You cost too much, Meemaw! Paul Ryan is pretty chuffed about the trillion-dollar hole the GOP tax bill will blow in the federal budget over the next 10 years, so even though the bill hasn't yet made it out of the conference committee, he's already looking forward
Here is a good article I bookmarked in 2011. I can't say it this good so I will quote.Pay Back the Money Borrowed From Social Securityhttps://www.huffingtonpost....
It would be very unpopular for the opponents to simply state that their goal is to reduce or eliminate Social Security, requiring politicians to eat from a poison apple. Instead, the opponents try to create false fear about the future of Social Security by making it seem as if the program contributes to the nation’s budget deficit and debt. The same Wall Street firms that needed the taxpayers to bail them out...are conducting a massive lobbying campaign to reduce Social Security protections for working Americans and their families by claiming it is a way to lower the federal budget deficit.The opponents’ tactic of setting up Social Security as a false culprit in the deficit problem diverts attention away from the real causes of the deficit — two wars not paid for, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and the costs associated with the economic crisis, such as the Wall Street bailout. If the opponents of Social Security are able to cut Social Security’s benefits, they will accomplish two objectives: (1) reducing Social Security protections while driving retirees into the hands of Wall Street; and (2) hiding the real causes of the deficit and the debt from honest budgetary scrutiny. A look at their claims about Social Security and the budget reveals the falsehoods they continue to promote.
Because until the early 1930s, all we had available to take care of old folks in their so-called golden years was "choice and competition."
That meant that a bank failure---quite common, in the era of unregulated banking and regular boom-and-bust business cycles (an Enron or Madoff-level event every couple of years)---could wipe out Gran's life savings, and everything she had ever worked for, including the roof over her head.
If her children could not afford to take her in---and in an era of 20% unemployment, yeah, the kids often had to spend too much time collecting coal along the railroad tracks or standing in soup lines or hitching rides on railroad cars going from state to state in search of work, to do a good job of taking care of Gran----then she had no option but to go into a county home or poor farm. (Well, she had an option: but was "dying in the street," not anyone's first choice.)
These places were contracted out to the lowest bidder, so the odds were good that she was going to spend the rest of her life in cold, hungry, dirty misery, but yeeeeeaaaahhh---"choice and competition."
Anyhow, old folks were dying because of the Freedom Agenda, so Roosevelt and the Democrats gave us Social Security. Oh yeah, and banking regulations. And a lot of other good stuff.
The American people were so horrified by all this "socialism" that they re-elected Roosevelt three more times, and would have gone on electing him forever, only he died.
As for Medicare, that was another Democratic president, the considerably under-esteemed Lyndon Baines Johnson, and another Democratic Congress, expanding the Social Security act in order to provide health insurance coverage for old people so they wouldn't be buried by medical debt, or die prematurely of untreated pneumonia, or live out their last years suffering lancinating pain from untreated arthritis, or blindness from untreated glaucoma---little things like that.
And again, even Republican voters were so outraged by this shameless encroachment of "socialism" on a free, capitalist society, this flagrant violation of the Freedom Agenda, that they literally made death threats to any Republican politician who hinted or whispered at the possibility of taking away their Medicare benefits.
But that was then and this is now. It's 2017. Anybody who remembers what it was like to spend their old age under the free market mantle of "choice and competition" is long gone: and the Republicans, having used fascist tactics of propaganda, plus gerrymandering, electoral fraud, and a very useful Supreme Court ruling back in 2000, run literally everything, and are in a kind of "now or never" frenzy of sheer unhinged Kochean destruction.
And a whole lot of Americans are about to find out what it was like, 90 years or so ago, to live in a toxic, soulless environment of predatory capitalism, with no way out, because these fascist/Republicans hold all the cards.
It's a hell of a way for ignorant Republican voters to learn the searing lessons of history: by dooming their grandchildren to live the kinds of lives their grandparents struggled so desperately to escape.
School politics are weird, I'll be the first liberal to agree with you on that. BUT much of the things decided are those decided by oldsters. They say why should they pay for education when they don't have kids in school any more.
AND I totally agree with ageism. My SO has a license in two, count them two, states. All he gets is "We'll get back to you ASAP."
that's our own fault...they knew once they got the ball rolling on franken, that we would do a better job of kicking his ass than they ever could...we really have to stop eating our own...this going high when they go low bullshit just aint fuckin workin
The next time they claim that Social Security needs to be cut, tell them to explain exactly how an off-budget program contributes one dime of debt. How can it be the federal government's biggest expense if its not part of the budget??? Social Security is self-funded with $2.8 trillion in U.S. Treasury Bonds in its Trust Fund. SocSec surpluses go into the Trust Fund and deficits (when they start happening) come out of the Trust Fund. Not general revenues. Not into or out of the federal budget. If I had that much in the bank, would you say that I'm broke?? Any bank manager would be fired for incompetence for claiming that.
Those assholes better stop pretending SocSec is part of their budget. They pretend it is because SocSec has been running surpluses for decades and because they want to unleash the stock market on our retirement insurance. If SocSec is an unpaid liability, then where are the payroll taxes which fund it?? Any changes to benefits do not affect the federal deficit or National Debt by one thin dime. It only changes the exact date that the Trust Fund, which was built up in anticipation of baby boomer retirements, zeroes out (2034). Starting in 2034, if no changes to payroll taxes are made, Social Security can still pay out 80% of benefits through the year 2092.
If they claim they need to cut Social Security, call them fucking LIARS!
In five years? Seems you haven't seen the ads they have out now
Here is a good article I bookmarked in 2011. I can't say it this good so I will quote.Pay Back the Money Borrowed From Social Securityhttps://www.huffingtonpost....
It would be very unpopular for the opponents to simply state that their goal is to reduce or eliminate Social Security, requiring politicians to eat from a poison apple. Instead, the opponents try to create false fear about the future of Social Security by making it seem as if the program contributes to the nation’s budget deficit and debt. The same Wall Street firms that needed the taxpayers to bail them out...are conducting a massive lobbying campaign to reduce Social Security protections for working Americans and their families by claiming it is a way to lower the federal budget deficit.The opponents’ tactic of setting up Social Security as a false culprit in the deficit problem diverts attention away from the real causes of the deficit — two wars not paid for, the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and the costs associated with the economic crisis, such as the Wall Street bailout. If the opponents of Social Security are able to cut Social Security’s benefits, they will accomplish two objectives: (1) reducing Social Security protections while driving retirees into the hands of Wall Street; and (2) hiding the real causes of the deficit and the debt from honest budgetary scrutiny. A look at their claims about Social Security and the budget reveals the falsehoods they continue to promote.
“Fiscally speaking” it’s the $600+ billion we spend on the military.
Say now. I rather like your style.
This fucking right here.
They are hoping it does not do so before 18
hey, Paul,, I paid my taxes for 45 YEARS , my SS is not an "entitlement" you jacka$$, it is MY MONEY!
Why do we have Social Security and Medicare?
Because until the early 1930s, all we had available to take care of old folks in their so-called golden years was "choice and competition."
That meant that a bank failure---quite common, in the era of unregulated banking and regular boom-and-bust business cycles (an Enron or Madoff-level event every couple of years)---could wipe out Gran's life savings, and everything she had ever worked for, including the roof over her head.
If her children could not afford to take her in---and in an era of 20% unemployment, yeah, the kids often had to spend too much time collecting coal along the railroad tracks or standing in soup lines or hitching rides on railroad cars going from state to state in search of work, to do a good job of taking care of Gran----then she had no option but to go into a county home or poor farm. (Well, she had an option: but was "dying in the street," not anyone's first choice.)
These places were contracted out to the lowest bidder, so the odds were good that she was going to spend the rest of her life in cold, hungry, dirty misery, but yeeeeeaaaahhh---"choice and competition."
Anyhow, old folks were dying because of the Freedom Agenda, so Roosevelt and the Democrats gave us Social Security. Oh yeah, and banking regulations. And a lot of other good stuff.
The American people were so horrified by all this "socialism" that they re-elected Roosevelt three more times, and would have gone on electing him forever, only he died.
As for Medicare, that was another Democratic president, the considerably under-esteemed Lyndon Baines Johnson, and another Democratic Congress, expanding the Social Security act in order to provide health insurance coverage for old people so they wouldn't be buried by medical debt, or die prematurely of untreated pneumonia, or live out their last years suffering lancinating pain from untreated arthritis, or blindness from untreated glaucoma---little things like that.
And again, even Republican voters were so outraged by this shameless encroachment of "socialism" on a free, capitalist society, this flagrant violation of the Freedom Agenda, that they literally made death threats to any Republican politician who hinted or whispered at the possibility of taking away their Medicare benefits.
But that was then and this is now. It's 2017. Anybody who remembers what it was like to spend their old age under the free market mantle of "choice and competition" is long gone: and the Republicans, having used fascist tactics of propaganda, plus gerrymandering, electoral fraud, and a very useful Supreme Court ruling back in 2000, run literally everything, and are in a kind of "now or never" frenzy of sheer unhinged Kochean destruction.
And a whole lot of Americans are about to find out what it was like, 90 years or so ago, to live in a toxic, soulless environment of predatory capitalism, with no way out, because these fascist/Republicans hold all the cards.
It's a hell of a way for ignorant Republican voters to learn the searing lessons of history: by dooming their grandchildren to live the kinds of lives their grandparents struggled so desperately to escape.
keep whispering those sweet sweet nothings in my ear.
everyone on ACA medicaid has much better health insurance than those of us struggling with the thin gruel of the individual market. even after obama.
i told mr fuflans i would totally pay $300 / month to BUY medicaid.
School politics are weird, I'll be the first liberal to agree with you on that. BUT much of the things decided are those decided by oldsters. They say why should they pay for education when they don't have kids in school any more.
AND I totally agree with ageism. My SO has a license in two, count them two, states. All he gets is "We'll get back to you ASAP."
The thing that gets me is that my SO has *so* much experience in his field. Yet, they won't hire him because of his grey beard.
Okay, and demands for adequate compensation.
that's our own fault...they knew once they got the ball rolling on franken, that we would do a better job of kicking his ass than they ever could...we really have to stop eating our own...this going high when they go low bullshit just aint fuckin workin
They've even refused to pay for those wars they like.
The next time they claim that Social Security needs to be cut, tell them to explain exactly how an off-budget program contributes one dime of debt. How can it be the federal government's biggest expense if its not part of the budget??? Social Security is self-funded with $2.8 trillion in U.S. Treasury Bonds in its Trust Fund. SocSec surpluses go into the Trust Fund and deficits (when they start happening) come out of the Trust Fund. Not general revenues. Not into or out of the federal budget. If I had that much in the bank, would you say that I'm broke?? Any bank manager would be fired for incompetence for claiming that.
Those assholes better stop pretending SocSec is part of their budget. They pretend it is because SocSec has been running surpluses for decades and because they want to unleash the stock market on our retirement insurance. If SocSec is an unpaid liability, then where are the payroll taxes which fund it?? Any changes to benefits do not affect the federal deficit or National Debt by one thin dime. It only changes the exact date that the Trust Fund, which was built up in anticipation of baby boomer retirements, zeroes out (2034). Starting in 2034, if no changes to payroll taxes are made, Social Security can still pay out 80% of benefits through the year 2092.
If they claim they need to cut Social Security, call them fucking LIARS!
> Obviously, they’ll need to eliminate funding for public transit so no one uses that metaphor anymore.
"Let them take Uber"