tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post3015946131630977403..comments2024-03-29T11:59:48.535-04:00Comments on the daily howler: CABLEWATCH: Chris Matthews scams you on Ponzi!<b>bob somerby</b>http://www.blogger.com/profile/02963464534685954436noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-54131603649164628062011-09-12T09:19:30.313-04:002011-09-12T09:19:30.313-04:00Something I am fond of telling my legislator is th...Something I am fond of telling my legislator is that if she can solve a problem for 50 years, she will have done a truly outstanding day's work. Ronald Reagan was never very high on my list of favorite political people, and he didn't do it alone, but in 1983 he solved one of the most important and pressing financial problems of his day, by stabilizing the Social Security system, not forever, but for about 50 years, give or take. As the most partisan of Democrats my evaluation of his reforms through gritted teeth now, is that he didn't do all that bad a job. If only the politicians of today could do as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-83981591201528221522011-09-11T17:18:37.508-04:002011-09-11T17:18:37.508-04:00There are reasonable fixes to Social Security, suc...There are reasonable fixes to Social Security, such as raising the upper cap on income taxed. It is not a "Ponzi scheme," and whenever someone like Perry utters such claptrap, a real journalist should and would, in a follow-up statement or question, correct him. <br /><br />But the GOP, many Democrats, and their financial backers do not want reasonable fixes that involve lifting income caps or returning taxes to prior rates that did not impede economic growth. They do not want progressive taxation. They also do not want to revert to the reasonable marginal federal income rates under Clinton. They refuse to allow returning the capital gains tax to prior, reasonable rates. They also have fought taxing hedge fund managers at the same rate as successful professionals like doctors and lawyers, let alone janitors and executive secretaries.<br /><br />These very powerful people, who control the Congress and the President, do not want any taxes that are going to force them to live within the admittedly gilded financial constraints that they once did, which is to say, like barons and baronesses as opposed to kings and queens. <br /><br />And They are steadily getting their way.<br /><br />And we are getting nothing. <br /><br />On top of which the rhetorical, economic and political barrier preventing the destruction (privatization) of Social Security keeps getting hacked away by the people who used the US economy as their casino and nearly destroyed everything. Something has got to give.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-61425354256314072112011-09-10T18:06:43.686-04:002011-09-10T18:06:43.686-04:00Some Guy:
Thanks for the reminder RE Williams and...Some Guy:<br /><br />Thanks for the reminder RE Williams and Harris. I plan to do some "days of Ponzi" this coming week. I agree RE their weak follow-up.<br /><br />Eighty percent of scheduled benefits doesn't equal SS not being there. Since Perry was merely restating his previous stance, they should have been prepared.bob somerbyhttp://www.dailyhowler.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-14724280528299598452011-09-10T14:04:39.353-04:002011-09-10T14:04:39.353-04:00Anonymous 8PM:
Seventy-five percent of scheduled ...Anonymous 8PM:<br /><br />Seventy-five percent of scheduled benefits does not equal zero, though. That 75% would still represent a higher real benefit than what workers receive now.<br /><br />Is it a cause for celebration? Not exactly. But it shows that the fix(es?) necessary to keep Social Security in long term balance are relatively small. There's a pretty big difference between 93 million Americans receiving about $1200 a month as would happen in 2038 under current law and those same Americans receiving $0 as Perry implies.<br /><br />I agree with you that candidates' substantive proposals to fix SS are important and should be asked about. Certainly, it's far more important than what Karl Rove thinks. However, realistically it's impossible to get a politician to say what precisely they would do on Social Security. As you suggest, "What changes would you make to this Ponzi scheme?" was a blindingly obvious follow up.Some Guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-10273221156019076342011-09-09T21:30:44.387-04:002011-09-09T21:30:44.387-04:00Perry tells a schoolchild there are gaps in evolut...Perry tells a schoolchild there are gaps in evolution science and the whole nation there's a growing skepticism among "scientists" as to climate change. But he's 100% sure, apparently, that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.<br /><br />Is he 100% sure it was a coyote he gunned down? Do you know where your poodle is? Maybe Social Security would work better as an MLM at that. After all, isn't the CEO of Amway a libertarian?<br /><br />I was in a Texas Books-a-Million the first time I saw a copy of "Fed Up" a few months ago. I felt a shudder. "Oh, god, Gov. Goodhair's running for president," I whispered to myself, remembering I was in Texas wearing an Oklahoma sweatshirt. "Naaaaaaah! He wouldn't stand a chance," I self-countered, exercising my usual political acumen. "Molly Ivins once said he was a better-looking Geo W Bush with less brains. The country wouldn't tolerate it." <br /><br />Why do I insist on overestimating the American electorate?Jeeves Stumphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17716700263908484003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-38186308064317501372011-09-09T20:00:09.569-04:002011-09-09T20:00:09.569-04:00"Given that Social Security will still be abl..."Given that Social Security will still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits after the trust fund is exhausted, how can you justify saying that it won't be there?"<br /><br />* * * * <br /><br />If, for example, a company can only pay 75% of the principal due at maturity, that's called a default. It's not cause for celebration that only 75% of a scheduled payment is made.<br /><br />The Trustees of Social Security issued a report in 2011 with the following conclusion:<br /><br />http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html<br /><br />"Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.<br /><br />The financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare should be addressed soon. If action is taken sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that those affected can adequately prepare."<br /><br />The trustees include the current secretaries of Treasury, HHS and Labor.<br /><br />Potential question for the current president and GOP contestants: Given the conclusion of the trustee's report, what are your plans to make the program sustainable?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-35933015524626508312011-09-09T17:41:51.680-04:002011-09-09T17:41:51.680-04:00Clearly you're right that Matthews has been ap...Clearly you're right that Matthews has been appallingly bad at his job for a long time. Still, I think Williams and that Politico guy deserve some mention, too.<br /><br />Not that I was surprised by it, but those two were especially derelict in the follow up to Rick Perry's doubling down on the Ponzi scheme nonsense. Perry flat out said that Social Security would not be there for future beneficiaries: "It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you're paying into a program that's going to be there."<br /><br />That's a claim about a matter of fact. It would have made for a better debate to follow up with and ask: "Given that Social Security will still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits after the trust fund is exhausted, how can you justify saying that it won't be there?" Instead, the follow up was about Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.Some Guynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-22413773605367142932011-09-09T16:59:15.551-04:002011-09-09T16:59:15.551-04:00Thanks for informing on this disinformation campai...Thanks for informing on this disinformation campaign--to put it overly politely--re. Social Security, which TV and other media have repeated for too many years. The point of which must be the avoidance of repaying excess payroll deductions commingled and spent from the general fund. <br /><br />Who directly benefits from this misinformation? And how can we hold them accountable? <br /><br />Like the new link color.Marchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11952737546504030998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-28941369831221438882011-09-09T10:39:39.105-04:002011-09-09T10:39:39.105-04:00Sarah Palin is noticed by a New York Times columni...Sarah Palin is noticed by a New York Times columnist saying something sensible:<br /><br />CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it. <br /><br />. . .<br /><br />She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private). <br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/10/us/10iht-currents10.html?_r=2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8611810694571930415.post-20132472094012062522011-09-09T09:39:35.467-04:002011-09-09T09:39:35.467-04:00Off-topic:
Balloon Juice blog attributes both rig...Off-topic:<br /><br />Balloon Juice blog attributes <a href="http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2011/09/opposing-obama-racism.html" rel="nofollow">both right and left disapproval of Obama to racism</a>.Vast Left-Wing Conspiracyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04890243061275519791noreply@blogger.com