to the super-rich who Greenspan has always represented.

Greenspan manipulated the stock market so his buddies could get rich, then warned them just in time to get out before it blew up. He's kept together tax cuts and pay increases for the CEO class by pumping cheap money into the economy so the Middle Class will go ever deeper into debt, setting up a housing bubble that could crash in a way that would make 1929 look like a mild bump in the economic road. And he's helped engineer and support international "free" trade policies that have disemboweled America's manufacturing and information technology sectors, with the happy result for Republicans that the once-politically-active and heavily unionized middle class is being replaced by a politically impotent mass of the working poor, too busy to worry about politics or challenge corporate news.

Most people, coming across this massive indictment of Greenspan, would probably react with skepticism. Why wasn't any of this in the paper? Why haven't I heard Democrats and liberals attacking Greenspan from the floors of Congress and in the progressive media?

As Batra points out, the truest testament to the power Alan Greenspan holds is that he's been able to do so much of this behind the scenes. He gently encourages and nudges, argues and lectures, leaks and pontificates. He suggests, rather than orders. And, of course, he holds the levers of the nation's money supply in his hands - making him a more fearsome threat to a sitting president or political party than J. Edgar Hoover ever was.

And, Batra documents, Greenspan has not been at all reluctant to use his considerable power to the benefit of those in office.

One example: During the Reagan and Bush presidencies, he was in favor of tax cuts. During Clinton's he was against them. During Bush Junior's he was again in favor of them.

Ravi Batra's book "Greenspan's Fraud" is not only required reading for all Americans because it so clearly lays out the crimes this man - and the Republican Party - have committed against the United States of America, but also because it's such a brilliant primer in macroeconomics overall. If you never were able to figure out, for example, what interest rates had to do with unemployment, or how the rich get richer in America while the poor get poorer, or why when the minimum wage is increased the economy gets better, Batra explains it all with elegance, wit, and comfortable clarity.

"Greenspan's Fraud" is one of the most important books you can read this year. Get two copies, because you're sure to have at least one friend you'll want to read this book, but your own copy will be so marked up and beloved that you'll not want to let go of it.

http://blog.buzzflash.com/hartmann/10015

Amazing how oblivious JJJ and other right-wing revisionists and disinfo slingers are to the foregoing facts, isn't it?

[Rohirrim]

That's some ****ing OWNAGE right there. LOL

Only to an idiot. Here's his argument: Joe takes $20 from his wife's wallet and says he's going to put it in their retirement fund. Instead, he goes to the bar. He watches the game, eats a hot dog, has a couple of beers, and spends the whole twenty. When he gets home, his wife wants the twenty back, so he writes her an IOU and tries to convince her that there never really was a "real" twenty.

That's JJJ's argument. There was no real lock box. There was no real surplus. Therefore, the money never really existed.

When it was removed from people's paychecks it was real money.

[Atwater 27]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/TBus91VsnOI/AAAAAAAAHPo/TLC4s5jWL-0/s1600/THE+GREAT+RED+INK+SPILL.jpg

[TailgateNut]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8yBmwXW4XEM/TBus91VsnOI/AAAAAAAAHPo/TLC4s5jWL-0/s1600/THE+GREAT+RED+INK+SPILL.jpg


Nice. Is that dedicated to Red Ink Ron?

[mhgaffney]

Looks more like the Union Jack than red ink.

[Atwater 27]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LO2eh6f5Go0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LO2eh6f5Go0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

[Taco John]

Amazing how oblivious JJJ and other right-wing revisionists and disinfo slingers are to the foregoing facts, isn't it?



I don't think you actually read the things that JJJ and others write. The things that JJJ posted and what Rohirrim posted aren't really all that contradictory at all. I guess if you steep in the pro-partisan language that Ro's writer seems to enjoy, you might not catch it. But if you can look past the rhetoric and at the objective facts, you'll find a common denominator.

[Haroldthebarrel]

Yeah, socialism has been such a resounding success around the world. Of course only in your demented, racist, warped sense of reality.

What do you mean by socialism? Do you consider Scandinavia and Germany as socialist states or what? Just wondering since I believe all the Scandinavian countries has had a government with a party member calling themselves socialist this past decade.

[Rohirrim]

What do you mean by socialism? Do you consider Scandinavia and Germany as socialist states or what? Just wondering since I believe all the Scandinavian countries has had a government with a party member calling themselves socialist this past decade.

When the right wing in America talks about socialism, they mean that Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare are no different than a Stalinist, Soviet state. In America, we are so polarized now that we only talk in extremes.

[JJJ]

I don't think you actually read the things that JJJ and others write. The things that JJJ posted and what Rohirrim posted aren't really all that contradictory at all. I guess if you steep in the pro-partisan language that Ro's writer seems to enjoy, you might not catch it. But if you can look past the rhetoric and at the objective facts, you'll find a common denominator.

My posts are a lot shorter.

[JJJ]

Only to an idiot. Here's his argument: Joe takes $20 from his wife's wallet and says he's going to put it in their retirement fund. Instead, he goes to the bar. He watches the game, eats a hot dog, has a couple of beers, and spends the whole twenty. When he gets home, his wife wants the twenty back, so he writes her an IOU and tries to convince her that there never really was a "real" twenty.

That's JJJ's argument. There was no real lock box. There was no real surplus. Therefore, the money never really existed.

When it was removed from people's paychecks it was real money.

Good lord.

The IOUs were being written from day one. Joe's grandfather was writing grandma IOUs. Your Wrigley Field adventure perfectly describes what had always been happening long before Reagan came along. The money was spent in the same year it was collected.

There was no surplus in SS future liabilities before Reagan increased the SS tax, there was a projected deficit at around the 2035 mark due totally to the demographic nature of the baby boom bubble. It is just totally disingenous to say the guy that raised SS tax to address that unfunded liability is also somehow raiding the SS fund because he is also lowering income taxes at the same time.

The most important thing to remember is regardless if there is a surplus or deficit in the SS trust fund current account or in its future liabilities (these are two different things) the money isn't there anyways. It has always been spent and current payments have to be funded by current collections or debt issuance.

The only one who really advocated a true lock box (which by definition means privatization of the trust on an individual contributor basis like your 401k) is GW Bush. Gore often said the words "Laaaaahhhhck Baaaaaahhhcks" but had no idea what he was talking about.

Al Gore’s Social Security Confusion
by Peter Ferrara

Peter J. Ferrara is an adjunct fellow at the Cato Institute, an associate professor of law at George Mason University, and the co-author of "A New Deal for Social Security" (Cato Institute, 1998).

Added to cato.org on October 6, 2000

This article appeared on cato.org on October 6, 2000.

During the presidential debate, Vice President Gore told the nation, “I will keep Social Security in a lockbox, and that pays down the national debt.” Well, which is it? If you take the Social Security surplus each year and use it to pay down the national debt, you’re not exactly keeping Social Security funds in a lockbox.

Gore also pledged that he would “veto any plan that takes money out of Social Security and uses it for any other purpose.” That means Gore would have to veto his own plan because, again, paying down the debt is not reserving funds for Social Security.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4483

[epicSocialism4tw]

What do you mean by socialism? Do you consider Scandinavia and Germany as socialist states or what? Just wondering since I believe all the Scandinavian countries has had a government with a party member calling themselves socialist this past decade.

All of those northern european countries would be called "Germany" right now if it was not for the capitalist USA's industrial power and might.

Talk about not having the infrastructure to fight a war...Hitler pretty much walked through the place, put up flags, and called it home.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

There was no surplus in SS future liabilities before Reagan increased the SS tax, there was a projected deficit at around the 2035 mark due totally to the demographic nature of the baby boom bubble.

Wow - you just never let up with the RNC propaganda, do you?

While in the worst recession since the great depression, Social Security continues to issue benefit payments, on time, in the full amount due, and without the slightest twitch. According to the 2009 Annual Report of its Board of Trustees, it is safe and solvent, without any change, for at least the next 30-years.

[JJJ]

Wow - you just never let up with the RNC propaganda, do you?

While in the worst recession since the great depression, Social Security continues to issue benefit payments, on time, in the full amount due, and without the slightest twitch. According to the 2009 Annual Report of its Board of Trustees, it is safe and solvent, without any change, for at least the next 30-years.

On cue you show how little you really know about this issue.

1. The current collections exceed payments and this will continue for about 20 years when the tail end of the baby boomers go into retirement. There is a surplus in the annual net payment and current trust accounts no one anywhere is arguing otherwise.

2. Unfunded liabiities are the projected shortfalls in the system when those 20 years are played out and where problem lies. This projected shortfall runs in the tens of trillions of dollars in the 20 to 30 years starting around 2030 because there simply won't be enough workers to continue to run that annual and culmulative surplus that exists right now and to continue to pay for the boomers in their retirement years.

At this time you will have simultaneously a massive wave of people currently paying into the system stop paying into the system and the same massive wave of people currently not taking benefits, starting to take benefits. This is purely an undeniable unavoidable demographic reality.

So by that time we will have to either be paying higher SS taxes, taking lower benefits or taking them later, or having income taxes and other sources of revenue prop up the fund. In order to continue to pay for benefits at that time the SS trust will most likely have to find ways to borrow from the other portions of the government rather than the other way around as it is now.

When all the boomers die off again the problem will ease but there is a 30T gulf to get through before that happens.

3. The notion that anything is safe and solvent when the only thing in the SS lock box is a bunch of IOUs from another part of the government itself is pure folly. The solvency of SS is purely dependent on the overall solvency of the federal government itself and its ability to pay its third party debt, not the net amount in those two trusts. The board is assuming the government has the capacity to actually repay their internal obligations, normally a fair and valid assumption.

This notion only comes into question when the overall debt of the nation becomes big enough to threaten default to third parties like China. Unfortunately those overall debt levels are getting to the point where that question becomes a valid one. China calls in its debt tomorrow and the government will have to print money en masse and severe inflation will shortly follow thereafter. SS will likely still be paid but it will be worth a lot less in real terms.

Bury your head in the sand if you wish but judgement day is coming in regards to SS without French-like reforms.

[Atwater 27]

LABF, just quit while you're ahead. It's getting embarassing...

[barryr]

On cue you show how little you really know about this issue.

1. The current collections exceed payments and this will continue for about 20 years when the tail end of the baby boomers go into retirement. There is a surplus in the annual net payment and current trust accounts no one anywhere is arguing otherwise.

2. Unfunded liabiities are the projected shortfalls in the system when those 20 years are played out and where problem lies. This projected shortfall runs in the tens of trillions of dollars in the 20 to 30 years starting around 2030 because there simply won't be enough workers to continue to run that annual and culmulative surplus that exists right now and to continue to pay for the boomers in their retirement years.

At this time you will have simultaneously a massive wave of people currently paying into the system stop paying into the system and the same massive wave of people currently not taking benefits, starting to take benefits. This is purely an undeniable unavoidable demographic reality.

So by that time we will have to either be paying higher SS taxes, taking lower benefits or taking them later, or having income taxes and other sources of revenue prop up the fund. In order to continue to pay for benefits at that time the SS trust will most likely have to find ways to borrow from the other portions of the government rather than the other way around as it is now.

When all the boomers die off again the problem will ease but there is a 30T gulf to get through before that happens.

3. The notion that anything is safe and solvent when the only thing in the SS lock box is a bunch of IOUs from another part of the government itself is pure folly. The solvency of SS is purely dependent on the overall solvency of the federal government itself and its ability to pay its third party debt, not the net amount in those two trusts. The board is assuming the government has the capacity to actually repay their internal obligations, normally a fair and valid assumption.

This notion only comes into question when the overall debt of the nation becomes big enough to threaten default to third parties like China. Unfortunately those overall debt levels are getting to the point where that question becomes a valid one. China calls in its debt tomorrow and the government will have to print money en masse and severe inflation will shortly follow thereafter. SS will likely still be paid but it will be worth a lot less in real terms.

Bury your head in the sand if you wish but judgement day is coming in regards to SS without French-like reforms.

Ouch, LABF just got put in his place BIG-TIME! That had to hurt LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

LABF, just quit while you're ahead. It's getting embarassing(sic)...

Wow - great contribution to the discussion, little fella.

You're like Tattoo to JJJ's Mr. Roarke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Ouch, LABF just got put in his place BIG-TIME! That had to hurt LOL

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight - his revisionism, CATO and Heritage propaganda really leave a mark.

Ha!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Republican Lies About Social Security Have Started Again: The Antidote? Truth!

Social Security and Medicare are two of America's greatest success stories. Social Security has helped generation after generation of America's retire with dignity and Medicare has helped reduce senior poverty by two-thirds since it began in 1965!

Social Security is not part of the country's debt and deficit problem, it is the most fiscally responsible federal program--self-financed through dedicated contributions. Ninety-nine percent of contributions are paid out in benefits, with only one percent spent on administrative costs. There are no private investment plans coming anywhere near that!

We are hearing that Medicare is in a crises and that "baby-boomers will bankrupt the system and the country". The influx of baby-boomers into Medicare does present challenges, but the recent health care reform legislation promises to save Medicare about $475-billion over ten years and is expected to extend the program's solvency another nine years. Health care reform will, over the same period, cut the federal deficit by $138-billion.

All these are verifiable fact.

And there are other truths:

More than one-third of those 65 and up rely on Social Security for 90% or better of their income. Without it, 55% of the severely disabled, 47% of elderly households would be plunged into poverty and another 1.3-million children, and 2.4-million grandparents rearing 4.5-million grandchildren would lose the single most important source of income for these grand-family households.

Not merely a "Retirement Program", Social Security, pays more benefits to children than any other federal program. Six-and-a-half million U.S. children receive assistance from its survivor program--which protects virtually all U.S. children in the tragic event of the death of a parent.

While in the worst recession since the great depression, Social Security continues to issue benefit payments, on time, in the full amount due, and without the slightest twitch. According to the 2009 Annual Report of its Board of Trustees, it is safe and solvent, without any change, for at least the next 30-years.

Social Security is perhaps the world's greatest poverty fighter, it certainly is America's. Older women and people of color are the ones most likely to face poverty in their older years. Right now, women comprise 60% of Social Security beneficiaries and depend on it more than their male counterparts. Over 75% of Latino and nearly 80% of African Americans count on Social Security for more than half their total incomes.

Social Security benefits are protected from inflation and guaranteed for life...no Wall Street backed private investment plan can truthfully make that claim. In fact, since the economic meltdown, $10-trillion in asset values have evaporated--check your 401K or other stock market investments if you'd like to debate that figure!

Simply put; Social Security is even more vital to old-age security and it is clearly and utterly impossible to reliably replicate those on-time, life-time, guaranteed benefits in the private market.

Anyone telling you otherwise is a liar and less trustworthy than an aluminum siding telemarketer.

[Atwater 27]

Wow - great contribution to the discussion, little fella.

You're like Tattoo to JJJ's Mr. Roarke.

You're are like a boil on Rosie O'donnel's vagina.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You're are like a boil on Rosie O'donnel's vagina.

Classy!

Spoken like a true poster boy for the "values" party.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Campaign for America's Future and Democracy Corps commissioned a poll from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research (http://www.ourfuture.org/report/2010114404/election-2010-poll) which showed that an overwhelming 69 percent of voters agreed that "politicians should keep their hands off Social Security and Medicare" when they address the deficit.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The Money Party Deficit Reduction Scam and Social Security

Michael Collins (http://tinyurl.com/26h5b75)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/bigbusiness.jpg

"Our payroll taxes for Social Security are "interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit of the United States" government. We all know who that is, the Money Party. And we know how good their word is."

President Obama announced the new National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-establishes-bipartisan-national-commission-fiscal-responsibility-an) on February 18 to address astronomical federal budget deficits. There has been considerable speculation that this commission will target current and future benefits for Social Security recipients to achieve its goals.

Why would this be the case? We need look no further than the treatment of major retirement funds over the past 20 years to get the answer. When the mob needed cash (http://www.ipsn.org/wacks.htm), it looted the Teamsters retirement fund. When large corporations (http://tinyurl.com/287qkly) or government (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20pension.html) entities get in trouble, they effectively borrow from their employee retirement funds by delaying required payments or otherwise gaming the programs. This provides a source of ready cash, a quick vehicle to cover management errors, or jack up their bonuses.

Think of the Social Security Trust Fund (trust fund) as the most lucrative retirement fund in the country, the ultimate pot of gold, and you'll immediately understand why it is that for decades, big business has plundered the trust fund. How does this happen?

The Biggest Retirement Fund Rip Off Ever

Each year, federal taxes fall short (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/budget-2010/index.html) of covering government expenditures. At the same time, Social Security payments are more than enough to cover retirement benefit (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html) payments. However, in order to keep funding the rest of its programs, the government takes money paid into the trust fund in return for special issue securities (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/specialissues.html) from the Federal Government. These securities (IOUs) are a promise to repay the trust fund, which will then pay your benefits.


The Social Security payroll taxes paid by over 90% of US citizens are the premier means of funding the national debt, well ahead of foreign debt holdings. The 2010 Annual Report by the Board of Trustees (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr2010.pdf) noted that, "assets held in special issue U.S. Treasury securities grew to $2.5 trillion" (p. 10).

If there were absolutely no anticipated problems honoring the promised payout of the special issue securities, IOUs, this process might be acceptable. But mega deficits have become habitual behavior (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf) in the budget process. Year after year, the government spends money it doesn't have through the vehicle set up to tap your social security payroll taxes.

This entire process is presented as sound budgeting. In reality, it's a scam. Sure we'll pay back the trust fund, no problem. But there is a problem and it is not due to Social Security. It's due to excessive spending authorized by Congress that consumes the trust fund annually, spending driven by those big corporations who benefit most and receive payment through your payroll taxes.

Left alone, the Social Security trust fund can meet its obligations. The rest of the government can't. The 2010 $1.3 trillion deficit makes that abundantly clear. The biggest budget busters are the corporate entitlement programs: defense and homeland security contractors; agricultural subsidies for large corporate farms; and the numerous companies who receive large contracts through the federal budget. In addition, the endless wars in Asia now account for $160 billion annually.

The corporate beneficiaries of those programs want money. They behave as though they're entitled to it. Social Security revenues flow in at rates set by the board of trustees. The receipts, sufficient to fund benefits, are then swallowed up by the true entitlement programs that produce no offsetting revenues.

Ironically, as this budget scam comes to a head in the form of astronomical deficits due to corporate entitlement programs, those who created the problem, the cash hungry beneficiaries of government spending, declare a crisis in Social Security. It is a crisis that they created.

Rigged Commission

The commission is a rigged panel. The White House selected eighteen members due to report out recommendations for reducing the federal deficit by December 1. Of the eighteen, thirteen are sure votes for higher payroll taxes and lower benefits and the continued reliance on the payroll tax trust fund to keep budget busting programs in place. There are five possible votes against tax increases and lower benefits, although the five lack the cohesion of the thirteen likely to endorse higher payroll taxes and lower benefits.

It takes a majority of fourteen members to report recommendations to Congress. These will be considered by the lame-duck session of the 111th Congress meeting in November and December. Congress will debate the commission recommendations then take an "up-or-down" vote. There will be no amendments allowed, just Yea or Nay on the entire proposal. The all-or-nothing vote makes it easy for Congress to do the dirty work of the Money Party (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00549.htm). After the vote, members of Congress will bemoan what a tough decision it was.

The president selected Wall Streeter (http://www.truth-out.org/erskine-bowles-social-securitys-enemy-no-164708?print) Erskine Bowles as co-chairman along with former Republican Senator Alan Simpson as the other co-chairman. Simpson has a history of hostility (http://www.businessinsider.com/alan-simpsons-long-history-of-advocating-social-security-cuts-2010-8) to Social Security. The president hand picked four other members, two Republicans and two Democrats. With the exception of former Service Employee International Union president Andy Stern, this corporate heavy group (http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/commission-watch) is a solid vote for ongoing trust fund subsidies for corporate budget items through increased payroll taxes and reduced benefits. Stern may feel some pressure due to a leaked FBI corruption investigation (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/28/fbi-investigating-labor-leader-andy-stern/) targeting his actions while president of the union. The anti Social Security vote count among these presidential appointees looks like a solid five to one.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/Articles/drcusa1.jpg
The party leaders in the House and Senate picked three members each for a total of twelve members from the 111th Congress. With the exception of Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL), the Senate contingent represents small, highly conservative, mostly white states.
Appointed by Speaker-to-be John Boehner (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/boehner-backs-b.html), the House commission members on the Republican side reflect the Republican Senators in that they're from districts, mostly rural, mostly white highly conservative House districts. The three Democratic House members are from urban, suburban, and rural districts where Social Security is a priority.

The anti Social Security vote from the twelve members of Congress is estimated at eight to four, with the three Democratic House members plus Senator Durbin as opponents of benefit cuts and increased taxes.

On paper, it looks like a thirteen to five deadlock on any increases in payroll taxes and reductions in benefits. In practice, a rigged commission is supposed to look somewhat reasonable but, ultimately, behave like a rigged commission. It is assured that one or more of the five assumed pro Social Security members, for whatever reason, is already in the bag to modify the program by raising taxes and reducing benefits. The vote to report any recommendations on budget deficits and Social Security retirement should be fourteen to four in favor, at least.

There will be little, if any, sentiment expressed by any on the commission against the annual looting of the trust fund to pay the tab for corporate entitlements in the federal budget.

What's This Commission Really Up To?

The commission may very well be a replica of the 1983 Greenspan Commission on Social Security Reform (http://199.173.224.109/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p1.pdf). Greenspan was tasked with producing a plan to shore up trust fund finances. As a result of changes put in place at that time, the trust fund rapidly accumulated a surplus (http://199.173.224.109/policy/docs/ssb/v66n1/v66n1p1.pdf), currently at $2.5 trillion (in IOUs). This sounds like a positive move until you factor in the federal deficits funded by enhanced trust fund revenues. The total federal deficit accumulated between 1983 and 1996 is $2.8 trillion (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf), a sum that could not have been spent without the ready cash taken from world's largest retirement system, Social Security.

We've reached another crisis point in the history of the ruling elite. Their ability to raise money is dwindling. The dot.com bubble burst, now the real estate bubble is down for the count. We have depression level unemployment (http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts). What to do? Raise payroll taxes; reduce benefits, and continuing taking every available dollar of citizen payroll taxes in return for IOUs that they can worry about later. Our payroll taxes for Social Security are "interest-bearing securities backed by the full faith and credit (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html) of the United States" government. We all know who that is, the Money Party (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0709/S00549.htm). And we know how good their word is.
END

See: Statement to the Commission on Deficit Reduction - James K. Galbraith, June 30, 2010 (http://www.newdeal20.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/deficitcommissionrv.pdf)

[Atwater 27]

Classy!

Spoken like a true poster boy for the "values" party.

registered independent. I say what I want when I want. You gonna cry some more?

[DenverBrit]

Looks more like the Union Jack than red ink.

Wrong again. Here's a hint for you.

http://www.proudflag.com/images/flag_sun.jpg

[TailgateNut]

registered independent. I say what I want when I want. You gonna cry some more?


....and I'm a registered "TeaBagger".Hilarious!