Obama speaks ill of Social Security, nutroots go nuclear
Update: Here’s the vid.
***
Here is a cardinal rule for Democrat presidential candidates: Unless you are Paul Tsongas, who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1992 and died in 1997, you are not, not, not, not, not ever supposed to breathe a negative word about the looming entitlement crisis. Barack Obama apparently didn’t get the memo, and now he’s being barbecued by the far Left for suggesting something needs to be done to avert the collapse of Social Security. Doesn’t matter that his solution is means-testing. He spilled the beans on the problem in his Meet The Press appearance and that is a nutroots no-no:
“I think the best way to approach this is to adjust the cap on the payroll tax so that people like myself are paying a little bit more and people who are in need are protected,” the Illinois senator said.
“That is the option that I will be pushing forward.”
Currently, only the first $97,500 of a person’s annual income is taxed. The amount is scheduled to rise to $102,000 next year.
Obama’s proposal could include a gap or “doughnut hole” to shield middle-income earners from paying more in taxes, he said.
Obama has tried to draw contrasts between himself and front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton on Social Security, saying on the stump and in TV ads that she has dodged tough questions about its finances.
Obama said some tough decisions will be in order because Social Security is the most important social program in the country.
“It’s not sufficient for us to just finesse the issue because we’re worried that, well, we might be attacked for the various options we present,” he said.
Clinton has said growing the economy will pump more money into Social Security’s coffers. She also has said she would create a bipartisan commission to recommend solutions.
Social Security is projected to start spending more than it collects beginning in 2017, with its trust fund depleted in 2041.
Obama also invoked his friend, billionaire Warren Buffett, who Obama said has expressed concern that he pays less in Social Security taxes than anyone else in his office.
“And he has said, and I think a lot of us who have been fortunate are willing to pay a little bit more to make sure that a senior citizen who is struggling to deal with rising property taxes or rising heating bills, that they’ve got the coverage that they need,” Obama said.
Paul Krugman leads the frothed-mouthers, accusing Obama of pandering to Tim “Hitler” Russert. A HuffPo huffer piles on:
Barack Obama, please realize that you are assisting the right’s efforts to get rid of Social Security. Their strategy is to make the public think that the program is in trouble and then sweep in with their “solution.” …IS your heart in the right place? Social Security is not in trouble. Stop saying it is.
Message: Obama needs to learn to whistle past the graveyard like the other Dems or face more wrath from his base.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » Democrats Fragmented on Social Security, Obama Just Plain High, Same ‘ol Clinton, Thompson (R) Provides Details
- Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Obama says he’ll raise taxes on the rich to shore up Social Security
- Politics:Obama backing means testing for Social Security | Peoria Pundit
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » On Obama: “This guy is so far off the Democratic party reservation I don’t know where he’s planting his primary flag, but it’s nowhere a progressive Democrat or our party should willingly g
- Stop The ACLU » Blog Archive » Nutroots Turn on Obama
- Nutroots Turn on Obama Over Social Security Remarks : The American Pundit
- This ain’t Hell, but you can see it from here » Obama Strategy Revealed: Vote for Me! I’ll Raise Your Taxes
- B. Hussein Obama Meets The Nutroots — Pirate’s Cove
- Obama addresses looming Social Security crisis, moonbats go ape sh!t « Crush Liberalism
- Michelle Malkin » What happens in Vegas…8:30pm Eastern: Obama BLOWS IT; Obama flubs again on human rights/national security; China comes up, but not China funny money; Edwards’ plant joke and faux populism fall flat
- November, 2007 Archive « Right Minded Online
- Obama and the Deficit Paradox | Christopher Howell
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Barack Obama
Riehl World View
» Palin In Iowa? Watch The Heads Explode!Pundit & Pundette
» Obama's drop in popularity and Michelle's handbag controversyPundit & Pundette
» Is the tide turning?Riehl World View
» The Three Stooges Now Appearing At HuffPoSister Toldjah
» Quote of the Day – from Carol Browner, climate-czarPatterico
» Democrats Attack the CIA
I applaud his honesty because SS is in trouble. However, it isn’t anything new for a tax and spend mentality.
He’s saying ‘keep everything the same except raise taxes’.
funny how the other commenter that you quoted thinks that SS is solvent. They must be brilliant. . . or think money grows on trees.
Fix SS ‘FOR THE CHILDREN’ because as of now, those children won’t get any of it, but will pay for those who are getting it now.
Liberals are still stuck like 2 year olds. If I close my eyes, you are not there.
If I don’t acknowledge Social Security has a problem, then it doesn’t.
Reality is only what I want it to be right now.
Now may I go stomp my feet and whine?
Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, is keeping Obama or Buffet from sending a personal check in to the U.S. Treasury. God, I am sick of these idiots spouting off on how much of other people’s money they think the government needs.
Now we will see if he is statesman material (if he sticks to his guns), or merely a politician…
Of course these pandering politicians (redundant I know) are even less willing to talk about Medicare which is in even worse financial shape.
Open up SS for private investment. Give us a chance to actually make some money on that thing. Looking at my differed comp portfolio over the time that Bush has been president, I would have made a mint had I been allowed to diversify my SS money. Remember, it is OUR money, not the Governments. I made it, I earned it, they took it into a basically interest free account and will do everything they possibly can do to keep me from it, including raising the age of receipt well past the age that most people will live. This is an incredible injustice.
Then, amazingly, each and every one of these Dems has come out and promised to raise taxes. Some want them to be raised to historic levels, crippling the economy and private citizens with nothing to show for it, as tax payors are not poor. The entitlement programs that we will be paying for with all these new taxes will be going to benefit anyone BUT the people paying the taxes.
This would normally sound the deathknell for normal candidates. Not the Dems. They will be bringing back the theory that we all need to pay our way. This is what Clinton had everyone believing back in 92 when he was elected…that we were all living too high on the hog and thus, the deficit and the budget was all our fault and thus, we had to pay up. This even lead to school children holding bake sales and sending the proceeds in to the White House in order for children to “pay their way”.
This is an insane policy, yet people are buying into it. Stock markey at record highs, unemployment consistenly lower than when Billy-Bob was in office, an economy that has been growing every quarter for years and the debt being paid down as is the deficit, with a plan to balance the bidget in the next couple of years, yet their lies are all that people want to hear and believe. The Republicns need to do something to counteract this idiocy, and ram it home into people’s heads until people finally see the evils of the Dems ways.
however, I doubt they will seize on this opportunit. After all, look at all the others they have left alone so that they can be the only ones on the playground playing nice. Playing nice will whisk HillerBill vack into the White House faster than you can say “Planted Liberal Shill”.
I think this is pretty funny. I find liberals who can’t acknowledge reality to be even funnier.
Good way to start the week.
Why don’t the libs just come out and do what they REALLY want to do. Entirely eliminate the caps on the amount taxed for SS. Then incorporate means testing so anyone over a certain income level gets nothing. (That income level would be set at whatever income includes the most people who vote democrat.) Then we can get rid of the myth that SS is a retirement system for everyone. SS, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., are legal Ponzi schemes. The libs know it but don’t care. In fact, they may welcome the coming implosion. It will give them an excuse to take even more money and control.
Obama is so raw and ignorant as to make Dennis Kucinich appear statesmanlike. Err…just kidding.
Problem - there’s no problem.
Black is white, white is black.
Strangely enough, the Dems are more concerned with phantom problems, like Global Warming, and are more than content to ignore real problems, such as the Social Security overrun.
Oooooooh. More means tested, soak the rich (non) solutions. Way to stick your neck out, Mr. Obama.
Of course, the loon toon leftist moonbats will soil their nappies over nothing less than pilfering every last nickel for their ‘great-society-utopia-at-our-discretion’ from any citizen not living in a cardboard box.
So, pander, pander, pander away, Mr. Obama. It’s only other people’s money your toying with….
Autopsy –
This makes perfect sense if you think like a Dem, though. Phantom problems allow them to rake in the money with little to no accounting for it, since no one expects to see verifiable results. If they pledged to ‘take on’ Social Security, they’d have to produce results PDQ or We The People would figure out real quick the truth behind the shell game.
Did Obama say something? yawn.
Not a good way to win the nomination, but I think its funny.
Income should be taxed without limit. It only makes sense that the highest of earners contribute to the fund to the full extent of their earnings.
Beneficiaries on the other hand, should have to qualify via a means test. Individuals with incomes in excess of, for example, $100,000 per year, including unearned income, and or with net worth in excess of $2 million, excluding a personal residence, would be ineligible.This would free up the money for those who need it. No illegals would receive anything.
There is no justification for retired multi-millionaires with hundreds of thousands of dollars of retirement income to be collecting Social Security income benefits.
Social Security is a benefit for the poor and should be treated a such. Means testing makes sense and would preserve the integrity of the fund.
I know too many people who joke about the insignificance of the benefits they get from Social Security. Means testing would solve this inequity.
Rohan (#8), I agree with you on the Ponzi scheme analysis on Social Security et al. However, I think that it is unconstitutional, and not legal. Maybe I’m using an out-dated copy of the Constitution, that it was changed by other than the amendment process and I missed it, but I can’t find where it says that the federal government can run a mandatory retirement (or medical) scheme.
Yeahhhhh…nope, not gonna happen. Your money is their money and don’t you forget it. They are “Undocumented Americans”, after all.
I have long said there were 2 things that could save Social Security as we know it:
1. Allow the individual to control part of their SS deduction in a private investment account.
2. Raise or eliminate the cap on funds subject to the SS tax, with a graduated rate above the base amount subject to SS taxes. Before all my friends here crucify me, please take the time to look at my idea … which is much more reasonable than BO’s.
Example of DesertLover’s proposal:
2007 SS rate is 6.2% … allow 1.2% to be privately invested … leaving 5% to the current structure.
Current max taxable income is $97,500 and goes up as mentioned periodically.
My suggestion is that above the $97,500 the rate is reduced by another 1% up to say $200,000. (5.2% with 1.2% option)
From $200,000 to $500,000 it goes down another 1%. (4.2% with 1.2% option)
Same 1% reduction from $500,000 to $1,000,000, coupled with the elimination of the 1.2% private investment option. At that point the rate is 3.2%.
Another 0.7% reduction for all above the $1,000,000 level leaves 2.5% for all remaining income.
I honestly believe this could restore fiscal viability in the Social Security program in a matter of 5-7 years.
OK … I’m sure I gonna catch it on this one, so have at it …
Stubby,
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Sound familiar?
DL, how dare you suggest a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Kevin K. (#17) - Excellent point about the legal aspect of SS. I hadn’t thought of that. Of course, so much of what the governemtn does is unconstitutional you can easily lose track.
Stubby - Did you ever look at a real tax form? Who pays the most taxes now (both in actual amount and in percentage)?
Do you have any real idea how much a person at the limit already “contributes” (has stolen)? 15% of $100,000 is $15,000. Who are you to tell that guy he’s supposed to bleed more. Don’t spout the liberal line - actually prove it to me with a tax form.
Please tell me to my face why I am supposed to fund somebody else’s retirement. I’ll fund my own thank you - in fact, to show you what kind of guy I am, I’ll take responsibility for my parents, my wife’s parents - my whole extended family (of course, I might expect some conditions on behavior for some of them). (And lest you wonder, no I’m not rich and “can afford it” - it’s because I’m responsible before God and man.) I’m the one who took the risks, forwent “luxuries” along the way so I could save and then invest. They chose to live the way they did, make the decisions they did, go to the schools they did - etc.
I have to laugh, in the 90’s everyone was shouting on both sides of the isle that social security was doomed. now the dems are calling it a republican lie. LOL…
just like global warming is real and we can fix it.. by taxing ..
dems want to fix the unfixable and leave the fixable to run amok…
DesertLover:
I don’t know who would attack you on that….that’s one of the most concise and practical solutions I’ve heard. We, as a nation, are hooked on the SS idea, so we can’t quit cold-turkey (mmmmm……Thanksgiving!!). However, the fact that any of our income is taken for it while so much of it above $100K or so is ignored is more than irresponsible, it’s just plain STUPID.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t he exempt from the SS tax. Because they have their own very generous retirement system congress does not have SS withheld. So of course raising the tax on the rest of us is OK with him.
I’m a liberal (duh). I was disappointed when Obama started talking about the looming crisis in social security, because there isn’t one. The looming entitlement crisis is in Medicare. It seems that liberals have no perfect candidate. (Republicans also have a perfect candidate shortfall.) However, Obama is correct that the Social Security tax (FICA) is regressive. I support fixing that.
BTW, Clinton (President Bill) proposed investing part of the Social Security trust fund in stocks but was blocked by Congressional Republicans. The problem with that proposal was that while it is better for Americans, it is worse for government, which runs on cheap loans from the Social Security trust fund.
DL #19. While I agree that might keep SS solvent - who says keeping it solvent is a good thing? Doing the wrong thing well is still a huge waste.
Further, every day that SS remains solvent, is another day for the pigs at the trough in Washington to chow down. They can’t help themselves - they will “steal it” and use it for whatever little thing they find buys more votes at the moment.
To finish my statement, I do feel that none of my money should be taken and put into the government’s piggy bank and I would love nothing more than just cutting SS withholdings all out right now, but, since that could literally cripple some people, I still think if they insist on taking the bulk of it from the lower end of the totem pole, they need to either balance the top or stop paying to the top.
MissMarciLyn
Thanks … I have had this exact layout on this for at least 15 years or so but not in position to do anything about it except write Congress which is a waste of time as a single individual trying to make something happen.
It is my belief that if the overall tax structure was more equal at all levels of income there would be no deficit and no National debt to deal with. Of course, that would also rely on Congress keeping hteir hands off of the money except for its intended purposes. In other words, the only place where “Pork Rules” is on Emeril.
Relying on Congress??? Isn’t that an oxymoron??
It’s funny how the left denies the fact that SS is in trouble, yet they continue to throw out the globsl warming banner which is not based on any palettable facts. Apparently delusion is their perpetual state of mind.
lgm - #27. There isn’t a coming crisis? Now that is new math if I’ve ever seen it. I don’t know about your checkbook at your house - but at mine, if I spend more than we put in, it doesn’t last very long.
I do agree with you though that Medicare is an even bigger problem.
The issue is - Government officials are not good (money) managers. Period. Trusting them to manage (anything) is dangerous.
I do not understand why I should trust the group of officials in Washington (or our state capitals) to make better decisions concerning my life than the decisions which I would make.
conservativesRus
agreed … as I stated in my response to MissMarciLyn in #30 … keep the hands out of the till …
gotta go for now … will look forward to catching up later on today … have a great one everyone
Stubby (#16)–My understanding is that Social Security (SS) was a retirement scheme for ALL, not just the poor or the less well off. But again, I could be living in the past as SS has changed over the years.
DesertLover (#19) Interesting idea, although complicated. Fortunately, there are computers. Just as the income tax (at one point) went to fewer tax rates for simplicity, you might want to do that with your plan as well. I do like the individual investing a portion of the money himself, though.
All this talk of taxes and different rates sure makes the flat tax rate tax appealing. Limited deductible items, reasonable floor, and apologies to all tax preparers.
Obama won’t even show up to vote for himself. Until he can pull off actually voting on things the American people care about - I can’t take him seriously.
yes, there are problems…what are you willing to do to fix them? Taxes - of course, of course. How shallow of me to think that there could be another way…
If I ever get the opportunity, I will pose the following question to any Democratic presidential candidate. How do you propose to fix our current problems w/out raising taxes? Let the squirming commence.
DL:
Please show me in the tax code where “the rich” get a good deal.
When I look at a 1040 I miss all the big breaks the “rich guys” get.
Did the old Soviet Union deposit all of their young communists in our country when I wasn’t watching?
I remember having a debate about social security with a history professor when I was in college in the ’60s. My point that it was a generational tax. One generation would get the benefits though contributing little, and the last generation would pay in a lot and get no benefits. Of course being in the generation that only benefitted, he would have none of it and called me all sorts of names (typical strategy of leftists). Now I am approaching 60 and I have a nephew saying we should eliminate social security. So we have 2 generations plotting against the baby boomers. It will limp along for another decade, then it will end or bankcrupt the country (then end).
If the government would stop spending on irrelevant stuff they cannot fix and get rid of the waste there would be more money for SS and Medicare. I get tired of hearing politicians immedietly say “increase taxes on the people!” to pay for this stuff.
And I must say that this whining by politicians (ones that are super rich themselves) that upper middle class should have to foot the bill for everyone else’s SS benefits is complete BS. Why should those people who have worked their tails off and put themselves in a good place financially have to spread their wealth to those people who are poorer? I don’t think so. We don’t live in a socialist country do we?
Everyone else gets arrested if they offer a Ponzi scheme, however the US Govmnt??…………!!
It is bleeding profusely out the bottom and Depends won’t stop it. Being involved in law enforcement, many of the rift raft that I deal with are in their 20’s and 30’s and tell me they are on SSI or other SS benefits. Yet they do their drugs and generally are draining society in the courts, etc on child support matters, writing bad checks, etc.
I can’t tell you the vast number of them who have been granted parts of the Ponzi pie for being diagnosed as ADD, or some other vague nervous system disorder syndrome rendering them “incapable” to work and contribute to society. One girl, recently in court, in her early 30’s said she was on welfare because of “chronic weakness” & couldn’t pay child support. The judge probed more since she was strong enough to travel around a 400 sq mile area to pass bad checks and stolen credit cards. She also has a 2004 PT Cruiser. the judge wanted to know how she afforded that plus pay rent in a govt subsidized apartment. she said credit card!
Most of our govt funded clinics in my area, and I know everywhere else, have the doctors who give these phony diagnosis freely as passing out candy. It is an outrage! Michelle, please help expose this.
conservativesRus….
I feel a great deal like you do about personal responsibility for financial well-being. I don’t like the idea of funding someone elses retirement when they in fact were dealt into the same game as you and I, but couldn’t make it work. I don’t understand your demand for a tax form explanation. I can only state that as repulsed as I am about helping those who have never given a damn about their own responsibilities, there are millions of people who aren’t capable of managing even though they tried.
DesertLover has the right idea with a reduced contribution for the higher earners so they don’t “bleed” so much.
It seems to me that higher earners really don’t miss a few bucks here and there. They shouldn’t receive Social Security, and they should pay into it because it actually benefits everyone, including the wealthy.
I am retired. I made money. When I worked, I didn’t mind paying the taxes due. As I see the results of others’ lives, their dependence on the system for their basic essentials, it makes sense that the Social Security system, at least for now, be preserved and one solution would be to tax those who won’t miss the money.
You should be commended for your financial diligence and generosity towards your familiy. I like the idea of behaviour guidelines for your “extended” family. They are lucky to have you. Many have no one other than the broken promise of SS.
Remember, it is a welfare benefit. I don’t like it either but it’s here and we have to deal with it.
Stubby - my tax for explanation request comes from people saying things about how the “rich” aren’t paying enough and I took your general comment to imply that. Please show me with actual tax forms how “the rich” don’t pay more - both in absolute amount and in percentage.
I’m not sure I understand how you get to decide who won’t miss their money so much.
It’s not generosity. It’s responsibility.
As I said, when I was working, it didn’t seem to matter if a few extra dollars were taken out for this and that. You’re correct, It isn’t for me to decide, it is just my feeling after being in that position for many years. When I earned enough to have discretionary income, my attitude about the value of money and its uses changed. I am just guessing that most individuals with higher income feel the same way. I know many people who give a great deal of money away to help others.
I didn’t mean to offend you using the term generosity. You are to be commended for being so responsible.
conservativesRus……
I am not an accountant, so I’m not qualified to nit pick a tax return. However, I’m not saying that the rich don’t pay more taxes. They generally do and they should because they earn more money. It’s incorrect to claim that the rich don’t pay enough taxes. They pay their fare share. They are also entitled to tax cuts just like the rest of the taxpayers.
I believe that by the higher earners paying a little more into Social Security, they won’t miss it and it will do a lot of good.
All these comments about “saving” SS ignore one salient detail; Rooseveldt’s New Deal programs were notdesigned primarily as social programs, but a part of a long range plan to forge a political coalition from disperate groups. The WPA, PWA, etc were relative failures when it came to ending the Depression.
Social Security is in the same boat. When it was introduced the average life span of the American worker was less than 60. SS didn’t kick in til 65. The New Dealers, shortsightedly, never envisioned that we would begin to live significantly longer. We’re paying for that shortsightedness.
SS is a liberal sacred cow. They will never allow it to be changed significantly until it is dead on the floor and the smell of dying older Americans is too strong to ignore.
Stubby - I wasn’t taking offense - I was trying to make a “bigger” point. It’s what all of us are “supposed” to do.
And fwiw - I’m not against at all “…to whom much is given, much is required…” (Luke 12:48). What I’m objecting to is “government” being the deciding force and government (actively?) even promoting anti-work ethic policies.
Denial is still just a river in Egypt to the nutroots.
What problem???? I don’t see no stinkin’ problem.
MTNEER - Exactly - SS is a bad deal. Efforts to save SS presume that it is worthy of saving. I’d contend, saving something not worth saving is hugely wasteful.
Well said, conservativeRus — when we (as a nation) encourage laziness and reward those who do not contribute to our society in meaningful ways, we get what we deserve.
The libs never saw a problem that couldn’t be solved by higher taxes.
“What’s your gross income? That’s your tax”.
Social Security will never be “reformed” until the baby boomers become too senile to vote. Right now they are a major plank in the floor of the Democrat party platform. (before some boomer blasts me, I am a boomer.)
Again: SS is not a retirement program. It is part of the New Deal sociopolitical coalition that has kept the Democrats in power for decades. We are not going to “fix” it, because in the eyes of the Dems it isn’t broken. It’s still doing what it was originally designed to do: keep them in power by providing them with a huge political base for their socialist agenda.
Well, the AMT is working.
In 2006, I had a net loss in income and still owed AMT.
Anybody else have this experience?
Should Obama whistle past the graveyard? He just might have heard a still small voice coming from the “base” saying, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”
#3 Rohan:
You beat me to it.
Correct.
Mr. Buffet is perfectly free to pay more than the other folks in his office.
All he has to do is to write a check to the U.S. Treasury.
Really? last time I checked, no one in Congress was paying into Social Security. They are covered by a plan that provides retirement benefits after serving ONE term. And they don’t have to wait until age 62 to begin to collect.
Now, if he is talking about taking away Congress’ retirement plan and replacing it with Social Security, and making it retroactive, then we might get somewhere. If Congress was in the same boat as the rest of America, they just might have some incentive to make sure that ship was seaworthy.
First let me get my Barack Hussein Obama ad hominem out of the way. How can anyone named Hussein, who looks like Howdy Doody, and sounds like Richard Pryor be trusted. His Social Security remedy is mostly political, surprise, surprise. What is first needed is an explanation of why the Federal Government, our duly elected representatives, think it OK to steal from The People. Why they think they can take money from Social Security revenues with an I.O.U. and at the end of the day say oops Social Security is in trouble because there is no more money. What happened to the 1980’s Greenspan fix (the 1981-1983 National Commission on Social Security Reform). I know, the fix didn’t work because the Fed keep dipping into the SS cookie jar. And if SS were fixed again would the Fed stop dipping in lieu of another tax cut (this is not how Robin Hood should be acting) or would we have to fix Social Security again (this is just another version of global warming for which we must pay tax credits, whew is that W smiling again).
Frankly the government has entered into a social contract with its citizens. It has no right to not keep it funded. Otherwise it has lost its right to govern.
Just what the heck is that? Coming from a leader?
The Dems are incapable of growing ANYTHING but taxes.
And a bipartisan commission? What will that cost us? More than it can generate, I’m sure.
.
And this;
How can such a large group of people be so dense?
Mister P….the problem is the social contract is with a few at the expense of others. And that my friend is not good governance.
I think there is also a “social contract” that the gov’t should protect it’s citizenry - but they don’t catch all criminals. The liberal logic is “therefore they shouldn’t catch any”. I’d contend that is very very very faulty logic.
#16 Stubby: By argueing for any progressivism in taxation we fall into the socialist trap. Conservatives will never be able to out promise or outspend liberals. You’ll never win the “I’m fairer than your are” debate with a socialist.
A conservative’s fairness is in the equality of opportunity, a socialist’s is in the equality of outcome. Never the twain shall meet. It’s so much easier to convince the lower income, non critical thinker, that taxing some rich guy to death is fair than it is to convince them that that rich guy took advantage of his talents and constitutional liberties to get rich in the first place.
The zero-sum game of beggar thy neighbor has always been alive and well in the democrat socialist’s heart. Jealousy, after all, is one of the seven deadly sins for a reason. Its a great tool for controlling people.
Marx called the poor the lumpen prolitariat. Rooseveldt’s genius was in getting the middle class to act as if they were poor.
conservativesRus in #37
My comment regarding the tax structure was perhaps not presented clearly enough as I was referring to the fact that taxes are not levied at the same levels across the board … there was not a reference to any specific level of income earners “fair share” … I was simply saying that all taxpayers should be treated equally regardless of their level of income … although higher income individuals pay the majority of the taxes in dollars they do not usually pay the same level in terms of percentage of income when compared to lower levels of income …
If I had my way there would be a flat rate applied to everyone and there would be no loopholes or deductions for anyone … my only exception would be those below the “poverty” level … if earnings were less than 50% of “poverty level” they get 100% refunded … if 50% to 75% of poverty level they get back 60% … and from 75%-100% of poverty level they get back 30% … of course that will never happen because we would pout too many IRS and other bureaucrats out of work …
Everyone pays something into the system that way and the percentages remain constant to everyone above poverty level
#63 Desert Lover: That’s quite close to the flat tax proposal Steve Forbes has been proposing for years. Its a great idea and is truly fair. That’s why democratic socialist will NEVER allow it to happen.
BTW has the Rillito frozen over yet. I haven’t been down that way lately.
Social security is nothing more than a ponzi scheme. Of course, it has a looming fiscal crisis that is what happens to every ponzi scheme at some point.
This is one of many reasons that I choose the Republican party. On economic issues the Democrats have brought us such wonderful things as: social security, the Great Society, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and soon universal health care.
They never have any sensible economic policies. They just have policies that they can make political hay with.
They are about to destroy my business, mortgages
The bill related to mortgages is no different than anything they have come up with previously.
Of course, no Democrat can claim that social security is anything but the beacon they all claim it is because if they did then people might notice that social security along with every other lame brain big government idea is ultimately a failure.
DL - #63. I disagree with your premise that the “wealthy” don’t pay the same percentage. Please get out a 1040 and show me how that is the case. It’s a nice liberal line that is in fact far from true.
It’s not a matter of changing tax rates that will level the playing field - it’s changing all the exemptions, exclusions, special interests in the tax code.
DL - I do agree though with your flat tax approach. Very much agree with it. My position is our founding fathers had is very close to right - only those with a vested interest in the success of our country (land owners) could vote. The “net takers” don’t get the privilege of deciding how else to take more.
I think we are more or less on the same side of this issue - “debating” find points.
oops - fine points. Darn fingers going too fast
#67 Conservative Rus, the founding fathers also had it right when they specified in the constitution that state legislatures would elect senators. The constitution was/is supposed to be about separation of powers and protection of rights. The original Senate was supposed to protect the rights of the several States, not to be a super House of Representatives as it is today.
Amen to #67! I get strange looks when I tell people that if you don’t own property or have some kind of “vested interest” in how new rules and taxes affect people, then you should not be able to vote.
An analogy I read in a Thomas Sowell book was the CEO of a company going out and finding a random person and asking them what they thought about hiring decisions and the direction of the company.
conservativesRus
I agree with the “fine points” analyzation … and I think by now you would know that I am far from liberal …
MTNEER
I doubt that river has frozen over but I don’t actually know for 2 reasons … first I am in Phoenix area not Tucson area … secondly I have been on the east coast for the last couple of weeks …
weather I have seen would not seem to indicate it got that cold between Marana and Tucson …
No rhetoric here.
Wasn’t SS meant to be a “temporary” fix only by FDR?
I don’t know what SS was supposed to be however when one group is paid money and that money comes from another group made the same promise of return on investment, that is called a ponzi scheme.
It is illegal if I promised someone on this board that I can turn $100 into $200 and I did this by finding other suckers to give me $100, however when the government promises you savings at retirement as long as you pay in now, and those savings come from the new workers paying in to pay for you, that is called Social Security.
In other words, if I run a ponzi scheme it is illegal and obscene, but when the government does it, it is called Social Security.
#72 feebiebabe: The PWA and WPA were only supposed to be temporary. WWII saw the end of them. SS was part of Rooseveldt’s long range plan to secure a ruling coalition for the Democrats.
PWA and WPA were, relative failures. Unemployment in 1936 was actually much higher than when Rooseveldt took office in 1933
LOL - feebs.
Biggest oxymoron evah:
Temporary tax
My favorite dead statement from our founding fathers:
No taxation without representation.
Thanks, MTNEER. I had heard something about that but wasn’t clear to me at the time.
I appreciate the clarification.
Roger that. Blend in some BDS, and you get a state of complete denial underpinned by blind hatred. The only reason liberals reflexively deny any impending financial disaster with Social Security is because George Bush came out in favor of fixing it.
Even cursory examination demonstrates that the Great National Ponzi Scheme will be crushed by simple demographics before this century is halfway through. The ratio of workers paying into the system to beneficiaries drawing from it is already down to just 2:1 - and that’s before the boomers start retiring in droves.
As a member of “Generation Zero” (not old eough to properly be a boomer, too old to be “Gen X”), I figure that I’ll be one of the last to see anything from Social Security. Michelle and everybody else here who isn’t already in their 40s…. I hope you’re saving money.
#75 Hi Soapie:
(Sheepish grin) I know, but like I said, I was not trying to be rhetorical because I KNEW it would come off like that.
Drinking Coffee, not tea this morning!
feebiebabe: Amity Shlaes has written a facinating book called “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression.” I read exerpts from it in IMPRIMUS, a monthly newsletter from Hillsdale College.(its free all you have to do is subscribe.) I hope this plug doesn’t violate MM’s terms of use. That is not my intention.
DL - #71 - I do know we are on the same side….so no “offense” taken on any of our “disagreement”. (Never you fear - none of your comments would put you anywhere close to the liberal camp in my mind
)
Regulus, should we call the dems the party of FPP? Fixing Phantom Problems.
conservativesRus
same back atcha …
The real reason the nutroots have a problem with what Obama said:
If entitlements already on the books are in trouble, how can America afford HillaryCare? How can America afford all of the myriad programs the dems are proposing?
Simple as that.
MTNEER - shouldn’t that be PPP - phixing phantom…
unfortunately, they have never fixed anything except elections
or drug dealers getting their fix
Feebs
Working with a headache. Coffee is helping but is still losing the battle - LOL
#85 - try head on - apply directly to the forhead!
My coffee not tea reference was a VERY obscure one….
Boston Tea Party…Taxes….Coffee Not Tea. Nevermind.
Take care of that headache!!! (not because of baby soap is it?)
I suppose, except I’m not at all sure they’re interested in fixing even the imaginary problems.
For too many real or imagined problems, Democrats don’t want a solution, they want the issue - because they think it’ll help get them elected:
- They don’t want to fix Social Security, because they’ve come to depend on the, “Those mean Repulbicans want to take it away! Boo!!” approach to seniors.
- They won’t defund the Iraq war - truly the way to realize their goal of our ignominious surrender and humiliating exit - because they get too much mileage standing on the sidelines and carping about “Mr. Bush’s war.”
- And when push came to shove on “Global Warming”(TM), Bill Clinton wouldn’t submit the Kyoto Treaty for ratification because he knew that even the Democrats in the Senate weren’t that determined to “solve” the “crisis.” Better to just keep up the Chicken Little routine and blame George Bush and the Republicans for it all.
Peggy Noonan observed to a Democrat acquaintance that “Democrats desperately want to rule America, but they don’t seem to like Americans very much.” One symptom of that mindset is the Democrats’ evident willingness if not unseemly eagerness to rule over a “has-been” America: a country poorer materially and spiritually than it is now, less militarily powerful and less influential in the world, less proud and less sure of itself, and tightly reined in by a UN collar and leash.
If we do things like bankrupt ourselves with unsustainable entitlement programs like Social Security, or deliberately lose wars to enemies sworn to destroy our way of life, we’ll eventually get to that “has-been” status. And the Dems will have played a key role in helping it along the whole way, based on nothing more than the cynical political gamble that in the end they’ll be presiding over the ruins.
Excellent observation fugazi. Something the conservatives need to “exploit” to maximum effect.
First, kudos to Obama for acknowledging there is a SS problem. I hope he sticks with it, probably the only kudos he will get from me.
Second, think about the impact SS has on small business, or more importantly self employed.
Each worker pays into SS and Medicare. Each employer must match what the worker pays in. When one is self employed, they must pay both sides, employer and employee. A roughly 15% tax. Do they receive more in SS, no, but they pay more. Add in federal & state taxes and aprx 40% of their income is gone, but they will receive less benefits.
SS is a broken and corrupt government welfare system that wastes billions upon billions each year. It spends more that one dollar for every dollar it pays out. A considerable amount of the payout goes to people that never paid in, many of which filed under false pretenses. The record keeping at SS is the worst in the federal government.
The federal government spends the trust monies as if they were a normal part of the budget. There is no real nest egg set aside for SS, the money is gone. Though a paper IOU does exist.
Simply fixing the amount of money that goes in by adjusting taxes will not fix SS. It needs a total overhaul from the top down. If the program is to exist and truly benefit the people it was designed, only constitutional controls that prevents congress from meddling with the program will make it viable.
ROFL - that was great! I’m not worthy - LOL. Boston Tea Party.
Bows in Feebs direction (again).
Baby soap is not the problem. Mamma soap is making everyone crazy! Thanks for asking? Today or tomorrow may be the big day. I am sure it will be an off-topic brag!
I think public education has been successful - The libs have far too many believing Boston Tea Party was about “representation without taxation”
Everyone ignores a superior system that is already in place and would simply (or maybe not so simply) be expanded to replace Social “Security”: the Federal Employee Thrift Savings Plan (http://www.tsp.gov/)
It is just like private retirement accounts and lets YOU decide where the money goes, how it is invested, and you have an actual ACCOUNT! What a concept!
Check out forms and publications.
Now why are federal employees special enough to have this, but the rest of us are saddled with the largest legal Ponzi scheme ever seen?