Good grief, this nonsense is just exhausting. Nothing is ever settled with these people, they have been coming after Social Security for 75 years, and they just don't quit, no matter how many times they get chased down with walkers and eaten alive by gray panthers. It's like they are programmed or genetically manipulated, like one of those creepy super-soldiers from science fiction that can't stop fighting after the war is over, even though they recognize the reality.Nah, I give them too much credit in that scenario. They are just zombie-nihilists and Social Security is the brain they are driven to eat.
Jun 10, 2011
Zombie-Nihilists
From the Crooks and Liars blog:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This article is so right. They will never give up. This time they are holding the country hostage refusing to raise the debt ceiling or pass a budget unless they get their way with obscene budget cuts and elimination of programs that are vital to the welfare of most of the country. Some time soon people have to stand up and say "no more." Why didn't they care about the deficit when they were in power? All of a sudden now it is the only thing they can talk about--while they still push legislation that would increase the deficit.
If SS is so important for retirees, can someone explain why the excess payroll taxes were lent to the Treasury to spend on current non-SS expenses, instead of left in the fund, and 2, why the interest paid to the fund was done via debt rather than cash?
Don Levit
A1:21 is so right. As for the tax reductions for the rich being necessary to "create jobs", those low, low tax rates have been in effect for 10 years and, during that time, jobs have disappeared at an alarming rate. And, the jobs which are now being created are, in large part, service-oriented jobs paying much less over a lifetime. If these low tax rates produce jobs, why have we lost jobs, instead?
I read somewhere that trying to balance the budget by only cutting programs (and not increasing taxes concurrently) is like trying to clap with only one hand.
Don,
The obvious answer to both questions is "for the interest." Treasuries are generally considered as safe as cash, but pay interest. Why should Social Security hold cash, which earns nothing and loses value due to inflation? I don't think it would make it any harder for the government to steal it.
Mike B:
You say that Treasuries are considered as safe as cash.
As you probably know, Medicare Part D is paid 75% by general revenues and 25% by participants.
You seem to side with the "trust fund perspective" view, which considers Part D fully funded.
I side with the "budget perspective," which considers Part D a very expensive budget item, for the 75% payments have an immediate budget impact.
The same can be said for Treasury interest, which is paid in debt.
The fact that the budget impact is not immediate is deceiving, for when that interest is redeemed, it WILL have a budget impact.
Unfortunately, that budget impact is passed down to future generations.
Arten't you concerned about those who will follow you?
Don Levit
Sure I'm concerned about those how follow me - that's why I oppose cuts to Social Security (I'm old enough that the recently proposed cuts wouldn't affect me much). Too much debt can be a problem, but there are many ways to deal with that, and cutting Social Security is in my opinion one of the worst.
Post a Comment