Against all Odds - Phil Collins
Against the Wind - Bob Seger
Always a Woman- Billy Joel
Angel - Sarah Mclachlin
Annie's Song- John Denver
Another one Bites the Dust
Baby I'm a Want You - Bread
Beautiful Noise - Neil Diamond
Benny and the Jets- Elton John
Blessed - Elton John
Born to Be Wild - Steppenwolf
The Boxer- Paul Simon
Brandy - Looking Glass
Bridge Over Troubled Waters - Paul Simon
Candle in the Wind - - Elton John
Cat' In the Cradle - Cat Stevens
Clap for the Wolfman the Guess Who
Closin' Time- Toby Keith
Copacabana- Barry Manilow
Could I Have This Dance- Anne Murray
Cotton Jenny - Gordon Lightfoot
Could It Be Magic - Barry Manilow
Country Roads - John Denver
Cracklin' Rosie- Neil Diamond
Crazy - Patsy Cline
Crazy Little Thing Called Love
Crockadile Rock - Elton John
Danger Zone - Kenny Loggins
Daniel- Elton John
Daydream Believer - The Monkees
Don't Let the Sun Go Down on Me - Elton John
Don't Stop Believin' - Journey
Edelweiss
Empty Garden- Elton John
Escape / The Pina Colada Song - Rupert Holmes
Father and son- Cat Stephens
Fifty ways to Leave Your Lover - Paul Simon
The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face - Roberta Flack
For the Good Times - Kris Kristopherson
Forever In Blue Jeans- Neil Diamond
Goodbye Yellow Brick Road - Elton John
Hello Again- Neil Diamond
Hey Jude - The Beatles
High Flynn' Bird - Neil Young
Higher Love - Steve Winwood
Highwayman - Kris Kristopherson
Holly Holy- Neil Diamond
Honesty- Billy Joel
I Am... I Said - Neil Diamond
Can't Make You Love Me - Bonnie Rait
I Love How You Love Me - Bobby Vinton
I Started a Joke - Bee Gees
I Wnat You To Want Me
I Will Survive - Gloria Gaynor
I Write the Songs- Barry Manilow
If you Could Read My Mind - Gordon Lightfoot
I'm a Believer - The Monkees (Neil Diamond)
Into the Mystic - Van Morrison
It's a Miracle - Barry Manilow
It's Still Rock and Roll to Me - Billy Joel
Jessie's Girl - Rick Springfield
Just The Way You Are- Billy Joel
Kodachrome - Paul Simon
Lady Madonna - Beatles
Let 'Em In - Paul McCartney
Let It Be - Paul McCartney
Let Me Call You Sweetheart -
Levon - Elton John
The Long and Winding Road - The Beatles
Love on The Rocks - Neil Diamond
Lucy in The Sky With Diamonds - The Beatles
Make it With You - Bread
Mandy - Barry Manilow
Me and Bobby McGee - Kris Kristopherson
Michelle- the Beatles
Misty -
Monkees Theme - The Monkees
My Life - Billy Joel
My Way - Frank Sinatra
New York, New York - Frank Sinatra
New York State of Mind- Billy Joel
Night Moves - Bob Seger
Norwegian Wood
Old Time Rock and Rolll - Bob Seeger
Piano Man - Billy Joel
Play Me - Neil Diamond
Raindrops keep Falling on My Head - BJ Thomas
Rainy Day People - Gordon Lightfoot
Red Red Wine- Neil Diamond
Ring of Fire - John Cash
Rocket Man- Elton John
Rocky Mountain High - John Denver
Sentimental Journey -
September - Earth, Wind and Fire
Sweet Caroline- Neil Diamond
Someone Saved My Life Tonight - Elton John
Song Sung Blue-Neil Diamond
Sounds of Silence - Paul Simon
Spirit in The Sky - Norman Greenbaum
Sundown - Gordon Lightfoot
Thank God I'm a Country Boy
Takin' It Easy - The Eagles
Tiny Dancer - Elton John
Twist and Shout - Beatles
Venus - Frankie Avalon
Walking in Memphis -Marc Cohn
We are The Champions
We Didn't Start the Fire- Billy Joel
The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald- Gordon Lightfoot
You Are So Beautiful - Joe Cocker
You don't bring me Flowers- Neil Diamond
You Give Lve a Bad Name - Bon Jovi
You May Be Right - Billy Joel
Your Song- Elton John
You've Got a Friend - James Taylor
Friday, May 12, 2017
Thursday, October 02, 2014
How to destroy a person in three easy steps
Make shit up- tell lies to whoever will listen to you. Connect them as closely as you can to stuff that is kind of true.
Start saying the same stuff as, " I heard that... ". Include the names of some of the people that you originally lied to- such as, "I heard from x that..." This causes the heater of the rumor / lie to verify it with someone you told it to. You also identify someone else as your source for the lie.
This next part is tricky and if you can pull it off your plan will not fail-- tell the story often enough that people actually begin to believe that they heard or saw the false event first hand.
Please don't try this at home.
Start saying the same stuff as, " I heard that... ". Include the names of some of the people that you originally lied to- such as, "I heard from x that..." This causes the heater of the rumor / lie to verify it with someone you told it to. You also identify someone else as your source for the lie.
This next part is tricky and if you can pull it off your plan will not fail-- tell the story often enough that people actually begin to believe that they heard or saw the false event first hand.
Please don't try this at home.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
No one cares what he did in High School, but Mitt Romney is a Jerk!
Here's the thing. High school friends of Mitt Romney from his days in an elite prep school, a boardng school, have come forward with a rather detailed account of examples of Mitt Romney picking on several weaker and vulnerable people in that setting.
Two that stand out are a story about how he led a bling teacher headlong into a closed door- Ha ha- and one where he lead a group of other students to chase down and cut the hair of a student they preceived to be gay. A third with less detail is an account of a gay classmate who says Mitt used to taunt him by saying 'atta girl' when he would speak up in class.
Let's suppose that all of that is true. I think most people could get over that and assume he has grown as a person since his high school days in the 1960's. Most people would even be eager to do so because most of us would hope that people from our own past would be equally forgiving.
I think of my own high school days and I could certainly give one or two instances where I felt as though I was on the receiving end of a bullying experience. It hurts when people go out of their way to make you fell like an outsider.
But I think I can recall more vividly the times when I was a bully. There were far too many times when I said things that hurt others, and many of those times, I recall, that I said such things precisely because I knew they would hurt. I have had the experience of being able to apologise to some of those victims of my cruelty and in most of those my memory of the experience was stronger than that of my victim.
There are some instances where I have not been able to apologise and one of those because the person who was wronged has no contact with anyone from my Catholic High School. Myself and a few of my close friends from those days occassionally lament our behavior and our regret fro never being able to make it right.
So, based on my own experience, unless he has a mental defect which should disqualify him from holding any public office, I absolutely refuse to accept the notion that Mitt Romney does not remember walking a blind teacher into a door or cutting off the hair of a crying classmate while others held him down or even calling out 'atta girl' when a male classmate spoke up in class.
His claimed memory lapse eliminates any possibility of sincerity in his so-called apology today when he says he is sorry 'if anyone was hurt by my actions."
This is not about events from 40 years ago. This is about character. Mitt Romney demonstrates time and again that he has no character.
Instead of saying, about Seamus the Dog; "Many people at the time did the same thing with there dogs ( a doubtable premise but at least it contextualizes the event) but as a culture we have certainly evolved in our attitudes toward pets and I would not dream of doing that today." Mitt claims that the dog was perfectly happy in his 'air tight' container. It's laughable.
On the Auto bailout, instead of conceding the point and moving on he tries to rewrite history and claim that what Obama did was really his idea.
Now, instead of admitting that in high school he was a product of his environment and regrets his behavior- he forgets being involved in such a thing.
Mitt Romney demonstrates once again that he is a shell of a man with no moral compas and no motivating value other than wanting to claim the president trophy for his game room.
Inactivity has caused me to lose many followers- follow me and send this link to your friends. Its political season gain and we will be active at least through the end of this calendar year.
Two that stand out are a story about how he led a bling teacher headlong into a closed door- Ha ha- and one where he lead a group of other students to chase down and cut the hair of a student they preceived to be gay. A third with less detail is an account of a gay classmate who says Mitt used to taunt him by saying 'atta girl' when he would speak up in class.
Let's suppose that all of that is true. I think most people could get over that and assume he has grown as a person since his high school days in the 1960's. Most people would even be eager to do so because most of us would hope that people from our own past would be equally forgiving.
I think of my own high school days and I could certainly give one or two instances where I felt as though I was on the receiving end of a bullying experience. It hurts when people go out of their way to make you fell like an outsider.
But I think I can recall more vividly the times when I was a bully. There were far too many times when I said things that hurt others, and many of those times, I recall, that I said such things precisely because I knew they would hurt. I have had the experience of being able to apologise to some of those victims of my cruelty and in most of those my memory of the experience was stronger than that of my victim.
There are some instances where I have not been able to apologise and one of those because the person who was wronged has no contact with anyone from my Catholic High School. Myself and a few of my close friends from those days occassionally lament our behavior and our regret fro never being able to make it right.
So, based on my own experience, unless he has a mental defect which should disqualify him from holding any public office, I absolutely refuse to accept the notion that Mitt Romney does not remember walking a blind teacher into a door or cutting off the hair of a crying classmate while others held him down or even calling out 'atta girl' when a male classmate spoke up in class.
His claimed memory lapse eliminates any possibility of sincerity in his so-called apology today when he says he is sorry 'if anyone was hurt by my actions."
This is not about events from 40 years ago. This is about character. Mitt Romney demonstrates time and again that he has no character.
Instead of saying, about Seamus the Dog; "Many people at the time did the same thing with there dogs ( a doubtable premise but at least it contextualizes the event) but as a culture we have certainly evolved in our attitudes toward pets and I would not dream of doing that today." Mitt claims that the dog was perfectly happy in his 'air tight' container. It's laughable.
On the Auto bailout, instead of conceding the point and moving on he tries to rewrite history and claim that what Obama did was really his idea.
Now, instead of admitting that in high school he was a product of his environment and regrets his behavior- he forgets being involved in such a thing.
Mitt Romney demonstrates once again that he is a shell of a man with no moral compas and no motivating value other than wanting to claim the president trophy for his game room.
Inactivity has caused me to lose many followers- follow me and send this link to your friends. Its political season gain and we will be active at least through the end of this calendar year.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Are you a Republican?
Okay, so you have a kid who you give a piggy bank so he can learn the value of money and plan how he will spend it. You give him little odd jobs and pay him with a mutually agreed upon process by which he puts some of that money in his piggy bank.
Well the kid learns well and begins to go out and find his own small jobs that pay him for each little thing that he does. In the process he continues to put away the same percentage of the pay into the piggy bank. In the process he starts collecting quite an impressive pile of money. The kid then decides to open a savings account so that his money can collect interest. So you open that savings account in his name but in doing so you realize that he is starting to gather a significant sum.
Well, look at all that money, you think. You have an idea, let's say replacing your front doors. But you are a bit short on cash. So, you pull out a note pad and write out I.O.U. $200. You take the $200 out of his savings account and put the I.O.U. in his piggy bank.
The kid keeps working and you keep putting his money in his account. But you also keep finding new and different ways to spend his money. So, you keep putting I.O.U.'s in his piggy bank and taking money out of his account- that money no longer collects interest.
Well, eventually, the account runs out of money.
Rather than telling the kid that you have been taking all of his money and replacing it with IOU's and assuring the kid that you will give him his money- you tell him that the account is empty. You call him irresponsible and say that the idea of saving that money for the future was foolish. You criticize him for his poor money handling skills and close his account.
If this all sounds like a perfectly acceptable way of handling money- you may be a Republican.
Well the kid learns well and begins to go out and find his own small jobs that pay him for each little thing that he does. In the process he continues to put away the same percentage of the pay into the piggy bank. In the process he starts collecting quite an impressive pile of money. The kid then decides to open a savings account so that his money can collect interest. So you open that savings account in his name but in doing so you realize that he is starting to gather a significant sum.
Well, look at all that money, you think. You have an idea, let's say replacing your front doors. But you are a bit short on cash. So, you pull out a note pad and write out I.O.U. $200. You take the $200 out of his savings account and put the I.O.U. in his piggy bank.
The kid keeps working and you keep putting his money in his account. But you also keep finding new and different ways to spend his money. So, you keep putting I.O.U.'s in his piggy bank and taking money out of his account- that money no longer collects interest.
Well, eventually, the account runs out of money.
Rather than telling the kid that you have been taking all of his money and replacing it with IOU's and assuring the kid that you will give him his money- you tell him that the account is empty. You call him irresponsible and say that the idea of saving that money for the future was foolish. You criticize him for his poor money handling skills and close his account.
If this all sounds like a perfectly acceptable way of handling money- you may be a Republican.
Friday, July 08, 2011
And still they ask, Where are the Jobs?
So, the Right keeps asking, “Where are the jobs?” And today’s jobs report gives, at first glance, gives fuel to their flame. Unfortunately, the attention span of the average American is equivalent to that of a sugar- dosed third grader with ADD. The situation is compounded when operatives on the right will exploit this national disorder by telling lies often enough and consistent enough that people will begin to perceive the lie as reality (Orwell was right).
With regard to job creation the picture is harder to discern than one might think. But the easiest way to the truth is to compare Obama to his immediate predecessor regarding job creation. When comparing Bush and Obama it is important to look at more detail than the right will ever provide. And it is a mixed picture. In total, Bush did in fact create more jobs than Obama. But that statistic includes public sector jobs created under the Bush administration. Under Obama public sector jobs have been steadily decreasing- in part because of forced Republican policies that belittle and bemoan such jobs. It was Speaker Boehner who, when confronted with the loss of public sector jobs his policies would cause, responded, “So Be It!.” What an arrogant prick.
In fact, when we consider public sector jobs, Obama continues to perform better than Bush ever did. This Article from October of 2010 demonstrates the job growth patterns of the Obama administration in the private sector. At that time, more private sector jobs had been created under Obama than under the whole 8 years of W Bush. And, while sluggish (because of right-wing influenced pressures) the policies of President Obama continue to create new jobs.
Indifference on the right and policies of greed by big corporations can only work against us for so long before they will need to change their tactics. With productivity or the American worker at an all-time high, demand will soon exceed the ability of factories to meet demand without hiring is seriously doubtful. Even their own greed will work in favor of businesses actually busting down the doors and letting new employees into the mix.
The right wing will continue to talk about how bleak things are. It is in their best interests to do so. But they fail to acknowledge that the slide in employment began under their watch and was reversed and halted under the Obama administration. This chart demonstrates the job slide from January of 2008 to January of 2009 (when Obama took office) from 4.8% to 7.6%. In the months between the time he took office and the time his policies began to take effect unemployment continued to grow, peaking at about 10%. Some will say that Obama ‘promised’ to keep unemployment below 8% between the time he was elected and the time he took office. This has been sufficiently debunked previously on this blog and elsewhere, but suffice to say that a president elect would have no interest in making such a promise after an election- especially when anyone paying attention could see we were on a slide beyond 9% at the time he was preparing to take office. I remember talk about urgent change to save our economy from full on depression.
At the time Obama took office the Dow Jones opened at 8279.63. Today The Dow opened at 12,719.49. The recession that started in 2007 was declared ended by economists in June of 2009. For those who would disagree because they just don’t like Obama, or they are focused more now on their personal hardship than they were in 2007 or 2008 or the first part of 2009, it needs to be explained that recession is a technical term defined by economic growth- it is not about attitude of the people.
Job growth has been on a slow but mostly steady upward trend since Obama took office (as demonstrated by the famous bikini chart found here).
I for one wish he would be more aggressive and that he, along with Democrats, would be bold enough to introduce a new stimulus package devoted to our infrastructure that is falling apart (think 35W bridge and tell me you are not nervous). The projects now will put people to work in the short term and prepare us for the time when the private sector will finally reopen their wallets.
Anyone who pays attention to facts knows full well that Democrats have been historically better at jobs creation than Republicans in every administration since Herbert Hoover. It was Hoover who articulated the continuing policy of the right wing that government should play no role in job creation and that corporations and the market should be left alone without government influence. That policy worked so well for him that Republicans have been selling it ever since.
So what caused the dip in economic activity in the past month. Most economists will cite four causes: Greece disaster, oil price spikes, bad weather and the effects of the Japan Tsunami as the principal causes-
Boehner says its Obama’s fault (idiot).
Before he makes such an accusation it is incumbent on him to demonstrate what he or his party has done to try to stimulate job growth. Instead, we have example after example of his party shutting down job growth ideas- even ideas that have been traditionally put forth by the right.
I can’t deny that I wish Obama could do more. At the same time I refuse to accept the outright lies put forth in criticism of him.
Saturday, July 02, 2011
Jobless and Wageless Recovery
This Article from HuffPost demonstrates the greed of big business and the failure of the tax policies of the right. In spite of the fact that production levels in the US now match pre-recession levels and companies are pocketing record profits, the politicians of the right will tell you that Obama is failing in creating jobs and that tax incentives for these businesses and the wealthy will spur hiring.
Both historical evidence and the current situation demonstrate the falsehood of their argument. So, what will it take?
My position on this would be that since the corporations are benefiting from increased productivity of the American worker, it is only reasonable that they should pay a surtax on their increased profits. The proceeds of this tax could stimulate growth by rebuilding the infrastructure and reduce the deficit.
There could, at the same time, be a tax credit against this surtax that would be given to businesses that hire new workers.
It is high time that our elected representatives start standing up for the middle class. If they do not, the middle class will cease to exist. It is, after all, workers not corporations who make our nation great. It is individuals, not corporations who vote (at least for now).
Both historical evidence and the current situation demonstrate the falsehood of their argument. So, what will it take?
My position on this would be that since the corporations are benefiting from increased productivity of the American worker, it is only reasonable that they should pay a surtax on their increased profits. The proceeds of this tax could stimulate growth by rebuilding the infrastructure and reduce the deficit.
There could, at the same time, be a tax credit against this surtax that would be given to businesses that hire new workers.
It is high time that our elected representatives start standing up for the middle class. If they do not, the middle class will cease to exist. It is, after all, workers not corporations who make our nation great. It is individuals, not corporations who vote (at least for now).
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Cost of Bush decision to go to War exceeds $3 trillion.
Cost of War In this article the financial costs of sustaining the war in Afghanistan and the continuing cost of the war in Iraq are made plain. It becomes clear that the total financial burden will exceed $4 trillion. This does not even begin to touch the human cost or the negative impact on our economy from going to war without paying for it.
Anyone on the right will deny these numbers or say it was somehow necessary. But none of them now will say that the proceeds from sale of Iraqi oil would pay for their folly.
The article is a good one and it should stimulate conversation about what we really need to do to get our economy and our country back on track. We need to end the Bush tax cuts- if for no other reason than to pay for the wars that have never been funded. We also need to find a quick and just exit to Afghanistan.
If we bring our tax rates and military spending to prewar levels, the deficit will take care of itself over 10 years without cutting any programs that meet the needs of the poor.
When will more people start telling the truth?
Anyone on the right will deny these numbers or say it was somehow necessary. But none of them now will say that the proceeds from sale of Iraqi oil would pay for their folly.
The article is a good one and it should stimulate conversation about what we really need to do to get our economy and our country back on track. We need to end the Bush tax cuts- if for no other reason than to pay for the wars that have never been funded. We also need to find a quick and just exit to Afghanistan.
If we bring our tax rates and military spending to prewar levels, the deficit will take care of itself over 10 years without cutting any programs that meet the needs of the poor.
When will more people start telling the truth?
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Debt Ceiling - Unconstitutional?
According to a piece on Olbermann tonight, there are Democrats who believe this to be the case and are considering a challenge to the debt ceiling law as violation of the 14th amendment, requiring that the US make good on all of our debts. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law... shall not be questioned," reads the 14th Amendment. This link will take you to the full article in the Huffington Post.
The Crazies are at it again- You really can;t trust Wiki for your research.
Bachmann Followers learn from Palinites and change wiki here to validate her assertion that 8 year old John Quincy Adams had anything to do with the revolution and was a founding father.
Monday, June 27, 2011
How did I miss this Before?
I was amused by the Chris Wallace question of Michele Bachmann from Fox News Sunday on June 26. I actually thought, "Wow, he's not pulling any punches here, is he?" It made me think for a minute that perhaps he was starting to earn the title he's been given as the most impartial person in the Fox line-up ( I still cut that one to Shepherd Smith).
But then, he came out with his apology. Then, the other media picked up on it and started playing it in a continual loop: "Are you a flake?" Then, it happened. This afternoon a Tea Party member- That question would never be asked of a man. That question was only asked because she is a conservative. It is clear the Media will try to "palinize" Michele Bachmann.
There it is. That was the goal. Thanks to Chris Wallace Michele Bachmann becomes the victim- a role she loves. Now her followers do not need to answer questions about the idiotic things she says and does. Instead they can challenge anyone who dares ask the questions.
I now am convinced that this was planned by FOX and the Bachmann campaign. It explains a great deal, including her calm response.
The media today is crowning her queen. They are enamored with her and will cut her a lot of slack. Be afraid!
But then, he came out with his apology. Then, the other media picked up on it and started playing it in a continual loop: "Are you a flake?" Then, it happened. This afternoon a Tea Party member- That question would never be asked of a man. That question was only asked because she is a conservative. It is clear the Media will try to "palinize" Michele Bachmann.
There it is. That was the goal. Thanks to Chris Wallace Michele Bachmann becomes the victim- a role she loves. Now her followers do not need to answer questions about the idiotic things she says and does. Instead they can challenge anyone who dares ask the questions.
I now am convinced that this was planned by FOX and the Bachmann campaign. It explains a great deal, including her calm response.
The media today is crowning her queen. They are enamored with her and will cut her a lot of slack. Be afraid!
Thursday, June 23, 2011
What must be done for the good of our country-
This is a rant along the lines of the original intent of this blog. Where I have all the answers and am perplexed by the idiots who run our country who either cannot see it so clearly or are letting political factors dictate their behavior.
First, there are two lagging indicators in the going on two-year weak economic recovery. But anyone who looks beyond themselves can clearly see that we are on headed in a direction than is preferable to the one we were on when Bush left office. There are several examples of that all over the web with charts that demonstrate jobs growth and the like.
Housing and job growth continue to drag our economy. Both are the result of the policies of the Bush Administration and the efforts of the Obama Administration and Dems in congress to bring relief to the situation have been thwarted by the other side.
As recently as yesterday, Senate Republicans stalled a jobs growth idea that was wholly born of their ideology. The plan was to extend the payroll tax breaks for new hires. This is a holiday on payment to FICA by employers and employees- a direct reduction in cost for hiring new employees. The plan would not be my first choice, but it was something. The drawback of course would be that it would cut flow of revenue to social security and give the R's more ammunition for killing that program. But the potential for immediate improvement if job growth, it could be argued, would be worth it.
The current situation is putting more and more money into the hands of the wealthy with no benefit to the larger economy. The Republicans seem to be perfectly happy with this situation and are promoting the lie (and they know its a lie) that given the resource (cash through tax breaks) the corporations and the rich will provide the jobs that make the economy grow.
Wealth, among the richest of Americans continues to grow, Wages among the working class have been stagnant for 30 years, and productivity (how much work the employer gets out of the employee/dollar) continues to rise. In 30 years the regular work week is creeping up to over 45 hours and the middle and lower classes are taking less vacations than they did before.
Anyone familiar with the truth can only conclude, that the Republicans in fact care more about controlling government than they do about improving job growth. While running for office in 2010, they asked: "Where are the Jobs?" Who knew they were job assassins trying to kill the ones they would find.
The housing bubble burst in 2005 and 2006. I know it is popular to blame this on Obama but he was still a newly elected senator from Illinois. The housing market continues in decline because of this bubble burst as home values are being based on a current market standard. Home values for purchases and for refinancing are being based on foreclosure prices. This makes it impossible for current home owners to take advantage of interest rates that are at 3 year historic lows. In turn, home owners are unable to do work on their homes, update their furniture or do other improvements they would otherwise do and thereby create jobs.
Yet, any attempts to improve this situation are either killed outright or favorable terms are given to lenders- who created the problem in the first place so that the struggling homeowner who has done everything right has no recourse. The same people who lied about the economy for over a year while we were in recession (starting in 2007) are trying now to tell us that the results of the recession are the fault of the current administration. The right will always be better at playing that game.
Last night, Obama gave his plan for the draw-down of troops in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan he has done exactly what he said he would do prior to the election. It is a plan I would not have chosen but I saw wisdom beyond the ill-stated and ill-fated plan of Bush. My preference now would be for a faster draw down and end time.
I cannot help but wonder if part of the consideration here is to keep the troops occupied there to avoid an influx of more people into a weak job market. Maybe I am too cynical.
I think we need a dose of realism. I prescribe a serious jobs bill that focuses on a five year plan for infrastructure, green technology and independence from oil, foreign and domestic. I prescribe an immediate end to the Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy (over $250,000). I prescribe a more aggressive plan to withdraw from Afghanistan to bring our troops home and to end the flow of cash from our part of the world to theirs.
The president needs to lead in the area job and economic growth with an eye toward debt reduction. At least some of his message should focus on the 'peace dividend' that can be achieved by using that money at home that we would otherwise be spent abroad when we bring our military home. Any conversation about using our military to help police other nations as they build up their own internal strength (Afghanistan/Iraq) should include some sort of payment for that service. It does not make sense for others to benefit from our commitment and sacrifice.
Obama has a pretty good track record for doing exactly what he said he would do. He never was the liberal the right and the media made him out to be. So, he gets blamed by the left for not doing enough and he gets blamed by the right for being a socialist - as if they have given any thought to what the word actually means.
My concern with Obama has been the same as it was during the health care debate. He seems more concerned about what people think of him and how he is doing his job than he is about actually doing his job. The Audacity of Hope has turned in to lack of commitment to purpose. I am not sure anyone else could have stood up to the constant attacks that the right would have directed at anyone in his position but the salesman and communicator we saw during the campaign has been in hiding for the better part of two years.
First, there are two lagging indicators in the going on two-year weak economic recovery. But anyone who looks beyond themselves can clearly see that we are on headed in a direction than is preferable to the one we were on when Bush left office. There are several examples of that all over the web with charts that demonstrate jobs growth and the like.
Housing and job growth continue to drag our economy. Both are the result of the policies of the Bush Administration and the efforts of the Obama Administration and Dems in congress to bring relief to the situation have been thwarted by the other side.
As recently as yesterday, Senate Republicans stalled a jobs growth idea that was wholly born of their ideology. The plan was to extend the payroll tax breaks for new hires. This is a holiday on payment to FICA by employers and employees- a direct reduction in cost for hiring new employees. The plan would not be my first choice, but it was something. The drawback of course would be that it would cut flow of revenue to social security and give the R's more ammunition for killing that program. But the potential for immediate improvement if job growth, it could be argued, would be worth it.
The current situation is putting more and more money into the hands of the wealthy with no benefit to the larger economy. The Republicans seem to be perfectly happy with this situation and are promoting the lie (and they know its a lie) that given the resource (cash through tax breaks) the corporations and the rich will provide the jobs that make the economy grow.
Wealth, among the richest of Americans continues to grow, Wages among the working class have been stagnant for 30 years, and productivity (how much work the employer gets out of the employee/dollar) continues to rise. In 30 years the regular work week is creeping up to over 45 hours and the middle and lower classes are taking less vacations than they did before.
Anyone familiar with the truth can only conclude, that the Republicans in fact care more about controlling government than they do about improving job growth. While running for office in 2010, they asked: "Where are the Jobs?" Who knew they were job assassins trying to kill the ones they would find.
The housing bubble burst in 2005 and 2006. I know it is popular to blame this on Obama but he was still a newly elected senator from Illinois. The housing market continues in decline because of this bubble burst as home values are being based on a current market standard. Home values for purchases and for refinancing are being based on foreclosure prices. This makes it impossible for current home owners to take advantage of interest rates that are at 3 year historic lows. In turn, home owners are unable to do work on their homes, update their furniture or do other improvements they would otherwise do and thereby create jobs.
Yet, any attempts to improve this situation are either killed outright or favorable terms are given to lenders- who created the problem in the first place so that the struggling homeowner who has done everything right has no recourse. The same people who lied about the economy for over a year while we were in recession (starting in 2007) are trying now to tell us that the results of the recession are the fault of the current administration. The right will always be better at playing that game.
Last night, Obama gave his plan for the draw-down of troops in Afghanistan. In Afghanistan he has done exactly what he said he would do prior to the election. It is a plan I would not have chosen but I saw wisdom beyond the ill-stated and ill-fated plan of Bush. My preference now would be for a faster draw down and end time.
I cannot help but wonder if part of the consideration here is to keep the troops occupied there to avoid an influx of more people into a weak job market. Maybe I am too cynical.
I think we need a dose of realism. I prescribe a serious jobs bill that focuses on a five year plan for infrastructure, green technology and independence from oil, foreign and domestic. I prescribe an immediate end to the Bush era tax cuts on the wealthy (over $250,000). I prescribe a more aggressive plan to withdraw from Afghanistan to bring our troops home and to end the flow of cash from our part of the world to theirs.
The president needs to lead in the area job and economic growth with an eye toward debt reduction. At least some of his message should focus on the 'peace dividend' that can be achieved by using that money at home that we would otherwise be spent abroad when we bring our military home. Any conversation about using our military to help police other nations as they build up their own internal strength (Afghanistan/Iraq) should include some sort of payment for that service. It does not make sense for others to benefit from our commitment and sacrifice.
Obama has a pretty good track record for doing exactly what he said he would do. He never was the liberal the right and the media made him out to be. So, he gets blamed by the left for not doing enough and he gets blamed by the right for being a socialist - as if they have given any thought to what the word actually means.
My concern with Obama has been the same as it was during the health care debate. He seems more concerned about what people think of him and how he is doing his job than he is about actually doing his job. The Audacity of Hope has turned in to lack of commitment to purpose. I am not sure anyone else could have stood up to the constant attacks that the right would have directed at anyone in his position but the salesman and communicator we saw during the campaign has been in hiding for the better part of two years.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Michele Bachmann may be crazy but she is definitely a liar.
Rolling Stone article on Michelle Bachmann tells you better than I ever could. We need to keep getting this word out.
Somehow, a story about cigarette warning labels goes racist in the first comment.
RICHMOND, Va. (AP) -- You may think an image of rotting teeth and a mouth lesion are gross. But the U.S. government says it's just what you need to kick the habit.
Cigarette packs in the U.S. will soon feature new warning labels with graphic images of the negative health effects of smoking, including diseased lungs and the sewn-up corpse of a smoker. The U.S. government hopes the new warnings will discourage smoking, but smokers and nonsmokers alike question whether the ads are too gory.
"Somebody said when they first saw the warnings, `These are really gross.' And they are," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said at a White House briefing. "We want kids to understand smoking is gross ---- not cool ---- and there's really nothing pretty about having mouth cancer."
The labels, which were released on Tuesday, are a part of a campaign by the Food and Drug Administration that aims to convey the dangers of tobacco, which is responsible for about 443,000 deaths in the U.S. a year.
You can see the whole article by clicking this link
The very first comment ( posted by someone calling himself "Dude") for this article read:
The funnny thing is that cigarette smoking will take MUCH longer to kill me than not being able to eat anymore. Obama's big "recovery" is the only time in my long life that I've been worried about not being able to afford food. Hmm funny...the black family next door has lots of foodstamps...
To which I replied:
F***ing racist! unbelievable. Give me the slow Obama recovery over the rapid decline of the Bush recession any time. Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with this story and I challenge your values as you defend smoking on a computer, with some form of internet access and complain that you are starving. Perhaps you should give up your internet access and quit spending your money on cigarettes. Then, if your situation is really dire, join the family next door in the invasive and temporary process that provides food stamps for people in need. But do it quick before the republican cuts in that nutrition program take effect.
I have long despised the trend to allow commentary at the end of news stories. The comments and individuals who comment often become the center of attention and many will use any story to beat the drum for their red banner issues even if they are not remotely connected.
I am certain the the blogging culture, of which I play a small part, has something to do with this. There is a small difference here in that people who come to my blog know what to expect.
My biggest problem with the comment above is the blatant and unabashed racism. It is a frightening trend that need to be challenged for all its ignorance and ugliness.
Cigarette packs in the U.S. will soon feature new warning labels with graphic images of the negative health effects of smoking, including diseased lungs and the sewn-up corpse of a smoker. The U.S. government hopes the new warnings will discourage smoking, but smokers and nonsmokers alike question whether the ads are too gory.
"Somebody said when they first saw the warnings, `These are really gross.' And they are," FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg said at a White House briefing. "We want kids to understand smoking is gross ---- not cool ---- and there's really nothing pretty about having mouth cancer."
The labels, which were released on Tuesday, are a part of a campaign by the Food and Drug Administration that aims to convey the dangers of tobacco, which is responsible for about 443,000 deaths in the U.S. a year.
You can see the whole article by clicking this link
The very first comment ( posted by someone calling himself "Dude") for this article read:
The funnny thing is that cigarette smoking will take MUCH longer to kill me than not being able to eat anymore. Obama's big "recovery" is the only time in my long life that I've been worried about not being able to afford food. Hmm funny...the black family next door has lots of foodstamps...
To which I replied:
F***ing racist! unbelievable. Give me the slow Obama recovery over the rapid decline of the Bush recession any time. Your comment has absolutely nothing to do with this story and I challenge your values as you defend smoking on a computer, with some form of internet access and complain that you are starving. Perhaps you should give up your internet access and quit spending your money on cigarettes. Then, if your situation is really dire, join the family next door in the invasive and temporary process that provides food stamps for people in need. But do it quick before the republican cuts in that nutrition program take effect.
I have long despised the trend to allow commentary at the end of news stories. The comments and individuals who comment often become the center of attention and many will use any story to beat the drum for their red banner issues even if they are not remotely connected.
I am certain the the blogging culture, of which I play a small part, has something to do with this. There is a small difference here in that people who come to my blog know what to expect.
My biggest problem with the comment above is the blatant and unabashed racism. It is a frightening trend that need to be challenged for all its ignorance and ugliness.
Monday, June 13, 2011
GOP debate lesson- be v ery afraid of Michele Bachmann
The press called the debate tonight between republican rivals "gracious." They crown Romney and Bachmann as victorious.
There are many reasons to be afraid of Michele Bachmann as a presidential candidate. First, she has this way of smiling at her opponent while slapping them in the face. Did anyone else notice the way she continually interrupted everyone else on stage? She is also highly skilled at avoiding the question and saying what she wants to say, the media never seems to call her out on that.
Next is her extreme lack of familiarity with the truth. I wonder sometimes if she even knows when she lies, even about her own history. Again, the media is to blame. They seem quite uninterested in investigating what is truth and what is fiction.
Lastly, she hasn't done it to her republican opponents- and will avoid it if she can. But in a one- on-one against Obama this singularly self involved and overly ambitious woman would love the opportunity to infuse a subtle racism of the black man ganging up on the defenseless white woman. Her tea party backers would eat that up.
There are many reasons to be afraid of Michele Bachmann as a presidential candidate. First, she has this way of smiling at her opponent while slapping them in the face. Did anyone else notice the way she continually interrupted everyone else on stage? She is also highly skilled at avoiding the question and saying what she wants to say, the media never seems to call her out on that.
Next is her extreme lack of familiarity with the truth. I wonder sometimes if she even knows when she lies, even about her own history. Again, the media is to blame. They seem quite uninterested in investigating what is truth and what is fiction.
Lastly, she hasn't done it to her republican opponents- and will avoid it if she can. But in a one- on-one against Obama this singularly self involved and overly ambitious woman would love the opportunity to infuse a subtle racism of the black man ganging up on the defenseless white woman. Her tea party backers would eat that up.
God has decided that Michele Bachamnn should run for president
She told us tonight during the (yawn) debate that She will make a formal announcement in Iowa. It is a good idea for her to reclaim Iowa as her home state since Minnesota has demonstrated in several polls that they do not support her.
Being very familiar with her style of politics over several years, I am a bit surprised by this overreach. Even the right wing zombies of Minnesota's sixth district (the definition of gerrymandering) will find this self serving leap to be unseemly.
I am very curious to see how much appetite there will be for her lunacy in the GOP primary circus. But we need the media to call her out on her lies, to call her out on her bigotry and to make sure she actually answers questions put before her.
Tonight she said the health care reform "Obamacare" is a job killer. She lied:
made several factual errors about the constitution and said that regarding DADT she would need to consult with "the commanders in chief." Who the hell would they be?
I was really hoping that she and Norm Coleman would feed off of each other in order to get defeated by Klobuchar for senate in 2012, but this might be as fun to watch. And she will no doubt make lots of money off of the people God tells to contribute to her campaign.
I just hope God has the sense to tell enough other people to contribute to other candidates too. After all he has asked so many of them to run, it only seems fair
Being very familiar with her style of politics over several years, I am a bit surprised by this overreach. Even the right wing zombies of Minnesota's sixth district (the definition of gerrymandering) will find this self serving leap to be unseemly.
I am very curious to see how much appetite there will be for her lunacy in the GOP primary circus. But we need the media to call her out on her lies, to call her out on her bigotry and to make sure she actually answers questions put before her.
Tonight she said the health care reform "Obamacare" is a job killer. She lied:
made several factual errors about the constitution and said that regarding DADT she would need to consult with "the commanders in chief." Who the hell would they be?
I was really hoping that she and Norm Coleman would feed off of each other in order to get defeated by Klobuchar for senate in 2012, but this might be as fun to watch. And she will no doubt make lots of money off of the people God tells to contribute to her campaign.
I just hope God has the sense to tell enough other people to contribute to other candidates too. After all he has asked so many of them to run, it only seems fair
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Maybe, they don't know when they are lying.
It's possible that some of them simply do not know that the talking point given them by Fox News or by Karl Rove, or by John Boehner or Eric Cantor or Mitch McConnell (each of whom has told the lie time and time again, is in fact a lie.
But this morning, in the Republican response to the Weekly Presidential Address ( when did they start doing these, anyway?) they told the lie again.
That lie: Obama said the stimulus package would prevent unemployment from going over 8% , however, is absolute bullshit. And the people telling it know it. The problem is that there are other people, like people in the media who supposedly know better and have a duty to report the truth, do not bother to call the liars out on the facts. Also, the supposed political allies of the president frequently hang him out to dry on this one as well. if they bother at all to correct on the facts they do so in a timid and unconvincing way.
In the article linked above the point is made that the statistics used are from a pre-presidential report by staff of the future Obama administration. The report itself indicates nothing by way of an unemployment rate and is quite emphatic about the unknown impact of the recovery act except that passing it would prevent the loss of as many as 4 million jobs.
Directly from the article :
"Once again, it is CLEARLY STATED that these are ESTIMATES and LIKELY to be incorrect. So why is the media pretending like the President predicted definitively that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8% when he NEVER DID?
The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6%, so CLEARLY nobody in there RIGHT MIND thought that the Stimulus package was going to be able to hold it under 8%. The stimulus bill wasn’t signed into law until mid February . . . the unemployment rate then was ALREADY 8.1%."
Why would anyone make a promise to keep unemployment below the point it had already crossed? They would not- and Obama did not.
But this morning, in the Republican response to the Weekly Presidential Address ( when did they start doing these, anyway?) they told the lie again.
That lie: Obama said the stimulus package would prevent unemployment from going over 8% , however, is absolute bullshit. And the people telling it know it. The problem is that there are other people, like people in the media who supposedly know better and have a duty to report the truth, do not bother to call the liars out on the facts. Also, the supposed political allies of the president frequently hang him out to dry on this one as well. if they bother at all to correct on the facts they do so in a timid and unconvincing way.
In the article linked above the point is made that the statistics used are from a pre-presidential report by staff of the future Obama administration. The report itself indicates nothing by way of an unemployment rate and is quite emphatic about the unknown impact of the recovery act except that passing it would prevent the loss of as many as 4 million jobs.
Directly from the article :
"Once again, it is CLEARLY STATED that these are ESTIMATES and LIKELY to be incorrect. So why is the media pretending like the President predicted definitively that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8% when he NEVER DID?
The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6%, so CLEARLY nobody in there RIGHT MIND thought that the Stimulus package was going to be able to hold it under 8%. The stimulus bill wasn’t signed into law until mid February . . . the unemployment rate then was ALREADY 8.1%."
Why would anyone make a promise to keep unemployment below the point it had already crossed? They would not- and Obama did not.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
News from the Truth Campaign
Joe (You Lie) Wilson today endorsed Former Governor Tim Pawlenty's Campaign of Truth. Apparently the guy who has the self control of a poorly disciplined puppy believes that Tim Pawlenty has the perfect solutions for our country.
I hope T-Paw continues to surround himself with such noble characters.
I hope T-Paw continues to surround himself with such noble characters.
So, will they still call it ObamaCare?
July 1, will bring peace of mind to those who currently are uninsured because of pre-existing conditions.
This is yet another example of good news coming from the Obama Presidency in spite of united opposition from the minority party who would rather see Obama fail than see the nation succeed.
Now if we continue to see job growth- as many project will strengthen in the next year, with higher income jobs returning, and if we can draw down significantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, things will loo bright by summer of 2012.
This is yet another example of good news coming from the Obama Presidency in spite of united opposition from the minority party who would rather see Obama fail than see the nation succeed.
Now if we continue to see job growth- as many project will strengthen in the next year, with higher income jobs returning, and if we can draw down significantly in Iraq and Afghanistan, things will loo bright by summer of 2012.
Thursday, June 02, 2011
It makes no sense to ask Republicans: "Where are the Jobs"
In a Wall Street Journal article dated January 9, 2009 they described George W bush as the worst performing president for job creation since Herbert Hoover. This is demonstrated with a chart that tracks job creation by president going all the way back to Herbert Hoover. The figures represent non farm jobs and areprovided by the bureau of labor and statistics- Department of Labor. The number shown is annual growth and shown as a percentage rate.
Listed from worst to best- notice the party affiliations:
Herbert Hoover (R) -6.9
George W Bush (R) .02
George Bush (R) .06
Dwight D Eisenhower(R) .9
Gerald Ford (R) 1.1
Ronald Reagan(R) 2.1
Richard Nixon (R) 2.2
John Kennedy (D) 2.3
Bill Clinton (D) 2.4
Harry Truman (D) 2.5
Jimmy Carter (D) 3.1
LB Johnson (D) 3.8
FD Roosevelt(D) 4.9
And now the boneheads will no doubt say, "Yes, but Obama has been so much worse..." But this WSJ article will demonstrate that Obama's record on job creation is actually pretty strong. In fact, at the current rate of job creation, Obama will have created, by the end of 2011, more jobs than were created in the whole 8 years under George W Bush (whose best claim about job creation can only be that he helped his dad look better.
Now, at the same time I do not want Boehner and his ilk to stop asking, "where are the jobs?" But they need to start asking that question of their wealthy corporate buddies who are sitting on 1.6 trillion dollars in wealth that was put into theor pockets through tax breaks with a promise of job creation.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
This post is reprinted from a comment section at Talking Points Memo.
As posted by Oscar Homolka-
It was off-point where he printed it but is noteworthy none-the-less.
How Social Security Works -
Excerpted from Truthout.Org article by Josh Hilgart, New Deal 2.0Op-Ed
Consider what Social Security is: a 75-year-old public insurance program that allows us all to save just enough to avoid working to the grave for food, or moving in with our adult children out of destitution. It works spectacularly well, solving a problem that has always dogged humankind. Social Security grants dignity to hundreds of millions of aging Americans who would otherwise confront the less pleasant world that existed before the program.
That’s not all. Social Security is arguably the most stable, well-run government program in the United States. While other programs, like military spending, require new votes of money every single year, Social Security is running a surplus and will be over a hundred years old before it starts falling short of its obligations. Moreover, it would be solvent for many more years with only minor adjustments. It’s government at its best.
Social Security’s resilience stems partly from the politically savvy way in which it was created. It can’t be dismissed as a simple welfare program because it’s not a direct handout; ultimate benefits are based on your lifetime contributions. Further insulating it from charges of “income redistribution,” Social Security imposes taxes only on income corresponding to those deriving the greatest benefits: The tax is applied to income below $106,800. This is limited government with an American twist — you will be asked to pay in only so much, and what you get in the end is based on what you put in.
A couple of other facts about Social Security’s payouts warrant note. Unlike regular retirement accounts, Social Security distributions to retirees are not the same dollars those retirees paid in; like insurance, current benefits are funded by current contributions and interest derived through loans made to other programs (more on loans below). Related to this, while benefits are tied to individual contributions over a working life, payouts also take into account projections of future standards of living.
To fund the payouts, an independent tax — the payroll or FICA tax — was established (later including taxes for Medicare). This kept retiree benefits separate from the regular pot of money used for discretionary spending, and facilitated Social Security’s regressive tax rate, aimed at the middle class and poor who depend on the program. To get an idea of just how much this tax is tilted towards those who most benefit from the program, consider the following: unlike regular income taxes, a billionaire doesn’t pay a similar percentage, but the same dollar amount into Social Security as someone who earns $106,800. Put another way, a top hedge fund manager pays about 0.003 percent of his income into Social Security, while anyone earning less than $106,800 pays 12.4 percent — a rate over 4,000 times greater than that of the much wealthier hedge fund manager.
How does the structure of Social Security and its tax rates relate to our debate? Let’s look at the most basic description of our current discussion: both parties’ leaders and the media claim that cutting Social Security benefits would reduce the deficit, and that such cuts are probably necessary; there is disagreement only over the size of those cuts, with a few, rarely-interviewed “lefties” arguing against any cuts at all. (Sen. Harry Reid is an exception among mainstream politicians in his arguments for no cuts, and he is being lambasted for it.) In other words, the general consensus among “serious” people is that benefits must be taken away from those paying in, so that we can make up shortfalls in other pots of government money.
But taking into account the way it is taxed, any diversion of Social Security benefits towards balancing the general budget is a tax increase on those earning under $106,800. If the middle and lower classes are the ones who have been paying the highest tax rate into this pool of money, using this pool to offset shortfalls in our general income tax, instead of paying out benefits, would represent a systemic shift in tax liability for general spending. For all practical purposes, it would be a tax on benefits going to the poor and middle class, used to offset recent cuts in income tax for the rich.
Given public outrage over the ever-decreasing tax burden on the rich, you’d expect those suggesting that our debts be settled exclusively by those earning under $106,800 to be run out of town with pitchforks. Yet, amazingly, politicians and the media collaborate with impunity to ignore this shift in taxation. Just ask yourself: how often do those who advocate reducing the deficit with cuts to Social Security argue that the middle and lower classes should bear the burden of our debt? For that matter, how often do hosts on CNN or the Sunday political shows require such advocates to even acknowledge that their plan asks working families to service our debt? In contrast — to drive the point home — when the rich are asked to pay more, do media and politicians completely ignore who is getting stuck with the bill?
In all likelihood, this inequity is ignored precisely because it would spark outrage. If the public was exposed to regular debates about the tax implications of using Social Security benefits for regular spending, it might take that option off the table entirely. Indeed, the best excuse available to politicians and pundits who studiously conceal this tax hike on the common classes — the only possible excuse — would be that deficit reduction is such a critical priority that the public can’t be trusted with knowing the side effects of treatment.
But even this paternalistic excuse is full of holes, in light of another fact: not only would balancing the budget with cuts to Social Security sock working people, it wouldn’t even work.
Social Security’s surpluses have been used towards general expenditures for years, and it’s true that cutting benefits will increase the amount of surplus available. But Social Security is a separate and independent financial entity, which can only loan money to the federal government to fund general budget items. For the purposes of our deficits, Social Security is essentially a credit union constituted by the retirement savings of the American people. By law, the government can’t just spend your retirement savings on something else.
In fact, when our government takes money from Social Security to use on general expenditures, it must, under law, issue Treasury bills to the Social Security Trust Fund in return. This is basically identical to the way in which we borrow money from China. And like China, the only way to renege upon this loan would be to fail to honor the Treasury bills, which would destroy the value of every Treasury bill and with it the dollar itself.
There is no connection between the level of benefits that Social Security pays out and the debt that the government incurs when it borrows money from Social Security. Regardless of whether Congress slashes Social Security benefits or preserves them, national debt still goes up a billion dollars for every billion the government borrows from the program, the same as if it borrowed that money from China or anyplace else. Put plainly, cutting Social Security benefits will have only one immediate effect: reduced benefits. While benefit cuts would have a long-term impact on when Social Security revenues fail to match outlays (decades away, even with no change), they will have no impact whatsoever on annual deficits. None. Nada. Zip.
This means that our media-driven debate on Social Security is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about how Social Security operates — a misunderstanding that can be easily fact checked. If Social Security is cut in the name of deficit reduction, over a hundred million people would lose some of the small nest egg for which they saved over a lifetime of work without any progress toward the stated goal. Annual deficits would remain unchanged, forcing further cuts in services that most affect those who just gave up part of their retirement fund.
Shouldn’t debate begin here? Shouldn’t the public inquiry first determine whether this is fair, or will even work, before there are any discussions about how big the cuts should be?
Those of you having difficulty imagining that the Social Security debate could be this corrupted, please fact-check the underlying contentions for yourselves: 1) Social Security taxes only income below $106,800, and 2) Treasury bonds are issued in return for all the money taken from Social Security surpluses (i.e. the money is borrowed), which means that cuts to Social Security benefits will have no impact on long-term debt.
These two facts are all you need to know in order to conclude that every politician, pundit or news organization that advocates deficit reduction through cuts to Social Security is aiding and abetting — either knowingly or foolishly — theft from the middle and lower classes. (For an in-depth study of the current distortions, see also the recent paper by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellows Robert Johnson and Thomas Ferguson, A World Upside Down: Deficit Fantasies in the Great Recession).
It was off-point where he printed it but is noteworthy none-the-less.
How Social Security Works -
Excerpted from Truthout.Org article by Josh Hilgart, New Deal 2.0Op-Ed
Consider what Social Security is: a 75-year-old public insurance program that allows us all to save just enough to avoid working to the grave for food, or moving in with our adult children out of destitution. It works spectacularly well, solving a problem that has always dogged humankind. Social Security grants dignity to hundreds of millions of aging Americans who would otherwise confront the less pleasant world that existed before the program.
That’s not all. Social Security is arguably the most stable, well-run government program in the United States. While other programs, like military spending, require new votes of money every single year, Social Security is running a surplus and will be over a hundred years old before it starts falling short of its obligations. Moreover, it would be solvent for many more years with only minor adjustments. It’s government at its best.
Social Security’s resilience stems partly from the politically savvy way in which it was created. It can’t be dismissed as a simple welfare program because it’s not a direct handout; ultimate benefits are based on your lifetime contributions. Further insulating it from charges of “income redistribution,” Social Security imposes taxes only on income corresponding to those deriving the greatest benefits: The tax is applied to income below $106,800. This is limited government with an American twist — you will be asked to pay in only so much, and what you get in the end is based on what you put in.
A couple of other facts about Social Security’s payouts warrant note. Unlike regular retirement accounts, Social Security distributions to retirees are not the same dollars those retirees paid in; like insurance, current benefits are funded by current contributions and interest derived through loans made to other programs (more on loans below). Related to this, while benefits are tied to individual contributions over a working life, payouts also take into account projections of future standards of living.
To fund the payouts, an independent tax — the payroll or FICA tax — was established (later including taxes for Medicare). This kept retiree benefits separate from the regular pot of money used for discretionary spending, and facilitated Social Security’s regressive tax rate, aimed at the middle class and poor who depend on the program. To get an idea of just how much this tax is tilted towards those who most benefit from the program, consider the following: unlike regular income taxes, a billionaire doesn’t pay a similar percentage, but the same dollar amount into Social Security as someone who earns $106,800. Put another way, a top hedge fund manager pays about 0.003 percent of his income into Social Security, while anyone earning less than $106,800 pays 12.4 percent — a rate over 4,000 times greater than that of the much wealthier hedge fund manager.
How does the structure of Social Security and its tax rates relate to our debate? Let’s look at the most basic description of our current discussion: both parties’ leaders and the media claim that cutting Social Security benefits would reduce the deficit, and that such cuts are probably necessary; there is disagreement only over the size of those cuts, with a few, rarely-interviewed “lefties” arguing against any cuts at all. (Sen. Harry Reid is an exception among mainstream politicians in his arguments for no cuts, and he is being lambasted for it.) In other words, the general consensus among “serious” people is that benefits must be taken away from those paying in, so that we can make up shortfalls in other pots of government money.
But taking into account the way it is taxed, any diversion of Social Security benefits towards balancing the general budget is a tax increase on those earning under $106,800. If the middle and lower classes are the ones who have been paying the highest tax rate into this pool of money, using this pool to offset shortfalls in our general income tax, instead of paying out benefits, would represent a systemic shift in tax liability for general spending. For all practical purposes, it would be a tax on benefits going to the poor and middle class, used to offset recent cuts in income tax for the rich.
Given public outrage over the ever-decreasing tax burden on the rich, you’d expect those suggesting that our debts be settled exclusively by those earning under $106,800 to be run out of town with pitchforks. Yet, amazingly, politicians and the media collaborate with impunity to ignore this shift in taxation. Just ask yourself: how often do those who advocate reducing the deficit with cuts to Social Security argue that the middle and lower classes should bear the burden of our debt? For that matter, how often do hosts on CNN or the Sunday political shows require such advocates to even acknowledge that their plan asks working families to service our debt? In contrast — to drive the point home — when the rich are asked to pay more, do media and politicians completely ignore who is getting stuck with the bill?
In all likelihood, this inequity is ignored precisely because it would spark outrage. If the public was exposed to regular debates about the tax implications of using Social Security benefits for regular spending, it might take that option off the table entirely. Indeed, the best excuse available to politicians and pundits who studiously conceal this tax hike on the common classes — the only possible excuse — would be that deficit reduction is such a critical priority that the public can’t be trusted with knowing the side effects of treatment.
But even this paternalistic excuse is full of holes, in light of another fact: not only would balancing the budget with cuts to Social Security sock working people, it wouldn’t even work.
Social Security’s surpluses have been used towards general expenditures for years, and it’s true that cutting benefits will increase the amount of surplus available. But Social Security is a separate and independent financial entity, which can only loan money to the federal government to fund general budget items. For the purposes of our deficits, Social Security is essentially a credit union constituted by the retirement savings of the American people. By law, the government can’t just spend your retirement savings on something else.
In fact, when our government takes money from Social Security to use on general expenditures, it must, under law, issue Treasury bills to the Social Security Trust Fund in return. This is basically identical to the way in which we borrow money from China. And like China, the only way to renege upon this loan would be to fail to honor the Treasury bills, which would destroy the value of every Treasury bill and with it the dollar itself.
There is no connection between the level of benefits that Social Security pays out and the debt that the government incurs when it borrows money from Social Security. Regardless of whether Congress slashes Social Security benefits or preserves them, national debt still goes up a billion dollars for every billion the government borrows from the program, the same as if it borrowed that money from China or anyplace else. Put plainly, cutting Social Security benefits will have only one immediate effect: reduced benefits. While benefit cuts would have a long-term impact on when Social Security revenues fail to match outlays (decades away, even with no change), they will have no impact whatsoever on annual deficits. None. Nada. Zip.
This means that our media-driven debate on Social Security is based on a fundamental misunderstanding about how Social Security operates — a misunderstanding that can be easily fact checked. If Social Security is cut in the name of deficit reduction, over a hundred million people would lose some of the small nest egg for which they saved over a lifetime of work without any progress toward the stated goal. Annual deficits would remain unchanged, forcing further cuts in services that most affect those who just gave up part of their retirement fund.
Shouldn’t debate begin here? Shouldn’t the public inquiry first determine whether this is fair, or will even work, before there are any discussions about how big the cuts should be?
Those of you having difficulty imagining that the Social Security debate could be this corrupted, please fact-check the underlying contentions for yourselves: 1) Social Security taxes only income below $106,800, and 2) Treasury bonds are issued in return for all the money taken from Social Security surpluses (i.e. the money is borrowed), which means that cuts to Social Security benefits will have no impact on long-term debt.
These two facts are all you need to know in order to conclude that every politician, pundit or news organization that advocates deficit reduction through cuts to Social Security is aiding and abetting — either knowingly or foolishly — theft from the middle and lower classes. (For an in-depth study of the current distortions, see also the recent paper by Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellows Robert Johnson and Thomas Ferguson, A World Upside Down: Deficit Fantasies in the Great Recession).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
