dagblog - Comments for "Obama to propose social security cuts in the SOTU"

this is a good place to

kyle flynn — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 06:05:00 +0000

In reply to I will, stilli. And yeah, I

this is a good place to start, stilli. It's long, so just jump to the conclusion on page 13. It'll take 30 seconds to read. If you dig it--and I think you might--you can read more.

Cross-posting; it was at

we are stardust — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 01:41:14 +0000

In reply to Is this be a hoax? While the

Cross-posting; it was at Huffpo,too. On thier webpage, type "Robert Kuttner'; it should give you all his diaries.

Is this be a hoax? While the

AmiBlue — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 01:12:57 +0000

In reply to Obama to propose social security cuts in the SOTU

Is this be a hoax? While the Politico name looks like the web site, the rest of the page is not at all the politico format. I can't find Kuttner's name among the people writing at politico and, frankly, I don't know why Kuttner would be writing there since, as editor of The American Prospect, he has his own publication where he can comment at length.

I will, stilli. And yeah, I

kyle flynn — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:57:03 +0000

In reply to Show me the math and I'd be

I will, stilli. And yeah, I know you will too. And hey, I've got no illusions that the next Congress could pass anything close to those comon sense changes, but gee wiz Mr. President, you wanna start talking about tinkering with SS, start there. You're a Democrat, remember?

Show me the math and I'd be

stillidealistic — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 23:39:13 +0000

In reply to Yeah, vomit right in the lap

Show me the math and I'd be right with you...then get it passed by the bastards in Congress.

Thanks this really helps

Elusive Trope — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:53:57 +0000

In reply to It seems the major structural

Thanks this really helps clarify some things for me.

I agree, I am sick and tired

Richard Day — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:51:55 +0000

In reply to AT: Forgive me, but as I

I agree, I am sick and tired of that damn word. Entitlement my arse!!

Yeah, there is a benefit for

Michael Maiello — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 20:11:25 +0000

In reply to It seems the major structural

Yeah, there is a benefit for the ultra-poor. It's the middle class who gets slammed here. These are the people Simpson portrayed as driving luxury cars to gated communities. They will do everything possible to make it seem like the vast middle doesn't need or deserve anything but cuts.

It seems the major structural

kgb999 — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:46:20 +0000

In reply to I don't see how the

It seems the major structural change as far as that goes is the idea that what you pay in doesn't determine how much you take out. Currently, it is a function of AIME. I think the thing Obey is highlighting is the "Special Minimum Benefit". The commission co-chair report is not very detailed, but it would appear this promises to pay out a minimum benefit regardless a worker's AIME. And he's totally right. I had not really thought about that part before - that is a MAJOR change. Seems geared to give the bleeding-heart set a high horse from which to sell out America.

The trust fund surplus was "dreamed up" by Greenspan because of the Baby Boomers. There are a shitload of 'em. As they shift into retirement, there will be a huge hit on the system as Gen X and Y try to pick up the slack. The whole idea behind building it up was to draw it down across the exact period math shows the surplus being depleted. The guy screwed up a lot of stuff, but it looks like he got this pretty much right. At some point, a definitive feature of the plan has been construed as a disaster for America.

I think you are too caught up on the liquid cash part of the equation while they have sort of split cash flow from systemic financial arrangements. It seems more accurate to say that those working now pay for *active government expenditures* of which Social Security payouts are one. I understand why people are saying there isn't technically a "trust" fund, because the way they are taking in the revenue is kind of wacky. They aren't collecting and disbursing from a bunch of individual pools like that - they are keeping everything straight as a function of accounting and financial instruments. But this doesn't make the numbers any less real.

I agree with Obey, I don't think the plan is to default on the bonds. In addition to the bait-and-switch that he highlights, there appears to be an accounting swindle as well which is kind of my focus on this. It looks like they are going to keep collecting the money that *should* be contributing to an increasing surplus (i.e. more Treasury Bonds in the trust) ... but they are going to stop putting bonds in the trust because now it's "fixed" ... and they'll just spend the money they are collecting "for social security" to cover government operations that should be funded by collecting taxes from the rich pieces of crap who came up with this whole scheme. Those of us with two/three decades in the workforce have contributed to a plan that promised to pay out [X] .... now they want to spend a chunk of that money on other stuff rather than raise taxes on the rich and are asking us settle for [Y] even though we have systemically contributed in such a way to legitimately generate assets that can easily pay out [X] for all participants .... so long as the system isn't raided. This is all about the rich not wanting to pay their taxes and scrambling for whatever they can cram in the accounting hole to stave off the inevitability.

And the pisser: come 2020 these assclowns are STILL going to turn around and bitch about having to make good on the "IOUs" that will still have to be cashed in to make this whole scheme work. Is there any doubt they will have already settled in to spending 5x more than they just fleeced from our social security payments .... and still won't want to pay any taxes?

Trope: Can I suggest reading

we are stardust — Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:17:15 +0000

In reply to in the middle of all

Trope: Can I suggest reading a bit at Angry Bear? 'Obama's naivete is now idiocy' and what will come next, and more.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/12/what-once-was-naivete-is-now-idiocy.html