Wednesday, July 14, 2010


I've said it before (probably ad nauseam for some of my very knowledgeable readers), but I'm saying it again. And I will continue (and please pardon me for raising my voice - but you know how it is after a while with the recalcitrant). THEY ARE LYING ABOUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY "PROBLEMS!" (EXTRA: If anyone could make a contribution to my PayPal account (or otherwise - contact me for further info), it will be really, really, really appreciated as I'm in desperate need right now due to continued long-term unemployment. I sincerely appreciate everything that my kind readers have done for me in the past financially and otherwise. Especially, otherwise, as the support group for this blog is beyond belief. My belief anyway. Again, my heartfelt thanks. . . and now . . . back to your regular viewing.) According to stellar economists like Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot and Paul Krugman on Social Security "zombies" who WILL NOT DIE - the only problem with Social Security is that it's under attack (again) from the rich who got massive, fraudulent tax breaks for the last 30 years and the military who want all the money for their wars. Social Security always runs a surplus and will for the next 39 years. Right, even when it stops running a surplus, it will still have enough in the fund to pay out 80% of the benefits - WITH NO CHANGES MADE EVER! Think about it. Will the U.S. be fighting the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars forever? Or new wars?

Dean Baker (emphasis marks added - Ed.):

So now the IMF is getting into the game. And here’s how it’s going to go down, according toNancy Altman of, as heard on Counterspin, FAIR’s radio show:

The President’s Deficit Commission, set up by executive order by the President, also stated that its report was due December 1, conveniently after the November elections. If 14 out of the 18 on the commission reach an agreement - which is sure to happen, since most of them hate Social Security (even Andy Stern’s now saying that SS should invest in the stock market) - there will be swift action on it, since Reid/Pelosi have already agreed to bring it up for a fast-track vote in the lame duck Congress, so that it can take place without any public input.

Paul Krugman (emphasis marks added - Ed.):

It must have sounded like a good idea (although not to me): establish a bipartisan commission of Serious People to develop plans to bring the federal budget under control.

But the commission is already dead — and zombies did it.

OK, the immediate problem is the statements of Alan Simpson, the Commission’s Co-Chairman. And what got reporters’ attention was the combination of incredible insensitivity – the “lesser people”??? — and flat errors of fact.

But it’s actually much worse than that. On Social Security, Simpson is repeating a zombie lie — that is, one of those misstatements that keeps being debunked, but keeps coming back.

Specifically, Simpson has resurrected the old nonsense about how Social Security will be bankrupt as soon as payroll tax revenues fall short of benefit payments, never mind the quarter century of surpluses that came first.

We went through all this at length back in 2005, but let me do this yet again.

This guy says it all pretty succinctly. When it's said this well, I feel no need to say much more about it again (but there again, this is one zombie that gets its everlasting life from the marketing/advertising by the minions of the richest 1%, who are still benefitting from all that other stupidity it ladled out about tax breaks for the rich improving life for those on the bottom, so who knows what it will take to kill it) (emphasis marks added - Ed.)

McClatchy news story (says) No Full Social Security Benefits Until Age 70?

Young Americans might not get full Social Security retirement benefits until they reach age 70 if some trial balloons that prominent lawmakers of both parties are floating become law.

Don't fall for it. Social Security did not contribute to the deficits or debt, it ran a huge surplus. That surplus was supposed to be set aside. Instead it was handed out to the very wealthy as tax cuts. Now the country needs to start paying it back to the elderly, and to prevent us from getting it back from where it went - the wealthy few - they're instead talking about making people wait until age 70 to retire, cutting benefits, etc.

Every one of us knows that the budget deficits come from the tax cuts and military spending increases of recent decades. But every one of us also knows that the beneficiaries of those tax cuts and military spending use their wealth and power to corrupt the political system, preventing us from restoring sanity to our governance.

Before the tax cuts on the top rates and military spending increases we didn't have these deficit/debt problems, we maintained our infrastructure, provided educations, we even spent enough on our military to oppose the Soviet Union globally. The country worked better then. When top tax rates were cut from 90% the result was immediately deficits, then under Reagan came the really big cuts that led to the "structural" deficits and the huge debt increases and resulting interest load.

Since those tax cuts we have seen so many transformations for the worse. The wealthy now dominate every single part of our politics. Instead of having to build a fortune over time people can now reap a windfall from quick buck schemes - so that is what people focus on. When upper income was taxed at a high rate people built equity over time that, when sold, was taxed at only half that rate, and people became wealthy. When it took time to build a fortune, companies had long-term strategies that depended on serving customers, solid surrounding communities with solid infrastructure, supply chains, experienced workers, etc. Now you can make your fortune selling off those things and pocketing the proceeds.

Those tax cuts were the direct cause of the deficit and debt problem. The military increases are a second cause of the problem. Social Security was never a cause of the problem. The clear way to fix the problem is to restore those tax rates and cut the military budget to pre-Cold War levels. The Soviet Union is long gone.

So what do we do about it?

. . . Learn the facts. This is a strategic assault on Social Security that has been underway for a long time.

Spread the word. Tell everyone that Social Security did not contribute to the deficit, tax cuts for the wealthy and military spending are the reason we have these deficits and raising taxes at the top and cutting military spending will do much more than cutting Social Security to help solve the problem.

Start calling members of Congress and telling them we will not tolerate Social Security cuts. Tell everyone you know, family members, friends and everyone else to call.

Join Social Security Works.

So when did the current lies start? Who said in the middle of these terrible economic times, mirroring those of the Great Depression, that the U.S. needs to cut spending (not on the military or the rich, of course, but on the least able to defend themselves: the lower classes) and start reducing the deficit N O W ? How about the rich and connected who brought us to this pretty pass: this lovely state of being where everyone fears falling off the cliff even more catastrophically in the next dip than they have fallen already (brought to us without apology by the past Raygun/Bushed Revolutionaries)? Watch out for the biggest liars in the country. They are upon us again (emphasis marks added - Ed.).

Cut spending? Wait - where did that terrible idea come from? Government is We, the People and its job is to protect and empower us. Why in the world would we want to cut back on that?

WSJ . . . The Bush Tax Cuts and the Deficit Myth, "Runaway government spending, not declining tax revenues, is the reason the U.S. faces dramatic budget shortfalls for years to come."

Wait a minute. Back up. Where did this come from? Who, anywhere, any time agreed to cut government? Why do We, the People allow these anti-government zealots to pre-frame the budget deficit as a problem of government doing too much for us? Which government function is the "too much" part? Reigning in runaway corporations? Consumer protection? Worker safety inspections? Food safety inspections? Maintaining and modernizing our infrastructure? Educating people? The courts? Keeping the water and air clean?

There is a long list of things our government does for us. Why would we want less of that?

Imagine if Democrats voted to just put $500 billion a year in rockets and shot the rockets at the moon, and spent the next 30 years demanding that conservatives do their part and raise taxes to pay for that. Do you think the top 1% would just say, "OH, OK, let's do that." Of course they wouldn't. But under anti-government conservatives all of these things that our government does to protect and empower us were cut to the bone or just ended, resulting in mine disasters, bank meltdowns, predatory corporations scamming all of us, and the BP oil spill. We, the people got poorer and less secure while the rich got really, really richer.

Why would anyone in their right mind think that was a good idea?

Conservatives cut taxes on the rich, resulting in the greatest concentration of wealth ever. The entire economy turned into an everything-to-the-top vacuum cleaner scheme, filled with scams shaking down and fleecing We, the People of everything we have and delivering it to a few wealthy corporation-owners. And then we get this bamboozlement that "the deficit" is out of control, so we have to cut back on anything that remains of government working for We, the People? I don't think so.

Think about the level of bamboozlement that is going on here. Conservatives cut taxes on the rich, and then spend the next 30 years saying, "OK, now you have to do your part and cut the things government does for the people." The whole thing was a scheme to deliver power to a few at the top. In Reagan Revolution Home To Roost: America Drowning In Debt you can see the step-by-step outline of the plan, in their own words. The deficit plan was right there for everyone to see:

Step 1: Cut taxes to "cut the allowance" of government so that it can't function on the side of We, the People. Intentionally force the government into greater and greater debt.

Step 2: Use the debt as a reason to cut the things government does for We, the People. When the resulting deficits pile up scare people that the government is "going bankrupt" so they'll let you sell off the people's assets and "privatize" the functions of government. Of course, insist that putting taxes back where they were will "harm the economy."

Step 3: Blame liberals for the disastrous effects of spending cutbacks.

So when did We, the People agree to this one-way bargain, cut taxes for the rich and cut what government does for us? We didn't, and we should stop acting like we did.

Every single one of us knows that the deficits are the result of tax cuts for the rich and huge military spending increases. If we want to fix the deficit problem we know exactly what to do.

Think about it. And take action N O W !!!!! Suzan ____________


nunya said...

Of course they are lying about it, they want it privatized since they can't get their greedy paws on it.

Suzan said...

Yes, Nunya,

Their greedy paws.

Something that it seems like many others have as well as they prepare to allow the Rethugs back into power to allow the triumph of "Voodoo Economics."

Everyone should read Paul Krugman's column today in the NYT.

It's a doozy and the comments are even better!