Our Incompetent And Embarassing Government
President George W. Bush says the economic stimulus checks will help you peons (formerly known as 'americans', formerly know as 'free').
And he's right, they will.
For maybe a month or so.
Then we are right back where we started, only worse off and deeper in debt. It isn't just Bush doing this type of thing either. The Democrats love the stimulus checks and are asking for yet more freebie government interventions (that aren't free) for the public, before the impact of the first round is even measured. Yes sir, it's an election year, and pandering season is open. Let's shoot everything responsible in sight.
The stimulus checks are NOT paid for. We don't seem to pay for much of anything since GWB became president (or for the vast majority of the last 45 years either). We are the most irresponsible generation (or two) in the history of this country. We have overturned the wishes of the founding fathers, abandoned sanity, decided to give ourselves anything and everything that we want (self-absorbed punks that we are), and the consequences to future generations be damned. It's all about us. ME. ME. ME…We WANT universal health care for FREE, darn it, so we are GOING TO HAVE IT, no matter what economic destruction it wreaks on our children, no matter what it's actual effect on health care or our economy will be…No matter what. It's really all about getting SOMEBODY ELSE TO PAY FOR OUR NEEDS (those 'rich' people are the favored imaginary cash cows). It's really all about stealing someone else's money. It's really all about THEFT. We are not righteous. We are not responsible. We are not worth jack squat. WE……stink. We are criminals. We vote for the biggest criminal on the ballot. We vote for whoever promises to steal the most from our brothers and sisters. We consciously work toward the destruction of all that made this country great, and we have the nerve to call it 'fair'.
What the stimulus checks really tell you is that government has been stealing far too much of your money for far too long. End of story. We've all known that for years and years, really. You'd have to be nearly retarded not to know it. When the government steals half your money, it's really not a surprise that you are SHORT OF MONEY, is it ???? I mean, HELLO ??? When we have the second highest corporate income tax rates in the world, it's really not surprising that business tries to relocate elsewhere, is it ? HELLO ? We actually have one political party (guess who ?) in this country that TREATS THE BUSINESS SECTOR AS THE ENEMY !!! Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm almost completely certain that BUSINESS IS WHERE OUR JOBS AND OUR WEALTH COMES FROM !!! HELLO ??? Providing an environment that is unfriendly to business is about the stupidest thing we can possibly do. No wonder China makes everything, and our economy now depends on how much we spend at the mall. I'm sure this will be mentioned in the future book "The Rise And Fall Of The American Empire'.
We have a Social Security Trust Fund that is neither a Trust Fund nor provides Security. It might keep you in cat food when you get old, but it's actually nothing more than a hidden tax, PERIOD. They take all the money that is not paid out to current retirees and they immediately SPEND IT. They SPEND your so-called Trust Fund, and YOU LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT !!! If you are a brain-dead Democrat, you even TOUT THE FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS RIPPING YOU OFF AS A GREAT FREAKING SUCCESS. How damn DUMB can you be ? You actually celebrate getting screwed. The Social Security RIP-OFF is used as an example of great progressive policy by the dumber-than-a-rock Democrats. Are you kidding me ? That's like holding Enron up as an example of how to do business. &**#$$!!@! Sure, tell me another one, like how Stalin was a great humanitarian.
Then, we have one entire political party who complains about tax cuts (any guesses which one that is ? It begins with a 'Dem' and ends with an 'ocrat'). HOW IN THE HECK DO YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT A TAX CUT ???? I hate to break it to you big government types, but taxes are nothing more than a NECESSARY EVIL. The more money the govenrment takes away from us, the WORSE OFF WE ARE. Have we raised entire generations who don't understand basic economics ? Have we brainwashed entire generations to the point that they can't add and subtract ? Unfortunately, the answer is yes. Every time you hear a Democrat complain about taxes being cut, slap him or throw cold water in his face to snap him out of it (if the Dem is a woman, you can't slap her, so just rip a dollar bill in half and ask her which is more, the whole dollar or just the half).
Then along came the Compassionate Conservatives (liberals with an 'R' next their names). These people belong in a special circle of hell, because they destroyed Conservatism, and along with it the Republican party. Somebody must explain to me how GWB started a huge new Medicare Drug program when our country was already $7 trillion in debt, and how the current $11 trillion in debt after 7 1/2 years of that 'Conservative' president is actually conservative, because I don't get it. And every single Democrat who agrees with that last sentence can kiss my everlovin' backside, because YOUR party is A HUNDRED TIMES WORSE !!! Your party never met any government spending it didn't like. Government spending is what got us where we are. YOUR party is the reason taxes are so high to being with. YOUR party is the one that actually DESTROYED THE MIDDLE CLASS in this country for the most part. And you keep on promoting those same destructive policies, all the while pretending that YOU are the compassionate ones. In 1960, it wasn't hard to be middle class in this country. Your taxes, regulations, spending, and politically correct stupidity have destroyed all of that, so please stop talking. You are not the solution, you are the problem. All the liberal politicians are running around wringing their hands and wondering how to bring the middle class back (like I heard Obama doing yesterday on his free hour long political ad on Meet The Press). Obama is looking for a government solution to the destruction of the middle class that was caused by the government in the first place. It was caused by liberal policy, Mr. Obama, so guess what ? The anwer is NOT more liberal policy.
I'd love to be able to tell you to vote for this candidate or that candidate and we will suddenly start going down the right path, but I don't believe that. I don't like any of the three presidential candidates who are left. It comes down to picking the lesser of the three evils, as usual. Yippee. I would have told you to vote for Ron Paul had it not been for his insistence on throwing the middle east into immediate chaos with irresponsible foreign policy. Other than that, Paul could have reversed the rudder on this ship of fools. Instead, we have nothing good coming on the horizon. Just more of the same old, same old that brought us to where we are today. Too bad for us. Keep shopping, america (that was Bush's advice post 9/11, if you remember). It's increasingly becoming a house of cards, and you keep voting for more.
May 5th, 2008 at 12:33 am
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
May 5th, 2008 at 6:42 am
…notice you didn't mention 'defense' spending…Republicans find it very unpatriotic to criticize waste,fraud, graft ..etc.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Before Ronald Reagan the top income tax rate for the richest was 90%. Today it is, either 39.5% or 36%. That would mean that in just the last 30 years tax rates have been cut by more than half for those who Republicans say move our economy.
And you complain about tax rates.
I can only comprehend your post here as a frustrated rant. Hey, I know the feeling. But I detect in your frustration a bit of anger over the fact that the GOP has fouled everything up and now Democrats will govern from the federal level for a good while.
Republicans, under Bush, have been spending, as you say, like drunken sailors…..we had a balanced budget under the last Democratic president…yet you still moan the thought of Democrats controlling Washington and declare it will be worse than what we've just lived through.
Relax, the Democrats actually believe in governing.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:55 am
tbomb,
I'm talking about ALL government spending, defense spending included. The government is wasteful, inefficient, and corrupt in ALL areas. I only mentioned Social Security specifically because it's the easiest to illustrate.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:08 am
Oh, the good old days of 90 percent tax rates. I'll bet the Reverend thinks the Sheriff of Nottingham is the protagonist in Robin Hood.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:19 am
Behold the Reverend advocating for higher and higher taxes. He is THE ENEMY of freedom. He is one of the THIEVES. Don't listen to his lies. The rich ALREADY pay the highest tax rates and the vast majority of taxes in this country. There is no reason to take more from them. The Rev has the mindset of a criminal. Steal, steal, steal.
Also behold the Reverend pretend that Democrats stand for balanced budgets, LOL. In forty years of Democratic rule of congress, they had ONE balanced budget and 39 deficits. The two balanced budgets under Clinton were the result of a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS. I'm not trying to say the Republicans are that much better (especially since Bush), I'm just pointing out the Reverend's LIES. He never stops lying.
The enduring problem with you, Rev, is that you see Democrats as the good guys and Republicans as the bad guys. That is your simple-minded philosophy, and then you have the nerve to call other people's thinking "faith-based". That's a good one, my friend. It causes me endless laughter.
For myself, you are damned right I'm frustrated. The Left has taken over, even in the Republican party. (In case you haven't figured it out yet, I hold NO allegiance to the Republican party. I hold allegiance to principles and the country). Your solution is to have yet more liberalism (read - socialism). Really dumb beyond belief. Try to think beyond the 'D' and the 'R' labels and look at actions. Those speak louder than words. Bush is an economic liberal with some foreign policy neocon thrown in. Kind of like Hillary. Kind of like Obama, though those two are much further left, with Obama the furthest left (and therefore the worst candidate). I heard your hero Obama yesterday talking about putting more troops in Afghanistan, putting troops in Pakistan, and confronting Iran over nuclear weapons and it's state-sponsored terrorism. He's the SAME AS BUSH except on Iraq (which is for political reasons so he can become elected president). Wake up.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
You're right, King.
The Dim leadership favors high taxes — even though the higher taxes reduce tax revenue — because what they really want is to control all aspects of society.
As for the run of the mill Dim voters, they're either too stupid to realize what's's going on and/or they're blinded by envy against the 'rich' that they don't care.
May 5th, 2008 at 11:42 am
They can stick their stimulus checks! Are we supposed to be grateful for receiving our own money back? I'm not positive, but I've been told they are withholding taxes out of these checks. If that is true, what the hell kind of message does that broadcast?
Until reduced spending and permanent tax cuts take place, these half-hearted attempts will be more amusing, rather than effective. In addition, the privatization of SS and school vouchers would be a few more moves in the right direction. Our current SS system exists as a piggy bank for everything other than it's conceived intention, which wasn't even intended to be permanent. In addition, the teacher's union continues it's communistic stranglehold on our children's minds and our money. We have no say in any of this?
You're right, all of these candidates are duds. Can we overturn McCain and tap Romney? You can do it, King!
May 5th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
Mr. King,
Once again, you are right about some things and wrong about a whole lot more. The stimulus checks are more borrowed money. They will probably be spent more on bills (trickle up), than on consumer goods, which as you note are not produced here anymore. However, aside from its lack of permanence, this program is not any different from tax cuts.
It is not self indulgent greed which has fueled this economic mess. Although we outlasted the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we did not emerge without wounds. Following WWII, we had the advantage of an intact infrastructure and the ability to sell to Europe consumer goods that they had lost to the war. But since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have maintained our military footing to create an American hegemon. It is what Dwight Eisenhower called the military industrial complex. It is simply ludicrous to be outspending the rest of the world for defense when our budgets are unbalanced for the foreseeable future.
As to Social Security, its true that its surpluses are invested in T-bills and thus the government will have to replace these funds. But where would you put SS's surpluses? Not only are T-bills a safe investment, but it helps the country. Perhaps you could be specific about which Democrat is touting this government ripoff. As I'm sure you know, the SS fix of 1982 occurred during Reagan's years. Perhaps you could also explain when the practice of investing SS surpluses in T- bills started. The only problem with SS is when people claim that the government will not honor its SS committments, justifying its privatization.
The reasons for Democrats complaining about tax cuts is that they weren't evenly distributed and they were going to the very people least needing them. The Reagan years disproved supply side economics and we have yet to recover. While taxes are a drag on the economy, debt is worse, because we are now beholden to are next rival.
The evisceration of the middle class is something that shames both parties. Although the Democrats have "free" trade, the removal of Glass-Steagall, etc. on their watch, the Republicans have acted as if deficits do not matter. Both parties operate under the paradigm that all we have to do as workers to survive is to be retrained.
Mr. King , what you fail to see is that there are really no conservatives or liberals, only power brokers. Barry Goldwater was basically run out of his party for refusing to become a gay bashing, bible thumping member of the new alliance. Who are the liberals out there? Both parties depend on contributions from the wealthy and these people are really investing in their future. They are two wings of the same party.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
If any one doubts there is much difference between the clowns with R and D besides their name check out the new farm bill. It is a all you can eat buffet for the special interests, agribusiness, rich farmers etc. They feast and we pay. I am sure Pelosi's defense is it the usual all for the children BS. Seriously check it out. Bush and his minions are fighting it because the donations etc. are now going to the Dems. not becasue he cares about fiscal responsibility and the Dems are pushing it because it will increase their party coffers and the individual politicans love the donations and other considerations down the road. 24-7 strictly about the election while the clowns paly the same self -serving game at our expense. But as long as the press plays it for entertainment and we fight amongst ourselves the assholes will continue taking care of themselves at the expense of the country.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Ninety percent!
May 5th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Smart stuff, frank.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
I know I feel good about the Dems. running things for quite awhile. Hell yes spending wont be a problem all they have to do is tax the rich. Free(or close to it) education, free health care, free childcare,free elderly care, free pre and post natal care, free dietican service to name a few. Between taxing the rich and redirecting the money that was spent on the Iraq war we should have more than enough to ensure equal outcome for one and all. There should be more than enough to also include the 20 million illegal but worthy people for all of the freebies the rest of us enjoy once congress passes a bill to grant them their rightful stautus. The glory days are almost here. The only difference I see between the two is the Dems will get us to the promised land a little faster.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Beware the Corrupt Power Monger Obama Bin Liar !!!
May 5th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
What's needed is a third major party, A Fiscal Party that will promote fiscal responcibility and conservatism. We can no longer afford what we are subjected to now. A thirs party would serve to break the deadlock we have now with two constantally confrontational parties also. I'm guessing the Media would never let anything like this be established.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:22 am
King—Hillary's health care plan will be subsidized by the savings incurred from eliminating all the paper-based record keeping in all hospitals and health care clinics who have not yet switched to the computer based record keeping–she also has designed her plan out of respect for people who would like to be able to contribute by paying their proportionate to income share of the cost by mandating that we all must purchase health care–who are you or me to say that what a waitress does by running her/his tail off feeding hungry people is less valuable than someone who mows lawns or fixes cars or anything else? Are they not worthy of health care that is affordable to them? If said waitress has children to support and waitress gets cancer, shall we as a nation of caring people just let her die and leave her children motherless and feeling the sting of unfairness on top of the death of their main rudder in life—their beloved mother? Not in the country I envision. I think I would feel a whole lot better and happier as a human if I knew that all people, regardless of status or education or wealth were able to afford decent health care for themselves—search deep here and think—would you not feel a whole lot better in a country where all its citizens were healthy and happy in the security that we as a nation of caring people take care of each other because "united we stand; divided we fall"? Instead of our hospitals' emegency rooms crowded with people without health care, who because of economic status regrettably wait until they are at deaths' door for health service or who use the emergency room as their "paper-cut" health care, why not have a health care system that leaves no one out—susidized through savings in creating a paper-less record keeping system or God forbid, a small pinch out of the massive military budget that takes up more than half of the nation's economic pie chart.
Furthermore, recreating a place for people to make middle-classdom a reality would be the best solution to our nations' troubles—a "green" economy can accomplish that by creating jobs in the new energy sectors—these jobs cannot be exported as they can only be located here for our own green energy needs—solar, wind, and so on—much human-power will be needed for these in addition to rebuilding our roads, bridges, sewer systems, water systems and so on—we need to start thinking in terms of us all again—as we are all in the same boat here—when poor people fail to get needed health care, we all suffer—when poor people cannot make a decent wage for their efforts, we all fail and suffer—and so on ….when we must import that oil from countries that hate us for who we are, then we suffer big-time and so does our earth—an investment into greening our economy will provide middle-class jobs and release us from dealing for energy outside of our own country and , at the same time, give our earth a break from all the pollution we have been puffing into our environment for at least 100 years—HALLELUJAH!!!!!!! Phew—I think that I would die happy seeing these changes in my lifetime! Wouldn't you?
I hope to God we can make these changes as quickly as possible—and then in forty years or so, I can look my grandchildren and great grandchildren in the eye without guilt—IN THE EYE! I won't encourage my children to have children if we cannot make these changes—I could not bear to see my descendents suffer because we were collectively so stupid by not doing the work that needed to be done.
We need to get to work like Americans again in an unselfish way and a self-sacrificing way. There is a lot of work to be done and we need to DIG IN NOW!
May 6th, 2008 at 6:53 am
Alex,
If I had the power to remove McCain and insert Romney, I would do it in a heartbeat, but alas, it is beyond my reach. I tried to help Romney earlier in the primary season, and look how that worked out.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Vince,
I think any politician who advocates higher taxes should be taken out to the woodshed. No exceptions, other than an authentic national emergency.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:27 am
frank,
1. The Bush tax cuts WERE across the board rate percentage deductions, which is as fair as you can get. Naturally, when all tax rates are reduced by 10%, those who pay more taxes get a bigger break. It's pretty hard to give a tax cut to those who don't pay taxes. Plus, don't forget those wealthier people have a much heavier tax burden to begin with. It seems you have bought into the Democrat tax doublespeak, which includes a complete upside down redefinition of the word "fair". After the 2003 tax cuts, the country had nearly five years of economic growth, which was the whole idea. People who peddle high taxes are crooks.
2. On SS you said so much wrong that I barely know where to start. Those SS T-bills are NOT good for the country, for one simple reason - you can't spend money and save money at the same time. Those T-bills are nothing more than a claim on future taxpayers. The people are paying for the same SS "Trust Fund" monies over and over. As for the full faith and credit of the US government, the goverment is BROKE. All that phrase means is that the government can extract more money from it's citizens by force, which in the case of SS is done to cover up the government's own malfeasance. This would be criminal if done by private industry.
I assume you were kidding when you asked which Democrats tout SS. It's pretty much ALL OF THEM. Have you ever heard one talk it down like I do ? That doesn't mean a lot of Republicans haven't gone along for the ride as well. Most of them are afraid to touch it. Bush tried, and look what happened. The Dems united to shoot him down. SS is the Holy Grail of Dem policy. They won't let anyone really fix it, because it's crooked nature would be exposed, plus SS covers up the real size of the federal deficit. The SS scam really serves as a hidden income tax. That is it's true nature, and has been nearly since it's inception.
SS monies should be put into real trust funds in low-risk consevative instruments. Then the money could really earn interest and provide americans with secure prosperous retirements. That would also result in much lower payroll taxes. We wouldn't have to keep jacking up the rates to cover up the fraud ponzi scheme like we do now. What SS does now is insure that people remain impoverished.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:36 am
2 cents,
I trust the government to run health care every bit as much as I trust them to run Social Security and public education.
Which would be not at all. Like I said, government is wasteful, corrupt, and inefficient. They will destroy what's left of our health care system, not save it.
And don't forget, the government is what screwed up our health care system in the first place.
Government is not the solution to all our problems. Government often IS the problem. There is too much money and power at stake.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:32 am
King,
A total reform of the primary process is in order. You may be interested in this article, as it touches those sentiments.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10099.html
May 6th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
King–Hillary is not advocating for a government run nationalized health care system—but one in which buying health care is mandated and is proportional to what one makes in income—she will work with the health care providers already in place but force savings by hospitals by expediting their switch to paperless record keeping.
As far as public education, police, fire, and so on—our system is socialized already–what's the big deal?
I managed to squeak out an education from the public school system…it is the local funding that is tied to the property tax and Ohio having lost close to 2 billion in tax revenue from businesses locating offshore that has done in our public schools—but still, my feeling is, where there are books available and parents who stress the importance of learning, and teachers who are in the classroom, then education is for the taking…anyone who cannot learn is suffering from familial instability most of all…not crumbling mortar and bricks …
EXAMPLE: my school age children attend Copley-Fairlawn—great schools, great diversity, tops in Ohio—all colors, creeds, religions—super system! However, my children's bus is followed by a police car every morning and every afternoon—you know why? Because the transient renter types who live behind Riviera Bowling Lanes are abusive little idiots who don't know how to behave putting my well-behaved children at risk of a bus accident. Their well-meaning parents rent apartments in order to put their kids into Copley-Fairlawn under the assumption that all it takes to make good kids is good schools—well, it also takes either one or two parents to see to it that what is taught at the school is reinforced in the home..period! I manage as a single parent who is way below poverty level—my children get all A's and B's and it doesn't take even the threat of discipline to get them there—-they have always been taught from day one that education is number one and comes first always. Not that hard, really.
It is not the teachers' faults, nor the books, nor the buildings—it is the parents more than any other factor—without a doubt. No more excuses. Oh, it is also the idiots who interrupt the teacher while teaching…they need to be taken out and put into a school that can deal with idiots so my kids and other kids who want to learn can learn.
And that is my learn-ed, experienced view of the situation.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
"It is the local funding that is tied to the property tax and Ohio having lost close to 2 billion in tax revenue from businesses locating offshore that has done in our public schools—"
She's wrong yet again.
It is the self-interest of the teachers unions that have done in the public schools, not local funding.
The teachers unions stop all meaningful reform efforts and add unnecessary expense to the school system.
The unions also promote unaccountability in the public schools just so their incompentent members can be protected via the absurdity knows as tenure.
If you REALLY wanted to improve public education, you'd first have to get rid of the teachers unions — which are all leftwing, by the way.
But because the teachers unions are such an important segment of the Dim coalition, they are protected. As a result, children — especially minority children — and the taxpayer suffer.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
What is much needed are Highly Motivated Teachers that are Well Paid and Not Unionized. Teachers void of political and personal agenda. What we have now are Overpaid malcontents filled with resentment and completely un motivated. Our children are our future, We have saddled them with huge debt, We need to give them an education that will provide a means to service our debt. The teachers and system we have now Will Not Perform As Needed !
May 6th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Baloney, Vince—she is not wrong yet again—most teachers are highly competent and are well worth every penny we pay them—it is the loss of our tax paying businesses (2 billion just in recent years) in Ohio that have done in our public schools, the revenue being tied to property taxes instead of other funding and the lack of parental involvement with their own children that is causing this supposed crisis in schools—you are wrong about teacher's unions and tenure—teachers teach fine—it is parents and families that need to step up to the plate and do their end of the bargain for their own children—children are not only taught in our schools but in their own homes–people need to shut off their televisions, game stations and get their kids to study—teachers alone do not raise children, but parents do.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
"most teachers are highly competent and are well worth every penny we pay them"
You're delusional. Lay off the sauce.
Support school vouchers and give our kids — especially the minority ones who the public schools are failing — at least a chance of a decent education.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
2 cents,
My hat is off to you for understanding it all begins at home and without the children being taught the importance of and the respect for education not much will improve.
You make valid points about our financial problems but as you know fine schools such as Copley,Revere and others educate eah child for much less than Akron City Schools.
Years ago I complimented a long term school board member on the great job the dedicated teachers at my children's school were doing and how impressed I was with the staff. He said " take all the teachers at Revere and Akron City and switch them and there would be no difference in either system. I was stunned and assumed he was tried of dealing with the teachers and the union. Years later I figured out what he was saying( this is not meant as slight to the teachers my children had because they did do a hell of a job).
May 7th, 2008 at 12:24 am
Mr. King,
If you cut taxes by 10% across the board, the wealthy receive a nearly 4% break, the poor a 1.5% break. The wealthy should pay more because the government maintains the system which allows them to thrive. Additionally, the way to assess tax burden is to compare the amount one pays to his disposable income.
When SS invests its surplus in T-bills it allows the government to keep its debt within this country. Being indebted to foreign powers weakens the country by skewing our relations with the countries who hold our debt. Also, would you rather the government be paying interest to its own citizens or a foreign country? The government is broke, but this does not seem to restrain spending for war, the defense budget, foreign aid, etc. If there is anything needed in this accounting scam, it is a law that would insure that SS be paid back first before any other creditor.
Investing SS funds in the private sector is a bad idea for a number of reasons. First, it would create an avenue for massive corruption. Who decides where the investment goes? To political and economic cronies I'd bet. Second, SS has an overhead of 3%. Brokerage fees are much higher and would likely eat up any increased return. Third, introducing this much money would create a speculative bubble on Wall St. It would cause the same damage that the speculative bubble in the housing sector has caused.
You wrote that Democrats tout the fact that government is ripping people off. I assume that you mean that you think SS is a ripoff and that Democrats think that SS is a pretty good system. Even if I do not get all the money that I've paid into SS over the last 45 years, I still think it is a good system. Some of that money went to making it possible for my grandparents and parents to retire. Some of it went to a relative whose father had died and allowed him to be raised in a responsible manner. These are the type of investments that SS has made and I hope will continue to make.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:16 am
frank—thanks again for explaining these issues in more depth—it is easy for some people to boast they know these issues and pass their un-knowledge around as though it is the truth, because other people like to let other people like this think for them—did you ever notice how people will repeat statements or ideas in a way that sounds as though they think they actually thought of the statement or idea, even though the statement or idea has been repeated by others over and over? This "fooling" themselves gives the person an energetic, adrenaline-like boost which they become addicted to, so they like the feeling and keep doing it over and over again…like monkeys on heroin. You can pick them out very easily, if you are someone who keeps abreast of what is going on in the world—as I am sure you already are aware of this phenomenon—it is rampant on this blog and all over the place—these adrenaline hogs who like to steal ideas and boast themselves into a drug-like euphoria over it.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:36 am
Ideally, the government maintains the system that allows anyone to thrive, frank. Part of that is not punishing those who do thrive.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:09 am
Punishing them! You mean like when they have their payroll tax requirement paid the first working day of the year?
Some punishment.
During Bill Clinton's presidency, the rich paid more. More millionaires were made than could be counted.
Yeah, the rich are so punished.
frank stated it all clearly and correctly.
King seems to be losing it.
May 7th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Beware Obama Bin Liar !!!
It's time to Launch The Swift Boats and Expose the Real Obama Bin Liar… Corrupt Inexperienced Power Monger !!!
May 7th, 2008 at 10:55 am
larry d.—problem here is that many rich thrive on the backs of workers by paying them as little as they can get away with and then absconding with the rest—so thriving is a relative term—thriving by means of pilfering our natural resources from the "commons", such as our air, water, minerals and so on affects all of us and yet, few top dogs profit from it—how much money do these people at the top need to survive and or thrive? As it goes there is wisdom in these words: "It would be easier for a rich man to go through the eye of a needle than to reach the Kingdom of Heaven"–or something to that effect…treating the people who make you rich like crap not deserving of a living wage will eat your soul away, if you have any decency at all.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Beware The Inexperienced Corrupt Power Monger Obama Bin Liar !!!
Please everyone… Write Letters To The Editor now & often…
Expose the REAL Obama Bin Liar and those who created him !!!
May 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
King,
Class warfare — along with race baiting — is the staple of the Dimocrat Party.
Right now, the Dimocrats are being torn apart in their primary because the chickens of their hateful race/gender idenity politics are coming come home to roost on thier heads.
In a similar fashion, the Dims' politics of class warfare will damage, if not destroy the prosperity of this country, if it isn't defeated. Then what will all those parasites, who rely on the government dole, do? Ugh-oh, they never thought it out that far.
May 8th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Mr. Ghost,
It is a class war, Chief. When I got my first paycheck, the top income tax rate was 90% and the lowest was 15%. Sales tax was 3%, there was no state income tax, there was no lottery. Investment income was taxed at the same rate as wages. People who worked with their hands as well as their minds could raise families and buy houses and go on vacations on one income. Obviously, that picture has been turned upside down. Each political party has its share of blame in this. The reality is that as long as money drives politics, only the rich can play. The people who run this country are completely insulated from having to experience the average person's life.
May 8th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Right on, frank–until America gets its act together and demands true campaign finance reform and the return of the airwaves to the people with a version of the used-to-be Equal Access; Equal Time rules, then people like you or me cannot even logically consider running a campaign for office–it would be futile to even try. So we have mediocrity.
Politicians are bought and sold and apparently, so are we.
Until there is a complete overhaul in the way politics runs here, then we are stuck with these out-of-touch scoundrels— those remaining politicians who try to maintain some semblance of decency are soon dismayed and return to private lives—who can blame them? Our country is a shambles full of haves and have-nots—without a middle-class, this cannot last much longer without revolt, exodus to other countries more like how we used to be, or seeing our country parseled out to its true owners—foreign investors.
So many people at the top just cannot fathom what it is like to be at the bottom—such as John McCain saying that all women need is more training and education in order to get up to speed on wages—where has he been? Women are enrolled in colleges in higher numbers than men and have higher grades and that has been for years now–I graduated magna cum laude myself, granted, years ago, but there are no jobs, especially when you factor in the ageism that is rampant—I am sick to death of it all.
May 8th, 2008 at 6:07 am
frank,
You said "If you cut taxes by 10% across the board, the wealthy receive a nearly 4% break, the poor a 1.5% break".
I don't know where you came up with those numbers, but they are not correct. In the first place, "the poor" DON'T PAY INCOME TAXES. The working poor get all the money they pay in income taxes back from the federal government, and they also receive an earned income credit. They actually pay NEGATIVE income taxes which are subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers. In addition, check out the federal tax tables from before and after the Bush tax cuts (by comparing them to Clinton era tax tables). You will see your numbers are WAY out of line. The people who got the largest percentage tax cuts were on the lower end, as in single people making $30K and married making $60K. Bush's tax rates HELPED LOWER INCOME people relative to Clinton. That is undeniable.
Regarding SS, the idea that brokerage fees would eat up privately invested SS monies is a stock Dem talking point, but it is absurd. If that were true, then nobody in the stock market would make any money, which is clearly not the case. It's true that there is a tricky issue as to how and where SS monies would be invested in the private market, but it's hardly insurmountable. The current 2% T-bill return rate doesn't even cover inflation over the long haul. It is a negative return in investment. We could distribute the money across CD's at all the banks by some formula and do far better. If people took all the money they paid into SS over a lifetime and put it into private investments, most of them would be millionaires by retirement. Instead, they end up getting maybe $1200 per month from a government who unethically spends their Trust Fund money and writes IOU's for it. If you think that's a great system, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Btw, when you die, what happens to your SS money ? The SS system wouldn't be rigged to keep people in generational poverty, would it ? SS amounts to little more than planned theft with a useful disability provision thrown in to put some lipstick on the pig.
May 8th, 2008 at 9:20 am
King,
Stop confusing the Dims here with numbers and facts. It gives them a headache & heartburn which can only drive up the health insurance costs for society.
But notice that this discomfort with facts & logic is exactly why so many support B. Hussein Obama. These people don't bother to analyze what BO says or make much of an effort to understand the consequences if his hot air [immediate pull out from Iraq, hiking taxes, socializing health care, increasing entitlements & government spending, etc.] was actually put into practice.
No. Instead, they "fee;" they emote; they imagine they're purging their white-guilt complex. They'll do anything but think. Hence, they're liberals and Dims.
May 10th, 2008 at 7:58 am
Vince,
What you point out here regarding the Obama/Dem policies is what McCain has to point out to the people before the november elections (but I doubt he is the right guy to do it). If the people actually understood the ramifications of the policies Obama was going to pursue, they would not vote for him. Imagine if the economy is still in an economic slowdown, and then Obama and the Dems take control and start tons of new federal spending and enormous increases in taxation, as they WOULD do. It would be like putting a match to gasoline. Our economy would be devastated. As you correctly stated on another thread, the growth of entitlements is going to bury us, and the Dems only promise more and more and more until the corpse of america is rotting in the grave. Then the socialist buzzards will take over. The Dems solution to EVERYTHING is more government involvement, more government power, more spending, more taxes (witness the taxpayer backed housing bailout, one of the worst ideas ever - putting taxpayers on the hook for $300 billion in mortgage loans that everyone knows are already bad loans. Unbelievably irresponsible). Unfortunately, the Republicans don't have the backbone to fight back hard enough. If the Republicans had any courage, they would be shutting Congress down over this proposed housing bailout.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:11 am
The housing bailout is absurd. It is spit in the face of some 95% of the homeowners who were prudent.
At least Bush says he'll veto it.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Old bumbling Bush is looking better every day, considering the candidates to replace him.
May 10th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Mr. King,
I was using those numbers as an example. And I realize that the rate that matters is the effective rate, tax divided by income. While the extremely poor have been given some relief, it is the wealthy who have truly benefited from changes made in income taxation over the last 50 years. The middle class burden has changed little as any cuts were generally offset by removal of deductability of expenses. It is in other areas that the middle class is being taxed to death. SS witholding, sales tax, property tax, etc. have all increased dramatically while wages have remained stagnant.
You are much too intelligent to believe that the power to distribute so much SS money into investment would not lead to financial manipulation and corruption. Please read Kevin Phillips' article in the May issue of Harper's. It explains the ways that various administrations have manipulated the economic data and what the true figures are. The classic one is the person who drops off the unemployment roles after six months.
As I tried to indicate previously, I look at the benefits of SS more broadly than my personal financial return. For these reasons, the risks of privatizing SS are too great.
What I have learned from observing politics over forty or so years is that no administration wants to diminish the power of government for obvious reasons. So, it becomes a question of who benefits from the application of said power. While I'm sufficiently impressed in government's inability to do things, I'd rather the government err on the side of the consumer than the producer, on behalf of the worker rather than the investor, on behalf of its citizens rather another's government. If conservatives really want to shrink the size government, they/we should begin by insuring that government works for the best and most of the governed.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:00 am
frank,
I think you tried to turn the tables on me. If you want to talk about how the middle class tax burden has risen tremendously over the last 50 years, then I am wholeheartedly in agreement with you. I am completely IN FAVOR of reducing that burden. It's one of the central tenets of my political philosophy. We can't have liberty without it.
You will NEVER get there by voting for liberal Democrats though, frank. Dem policy is antithetical to limiting government, which is what must happen in order to have low taxes and economic prosperity. It won't be long until all the entitlement programs swallow up the whole federal budget, requring more enormous tax increases. Yet, when you listen to the current Dem presidential candidates, they talk about more and more and more federal spending. They will bury us. The Dem "tax the rich" talking point is just a charade. You surely know that. Those taxes get passed right back down to the little guy quicker than you can blink. It's a fool's paradise. High taxes only make America less competitive. We used to have nearly the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. Now we have nearly the highest. Our rates didn't really rise that much, but the rest of the world learned and lowered their rates to gain a competitive advantage. We didn't learn, and we're paying the price.
Regarding SS, we have financial manipulation and corruption extraordinaire now with SS, so what would be different, other than the money would actually earn interest and grow ? I don't see the problem of private investment as being that big. The government could still back it, and the investments would have to be conservative and long term. Needless to say, we wouldn't invest it in pork belly futures or anything of that nature. In fact, I see SS privatization as being a big boon to our economy. I think opponents are mostly engaging in scare tactics, because the big government types don't want their scam to end. It covers up the extent of their criminality. The people who have their mitts on our SS money now don't want to let it go, that's for certain. We are going to have to disagree on SS privatization. There is no more risk to doing that than there is to SS now. Only in case of an absolute american financial meltdown would SS monies be threatened, and they would be threatened whether they were invested privately or not. The US government isn't going to let our banking system collapse unless the US government is itself collapsing.
I agree with you on the unemployment figures. They are bogus. In theory, if the entire country was unemployed for over six months, the unemployment rate would be 0%. I don't see any real bad intent there on the government's part, however. The unemployment figures signify a trend in motion, so they are useful, if only in the short term.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Mr. King,
Concurrent with the shifting tax burden, there has been an explosion in poverty, especially the working poor. Neither party is fiscally responsible, but the democrats at least seek spending cuts to offset new spending. By default, the democrats are more responsible.
I know of no corruption within the system other than the mingling of funds with the general revenue of the government. This accounting scam allows administrations to include SS receipts as income without counting the expense. However, this also means that the government guarantees SS outlays. In other words, our government would have to be in default for SS to fail. One can only hope that government will pay its internal creditors first.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Could not agee with you more..
May 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am
frank,
There is no shifting tax burden, unless you mean the burden shifting towards the rich. The wealthiest segment of our population is paying a higher percentage of the tax burden than ever. You won't see that by looking at tax table rates, but you will see it by looking at federal revenue data. The lowest half of earners pay nearly nothing in the way of income tax (though, as I said, high taxes get passed down to the little guys in other ways).
We agree that neither party is fiscally responsible, but we disagree that Democrats are more responsible than Republicans. In general, that is false. It's not even close. If you are talking specifically about Bush, however, then you have a point.
Dems spend like the wind. Look at any bill that comes up in Congress and you will see the Dems advocating more spending than the Republicans. The one exception to that is defense spending.
The fact that Congress spends our SS funds IS the problem. That's the crime. It nullifies the Trust Fund and turns the SS payroll tax into an ordinary hidden income tax, and SS into an ordiany hidden welfare program.
And when government says it guarantees SS monies, all that means is that they can force us taxpayers to bail their scam out at some point in the future. That is a second crime, necessary to cover up the initial crime.
May 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Mr. King,
The reason that the rich are paying a higher percentage of the total income tax burden is because of the explosion of poverty and the ongoing destruction of the middle class. In other words, it is the result of the number of wealthy and the poor having grown and the number of middle class having been reduced. As individuals, the wealthy have had their rate cut to a third of what it was forty years ago. The wealthy whose income is derived from investments has had their rates cut from 90% to 15%. FICA witholding has been doubled, sales taxes have tripled, and property taxes have all risen above the rate that wages have risen.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:40 am
frank,
The poverty statistics do not indicate an "explosion of poverty". Those numbers are still relatively low from a historical perspective, though there are definitely troubling signs at present and very troubling signs for the future. In the 50's and early 60's, those halcyon days of our burgeoning middle class, a much higher percentage of the population lived in poverty than do now, so we may want to remove the rose-colored glasses a little bit.
Taxing investment at a 90% rate is flat out wrong and immoral in a free society. That is the stuff of dictatorships. JFK knew that in 1960. Regardless, we can't go back to the world of the 1950's and early 60's even if we want to, that world is gone. Times change, and we have to change with them. That involves the creation of policies that will enable America to stay competitive in the world. The rest of the world has learned from America's success, caught up, and in some ways surpassed America (such as the Japanese auto industry or the Chinese taking over manufacturing). We can either adapt or watch our jobs and economy lag, resulting in a further erosion of the middle class. High tax rates and an oversized government are part of the problem. They are not a solution to anything. The idea is not to coalesce funds to Washington D.C. in order to create a larger welfare state. The idea is to thrive and compete. As the rest of the world embraces free markets and low corporate tax rates (lessons they learned from America), in our own country, we are shrinking from those things (one political party in particular). That is a counterproductive and regressive attitude. Witness the Democrats aversion to CAFTA, which only harms America by keeping an unfair tariff exchange in place for our exports. It is positively backwards thinking.
FICA withholding has to keep increasing due to the scam nature of SS, as I have already pointed out. Ponzi schemes are not sound financial models. If we had a good SS plan, the rate would NEVER have needed to be increased. It's a ripoff.