Day After Holiday Open Thread run75441 | May 31, 2016 9:39 am Comments (33) | Digg Facebook Twitter |
Ever notice how the worst Mondays come on Tuesday?
Some wag on twitter observed yesterday that every Trump press conference should be introduced with a recap preceded by the voice over: “On last week’s episode of candidate Trump…”
I get the news from “The Hill” every morning. As I rolled through the headlines this morning it struck me how much they presented a concise outline of the story of American politics right now:
“Clash on spending looms for the GOP”
“New culture wars erupt in the House”
“Trump’s press feud boils over”
“Trump details donations to veterans amid scrutiny”
“Clinton allies see big boost from Brown endorsement”
“Aide: Clinton wasn’t close to IT expert who managed server”
“Half of voters think Clinton’s private server use was illegal”
“Majority of Dems say Sanders should stay in the race”
“Million-dollar super-PAC donation coming for Libertarian presidential ticket”
“June primary fights set stage for Dems’ hopes to take over House”
“The New York Times: Can Donald Trump win? These battleground regions will decide”
(In the four regions likely to decide the presidency — Florida, the upper Southeast, the Rust Belt and the interior West — Mr. Trump faces daunting obstacles.)
“The Washington Post: Clinton to use foreign policy as campaign leverage against Trump”
(Amid signs that respected Republican figures will not back Donald Trump because of national-security concerns, Hillary Clinton will try to burnish her leadership credentials after a primary campaign focused largely on domestic issues.)
“The Wall Street Journal: Nurses seek Democratic showdown)
(The 185,000-strong nurses union threatens unrest at July’s presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia)
“Bloomberg: Republicans fight to regain voter data parity with Democrats”
(The RNC’s efforts to modernize its data and targeting operations comes as the party’s presumptive presidential nominee has shown disdain for such efforts.)
The GOP is a reactionary political party in complete shambles, now stuck with a nominee who knows only destruction and self-glorification, and whose every word and deed, day in and day out till November, they will be forced to defend.
The Democrat are going through a profound re-alliance that is being accomplished thanks to the quickened energies and awakening consciousness of progressive across the country. Those ideas are penetrating.
HRH HRC ought to drop to her knees five times a day to thank god that “her time” comes in a race against Donald Trump.
So the state of play so far is that the Democrats are likely going with a Republican, the Republicans have all but nominated a Democrat and the Libertarians are also going with a Republican.
You can’t tell the players without a score card!
And David French, apparently, for the other Republicans.
Maybe I’ll vote for Jill Stein.
Just crossed my mind while reviewing today’s rental prices in (of all growingly expensive places) the Bronx — that if all the doubled and tripled rental prices lining landlords’ pockets were going to new construction instead — that we could have twice as much housing at half the cost, same price. Just saying.
Wonder how we would do that — assuming that the country was back under direction of the average person — through universal labor unionization, of course?
Typical approach would be to flood the market with low cost mortgages through something like the servicemen’s readjustment act.
It would be possible to craft it in such a way that it would only be usable towards new construction. The problem is where are you going to find all the empty land to build these houses? How do you do it in a way that wouldn’t be introducing another round of redlining? Previously it has been discussed that there are many new buildings going up in the Boston area but they’re all luxury priced. Boston just pushed out a pilot program to try to lock down rents over a 50 year period to the “affordable rent” scale. Even those numbers are kind of shockingly high. A two bedroom in Boston for renters at 100% AMI is “affordably priced” at $2,000 a month. It’s an interesting plan though, the city is basically paying 75k per affordable unit toward redevelopments of at least 8 units, throwing a lien on the property, and after 50 years it will go away.
Only 7.5m to start, but it will be an interesting proposal to watch and see who will buy into it. I wouldn’t be surprised if Harvard threw their hat in the ring, but I don’t know if it would appeal to regular profit motivated developers or not.
Is Obama ready to expand Social Security? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-proposes-expanding-social-security
Has anybody asked Madame Secretary what she thinks about this?
“Obama suggested the country pay for expanding Social Security by asking the “wealthiest Americans to contribute a little bit more.””
A terrible idea that unbalances Social Security making the working class dependent of the taxation of the wealthy class. Raise the income tax rates on high income earners, not the FICA/payroll tax. Raise the employer’s contribution so that SS becomes a real retirement program, not just a supplement to what a worker can save. At current wages for the vast majority of workers saving for retirement is a bad joke. Relate the employer contribution to the employee’s pay level. The less the employer pays in wages the higher the employer FICA contribution rate should be. Raise the interest rates on the Special Treasury notes in the Trust Fund. The wealthy should pay more taxes, but for the purpose of funding the general budget because the actions of the government benefit the wealthy far more so than it does the working class. Don’t make Social Security a part of the class warfare debate. Don’t allow Social Security to appear to be a hand out from the better paid. It’s a retirement plan with an insurance aspect. It’s not welfare.
thanks. permit me to offer, as a friend, some disagreement with your suggestions… except of course with the main suggestion: don’t turn SS into welfare!
SS is not “just a supplement.” SS is the worker’s money saved for him in a way that is protected from inflation and market losses and most forms of personal bad luck. The “employer’s contribution” is arguably the workers’ money (just don’t try to peel it out of the employers cold dead hand if there was no SS “tax”).
I think we do need to find a way to raise wages for working people, and to protect them from fraud and abuse in the “free market.” But I think it’s a mistake to try to correct for economic and political problems simply by raising the payroll tax on anybody. Your suggestions are all good ways to help workers, but in the end they amount to tax increases on the rich, which the rich will fight.
On anybody that is except the workers themselves. In a bad economy, it would be prudent for workers to save a little bit more (of their own money) in protected (by SS) savings. The little bit more would not really be noticed out of the worker’s pre-retirement budget, but would make a huge difference it what he would have after retirement.
I am reasonably sure that this is the way to protect Social Security: that means protect the workers so they can retire at a reasonable age “if all else fails.” I would bet that a rise in the FICA tax on workers (including the “employer’s share”) would result in an increase in wages… because employers will know they can’t pay workers less than they need to live on out of their after-tax pay. I know this sounds a bit naive… employers will pay a little as they can get away with. But workers understand what they need “today” better than they understand what they will need after retirement.
And then work like hell to fix the injustices in the “free market.”
I’ve been wondering where you’d disappeared to. Glad that my comment brought you out.
By supplement I was referring to that time when many workers had a company retirement plan that itself was not quite sufficient to maintain the life style they might have enjoyed while working. Social Security kept the lowest paid workers out of homelessness and the middle class worker in the middle class once retired.
I don’t see requiring employers to pony up a better share of a worker’s retirement fund as the same as requiring wealthier workers to pay on a higher level of income. Raising the FICA taxable levels would only be justified if the higher paid workers received an equally greater benefit in their retirement. On the other hand, employers that don’t pay a decent wage might do so if the alternative was a higher percentage FICA tax on such employers. Yes, workers can always save a little more for their own good, but often that isn’t realistic at today’s average income. What is there to save when you bring home between $20 and $30 thousand dollars?
Glad to see you back in comments.
thanks for clarifying what you meant by “supplement.” no use getting hung up on words: i tend to think of SS as “basic” insurance, and the various other retirement plans as “supplements” to SS.
it occurs to me that if the predictions we were all hearing a few years ago turned out to come true and most of us did live longer and can (want to) work until we are older, that’s fine. we would be among “the winners.” but SS should keep the present retirement age as insurance for those who can’t work or can’t find a job after the age of 62. Those still working after that age would presumably like their jobs and be making more money than the SS benefit.
Where the problem would then come, I guess, is that those folks who can work longer and make more money would be torn by the agonies of “losing” the SS benefit… they would feel they are being cheated. that seems to be human nature.
according to the figures i calculated there would be nothing wrong with raising the FICA rate for all workers and raising the benefit rate for all workers. It seems to help people feel good about SS if they can see a relation between their own “tax” and their own benefit. There is already an adjustment in the benefit level so those who have higher lifetime earnings don’t get as high a percent return (though they do get more absolute dollars) in order to make money available to supplement the return to those who have the lowest lifetime earnings. seems fair enough to me.
but i think we… you and i… are doing fine if we can discuss these differences. the problem with the “national debate” is that it is neither honest nor intelligent. it is fueled by dishonest people who simply hate Social Security (looks like Socialism to them), and their dishonest arguments are repeated by people who remain completely ignorant of what SS is and how it is funded. This includes all politicians and all “newssources.”
for my part… i worked at lower wages my whole life. there was never a time when a few dollars a week would have made a noticeable difference to me. it did take me a couple of breaths to get over the shock when my employer told me that instead of the raise i was expecting, he was going to put the money into my retirement fund. fifteen years later i was grateful he had done that.
as for getting employers to pay a higher wage, i prefer a direct approach: either better unions or a higher minimum wage. they will fight that, but that’s a fight easier for workers to win (if the voters get behind them) than trying to explain some fancy dance with FICA.
Jared Bernstein also comments on Obama’s speech:
He refers to the “three-legged stool,” savings, pensions and Social Security and says that SS is in the best shape of the three. If we want to improve retirement security and believe that a three legged approach makes sense, we need to address the other legs.
People need to be encouraged to save – educated on how important it is. They also need to paid well enough that they can afford to save.
We should also look into a basic pension. Unfortunately, for many people this really is welfare, and US citizens have been taught to abhor welfare. But if people can’t count on employers to care about their long term security enough to include a pension, then perhaps it is another aspect of our economy that could use some socialism.
As to SS itself, it just needs adjustments by people who can do honest math.
supplement to my last comment: there would be nothing wrong with a tax on low wage employers to help pay for the services their workers will eventually need from the government, including a supplement to their low SS benefit.
thing is to keep SS pure as “worker paid.” i think this is critical to the political success of the program. the current campaign against SS relies on confusing people into thinking SS is welfare.
Seems I know this person from somewhere? The spoken words on Social Security are familiar. It is good to have another defender of SS back at Angry Bear. Welcome back Coberly.
Arne: If “being paid well enough to afford to save” involves a decade or so of past due wage increases we agree. Being able to cover food, housing, healthcare, fuel, and telecom/internet (sorry folks it’s kind of a necessity for most of us nowdays) without borrowing anything is a very strong encouragement to save.
And when I say overdue wage increases I’m talking about the retired and unemployed too.
keep in mind that very low paid workers only contribute 6% of their very low wages to SS. they get that money back many times over when they need to retire.
you’ll have to take my word for it that even when i was a very low paid worker i did not miss my SS contribution.
Yes I realize you manage to make your mandatory SS contributions even when paid poorly. Hey me too how about that?
I was responding to Arne responding to Jared Bernstein’s observation about savings being another leg of the three legged stool. If policy makers are serious about people being “encouraged to save” it would help if there was something left after the requirements of survival are covered.
This country is way overdue for a raise. The entire country. I expect the upcoming election to turn on that issue much in the same way the last one turned on whether or not taxes should go up on the rich. Which is not to say that either candidate will actually address it, just that the winner will probably convince a majority of voters they are likely (or more likely) to do so.
yes to all that.
it’s just that i get told all the time that the poor are too poor to pay more for Social Security. I tell them they are too poor NOT to pay for their Social Security.
And fwiw I think the assertion that “Savings is a third leg of the retirement stool” should be examined a bit more closely at a time when a FT headline blares “Negative-yield debt breaks $10tn level for first time”.
Pray tell me you pull yourselves up by the bootstraps advocates, where and how workers might be expected to save anything for retirement? Or is the idea to just diversify a pile of negative yield investments with lottery tickets to create a magical pile of self-CDO crap that turns out to be AAA rated like the formerly lauded mortgage backed securities?
And I’ll ask again. And keep asking: Now that negative yield investments are a significant and growing part of this New Capitalism where do I apply to get qualified for my mortgage refi that pays a dividend instead of charging interest? How do I get on the other side of that trade?
What the Fing Fity F?
yep. it seems like just yesterday everyone was telling me SS was a bad deal and you could make more in “safe savings” not to say “investment.”
Thing about SS, though, is that it’s “interest” rate does not depend on the markets. it is an automatic result of growth in the economy and will always at least be equal to the inflation rate. It won’t make you rich, but it will insure you against degrading poverty. And so far it only “costs” a smallish fraction of the money (most) people have available for “savings and investment” in whatever schemes they think will make them rich.
“This country is way overdue for a raise”
I think we agree about that, and anyone bringing up kids needs to have internet (although many don’t).
My company dropped pensions for anyone without enough service years in 2006. To compensate, they increased the 401k match, so we CAN have a two-legged stool. Very few raises since 2001, so people find it increasingly harder to put in enough to get the match. Too many just have one leg to sit on.
Still, most people are above the poverty line and can and should figure out how to save more. I am shocked at how many of my coworkers think having a new car now is more important than saving for retirement.
I would hope and pray that at least one good thing that drops out of this negative yield crazy new capitalism is that it will kill off any political justification to privatize social security. By either party. There just isn’t any such thing as a risk free rate of return anymore. In anything.
We’re looking at you Madame Secretary.
I don’t actually think trying to expand SS is a good idea when it needs some adjustments to stay “by workers, for workers” once the boomers are waning. Obama getting on board with suggesting expansion just seems to be recognizing that you can’t negotiate from the center.
Those of us lucky enough to stay employed at above average wages for about 40 years would be better off shoring up personal savings than expanding SS. Since we don’t know until too late whether we are in that boat, we need insurance – the question is just how much.
I suppose my internal conflict over belief that we all need to look out for ourselves and belief that we need to look out for those who come up short causes me to negotiate from the center, but I think we need to try not to end up with a one-legged stool. If we worry about SS without worrying about personal savings, we are too focused.
i think i agree with you.
i think you are saying that with the modest increase in the “tax” needed to enable SS to pay the “promised” benefits for the foreseeable future, and that these benefits, while modest, are adequate as insurance “in case the worst” happens, it is not necessary or perhaps wise to “expand” benefits to make up for the failure of employer pensions or personal savings/investments.
i agree with this. but it is going to be a hard sell. the Left wants to “expand” SS, as well as turn it into welfare. They seem to think that a European style “socialism” is the best answer for the problem of the poor. also, i think, they think that “socialism” will mean the Left, that is themselves, will have the power to make the rules. meanwhile the Right will settle for nothing less than “take your chances” with the “free” market, which they control: workers (the citizens) are not allowed to agree with each other to set up a safety net in case the market lets them down.
I think this is bad politics for the United States. also, i suspect i am guilty of believing that even “the poor” are better off being as self supporting as they can be, relying on “welfare” only as a last resort “. SS, or course, is not welfare, but insurance, and I am all in favor of the poor providing for themselves by insuring each other. This turns out, I think, to be what most Americans believe in. (note the “in”; it’s more like a religious idea than a scientific strategy.)
on the other hand, if employer pensions and personal savings are going to be unreliable for the long term, “expanding” Social Security to provide a more comfortable retirement makes a lot of sense. But there is no reason the workers can’t understand that they would have to pay for it themselves. it amounts to no more than choosing one savings vehicle over another as the best bet to protect themselves from desperate poverty. I think that most Americans would agree that a modest but sure investment is wiser than betting your whole future on a risky chance at riches. but they have to be made to remember that is what they think, because when the man in the suit is telling them they can get rich if they only buy his “sure thing on wall street,” they can be stampeded to do the foolish thing.
With Social Security, looking out for yourself is the same thing as looking out for those who come up short.
The fact is that Europe – the EU – is a collection of capitalist states, each of which has something resembling either a constitutional monarchy or a Republic (except for Monaco). They are not socialist states. Socialists may, from time to time and place to place, win elections, whereby they govern. Conservatives, Christian Democrats and others also win elections. There is no place in Europe where “’socialism’” [means] the Left, that is themselves, will have the power to make the rules.
When you say that “[the Left] seem to think that a European style “socialism” is the best answer for the problem of the poor,” you miss the point. The best answer for the problem of the poor is capitalism with a human face, which is what they practice in the EU. That means a healthy social safety net that prevents people from falling, as so many of us are bound to find ourselves doing at one point or another, so far into poverty that it becomes nearly-impossible to get out.
We practice capitalism with a buccaneer’s face, where the poor are lazy losers — takers. That’s the message drummed into our heads. Which major politician is going to defend, for example, the fact that 1 in 4 children in this country doesn’t know where their next meal is coming from? It’s hard to argue that they “are better off being as self-supporting as they can be.” Yet that’s the argument made time and again about the poor. When you stop to think about the poor in your mind’s eye – and this is purely conjecture – you see young and black. That’s not accidental. When you are fed a media diet that the poor are young and black, you’re very likely to say things like “I suspect i am guilty of believing that even “the poor” are better off being as self-supporting as they can be, relying on “welfare” only as a last resort.” The truth is that the vast number of poor are white and either old, young or disabled. Beyond conjecture is the wager, and I’ll wager you that when you think “poor” you don’t see old or young or disabled white people.
You are “all in favor of the poor providing for themselves by insuring each other?” Brother, how are poor people going to insure one another when they can’t afford to insure themselves – or see a doctor, which was the case before Obamacare passed, which is what I mean by capitalism with a human face.
Raise the cap on contributions!
The first $120,000 the millionaire makes is taxed at the same SS rates as everyone else. Thereafter it is SS tax free. If you want to, skip to $400,000 – but thereafter their income is also subject to the SS tax rates. Finesse it as you wish, but raise the contributions to the SS Trust Fund. All this crap about how they are different from the rest of us, that they are special – “winners” in Trumps words; the “makers” in Romney’s words – and therefore should be handled separately. Screw that. They either are or are not citizens of this republic. If they are, then contribute to the whole.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Are they we or not?
i defer to your knowledge about “european socialism.” i really know nothing about it. but i heard the phrase from someone who was advocating it as a desirable goal for US.
and of course it is possible that what they meant by “european style..” was exactly what you describe as existing in european states. and the people i am referring to.. people in America who describe themselves as “left” (though perhaps not all of them) seem definitely… to my ear… to desire to be “they who make the rules.” i don’t suppose there is anything wrong with that. except that i don’t trust them any more than i trust the predatory capitalists who make the rules in America today.
and you may be making my point: Europe has a safety net… paid for by taxes. Americans don’t seem to like that idea… even poor ones. They like to think of themselves as paying their own way. Which is how Social Security is designed. And it turns out that the great majority of even poor Americans can pay their own way. They’d be even more able to pay their own way if they could rescue their government from the predatory capitalists.
Try to think about it: if you institutionalize having “the state” pay for your needs, you make it hard for you to find ways to get paid enough to pay for your own needs. i really don’t want to sound like a right winger here… but there is an element of truth in what they say…. or they wouldn’t say it, because the people wouldn’t buy it.
And you’d lose your bet. The poor I know are white.
And here is where i begin to lose patience. You seem to think you know my mind when you don’t even understand what i said. You might try beginning with the words I actually used and see if they can possibly mean something other than what you assume they mean because you think i am just another right wing apologist for predatory capitalism.
Meanwhile the workers… arguably “the poor”… in this country do insure each other through Social Security. That’s what SS is. That’s what it does. A time may come… and for some people the time has come… when we are too poor to insure each other. And I see people every day who need help… welfare… and I don’t begrudge them that. But I get irritated with “the Left” who manage to sound like all of us are just too damn poor to put away part of our income so we can retire some day… even when that part of our income is insured… by us… against losses due to inflation, bad days on the market, personal bad luck or even improvidence… because they believe that the ONLY answer to poverty is welfare for all…. what I, probably incorrectly, called “european style socialism… though I’m pretty sure I heard the phrase from someone on “the Left.”
the problem with raising the cap is that it turns SS into welfare, and insures that “the rich” will fight it tooth and nail. it is the royal road to destroying Social Security, which works.
and one of the reasons it works is because it appeals to the ideology that Americans are “fed” and have believed since before 1776. you may think that they are wrong, but the political reality is that’s what they believe.
for those who don’t already know
there is a “cap” on the Social Security “tax” because SS is intended to be insurance. After about a hundred thousand in income the SS “premium” of 12.4% stops being a reasonable price to pay for the value of the insurance. The “rich” pay for the insurance they get. The trouble is that after they find themselves old and rich, they think they never needed the insurance and so start thinking of what they “could have” earned by investing the premium in the market.
they are fooling themselves.
but the “scrap the cap” folks are fooling themselves too. requiring “the rich” to pay the same percent of ALL of their income for SS is about as sensible as requiring the rich to pay the same percent of their income for a quart of milk as the poor person does.
neither of these parties has any idea how Social Security actually works. but once they get their nose down after their favorite scent they go howling after “perfect free markets” or “take from the rich and give to the poor” as the only, holy, way to run a country. what happens in the real world does not interest them.
I agree; the first one in a group – whether left, right or center – who stands up and says “I make the rules,” a la Trump, is the first one I challenge and resist.
I don’t want to go into all the details, but if you google, for example, “national levels/life satisfaction,” you’d be absolutely surprised to find how many EU states rank highly. The question becomes why?
And you’re right, “Europe has a safety net… paid for by taxes.” If Americans don’t seem to like that idea… even poor ones,” you have to ask again, why? There is a high level of life satisfaction, excellent health care, paid family leave… They get next-to-nothing/affordable access to great universities, and apprenticeship programs on a separate track for non-professionals – things that make for a happy life for its citizens. But I don’t think it’s because “they like to think of themselves as paying their own way” so much as it is the Pavlov’s Dog response. We hear a steady drumbeat all the time about the poor – shiftless, lazy, undeserving, even immoral. We hear it all the time, so it’s the first thought that comes to mind.
I haven’t heard anyone of the Left argue that we ought to have the state “pay for one’s needs.” That’s a shibboleth. You are describing State Socialism, a tried and failed system.
If in fact “workers…in this country do insure each other through Social Security,” but you have a cap on contributions, then not all “workers” – all the rich ones I guess you want to include in “workers” – contribute equitably. Raising the caps does not alter the structure of SS at all; it does nothing but raise the amount of money paid into the fund, both to shore it up and to give even the most meager cost-of-living increases. That doesn’t destroy the system, it preserves it. And to hell with the arguments of the rich. If they had their way they wouldn’t pay any taxes. Why kowtow to the rich, which in essence is to surrender the field without engaging in battle?
Reactionaries and their allies – predatory finance – always talk about privatizing the SS system, never about what to do to preserve the system. They have their eyes on that big pot of gold called the Social Security Trust Fund and they’re determined to get their hands on it.
There is a huge difference between the way citizens thought of themselves in 1776, which was to an almost unimaginable degree now as citizens and patriots, and the way citizens/consumers think of themselves today – all to the worse. No one, for example, would ever have thought of “privatizing” any part of the government that serves the people. That would have been anathema. It ought to be anathema. But in order to accomplish the theft of the Trust Fund, those who want that pot of gold have to convince the rest of us that it’s OK, just as Bush/Cheney convinced us of the need to invade Iraq. And one of the main ways of doing that is to demonize the poor as undeserving takers. That’s what I object to; that’s what I heard in your comments.
if you heard ME demonizing the poor you were listening to the echoes of your own mind. that’s why i lose patience.
what works in Europe may not work in America. if it’s because we have all had the “work ethic” drilled into our minds, so be it. that’s the reality we have to work with.
in any case Social Security works and it is NOT welfare. it is paid for by the workers.
the very high earners pay into Social Security up to the cap because that’s all the insurance they need… enough to guarantee them a standard of living after they retire even if something bad happens to them and their money.
i will repeat: it makes no more sense to make them pay 12% of their entire income for that insurance than it would to make them pay the same percent of their income for a loaf of bread as a poor man.
when you change SS from worker paid insurance to making the rich pay for it you have “changed the structure.” in fact, you have destroyed the very thing that makes it work…. in America.
I am glad the Europeans have a high level of life-satisfaction (and no, i would not be surprised.). If “european style socialism” would give americans a higher level of life satisfaction i would not oppose it. but you’ve got to sell it to the Americans. Try not to destroy Social Security, which works, while you are selling it.
it staggers me that you “haven’t heard anyone… argue that the state should pay for one’s needs.” What do you think your “make the rich pay for Social Security” IS?
under Social Security the rich pay for the insurance they get.
you buy car insurance, you pay a premium, the same premium a rich person pays for the same amount of insurance. you have a wreck you get back from the insurance company more money than you paid in. you don’t have a wreck you get back less than you paid in. except with social security, thanks to the effective interest from pay as you go financing, even the rich get back more than they paid in.
it’s easy for you to say “to hell with the rich.” but they have more influence in this country than you have. i’d like to keep Social Security for the good it does in preventing poverty. You are willing to throw it all away on the chance that you can force the rich to pay for your retirement. I don’t like your odds.
the rich don’t care about the trust fund. most of them don’t understand Social Security any better than you do. They think it’s “socialism,” and they think they are paying for it.
“and they think they are paying for it.”
You know, it is so obvious that Pete Peterson is not paying for everyone’s Social Security that I have never really appreciated that therein lies much of the problem.
you know, i really don’t know anything about it. but i have been told that if SS were privatized (“personal accounts”) the likes of Peterson could make a lot of money managing the accounts.
but personally I think their motivation is more psychological. they had fathers who never let them spend an idle moment. and they are the kind of bosses who berserk if they see an employee “not working.” and they have been told all their lives that “pensions” are a gift… one that especially should be denied government workers, because, you know, it’s unfair to the taxpayers to pay retired government workers for not working.
and they really do think it’s welfare. and they really do think they (“us taxpayers”) are paying for it. even some liberal defenders of social security think Social Security “affects the deficit.”
but listen to Alan Simpson and you get an idea of how insane they are on the subject.
of course, if you are of “the left” you make them shut up Simpson so the people won’t have a chance to hear how crazy they are.
because “the left” would rather lose the fight for social security than hear the word “tits.” it’s so sexist, you see.