Friday, September 23, 2011
Miscellaneous 99
1) At the risk of alienating my conservative friends/colleagues, I really have to admit it. Mr. Obama's proposal to raise taxes on people making over a million dollars a year is absolutely brilliant. And, yes, me-buckos, it's brilliant from both a policy (this, in that it reduces the deficit and doesn't touch small business owners one iota) AND politics (this, in that it puts the Republicans in the unenviable position of having to defend multi-millionaires) perspective. Of course, the real question pertaining to Mr. Obama still remains. Will the fellow stand his ground and fight for it, or will he capitulate? If in fact the past is any indicator of the future.................2) Black unemployment in 1983 was 19.5%. By 1989, it was all the way down to 11.4%, a nearly 42% reduction. How much credit does President Reagan deserve for this? Some? None? Metaphysical? I suppose that it all really depends on your political affiliation, huh?............3) I saw Jimmy Carter on the "Rachel Maddow Show" the other night. It was actually quite an interesting interview (President Carter, whatever you may happen to think of him politically, always seems to come across as gracious/classy). One of the more provocative points that the former President made was that maybe people like him, who have already made a shitload of money during their lifetime, don't necessarily need all of their Social Security upon retirement, that perhaps in fact some of that money could go instead to strengthening the system overall. It was a very persuasive argument that he made and I agree with it. Enough already with this subsidizing of well-to-do retirees.............4) Another interesting statistic (from the Joint Center for Political Studies) about Reagan is that, during his tenure in the White House, the black middle class grew from 3.6 million households to 4.8 million households. That's a robust 33% increase. Now, is this increase simply the by-product of a demographic increase (as opposed to the policies of President Reagan) that would have happened anyway? I don't know. But it is in fact interesting
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
Reagan = Hitler
I'll bet rusty doesn't strumpet this scandal;
Walker Spokesman Given Immunity In Investigation -- Has No Comment
The granting of immunity, generally followed by someone spilling the beans.
'John Doe': How Blog Comments Have Launched Probe Of Walker
I bet more tax payer money was wasted with walker's sock puppets being paid from government coffers while they troll the Internet pushing pro walker talking points, then the outrage in Hilton Hotel's charges for breakfast dishonestly reported as just muffin costs..
FBI Raids Home Of Walker Aide
Watch Walker pardon her like ol' Ernie did down in Kentucky a few years back.
How about it, do you think the FELONY that was committed here is more outrageous then the cost of breakfast a couple blocks from the USA capital in a 5 star hotel?
Will,
As predicted, this just pisses me off! You were right to worry about offending us. Why do you and your liberal wingnut socialists keep wanting to dip further into my millionaire pockets. Do you not realize that my effective federal tax rate is already at 16%?! If you raise the top marginal rates, that could jump, and if it it does, I am going to be forced to fire my one of my gardeners as sure as you stand there, blue and smug-faced, with your villainous intent and other bad adjectives I cannot think of to finish the sentence.
If you want to pay more taxes, then pay them, but don't ask me to. I already pay enough for the services I personally need, and I should not have to pay anymore. Do you think I give a damn if you grandmother has her heart medicine or eats? I don't! You feed her, just like I would feed my grandmother if she was in need and if I was concerned about it.
1) I don't think this will give Obama the political benefit you suggest. First, it follows right behind his "jobs act," so neither message is getting traction and he looks (once again) to have lost focus on creating jobs. Wasn't he supposed to be pivoting?
Second, it reinforces the idea that all Democrats want to do is raise taxes. True or not, most people agree (and Obama himself has said) that you don't raise taxes with a weak economy.
Lastly, the Republicans don't have to defend millionaires in order to defeat this. Obama can't require that any bill come up for a vote, so if Republicans aren't interested, they simply don't bring it to the House floor. No defense required; just silence.
Speaking of scandals number boy....did you happen to catch Obama and Valerie Jarrets two buddies from Solyndra take the fifth when questioned by congress today about the 527 million of tax payer stimlus dollars they stole.Now this is a real scandal...Walkers spokesman is small potato's compared.
HR,hits the nail directly on the head.There will be no tax increases on anyone.Thats dead in the water.Could Obama look any dumber then he did standing in front of that bridge the other day...each day he morphs more into Jimmy Carter.He's been giving his own version of a malise speech for the past month.I dont know about anyone else,but I find it enjoyable watching this bullshit artist march towards his defeat.
Walkers spokesman is small potato's compared.
The FBI don't think so rusty, and they are the ones getting warrants and giving out immunity.
RE: #3
SS is not "subsidizing of well-to-do". It is a benefit that they paid for just like you and me, and thus they deserve it just like you and me.
Dueling scandals, gentlemen? Man, oh, man, is this U. S. of A. ever fucked.
Sorry, Jerry, but I'm with the former President on this one. And, really, why is it any more of an unfair thing to withhold more SS than it is to withhold more income? Me, I would rather means-test retirees than confiscate more of their money earlier on.
Means testing changes an insurance program into a welfare program. SS is not, and was never intended to be, a welfare program.
So, then why are you advocating a total removal of the cap and a reduction of the retirement age to 55? That, to me, would be making it more of a welfare program than simply giving wealthier retirees a certain percentage less than what they contributed.
Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning.
The democrats should attempt to raise taxes by closing loopholes. The GOP would have a harder time fighting that without compromising their electability.
@Jerry
"Means testing changes an insurance program into a welfare program. SS is not, and was never intended to be, a welfare program."
You're one of the many who have been fooled into believing Social Security is an "insurance program."
Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. No one is receiving the money s/he put in years ago. The money paid in was paid out years ago. Money received as a current benefit was paid in just last month.
It's not an insurance program where you are guaranteed a payout based on the size of your premiums. Insurance premiums are based on actuarial tables that determine what's needed to cover future liabilities. SS makes no use of actuarial tables to determine premiums OR payouts.
There is no Social Security trust fund that benefits are paid out of. What was once the trust fund is now full of IOU treasuries. When necessary, the U.S. Treasury borrows any shortfall in benefits.
By your definition health insurance is not insurance, car insurance is not insurance, earthquake insurance is not insurance, flood insurance is not insurance, etc. Also, your comments do not mean SS is welfare.
John,
According to the Sept 26 issue of Time Magazine, 89% of "President Obama's $447 billion jobs bill...would be paid for by shrinking tax deductions for the wealth".
Jerry,
On the contrary, I defined how insurance works, which includes auto, life, flood, and any other form of insurance you can list. Except SS, which you think is insurance.
Also, I did not assert that SS is welfare, so I didn't need to prove that point. Are you still claiming that SS is insurance?
Heathen Republican: Are you still claiming that SS is insurance?
From Wikipedia:
In the United States, Social Security refers to the federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program. The original Social Security Act (1935) and the current version of the Act, as amended, encompass several social welfare and social insurance programs. [The primary program being] Federal Old-Age (Retirement), Survivors, and Disability Insurance".
Jerry,
I realize what Obama is trying to do. He is making himself a big fat target.
He could prose the same effect without giving the GOP an acceptable target in the eyes of the people.
The way he would do this is by closing loopholes or strategically removing incentives.(and no, I have not analyzed which ones, not do I intend to).
He is being way too transparent to survive in the current political climate.
As for if SS is an insurance or a welfare program or something else, the discussion is another silly semantic argument. We all basically know how SS Works, and the rest is everyone's attempt to put an acceptable label on it. It is what it is, regardless of the label.
Yes Jerry, he cut through the bullshit, but you shouldn't interpret that as agreement with your position. It's you and Dervish sticking to the word "insurance," which is the bullshit John just cut through.
And I am sure that John appreciates your help in interpreting what he says.
Heathen Republican: ...he cut through the bs, but you shouldn't interpret that as agreement with your position. It's you & Dervish sticking to the word "insurance", which is the bs John just cut through.
The official title of Social Security is the "Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Program". The word "insurance" is right there in the title! End of discussion, as far as I am concerned.
I did not interpret what John Myste said as an agreement with my, the creators of the program, and a majority of the world's citizen's (I'd wager) position... I disagree with what John Myste said.
I would just like to point out that there is a lot of talk about this, and I for one, agree with EVERYTHING John Myste says and you would all do well to follow my example.
Oh, and by the way, I have a good friend who is a Scientology. He very seriously, and without cracking a hint of a smile informed me that it is purely science. I argued that some of it does not follow standards set by the scientific community.
He, again, very seriously, informed me that it is science. He pointed to a book as proof. "The Science of Scientology." See, he said, it's right there in the title. He pointed to another, which is the Scientological explanation of how to live well, called "Science of Survival."
"See?!" He said,exasperatedly. He was certain that he had proved his case.
Do misunderstand. I am not arguing that SS is or is not insurance, as I think the question itself is a red herring. I am simply disputing the proof that settles it: "Insurance is in the title."
That has to be a named fallacy, but which one escapes me. I think I must go find Free, as he is an authority on this stuff.
Dervish, I held back this response once John made it unnecessary, but since you've repeated your assertion...
I do not disagree that the word insurance was written into the law. Are you one who believes our laws are written in plain language with clear intent, not political spin, and no NewSpeak?
But since you believe it, you must therefore agree that the Army Field Manual and the Patriot Act do not authorize torture because we officially use the words "enhanced interrogation."
The point is no matter the intent of SS or the language that authorizes it, there is a reality of what SS is and how it is funded. "Insurance" is not an accurate description.
John,
Kind of like Homeland Security, huh?
Heathen,
I don't care what you call it, but we seem to agree that it is not welfare.
Despite the fallacy of saying SS is an insurance because it was in the title, there is one more thing I want to point out:
1. Fair and Balanced FOX News
2. Saving Common Sense, Tea Partier T. Paine's ex-blog.
3. Affordable Healthcare Act (I put that in there for you Republican coo coos).
4. The Fair Tax.
I could go on, but there really is no reason to.
John Myste, Scientologists are kooks. As are the namers of those other programs you list (with the exception of the affordable care act). Are you saying the creators and supporters of Social Security are also kooks? If so, why do you consider yourself a member of a party comprised of so many kooks?
"Insurance" is in the title because that is what it is. It is an entirely accurate description.
Dervish,
Scientologists are kooks.
I agree that they don’t think like you. I only know one scientologist. I suspect you could talk to just about anyone who knows him and they would mostly say he is the most intelligent person they have ever met. I know I can think of no more intelligent person than he is, even though he has his idiot moments, like the one I described.
When dealing with complex matters, the rest of us are usually collecting data and trying to make sense out of it from a state of confusion at the same time he is analyzing complicated potential solutions.
As are the namers of those other programs you list (with the exception of the affordable care act). Though I emotionally agree with this, it is a partisan statement and not “fact” based.
Are you saying the creators and supporters of Social Security are also kooks?
Not at all. You brought that up. I think the program is obvious and one of the best things that help defines America. Why did you bring that up? You think the creators and supports of SS are kooks?
If so, why do you consider yourself a member of a party comprised of so many kooks? This is, of course, a false correlation. I consider myself a democrat because I would not consider voting any other way and because I want the same result as most democrats want. And the party IS comprised of a ton of kooks, depending on how broadly we define the term. I don’t have to embrace nonsense or nonsensical arguments to be a member of a party. If I did, I would be a man without a party. I have loyalty to logic and reason, not party talking points and doctrine. So far, the party allows this.
"Insurance" is in the title because that is what it is. It is an entirely accurate description. Oh, well, then you finally proved your argument. You should have just come out and said this. If you are right about this, and it is quite possible you are, then this bit of data proves that SS in an insurance.
The part of the program which IS Insurance is the part of SS which is DISABILITY INSURANCE,
The Part that is the survivors benefit plan, IE just like life (really death cause until you die they don't pay your survivors)death insurance pays the survivors of the deceased worker. That is also Insurance.
Keeping up HR?
The retirement part is where you not your survivors collect the benefits YOU paid in thus cannot be welfare since you PAY into it.
The pro wall street crowd has wanted since the 30's to siphon off that money so they could grab a good chunk for themselves like they do most any thing they get to control.
Don't forget how big a bubble they could blow-up with the money that currently goes min to the Protected SS program for retirement today. Social security is bigger then the Mortgage Industry wall street gamed the last decade for their profit and all our collective woes.
SS is just a larger scam in the waiting for them if they ever get their greedy self serving hands on it.
37927 (if that's even your real name), this is a pointless discussion. Either it's one of semantics or you're unwilling to acknowledge reality, like Dervish.
All facets of Social Security are pay-as-you-go. Any benefits paid are paid out of current payroll deductions. That's not how insurance works.
Perhaps the intent behind SS was an insurance program, but it doesn't behave like an actual insurance company. Social Security is a payroll tax, and benefits are paid out irrespective of the amount paid in taxes.
The Wall Street crowd doesn't want to siphon the money; they want that money on deposit so that they can collect administrative fees. Republicans want SS turned into private accounts so that it's no longer a pay-as-you-go program, and money I pay in is repaid to me with interest.
Semantics! An irrelevant logomachy masquerading as an issue, and obscuring the real issue, whatever it is.
What is this discussion, Alex?
The point that I was trying to make earlier to Jerry was that, if people started retiring at age 55, they would de facto be putting less money in and de facto getting more money back. Ergo, welfare.............HR, I'm not opposed to a partial and voluntary privatization of SS. And it doesn't even have to involve a broker at all. A lot of mutual funds are no-load and banks don't certainly charge you a fee to open up a CD.
Post a Comment