Beck: "Lord Sending Wakeup Calls"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hX864fXR1A0

The pastor from one of the two churches we attend, Miles Mcpherson, was one of the Black Robe Brigade at the 8/28 rally. In fact, he is going to be a guest on the Glenn Beck show tomorrow (Friday). It is a large mixed church with every race and ethnicity that exists on earth. I can honestly say that when people of good faith come together in common purpose, skin color is no more noticeable than hair color or eye color. It flat out disappears.

It is especially gratifying to see high school kids and young adults who make their own choice to seek out refuge from a world that can't seem to open their hearts or minds. They flock to this church. Sometimes the kids come in with trust issues but it usually takes less than a few minutes in a 'race free' environment to let their guard down.

If anyone doubts that we need to come together as one human race or that we somehow are creating a better country with divisive racial politics, study the pictures from this church's website. It doesn't take long to immerse oneself in them before skin color no longer exists. I'm putting up pictures of a high school outing by kids who freely come together on their own without prompting and with no discussion of race or ethnicity. There are thousands more pictures on the website. These kids have been freed from race. It is long past time to break the cycle.

http://www.therocksandiego.org/pictures/2010-07-11-epiccamp/

The 'no peace' crowd will never bring hearts and minds together. Big government will never replace families, churches, and other American traditions and values built on freedom and individual rights that came from God, not man. They have tried. They have failed.

"Probably what ties Independents and Libertarians to God more than anything else is our founding belief that our fundamental rights come from God, not man."

Who? Who is this God you refer to?

Our fundamental rights, at least here in the U.S., are guaranteed to us by a social contract called the Constitution. That contract was written by men.

The Constitution is a secular, totally non-religious document. In it, our rights are spelled out.

I also take issue with this…

"The truth is that we are all immigrants who came from different countries, different cultures, and different languages. The only thing we had in common was a belief in freedom and a desire to find common ground. We are a country founded on the exact oppposite of tribalism. It is a nation based on individual rights and freedoms."

Simply not true. What early American immigrants had in common was white skin. And Protestant Christianity. And even those white immigrants couldn't get along with each other…Irish, Italians, Poles. We're a melting pot alright, but not one without a lot of tribal and ethnic-based violence, division and strife as the pot has, you know, heated up.

That's why we must rely on the social contract of the Constitution, especially when the melting pot is looking like it wants to boil over. Recent animosity, or intolerance, towards blacks, Hispanics, Muslims and gays should remind us to rely on the Constitution….not God, or some new exciting political movement…..to cool and temper things down. To give us direction.

But hey, we can agree to disagree.

So called 'white skin' is as much a fabrication as so called 'brown skin' or 'black skin' or 'yellow skin' or 'red skin'. Irish have the same colored skin as Italians or Greeks or Scandanavians? Please. We have all had to assimilate or remain outside of the mainstream. How many more generations of black children are you willing to sacrifice for your vision of separate colors? We have one color. It is red, as in the blood that we all share.

Yes beck has the freedom to spew his baloney and sell his propaganda and we have the right to point out what a phony he is. Reality is he is against what our constitution says. Like I said the very religious can easily be swayed by someone with a simplistic message . Religion is good at not asking questions…that is for the skeptics not the faithful. So if he uses religion he can win them over and sell them his snake oil. (Obama bad – socialist program evil ) They will not question what he's selling or that it is against the constitution because of the religious upbringing. Just keep God in your message.

If Obama and the democrats used religion in the same way they could definitely sell them on to helping the poor as in health care reform etc – social programs I am sure if there is a God he would be for. But we don't , because we respect our constitution and what America is founded on – they don't
They are the snake oil salesmen .

A phoney like Barrack Obama, Andrea? One of the most dishonest men in the presidency in our history.

Well, point out how Beck is a phoney. Please. He isn't asking us to change the constitution. He is saying get back the the roots of freedom and liberty. He asks questions that the admin and libs don't like. He has evidence that makes them look foolish. We don't want the "snake oil" Obama and his lib friends like James Lee imposing their murderous and idiotic actually psychotic values and truth on us. (Impose a ban on having kids for 5 years worldwide. I guess murdering 70M infants isn't enough.)
You don't have to question what he is selling because if you ever watched him he is pretty clear and thorough in what he is talking about and if you follow up on what he says he's very accurate, unlike our current administration who promise to be transparent. They hate Beck because they are easily exposed for the crooked and villanous things they are doing.

And why do you keep insinuating that we don't help the poor. We have the fattest, most slovenly, well taken care of poor in the world. We also have millions stealing from their fellow taxpayers on 2 years stints, of get this a new word,…funemployment.

Mr. averagejoe5,
That's quite a stream of consciousness you got going there. From Obama to Lee to abortion providers. Apparently, they are inextricably linked but you don't explain how.
Yeah, Obama is selling you out. He is selling me out, too. If he doesn't, he won't win the important race, the derby to acquire the most campaign contributions.
I see Beck as either a showman, or a delusional meglomaniac. I'm not sure which, but while I would agree with the need to return to values we once held, I'm baffled as to what he thinks these values include. The political positions he espouses are neither traditional nor particularly in line with the concept of "love thy neighbor as thyself".
But I must admit to being one of the fat, slovenly, poor who are stealing from my fellow taxpayers. You see, I did gain weight in my 50's. Whether it was my job, which provided plenty of fatigue without much actual physical exercise, or the growth hormones fed our cattle and livestock, I don't know. Slovenly??? Now that just too harsh!
Which, of course, leaves my theft from my fellow taxpayers. I suppose that it matters not that I paid into unemployment for over 45 FREAKIN YEARS before drawing a nickel. Perhaps you, or your parents, or someone you admire "stole" some of the money that I paid in. At any rate, in my 45 years of employment, I had two jobs lasting over ten years and one nearly 20. All those jobs are gone, and there was nothing that the employees could have done to save them. My last job ended when my employer ceded our sold out market to a competitor which concurrently left another area of the country. Before that, the company I worked for was sold to investors that recognized that the property owned by the business was worth more than the business itself. Having been "involuntarily retired" about 4 years prematurely and well into my 60's, I can assure you that my opportunities are limited. Can you please tell me when the fun part of funemployment kicks in? I think I could quite possibly miss it.

Andrea…."So if he uses religion he can win them over and sell them his snake oil."

Yep.

And…
I think that's the first time I have seen frank vent a bit. It's good therapy on occasion. This is me giving frank a virtual high five.

Excellent video.

The girl in the video made her detractors look like fools. She talked about a lot of things liberals don't want to face. Notice how they all walked away after she destroyed their logic. My favorite line was when the pro-abortion guy said abortion was good because he didn't want black kids born into poverty, and the girl said "so we should kill them to keep them out of poverty ? That doesn't make any sense." No, it doesn't make any sense. So much of it doesn't make any sense.

barackem supports the post-racial society.

Reverend wants to keep defining people by skin color and splitting them into contending groups accordingly.

barackem wins. It's not even a close call.

So then, frank, you had a job for 45 years in this great capitalist country. Pretty good, I'd say. You also told me you have a good 401K, and you should be eligible for at least early Social Security by now. What's your beef again ? Is it because you lost a couple jobs ? Sorry, but as they say, sh*t happens. I have a similar story. The last two companies I worked for were bought out and I lost both jobs because of it. I still don't feel entitled to anything other than what I paid for. If anything, you should be on my side, complaining about the immoral government SS theft that threatens our futures. The government stole your SS money right in front of your eyes, and you consent to it. Something is very wrong there. Think about what you'd have if all those SS payroll taxes had been earning compound interest for 45 years. I guarantee you'd be light years better off financially. You would have done especially well during the Reagan years, as did my working class parents.

Andrea, be honest. Do you watch Glenn Beck's show ?

Or do you get all your "knowledge" about Beck from left-wing media sources ?

I watch Beck's show. Not everyday, but often enough to know that Beck really is a snake-oil salesman. A flim-flam man. He and Palin are similar in that they are indifferent to anything truthful unless it enriches them in some way. America, because of it's freedoms, often produces imposters and charlatans like Beck and Palin.

How ANYONE who listens or watches Beck cannot discern the carnival barking nature of his deceptions…….is beyond my comprehension. 200 years ago he would have been tarred and feathered.

Beck and Palin are both honest people who believe in what they are saying. You can disagree with them, but there's no reason to engage in character assassination. It makes you appear unserious and unbalanced.

Yep. We have half a century of results to prove it makes no sense. Sadly, though, there is no pleasure in seeing that those who have been hurt the most by big government are the same ones who started with the least to begin with. That applies especially to blacks who have been victimized repeatedly through our history. Brought to this nation in chains, sold as chattel, eventually freed into a society that pushed them out of whatever meager existence they could cobble together by jim crow, violence, and intimidation, treated like dirt by ignorant bigots who could get away with saying or doing practically whatever they wanted to whoever they wanted, whether it was 80 year old grandmas or proud men just trying to provide for their families in the worst jobs, often verbally demeaned and humiliated in front of their friends or their spouse or their children.

It's understandable why so many may have bought in to the big government solution after finally receiving well deserved, long overdue dignity through the civil rights movement. It makes it very hard for many to objectively reflect on the results of programs that have wrought more destruction on the black family and a large portion of black community than almost anything else in a long sordid history of unfair treatment.

It makes it very difficult to turn the situation around but at some point the adults have to rise above the crowd and make an honest assessment of what big government has done to them, not for them. They also have to make an honest assessment of the bias and stereotypes that have been passed down to them before they pass them down to the next generation.

If I was a black child who was told that half of the country hates me and that I would have to work twice as hard to get half as far in life, I wouldn't exactly be too excited to wake up in the morning, go off to school to all those white people who hate me and try to do my best to succeed. I'd drop out of school, join a gang, and try to destroy society in whatever way I could. If I continued to let my own prejudice rule my thinking as an adult, I'd be tempted to use whatever means possible to destroy that society from the inside out and enlist any other like minded groups or individuals who were also trying to bring down the so callled white power structure and other traditions and institutions of that country. It wouldn't matter even if there was no better system. At least there wouldn't be any of those people who I didn't like getting ahead.

That seems to at least partially be the standoff where we find ourselves. I can sympathize with those who have been told that anyone who is against big government is just a racist who is trying to put blacks back into submission but at some point they have to open their minds to the realization that most of Americans just want to reach that day when we are a color blind society of individuals free to decide their own path, judged only on the content of their character.

I don't think there is any way that will happen with any white person talking. There is too much mistrust. It will take more brave souls like the girl in this video and high profile messengers like Alveda King to start breaking down the walls.

The truth will set us free but it's hard to say whether it will come too late to save this nation from the hate and division that is eating us alive.

There isn't any doubt that Beck and Palin believe what they preach. There is always a danger that when we get into the political arena we will end up taking sides, sometimes supporting the enemies of our enemies rather than following our own beliefs.

Also, any time someone makes their living by speaking or selling an agenda, there is the danger of selling out to the people who are paying them, whether it be through corporate or non profit sponsorship, or a message that changes depending on the audience.

Maybe the biggest threat to remaining true to oneself is the expectation that someone will be 'on' every time they make an appearance. In many ways they are performers. Just because they are having a bad day or their mind is on another subject, they can't just go through the motions. They are expected to rouse the crowd whether they are roused at that moment or not.

Beck is definitely a seasoned performer. He does a good job of turning it on when he wants. Palin is not as seasoned. Sometimes it gets her into trouble.

I can't even imagine being in their shoes. Not only do they get the rock star status but they get it for their views, which would make it that much easier to let ego overcome modesty. I think Beck would be the more likely candidate to develop a messianic complex. He can be a bit on the edge. His biggest problem might be how much he is trying to do, the tours, the books, the website, radio, television, 8/28 rally, etc. I doubt the guy gets much sleep or down time. He might be a huge mess and we just don't know it yet. There is always that danger anytime we get too invested in a personality rather than the message.

Right now, I'm very thankful for both of their very capable voices. They are both adding to the discussion.

Beck and Palin are honest people?
http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/09/neverending-sarah-saga
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/08/glenn-beck-george-washington-restoring-honor

Tbomb, one of the things that people like most about Sarah Palin is that she is able to shake off all of the smallness of the kind of article that you have referenced and give it right back. She's obviously bright, usually articulate, fierce, and very charismatic. Personally, I don't think some of her comments are very presidential (such as terms like 'lamestream press') and she probably wasn't prepared for the presidency when she was picked for vp. Her interview with Katie Couric showed someone who didn't have some of the basic prepping that would have come second nature to most polished politicians and most likely she needed much prepping on campaign issues, as some McCain aides tattled. She did seem to be a bit of a queen bee on the clothes issue and may even be a bit of a beeotch when crossed, who knows. She did, however, have one of the highest approval ratings of any governor in the nation and proved quite adept at overcoming the relentless attacks that the left began on her by moving to the bigger stage in the lower 48. It proved to be a very wise move.

What does come second nature to her is more common sense in her gut than the entire Dem party together seems to have combined.

As far as the Beck lie, that is a very petty article. Beck did apparently get a special private showing. My guess is that if the truth was known, someone might be in trouble for letting him hold, or possibly touch, the document while it was being held. Even if the curator held the document in front of him, it makes no difference to the story.

C'mon. If Beck is caught on tape trying to bring underage prostitutes to the country illegally and set up a sham business front to cover it, you will have a story. Right now, not so much.

TBomb – the guy didn't even give examples. All he did was assume that she lied.

Do you really think MENews is an unbiased source and should be takin seriously?

Everything you say about the injustices suffered by blacks is unfortunately true. It's the worst stain on America's collective soul. In 2010, however, 45 years down the road from the civil rights movement, I think it's very unfortunate that several black civil rights leaders, some who were even heroic during the days of the civil rights movement, have now become instruments of political divisiveness. They are ironically impeding the move to the color-blind society we all desire by stereotyping people like the Tea Partiers as racists. Those leaders (like Sharpton) have become like the bigots they used to righteously rail against.

I didn't see any Palin lies in that article either.

Hard to believe that a CNN-reject and Governor Quitter have taken in so many good people. But that's America.

She has a problem telling the truth:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/the-odd-lies-of-sarah-palin-a-roundup.html

Thanks Tbomb. I was just wondering the other day what kind of lamebrains are still reading Andrew Sullivan's obsessive and deranged lies about Palin. Are you a "Trig birther," too?

And profiting greatly from it.

Yes, the truth of the matter is that the devastation of blacks in America through societal pressure and institutional rules is not something from the past to be taught in American History courses. It continues to this day. The break up of the black family is worse now than during the slave trade. The chains have been replaced by bars. The bars on the windows of communities where kids are now raised on the streets and the prison bars for those who decided to drop out of society rather than face the pressure of becoming 'white'. Street cred is a bonafide, becoming 'white' is a sellout. Ownership used to be limited by deed restrictions and Jim Crow laws. Now it is through welfare requirements and other 'compassionate' government programs. The mocking and humiliation that was put on blacks to 'stay with your own kind' continues unabated even if the taunting is now coming from different sources.

By all accounts, with no change to the status quo, the next generation of black children will be more likely be without a job and to die on the streets than any other time in our history. The young girl in that video was brave enough to stand up to the status quo and point out that the so called compassionate liberals have been running the show the entire time. How many more generations of black children are we willing to sacrifice before we hold the leaders and their programs accountable?

Thanks for the fact-free insults, Rev.

Tbomb, we are all sick of this kind of petty politics. A person has to almost twist like a pretzel to try to make the assertions that are made in this list. It doesn't make a stronger case by adding more pettiness. It just makes it even more petty. This nation is going broke and becoming more and more divided. This kind of stuff just adds to the problem. We can no longer afford it. We fired the GOP for it. We're getting ready to fire the Dems for it next.

Please try to add light to the discussion, not more mud.

So, Sullivan is just making stuff up?

Yes, Reverend. Are you a "Trig Birther" too?

No, and I didn't see evidence of Sullivan being one either.

But plenty of evidence that Sarah is a liar.

And that's what the new Vanity Fair article reports as well. Brazen and jaded opportunists will simply say anything in their quest for gold and glamour. That's why Sarah lies all the time. It's just what she does.

But please…..keep defending the liar. Conservatives have had a lot of experience defending liars. It's just what conservatives do.

Mr. King,
My beef is not about losing my jobs. I've enjoyed more opportunities than many, certainly more than people ten and twenty years younger than I. My beef is when people characterize availing my self of a resource I've contributed to for 45 years as theft from an entitlement.
Prior to the '82 reform, SS matched its revenues with its expenditures through adjustment of the earnings cap where SS witholding ceased for the year. The money I was paying in was going to my grandfather and then my father's benefits. As such, I considered it more of a moral investment, but it also had the practical effect of making retirement more affordable, thereby decreasing unemployment.
There was, I believe, a commission formed to deal with the impending baby boom problem and it decided that a rate increase and an increase of the earnings cap were necessary to maintain future solvency. The overcharges would be put into T-bills, which would decrease the government's borrowing cost and be politically neutral. As long as the federal government honored SS's committments, there would be no theft.
SS was never intended as nor should it be construed as a substitute for retirement planning. For me, its primarily benefit was the knowledge that these funds were providing economic support for my parents, grandparents, and represented a compact that I would likewise be aided in the future. So yeah, if I considered SS on strictly economic terms, it would be a poor investment. But I feel that the increased well being for SS recipients is of value to us all and represents a type of return unavailable from conventional investments.
Recently, I learned of a study that claimed that if SS removed the earnings cap, they would not only operate at a surplus indefinitely, they could double benefits. Now, by 1982, the Reagan administration realized that their income tax cuts were not going to pay for themselves as promised, and was looking for ways to increase government revenues. The effect of the '82 reform was an increase of 6% taxes on wages under $100k. This fact was not lost on Reagan's budget director, David Stockman, or Alan Greenspan who not only led the charge for reform, but were among its main architects. Apparently, you'd be inclined to agree with me that SS "reform" was hijacked to provide the revenue to disguise the failure of supply side economics. Sorta tarnishes the armor of St. Ron and company doesn't it?
So, SS would have been fine by operating as it had in the past, simply adjusting the earnings cap. Fine, it just represents another tax break for the wealthy. So why do we need another "reform" to shift the costs of repaying the SS surplus to the very people who funded it?
If we really needed to delay the repayment of SS T-bills, why not simply raise the earnings cap so that SS continues to match revenues with expenditures?
During the Reagan years, my SS witholding more than doubled, my wages flatlined for over twenty years, the tax deduction for consumer credit was eliminated. As were the usury laws forbidding interest charges beyond 19%. By the end of the Reagan years, I, like many others, was working longer hours for less in wages and compensation, and paying more in taxes, while the wealthy were having their taxes cut to less than half.
But it should be obvious that the fix is in, just as it was in '82. This commission can be expected to agree on little else than reducing SS benefits. We both know that any meaningful attack on deficit spending must include much more.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone on the right claim that receiving SS is "theft from an entitlement," frank.

The lefty media uses this kind of strawman so often that the poor average Democrat doesn't even know what he or she is arguing against anymore. I see it here all the time.

No, they don't…..and all evidence points to the fact that they don't. They are opportunistic barnacles attached to the GOP/conservative political movement.
Suckers truly are born every minute.

frank, you say that you look at Social Security as a moral investment and as a compact supporting your parents and grandparents.

That is commendable and totally understandable. But haven't you also through the years found yourself having to protect your parents and grandparents from snake oil salesmen who have knocked on their door, told them they had a great plan to sell them if they would just cash in their retirement accounts?

We have an obligation to look out for our parents and grandparents. If I know that there is a plan out there that will provide better returns on their investment and will be in their own name rather than signing power of attorney and their entire retirement account over to their investment advisor, I personally feel a strong obligation to step up and say something. If I also know that the investment advisor continually changes the program without any imput from my widowed mother, I start shakingmy head in disbelief that this shyster can convince anyone to buy in. As soon as I find out that the company has used all the funds and replaced them with IOUs that it may or may not replace, tha tis when I let my mother know that if that guy ever comes to her door again, don't let her in. If he demands a meeting anyway, I will definitely be there to throw his sorry a** out no matter how many times he tells her he is there to help. In fact, if he starts with that crap while trying to scare my mother that she will be out in the cold eating dog food if she doesn't transfer her account into his name, he might not even make it out the door.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could object to privatizing Social Security. It is a settled issue in the courts that there is no right to Social Security. Obama gets up today and gets a big hand for saying that privatization will never happen on his watch. In other words, people will never own their own Social Security. Are we nutz or something? How do we let these blow hards keep a wall between us and our own money?

The only way it is possible is by turning the people iin this country against each other. Repeating the same lies over and over until they become facts.

Through the years SS has been reworked over and over again. Reagan was far from the first and he didn't issue taxes to 'disguise his failed supply side economics'. We all have computers. We can all google facts in seconds now. Here is a website of historical GDP figures.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200

GDP numbers break down like this:

1981 599B
1982 618B
1983 601B
1984 666B
1985 734B
1986 769B
1987 854B
1988 909B
1989 991B

If you also look at that chart, you will also see how the federal government has grown through the years. Before WWII it collected between 5-8% of GDP. After WWII it grew to 11-14% and continually increased as time went on to about 23% when Reagan came to office. By that time we were beginning to feel the standard socialist malaise and the shortage that is found in socialist countries. it was a time when the magazines were writing stories questioning whether the presidency had grown too big for one man. It is the same kind of article we are starting to see again. The truth is that the presidency becomes too big only when the president tries to take over from the people who will always run their own lives more efficiently than some far off government spending other people's money.

You try to make the case that that growth was because of taxation of SS benefits. Here is another historical chart that shows only small amount, about 3 billion per year, came from taxes on higher earners receiving SS. The rest is growth that put us back on a more solid foundation.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/4a2009.pdf

frank, if you really care, you will base your beliefs on what will move this country forward on facts, not the kind of demonization you will hear from the blowhards who have a proven track record of bait and switch. We are all in this together. It isn't the nice people against the mean selfish people.

My primary business is real estate development and rentals. Whenever people apply to fill a vacancy, I try to counsel those who might not know about their options, especially when they are young people with good jobs and credit who would be able to afford a house. Often, they have never thought about it or are afraid of buying. I try to warn them that it is much scarier not to buy. If they rent their whole life, they will be paying for another person's house. They will have no security. They will be dependent on the actions of others. They will have no ownership but their rent will continue to go up over time. Is that somehow a selfish message? How is that any different than wanting to take SS out of the hands of politicians and putting it into the hands of the people who paid for it?

It makes no sense at all. It is long past time to let another round of politicians scare grandma into believing that they are there to save them. They sell nothing but fear and empty promises. It's time to put them out the door.

Excuse me, I called the posted figures from Reagan's term in office GDP. Those numbers are actually federal revenues from those years. As anyone can see, the tax cuts didn't result in lower revenue, Just the opposite. Revenue increased significantly during those years with very little coming from taxation of SS earnings and set the stage for solid growth in future years after stagflation was eliminated.

larry d.,
Thank you for helping me with my writing skills. The theft part was Mr. averagejoe5's characterization of drawing unemployment benefits. But I'd like to have a nickel for every time I've heard someone on the right describing SS as an entitlement.

Mr. barackem,
I never had to save my parents or grandparents from shysters. I don't know what this has to do with their SS benefits. SS has had only one major reform that I know of, in 1982. The only changes, prior to 1982, were changes in the earnings cap so that revenues matched expenditures. In 1982, the "experts", convinced us that SS would no longer be able to operate this way and their reform brought in an additional 6% tax revenue on wages below $100k. As I explained to da King, this happened while the Reagan administration realized that their supply side economics was not producing the revenues they expected. It was da King who suggested that the feds stole SS's funds. He may be right that the proponents of SS reform were more interested in increasing the federal governments revenues than in the security of SS.
The are several problems with privatizing SS. One, it was designed as a fixed benefit plan that provided a baseline payment regardless of market conditions. As such, it is not meant to completely fund an individual's retirement. It was designed as a complement to other plans that provided more return and less security. For example, within a month of my "forced retirement" my 401k lost half its value, my SS lost nothing. If SS was invested in the stock market, who would decide where the funds were invested? I cannot see how this could be done without massive corruption. BTW, I've never claimed that the 6% in extra taxes was responsible for growth in GDP, I've only claimed that it masked the true size of the deficit.
I certainly want the country to move forward. I would suggest you take your own advice about the demonizing blowhards. Having lived through the greatest period of economic expansion, I can assure you that this is not the way. The demonizing blowhards are the ones who wish to defraud SS recipients of the benefits they have earned.

Dave Weigel sure sees evidence of it, Reverend. He's a lefty, isn't he? You haven't been paying much attention.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/07/believing-sarah-palin.html

Weigel is no "lefty". The reason I know that is because I have been paying attention. Since the Post fired him he's been on some weird Dana Milbank course.

And, like I said…..I could care less about the Trig thing.

Yes.

In the last three presidential elections, Weigel endorsed Nader, Kerry, and Obama. He was part of the left-wing Journolist group that tried to steer the 2008 election toward Obama. He is an MSNBC contributor. That screams "lefty!"

On the other hand, he used to be a contributor to the libertarian Reason magazine.

I'd call him a little bit libertarian, and a whole lot liberal, because I've been paying attention too.

No.

Frank has a lot wrong. First of all, Social Security has been "reformed" many times, not just in 1982. If was "reformed" in the 50's, 60's, 70's, etc. The 50's "reform" is when the government started stealing the SS Trust Fund money. Congress saw a lot of money sitting there, so they took it. It was that simple. SS has to be constantly "reformed", due to it's ponzi nature. We are considering now how best to "reform" it. The "reform" is always either tax increases and/or benefit cuts. Like I said, ponzi. This wouldn't be necessary if we had a smart SS system.

If you look at the so-called "privatized" Social Security reform being proposed by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), you will soon see it isn't privatized at all. It includes personal accounts, but the government would still control them and decide which investments were permissible. It wouldn't be some wild stock market gamble.

Frank also contends that SS is supposed to be a fixed plan not subject to market conditions. That may be true, but there is no reason we can't have that with personal accounts as well. Over the long term, personal accounts will almost certainly increase the amount of every retiree's assets, an enormous plus for one and all. The current system actually steals those assets and provides a negative return, an act of fiscal lunacy, but the funds are stilled backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, meaning the government will make good on them (by stealing yet MORE taxpayer money). There is no reason why the government couldn't also guarantee (back) the personal accounts (by issuing T-bills like they do now) in the very unlikely event that the market crashed long term or we had widespread banking failure. The only difference is, with personal accounts it would probably never be necessary, whereas with the current system, it is a routine matter of course.

A worse SS system than we have now probably couldn't even be imagined, and nobody is going to propose one.

He's a mean-spirited progressive, just not to the extent of being a Trig Birther nutjob. The jury's still out on that score in regard to the Reverend and Tbomb.

Mr. King,
What were those "reforms" of the 50's, 60's, and 70's? Weren't these primarily adjustments to the earnings cap? I'll explain how it used to work. SS used to run small surpluses and small deficits. When there was a surplus, SS bought bonds. When there was a deficit, bonds were redeemed. But we are talking about a much smaller amount than after the '82 reform. The earnings cap is the point after which SS is no longer withheld. Before the '82 reform, I reached that income around Sept or Oct. Periodically, it was adjusted to account for demographic variability, that is so that SS revenues and expenditures most closely matched. In 1982, was "reformed" to produce large surpluses. I can imagine a worse SS system. It would be one that didn't sit on over $2trillion in T-bills.

Here we go again.

Step 1 – "When there was a surplus, SS bought bonds"

There was almost always a surplus. Congress put that surplus into the general fund, spent it, and then ISSUED bonds for the amount.

Step 2 – "When there was a deficit, bonds were redeemed."

The bonds are redeemed by BORROWING money, which the government has to repay WITH INTEREST. They are a LIABILITY, not an asset. The assets were already spent by Congress in Step 1.

The $2 trillion+ in T-bills is a mirage, an IOU for the money Congress stole from the SS Trust Fund. Nothing more.

frank,
This statement from the OMB proves everything I'm saying about SS:

"These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense…. 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. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits." (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

In other words, the Trust Fund is an illusion, because the SS surpluses are long gone.

One can say that about ALL T bills. They will all have to be repaid. Yes, it is all bookeeping. But it is valid as long as long as T bills are redeemable. It is important to distinguish SS from the federal govenment. While SS is part of the federal government, its finances are separate. It has its own revenue stream and expenditures. And that is what we are talking about, SS's finances. SS is owed over $2trillion by the federal government. Plain and simple. The question is whether the government repays that debt or defrauds it citizens. I heard a quote from an economist, whose name escapes me, about why some are calling for SS benefit cuts as a means of cutting government spending. He said,"Because that's where the money is". I hope that clears up any question of the validity of SS's T bills.