Social Security Video Rant: Alan Simpson's True Colors
If you haven't seen this video yet, you should. Jane Hamsher's put it up at FDL, Dave Johnson's got it up at Our Future, and I've shown it on The Huffington Post. Alan Simpson of Wyoming sounds a lot more like Bart Simpson of Springfield in it - except without the humor. It's worth watching for sheer outrageousness, but remember: Simpson's one of two chairs of a bipartisan commission created by President Obama to study the Federal deficit.
His co-chair, the Democratic "counterweight" to Simpson's radical hostility toward the social safety net, is Erskine Bowles. Bowles was finalizing a deal with New Gingrich to cut Social Security when the Monica Lewinsky scandal derailed their agreement.
Here's what Simpson's comments reveal, besides an irascible personality: That he wants to create a sense of crisis around Social Security, that raiding Social Security to pay for other government expenditures is perfectly fine with him ... even though he's supposedly a "small government" conservative, that he's entered an Orwellian world where cutting Social Security isn't really "cutting" it, and that he'll use absurd rhetorical games to defend his position.
As you watch it, you'll see that Alex Lawson, Simpson's questioner, is well-informed, unfailingly polite, and a nice guy. Simpson, on the other hand, is raving like your drunken right-wing uncle at a Thanksgiving dinner gone wrong. What's he really saying here?
SIMPSON (regarding Social Security): It'll go broke in 2037.
LAWSON: What do you mean by 'broke'? Do you mean the surplus will go out and then it will only be able to pay 75% of its benefits?
SIMPSON: Just listen to me instead of babbling ...
Simpson then goes on to affirm Lawson's statement (without apology, of course.) But he resumes the fearmongering a minute later:
SIMPSON: ... There is not enough in the system by the month ... to pay out what comes in. In other words there is more going out than coming in. That happened 3 or 4 weeks ago.
LAWSON: ... Social Security is separate, though, from the general budget, right? It's totally in the green.
SIMPSON: But it wasn't. Just four weeks ago, there wasn't as much coming in as going out.
LAWSON: Except you're not calculating the interest paid on the bonds, because, if you do include that, it's still in the green this year.
SIMPSON: Well you can go through all the sophistry of babbling that you want to.
LAWSON: It's not sophistry. It's just what the SSA says. So I'm just going on the numbers.
Alex is absolutely right, and Simpson's the one engaging in sophistry - if by "sophistry" you mean, to use Simpson's word, "bulls**t." And it's fascinating to watch Simpson suddenly defend big government expenditures, even when (make that only when) people's own insurance payments - money they've paid to cover their retirement is borrowed and then left unpaid:
LAWSON: ... (W)hat about the $180 billion in surplus that (Social Security) brings in every year?
SIMPSON: There is no surplus in there. It's a bunch of IOUs.
LAWSON: That's what I wanted to actually get at.
SIMPSON: Listen. Listen. It's 2.5 trillion bucks in IOUs which have been used to build the interstate highway system and all of the things people have enjoyed since it has been setup.
LAWSON: Two wars, tax cuts for the wealthy.
SIMPSON: Whatever, whatever. You pick your crap and I'll pick the real stuff. It has to do with the highway system, it was to run America. And those are IOUs in there. And now there is not enough coming in every month ...
Simpson asserts that Social Security wasn't originally intended to pay for people so far into retirement because life expectancy was low in 1935, when SSI was created. That's true ... but the program's been modified since then to adjust for increased life expectancy. That leads to this whopper:
LAWSON: ---(I)t's my understanding from actually looking at the 1983 commission (which revamped Social Security), they actually started prefunding the retirement of the baby boom by building up that huge surplus.
SIMPSON: They never knew there was a baby boom in '83.
Really? They didn't there was a baby boom ... in 1983?? They didn't know how many babies had been born in the years 1948-1964? Here's the real reason Alan Simpson says outrageously false things like that:
Here's the bottom line. Simpson doesn't want to force the government to pay those bonds back, because it will probably require new taxes to pay for them. The Commission's likely to recommend some new taxes, but the Simpson crowd wants those increases to be a small as possible. Here's an example of that ideology in action:
LAWSON: The government doesn't actually own the bonds, it's the government owing...
SIMPSON: Let me say things in a way so your fans will understand this, so you can go and be a hero. There is not enough in the system ... So, what do they do? They go to that trust fund and say, 'We need the IOUs out of it.' And they say, 'You can have them, but you have to pay for them' ...
Paying for them ... which means more taxes ... is exactly what Simpson and his comrades don't want.
There's more - you can read the entire transcript at Jane's place or read a longer version of this post here. But you get the idea. Alan Simpson isn't just a cranky old man ... he's a cranky old man gunning for the financial security of older Americans.
And we're all going to be older Americans, if we're lucky enough to live that long.
.. for breaking down the substance of the interchange.
I watched it (well, tried to watch it) a couple of days ago and couldn't get past "the little people" and the first 3 or 4 "bullshits."
Besides the $2.5 Trillion in IOUs (thanks for quantifying the IOUs; I knew they were massive but didn't know the amount) there's also the issue of demographics.
The American population is growing at a rather brisk pace. In real numbers the US population will grow as much as China's in the next 30 years; then China's will begin to decline while ours continues to grow rapidly.
Assuming we find reasonable employment for this coming wave of youngsters, they should be paying lots of money into SSA .. soon.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
which is worse than little
this lesser person would like to kick his old flabby ass
Maybe he won't make to the end of the year. Is he afraid of losing his money? Shoot, he can't take it with him.
Where does the liberal base get this asinine idea that there is a surplus in social security?!?!? I have beat this horse here on C&L so many times now and it seems like left do not understand or want to believe the truth. Simpson is dead on correct on his facts. People better start understanding the economics of this or your going to be rudely awakened when you retire. Read it people the GAO has written about this for years.
There is no surplus in social security no matter how badly the left want to believe there is.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
What has been going on for years. Congress has been spending the money brought in by social security and replacing it with those so-called worthless I.O.U.'s.So the question should be...Is Social Security really going broke? Or are the days of congress robbing Peter to pay Paul finally going to end. For one,I'm not getting my hopes up.I think conservatives are gonna do everything in their power to destroy what was a brilliantly concieved but poorly executed program.
This is the very reason why Republicans should never be allowed to touch taxpayers money. What's left in SS and not in IOU's, the Republicans want to hand over to Wall Street.
is the fact of the IOU's sparked Chimpy McFlightsuit's interest simply to save the GOP's reputation, not SS.
"What's left in SS and not in IOU's, the Republicans and Obama and the corporatist Democratics want to hand over to Wall Street."
Nothing funnier or more pathetic than a guy who doesn't know what the he** he's talking about acting like the smartest guy in the room!
SS takes in more money than it pays out! How can it be bankrupt? The only way that could occur would be if someone stole the money. Like when Bush gave 2.1 trillion in tax cuts from the SS surplus, 88% of which went to millionaires and trust funders who don't even pay into SS, or pay almost nothing based on their huge incomes.
I have been listening to dupes like you for 45 years, and to this day, SS is about the only thing in government that isn't bankrupt.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
really read them, particularly the GAO's "Long Term Fiscal Challenge" report don't purport to understand anything. The GAO audits the IRS and produces the US financial reports. The IRS itself reports the same as the GAO. You're assertions that SS takes in more than it spends is ridiculous nonsense especially when I have placed the authoritative link on the topic is right in front of your nose.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
a defense budget that consumes over 50% of our budget; we spend by far the most % for defense with the lowest top tax rate in the industrialized world *and* have the worst social safety net; SS as it exists now is already peanuts and not enough to live on, our pensions have been privatized to please Wall Street investment firms, leaving very little in the way of retirement security for most Americans and now our healthcare privatized by Obama to please his corporate masters, ensuring it will remain unaffordable for the average American.
So instead of, say, winding down one of our endless wars and/or cutting the defense budget or raising the top tax rate from 39% to say, 90% like it was under Eisenhower, a *Republican* Administration, or 70% under Nixon, Obama is set and determined to balance the budget on the backs of the working American and the elderly struggling to get by on scraps. Obama likes nothing better than punishing the average American. Furthermore, this is yet another one of Obama's lying his way into office re his intentions, then duplicitously hiding behind Republican skirts (aka "bipartisan") to whack the little guy.
You're 'authoritative link' sounds suspiciously like DLC propaganda to me; esp. the term 'authoritative' given how this Administration is trending. We paid out of our own money into the cheapskate SS fund and this criminal Democratic (IN NAME ONLY) Administration wants to whack the little guy yet again in order to to please the moneyed elite and advance its own power.
OMG! You say;
That link is to the Government Accountability Offices (GAO) own documentation. http://www.gao.gov They are "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog." The GAO audits the IRS, they audit US federal government. They have warned for over a decade of this situation. If you think this is DLC propaganda I don't think there is much anyone can do to help you understand otherwise. They ARE the authoritative source on the topic, ignore their financial reports at your peril.
The interest payments on the national debt rival our national defense budget, here is the governments own numbers on that, if you find a way to believe it's not DLC propaganda.
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir...
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
welfare programs, too lower taxes on the rich, SS cap for the rich (WTF?), which they should not have, etc. etc. There is plenty of money to do things right, just not the will, because the rich own 9or are) the Congress.
I'd respect this old heartless fucker more if he'd said "fuck the elderly and the helpless".
Wow.
Why people want to believe otherwise when the hard numbers have been available for all to see for years is amazing. It's delusional thinking. Social security has come under pressure from a number of fronts, a printing press in over drive, life expectancy surpassing social security's plans, the ERISA act of 74, and a larger 75 to 85 million baby boomers retiring into a base of Gen-X that is 1/3rd smaller who must carry the tax load to support them. The numbers don't lie, but if people want to believe in fantasies go right ahead.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
What other choice do we have?
and right you are. We will need to find a way to produce it, but until the left realize the truth any attempt to deal with the issue is going to misplaced and incorrect.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Raise the SS limit to $250,000.00. That will bring in more money. Oh, that's right. We don't tax the rich.
But yeah, letting that top 1% widen the lead on what's left of the upper middle class will not be legislatively acceptable.
No question the rich should pay more but remember they have the means to get up and move anywhere they want. Push too hard and they will run for the exits. We need to rich to create businesses and job opportunities as well.
So whatever solution we come up with needs be a combination of tax, production, and reduced spending. We spend far too much on government, that is a fact and our yearly deficit spending for the last 40 years is more than confirmation.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
They are parasites. Where ever they go they will suck it dry and leave an empty husk.
Are you kidding? Those rich greedhead creeps aren't going anywhere. Because in any ohter country, they would have been paying taxes all along! There should be a 1-3% wealth tax on anyone with a net worth over 10 million, along with 95% marginal rates. That will fix the problem. They don't have any problem getting trillions for wars, tax cuts, and corporate welfare cronyism - so why should they have any problem paying SS benefits?
How do you come up with this stuff?
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
and yes they will leave. I worked for such a company that resold WorldCom telco services and relocated it's headquarters in Cairo Egypt to avoid having to follow the do not call list law.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
some will leave--most will not. They have it too good here. Their families are here, their scams and compliant Congresspuppets. Let them threaten. Let them leave. Or stay. But start to tax them at the same rate as the rest of us.
the business however "operates" ;) out of Cairo. They take an occasional plane flight but their offices never physically moved. This company operates under DBA's. Corporations and LLC's are simply legal instruments to protect entities. Their is always a loop hole, even when the Dem's are in office.
If you come out down on the rich too hard as justified as it may seem, they will leave and there goes your job.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
And let's see will I lose my customer base...
NOPE! At least 98% make under $75/year.
So let them run... We can still tax them unless they become ex-pats. After all, not paying your fair share of taxes to help support the country is NOT patriotic.
like they do, they earn their money in another country and pay taxes in another country but live here in the US. But then there are countries like Greece, they are taxing Greek citizens abroad. No sh*t!
I have a co-worker from there and she is taxed for rental earnings on property she owns in Greece AND she is being taxed for income earned here at her job in the US. Personally if it we're me, I'd be royally pissed for something like that.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
You mean like all those jobs they are currently creating? Let them go, it might take a while, but we will all be better in the long run.
administration of that "commie pinko" Dwight Eisenhower, the marginal tax rate was 91%, under the Marxist Richard Nixon it was 74%. Was there a mass exodus of the wealthy during that time? I can't recall.
And puts the death panels in place, then we won't have to worry about the people older than 69.
A soulless strategy at that, ought to be interesting to hear in the 2012 elections.
I can see it now...
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
I see a source of money by reducing our world's policeman budget. I think that's good for $250B per year. We can revamp the War on Drugs, costing perhaps $70B a year, according to a former governor of New Mexico, Gary Johnson. Right now, the policy is to maximize black market cash flow, and we could save a boatload of money with a policy to minimize black market cash flow.
There's money, but Washington is just pissing it away.
The money owed SS is just like Treasury Bonds. The government must pay it or it will lose the trust of all its debtors. If that happens the entire world will fall into a depression that will make the 1930s depression look like a walk in the park.
The Depression is here TODAY. Watch the DOW plummet this November.
Hey FvCKNUT,
The system had a whole different set of books. It was solvent and would be solvent EVERY TIME THEY REVIEWED THE BOOKS, and re-tweaked the life expectancy or the salary cap. Don't hand us your bullsh|t about there is no money. THE RIGHT HAS STOLEN THE FVCKING MONEY, to pay for TWO wars of AGGRESSION and TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH, and the BLOATED DOD. Just like the interviewer said(who I must say stayed real calm, I would have lit into this scumbag piece of shit when he gave me that first snarky-assed comment.)
THE TRUST FUND WAS ROBBED BY THE RIGHT. PERIOD. Now all the SSI has to dip into is the IOU THE RIGHT put into the trust fund after STEALING THE MONEY. THE SSI DID NOT PUT THE IOUs in the trust fund you babbling bullsh|t artist.
Let's invade SWITZERLAND, I bet we will find a lot of accounts with REPIGGIES names on them and BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS OF US TAXPAYER MONEY.
I wouldn't be able to understand what you're saying unless you used capitol letters - thank you.
The one thing NOBODY who advocates increasing SS retirement age is willing to consider is the impact that will have on unemployment by keeping people in the work force longer.
I wasn't aware that unemployment is so low now that we can risk increasing it by forcing people to delay retirement!
I don't trust Alan Simpson and that's the problem. He got his, now he is telling millions of older americans to go get screwed. I remember one politician back in the 80s who so ticked off the seniors in his area, that they mobbed his car (with him in it!), and kept him at bay before police could arrive. I think it was Dan Roskintowski a Democratic senator I believe. Simpson is playing with some very serious political fire if he messes with that crowd.
You believe the CROOK Rostenkowski who served time in a Federal Prison for Mail Fraud??? Keep believing CROOKS & LIARS!
What does he think The Big Chill was about?
What he means is, HE didn't know there was a baby boom in 1983. Which disqualifies him from talking about Social Security.
By 2016 at the age of 70 and 1/2 years old, baby boomers will have to start taking retirement payments. This is defined in the ERISA act of 1974. 75 to 85 million baby boomers will begin to take payment. Do the math. $75 million x an average of say $1,000 a month is $75 billion per month. You think Gen-X is going to hold that up? There is no surplus in social security.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
In 2000, the Census estimated about 80 million baby boomers, Americans born between 1946 and 1964. Someone born in 1964 will be 52 in 2016.
"I think there are a lot of critics who think that . . . . if we did not stand up and say this is bogus, and you're a liar, and why are you doing this, that we didn't do our job. I respectfully disagree. It's not our role." David Gregory
By law, all of the social security trust fund must be invested in federal bonds. In effect, the trust fund loans its funds at current interest levels to the Feds. If this is raiding, it is a bit of a stretch of the definition. So Yes, the funds in the trust fund are available for both budget and off-budget purposes. At present, the SS tax is capped at $100,000 of annual earnings. It was set I don't know how many years ago. If the cap on taxable wages is raised to $200,000 or $250,000 per year or adjusted for wage inflation, I think you will find that the fund will be safe for the rest of the century. It would also help if the tax cap were to be automatically adjusted for wage inflation each year.
This is just one more tax break for the rich.
You got that right.
BINGO, BINGO, BINGO
See VEGASRAGE BULLSHITTER, there is the possibility of fixing things that YOU ASSHOLES ON THE RIGHT broke.
NOT everything in government becomes a slot machine for the Corporatocracy. Go I hate you motherfuckers.
There should be no upper limit on SS. There sure isn't a lower limit.
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
There should be NO government mandate on taxing an individuals earnings for a goofy government ponzi-scheme
and give the rich more tax cuts.
Republicans are liars and simply cannot be trusted.
Fish, if you are replying to me, I don't follow your logic. The tax is applied to all earners. This is an insurance premium, not a budget tax. Any tax cuts would be from other actions by the spineless Congress.
The tax is applied to all earnings up to a maximum of, what, $110K/year now? Which means that someone earning minimum wage pays FICA on every single dime of their earnings, while someone who makes $1M a year pays FICA only on the first $110K.
...set up this commission with a fair balance of Social Security privatizers (or is that privateers) on both sides? I mean, I understand that he's in the thrall of the corporatocracy, but what does he think he stands to gain by gutting the most historically and socially significant accomplishments of his party? How could a Democrat vote for him if this goes through? He's not going to gain votes from the other side since we know Republicans will never vote for him under any circumstances. He might get short-term backing of the big money that would benefit from privatization, but he'd be a one-termer for sure.
Get the fuck in line.
File this along with "listen in on phone conversations" under "things I thought the government could do anyway until there was a controversy about it."
;lkj asdf
Give him a scythe and a black cape, and we all know who that ugly f*ck would be.
What a total ass. It's like he's telling a secret, and he doesn't want anyone to hear. Are all these repukkkes sick?
During the Reagan administration, Social Security taxes were raised in order to provide for the baby boomers. The surpluses were invested in treasury securities.
In 2001, Bush had a commission that viewed the treasury securities as follows: "They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."
But there was a problem, namely the budget surpluses. "OMB (2000) projects that the federal budget will show a surplus until 2075 if discretionary expenditures grow with inflation, and until 2040 if discretionary spending grows with GDP". The surpluses meant that Social Security could be paid back.
So, the Bush administration came up with their tax cuts for the rich, proclaiming that Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. They ran the deficits up to the point where Social Security couldn't be paid back. And now, predictably, these born again deficit hawks want to slash the deficits with Social Security cuts.
What does it really mean? Upon canceling the IOUs, past FICA taxes would essentially be converted into a flat tax on wages and salaries, to make up for the tax cuts on dividends, capital gains, and tax brackets involving the rich.
I saw this before Bush ever took the oath of office. I think I read the plan somewhere. If I remember correctly, there will be proposals to make Social Security a needs based system. (Figure that into your return on your 401K.) They'll try a divide and conquer system. If people get cut out of Social Security, they won't support the program anymore.
Let's not forget that Alan Greenspan was the head of the Reagan administration task force whose recommendations led to raising SS taxes to prefund the boomers AND was at the forefront of providing arguments in favor of the Bush administration tax cuts 25-30 years later. Unless those "IOU's" (actually Treasury notes back by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government) are redeemed, then Greenspan was at the center of the largest act of criminal fraud ever perpertrated.
Won't allow this to happen. It's a strong lobby and no politician will touch this third.
. . . at the expense of younger folks.
Republicans have an uncanny ability to point out with a laser pointer their inability to empathize with the common man. As he most eloquently points out, it's because we're all full of crap, we spew our sophistry of babbling and it's all bullshit. In other words "La la la"...he's not listening to us.
Cut Social Security and the baby boomers will be living with their children or they will be living the streets. Neither one is an acceptable option. The only other choice is to tax the rich.
This could be the issue that may finally get the repukes and bluedogs perp walked to the guilotine. When Grandma and Grandpa have to move in with the kids thanks to these heartless bast**ds, the feces will hit the fan.
These psycho's have been so successful at duping half the people in this country for so long with their Orwellean media b.s., that they can't help but overplay their hand.
Being psycho's, they cannot help themselves, which will be their undoing.
Besides, this Simpson cretin might be dead before his coffee finishes brewing, so what does he care?
Rush Limbaugh is what a smart person thinks a stupid bigot sounds like.
s/b livin' with the family. The nuclear family is a corporate joke or would be except its' not funny
Be as you wish to seem
Welfare for BP and the huge multinational corporations , for the crooks on Wall Street and for the billionaires and millionaires ... that's all just fine and legitimate with the fascist Reich wing / Repugs .Plenty for right wing / neocon invasions and occupations , for the military and the military industrial complex . The deficit ? Oh they'll take care of that alright , by shredding the social safety net , eliminating social security , medicare and taking from the middle and lower class . They don't want to kill Grandma but to put her out on the streets , that's just fine . Low life pigs , they have absolutely no conscience and are truly the worst of mankind .The silver spoon fed rats probably have never even known anyone who was / is lower or middle class , a common man , they have no clue and don't give one damn anyway . It gets old but we gotta keep fighting them tooth and nail ... even when we seem to be losing .
People still believe obama isn't a blue dog. No matter the evidence in front of them, they still think he's working for the middle class.
It's a very sad joke.
I heard he was a Maoist. You mean, that's not true?
I also heard he was a Muslim who went to a radical church - but I'm sure they meant mosque.
Does anyone think that Hillary would be doing us any worse? Tough call...
What a fucking asshole!
And Vegas, your little "accept it, there is no money" rant is complete crap. That reminds me of an employer, who everyday tells you that you earned 100$ that will be paid on Friday. Then Thursday night comes around and he tells you, "look, all that money I told you that you were earning, well, we don't have it..."
Think about it this way, Vegas: this mom and stepdad set up a bank account for this kid. The kid puts a little away every week, and the savings account is supposed to generate 1% interest. So, over twenty years, the kid puts in 2000$. The kid is a real genius with the computer, so he knows he should be getting 3000$ out, because of the interest. Well, it turns out, the stepdad is taking the money out as soon as the kid puts it in to go buy ammo that he uses at the firing range. The stepdad has been telling the mom, that he can cover the debt whenever the kid needs it. So, twenty years passes, the kid goes to get his money and the bank says, "go check with your stepdad."
The kid asks the stepdad, "where's my 3000$?"
The stepdad says, "whoa, you want me to pay you interest? How does that make sense?"
You might say, well... we just have to accept that the money isn't there. But whether we pay for the debt with new taxes, or we decide to shirk our responsibilities, someone has to sign off on the books. And the only way, anyone with the least amount of scruples or mathematical competency can say, "okay, this is the balance going forward..." is that there will have to be an acknowledgment of the theft. Then, the shit will hit the fan.
as long as we can pay for our wars.
I cannot imagine an america without a war or two each decade.
I mean what are we if we cannot kick some you know what.
this is our national ego man we are a super power and proud of it.
greed is good but so is our wars for profits.
americans love their wars and their military might.
americans will raise taxes, shun those for medical care with pre existing conditions, lay off teachers, but our wars well keep your hands off our wars for profits.
god bless america we are truly a christian nation.
thank god jesus was for wars for profits son of god.
the most industrialzed christian nation on earth and the most in wars and military spending.
aint that religion great stuff.
it will be a great day in america when we use our wealth for education and medical benefits and have our bake sales for our wars.
never happen in america americans are war mongers to the core. one only has to look at our military budget and our 729 military bases in other countries as proof.
if you dont believe americans are war mongers take a trip through the southern states and make texas your last stop.
visit some of their churchs find out what those people think about our wars for profits. gun ho to the core.
That is the core of the problem here. And, it's not just the Republicans.
We pissed away a shitload of our national treasury on fighting long extended wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan under both Democratic and Republican administrations. And most of it was for nothing but making defense contractors, oil investors and politicians on both sides rich.
As long as the military industrial complex controls Washington, which it continues to do, we will make very little social progress. And we become closer and closer to being a second-class nation in the world because most other nations have realized the futility of "eternal war for eternal peace" and have bypassed us.
Democratic Party progressive, Vietnam veteran and proud Union member for 41 years
And what about McCain's 100 year war??? And what about the Billions given to Israel each year??
Heads will roll if they keep this up. They knew about the problem of using Social Security as a piggy bank to fund other projects all along. Stop the wars. Lower the obscene funding to the War Department. Tax the top 10 percent of wealthiest Americans at the rate during Reagan was in office. Lower the SS benefits to the top 10 percent of the wealthy, perhaps. Don't you dare go after the vulnerable elderly who have spent their lives paying into this system and have been promised this as part of their retirement.
Candideinnc
Simpson is an old right-wing jerk. The fact that so many of these clowns are old men is about the only aspect of the current lunacy that looks like an upside to me. The kids are all right.
Obama appointed this sack of excrement. The buck stops there. He can't be allowed to get away with this. He knew what kind of people he was appointing!
Candideinnc
represent Obama's thinking, it's clear that Obama gives a shit about anybody but the rich. The fact that he even created this bogus commission is telling.
I want my vote back.
As stated many times on here, no party has the balls to eliminate or make major changes to SS and it's not needed. A few minor changes such as raising the upper limit at which income is taxed and changing the way yearly cost of living increases are calculated will solve the problem. Vegas is right in that the IOU's are crap but full of it when he says it is a major problem. Medicare is the major problem that needs to be looked at closely and tough decisions made. The problem is conservatives don't like to make any decisions. They think the free market and lower taxes eliminate all problems and we just have to hold on for the ride.
Eliminate the ponzi-scheme; give everybody back what they paid in, close the SS offices, eliminate all of the overpaid Social Security System bureaucrats and let people handle their own money!
At the risk of sounding ageist (I'm 61 and someday will be old, I hope)... there is an age beyond which people shouldn't have anything to do with making public policy. At least in Simpson's case.
By selecting Simpson for this, Obama has again disappointed me.
Bowles was finalizing a deal with New Gingrich to cut Social Security when the Monica Lewinsky scandal derailed their agreement.
Obomba's appointment of Simpson is further proof that he is not the reformer we thought we had voted for, that he is part of the corporate elite, a puppet slightly less objectionable than Bush. The Dims need to get their heads out of their asses and let them know (if they care) that we cannot re-elect someone who is turning out to be destructive to the country.
Now I know some Obamabots will accuse me of parroting right wing talking points, blah, blah, blah, but my points are completely different from their fantasies. I stand to lose any small safety net (and I retire in 5 years, if I can) I might have if his "bipartisan commission" (such horseshit) gets its way and further wages war on the poor and lower middle class citizens.
This lesser person would like to kick his old flabby ass down the Capitol steps... a few times.
Watching his body language, his condescending tone, his repeated insults, if I was interviewing him I don't think I could stop myself from busting him right in the chops. After he picked up his glasses and a few of his teeth, maybe then we could have a reasonable discussion.
He is completely right though. And he wrote a book the year he retired; "RIGHT ON THE OLD GAZOO". It is a book well worth reading.
May I ask a stupid question? Is this same Alan Simpson who was U.S. Senator from California? It can't be, right?
the other guy is dead.
Be as you wish to seem
that was Alan Cranston.
NO, he was a Senator from Wyoming where the buffalo roam
citizens had to balance our flat-to-falling wages over the past 15 years by not being able to save any money for retirement. This is partly why so many people rely on SS alone: they have nothing to supplement SS because, without any choice in the matter, they "gave" that money to their employers, through pay cuts and flat wages.
I can't imagine that people who already made these sacrifices throughout their work years are going to be willing to accept that they have to make yet another sacrifice and see their SS payments cut.
lockbox.
And all the repigs laughed.
Social Security has a simple and fair fix: apply the FICA (tax that funds Social Security) to all income with no cap. The original deal the capped it was struck with Southern Dems in the 1930s (yep, blue dogs were around then too). Doing this removes any threat of financial problems for Social Security for the foreseeable future and is, of course, quite fair to all. Note - for those of you who think the IOUs are not real, I suggest you explain that to the Chinese as well as to US based mutual fund who regularly buy (and sell) federal debt.
Medicare and Medicaid are more problematic. We have a choice. We can either continue to use a largely market based health care system that (i) costs more than those in Northern and Western Europe, Japan and Australia and (ii) delivers inferior results in terms of life expectancy, infant mortality, doctor vists/capita, etc. on a yearly basis or we can learn from these other countries and adopt some form of universal, publicly run and funded health care. If we go the former route we will increase the drag of health care on our economic growth and increase the rationing of health care based on income/wealth level. The latter route offers a way out of much of our deficit problems.
Social Security was a Socialistic scheme where the early retirees in the 1940's who paid little into the system cashed our big time. Simpson is right, the system is a ponzi scheme and a Communist contract which when broke will change the terms and conditions. "Means testing", or the retirement age will probably go to 100, so that only the government gets the money paid by the sheeple. Death benefit is a lousy $255.00 and no beneficiary as to the amount what has been paid in. In other words, an unmarried person CANNOT name a beneficiary, so if he lives 3 years after retiring, he gets about .001% of what he has paid in and everything else is lost in the Big Government Hole.. With a married person, the surviving spouse gets little or nothing also. I SAY, let people handle their own money. We pay income taxes to the U.S. Treasury that redistribute it for phony wars in the Mideast, foreign aid to Israel, bridges to nowhere, along with Social Security paid by employees and matched by employers. Give every American citizen BACK what he has paid into this crooked system immediately, close all Social Security offices, eliminate all of the overpaid bureaucrats the agency has and give the citizen the FREEDOM to do with his hard earned money what benefits him most. The Social Security system is presently a mandatory system of slavery to the worker as well as the employer, and is totally un-American.
Comments are closed on this entry