BOO!!! - And Fucking BRAVO !!! - A Shit Of A WaPo Editorial, And One HELL Of A Response...

[WillyT]

Social Security proposals are wrongheaded
WaPo Editorial Board
11/17/13

<snip>

PRESIDENT OBAMA and the Republicans never have struck a “grand bargain” on spending and taxes. Nor does it appear likely that the current budget bargaining between Democratic and GOP negotiators in Congress, who met inconclusively again on Wednesday, will produce one. They may fail to achieve even a small bargain. Even so, Mr. Obama faces rising pressure from the left flank of his party to defend entitlement programs tooth and nail. That pressure comes although such programs represent the lion’s share of federal expenditure growth in the coming decades. ?

In recent days, those styling themselves “bold progressives” have been rallying support for a bill sponsored by Sen. Tom Harkin (Iowa) and Rep. Linda Sanchez (Calif.), both Democrats, that would increase Social Security benefits. Supporters tout it as courageous pushback against austerity; in fact, it’s a case study in how not to redefine liberalism for the 21st century.

The Harkin-Sanchez proposal would change Social Security benefit formulas to produce an average increase of $60 per month, plus a more generous annual inflation adjustment, than the program uses now. It also would extend the life of the notional trust fund from which benefits are drawn by 16 years. To pay for this, the bill would subject all wage and salary income to the 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax, as opposed to only drawing from income up to $113,700 as is presently done. For someone earning $200,000 per year, this would mean a tax increase of more than $4,000 per year. For someone earning $1?million, the tax increase would be $58,700.

It’s a massive transfer of income from upper-income Americans to the retired. A tax increase is not, in itself, objectionable. Revenue is necessary to pay the costs of an aging society, and it should be raised progressively. With respect to Social Security specifically, the percentage of wage and salary earnings subject to the tax has shrunk in recent years, and there’s an argument for correcting that.

Yet even the rich have finite resources...

<snip>

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/social-security-proposals-are-wrongheaded/2013/11/17/38ebb486-4bde-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

The Very 1st Response:

Dryly 41

11/18/2013 8:04 AM PST

On December 7, 1941 the Japanese Empire attacked U.S. naval and air bases at Pearl Harbor. Thereafter sixteen million young men wore the uniform, and, after 3 years and 8 months secured the unconditional surrender of Italy, Germany, and, Japan, Then, except for 405,399, they came home, went to school of the G.I. Bill or got jobs and entered into delayed marriages. The delayed marriages created the "demographic bubble" known as the Baby Boom generation and the children of WW II vets began to turn 65 in 2011.

In 1946 the Gross Federal Debt amounted to 121.7% of GDP. the Truman administration reduced it to 71.4% of GDP; Eisenhower to 55.2%; Kennedy/Johnson to 38.6%; Nixon/Ford to 35.8%; and, Carter to 32.5%.

Then came Ronald Reagan with massive "supply side" tax cuts primarily for the wealthy and budget deficits in each of eight years increasing the Gross Federal Debt from 32.5% to 53.1% of GDP. Bush I had four more years of budget deficits increasing the debt to 66.1%.

Clinton raised taxes, had 4% unemployment, balanced budgets and reduced the debt to 56.4%.

Bush II instituted two rounds of "supply side" tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, had eight more years of deficits and increased the Gross Federal Debt from 56.4% of GDP to 85.1% with a crippled economy.

In 1983 Reagan signed a regressive FICA payroll increase so as to create a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund which has a $2.6 trillion dollar reserve as of December 2012.

Social Security did not contribute one thin dime to the massive Federal Debt.

This massive Federal Debt was caused by borrowing all these trillions to fund "supply side" tax cuts for the wealthiest citizens most able to pay taxes.

The massive Federal Debt was not for any great national purpose such as the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW I, or, WW II. It was for "supply side" tax cuts for the wealthy.

Start with eliminating "supply side" economics and return to traditional Republican tax and fiscal policy.

Do this first.

[gopiscrap]

1. excellent

[SomeGuyInEagan]

70. Rec'd and Bookmarked! n/t

[Fantastic Anarchist]

2. Proud to kick and rec such a fine OP!

[winter is coming]

3. LOL, which DUer was that?

[WillyT]

5. LOL !!! - I'd LOVE To Claim It Was Me... But Alas.. No...

[lunasun]

4. yes Bravo on bringing out the truth Dryly 41

[Curmudgeoness]

6. That is one incredible rebuttal!

I am bookmarking this so that I can use the information in it.....often.

[Samantha]

7. Give that person a seat at the budget negotiations table

or perhaps they should chair it. Excellent response.

Sam

[Mike Nelson]

8. Dryly 41 is smarter than...

...those Post writers!

[KoKo]

9. Recommend!

[zeemike]

10. OMG,,,that was a great and complete answer.

Enough of the bullshit from these trickle downers...it was a big fucking failure and it is time they fessed up to it.

[WowSeriously]

11. That would be a return to traditional DEMOCRATIC tax and fiscal policy.

We are currently living under traditional Republican tax and fiscal policy.

Sheesh, get it right!

[IrishAyes]

12. Perhaps it was only a temporary brain fart?

[ffr]

14. That struck me odd too. Maybe the guy's not a typical Tea-publicon.

[progressoid]

20. Perhaps the author is attempting to remind Repubs of the fiscal responsibility

the party used to have by referencing Eisenhower and Nixon.

[Adsos Letter]

35. ^ This ^ n/t

[WowSeriously]

45. Perhaps. But they inherited Democratic tax policy. They don't deserve credit.

[Jackpine Radical]

59. That's the way I took it.

He's shaming today's insane Republicans by comparing them to their relatively sane (if generally wrongheaded) political ancestors.

[bvar22]

81. This is an excellent example of how FAR to the Conservative RIGHT...

...our government has lurched over the last 60 years.

We are now WELL to the RIGHT of Republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon.

[GeoWilliam750]

91. Eisenhower was far too left wing

to run as a liberal democrat today

[bvar22]

96. Rachel Maddow agrees.

[ffr]

13. Love it when other people fight back with facts

Terrific!

[Oilwellian]

15. It's great to see as the first reply

a lot of people will read it.

[grasswire]

16. bookmarked

Thanks, Willy and Dryly.

[WillyT]

18. Bounce...

[WillyT]

17. I'm Still In Awe From...

"It’s a massive transfer of income from upper-income Americans to the retired."

And they actually printed that.

Like for... regular people... to read.

[Enthusiast]

62. We promise to spend it all.

Stimulating, you know.

[jtuck004]

19. Great response!

And just for context...because we are still keeping taxes low for the wealthiest Americans:

[Divernan]

47. This chart shows whose interests Obama promotes.

[7962]

56. That chart shows that simply taxing the rich wont fix the problem; there isnt enough money.

Should they be paying more? YES. But you could take ALL the money from the 1% and it would barely make a dent in those numbers. That is something that nobody says. But its true, look at the numbers for yourself. The problem is the tax code itself and our spending. Too many people pay no income taxes. They do pay SS taxes, but not income taxes. I know its sounds "libertarian" of me; I dont care. Its the truth. And no democrat or republican has the guts to step up and change the way we do things.

[Enthusiast]

64. "That is something that nobody says."

BULLSHIT!

Every time Republican talking heads are on TV talking about the debt they say exactly what you said. It's on every dishonest lying goddamned right wing channel on my TV.

[7962]

76. I guess i dont watch the right channels then. But regardless of who says it its still the truth

Tax the bastards at 100% and you still wont get rid of the debt.
Show me where thats wrong. The debt is going on 17T and by the time obama gives the keys to hillary it'll probably be 20+T.
We cant keep whistling down the road. I'm too old to be around when the train runs off the tracks, but its damn sure gonna happen.

[Enthusiast]

93. What you say is untrue. They are also right wing talking points.

57 cents of every tax dollar right now goes to an unnecessarily large military. That doesn't include the massive outlay for the CIA and NSA.

Most corporations pay near zero taxes after their deductions. The wealthy pay extremely low taxes(Romney 12%).

What you claim is just not true. The debt is the result of borrowing money to enact tax cuts for the rich and two wasteful counterproductive wars.

Those are my taking points buddy. You won't hear them where you are from.

I really wish you would go back to where you came from. We are liberals here. We grow weary of right wing misinformation.

[7962]

102. Where I've been is here; for a few years.

Maybe not as many yrs as you, but so what, I'm no newbie. And I read here for years before I ever joined up. Its amazing how this bastion of tolerant liberals has so many who are eager to jump you and call you names at the slightest difference of opinion. "Go back to where you came from". Really? Channeling a tea partier there?
And actually Romney paid a bit over 14%. Obama paid a bit over 18%. So theyre pretty much riding in the same boat. But I'm sure you were just as critical of the President when his returns were released.
And hey, I agree with you that we spend too much on the military. I think Iraq was useless. I DO think we shouldve gone to Afghanistan, but I also think we should have been gone years ago. I also think we should stop spending billions on weapons that the military doesnt even WANT. I also think that we should close a lot of bases overseas. We have over a thousand bases overseas and its time for some of those countries to start taking better care of themselves. Thats billions more right there. And without reducing our readiness. And I also believe we should do away with the Bush tax cuts too!
Since I'm such a right winger, I better be careful or I might get thrown out of the club making statements like that.

[jeff47]

75. That is something that nobody says, because it's utterly wrong.

How 'bout showing your basic math that a 100% tax at say $1M income would not reduce the deficit?

Or is this a situation where you don't understand what our debt actually is, that we are constantly paying it off, and that it will not "come due" at some point?

[7962]

79. Certainly it would bring in more revenue. But NOT ENOUGH.

If we are "constantly paying it off" (the debt), then why does it keep going UP? We simply pay interest most of the time. We're sitting at 17 trillion. How much is high enough?
The top 1% earn somewhere between 1-2 trillion annually (if i multiply correctly). If you take ALL of that, it would still take years to pay off the debt. And of course it could never happen because if you were going to take ALL of their income, they wouldnt work. Whats the point.
If I'm so wrong, show me the proof that my facts are wrong.
Hell yes, the rich should pay more in taxes. But there just isnt enough of them.

edit: With regard to SS, I also think the cap should be done away with and tax all income.

[jeff47]

83. Golly, I'm so surprised you failed to show any math in your response.

Certainly it would bring in more revenue. But NOT ENOUGH.

Well then it would be very easy for you to show that with some math. Yet you didn't quite do so. Almost as if using actual numbers would not support your argument.

If we are "constantly paying it off" (the debt), then why does it keep going UP?

Looks like we'll have to go back to "Government Debt 1". We can get to "Government Debt 101" in a while.

Government debt is financed by bonds. Those bonds have a maturity date when the government pays back the money, with interest. That maturity date is not "forever". It's fixed.

As a result, we are constantly paying off the bonds we already issued.

As for why it keeps going up, that's because the debit and the deficit are two different things. The deficit is the difference between the money the government takes in from all sources and the money the government spends. Our debt is the cumulative effect of those deficits.

So how does this come together? By reducing the deficit, we are adding less to the debt. Which shrinks the next deficit. And so on. Since we're constantly paying off the debt, we do not need to suddenly pay trillions of dollars.

In addition, there's two things that 'deflate' our debt. Inflation reduces the real value of our debt. Under "normal" conditions, our real debt goes down all on it's own by 2% per year, because the borrowed money is worth 2% less. But a much larger deflator is GDP growth - the larger our GDP, the less our debt really is. Since you're stuck in a personal economics model, think of it like you getting a raise. Suddenly that car that was too expensive is affordable.

This effect is why actual economists measure government debt as a debt-to-GDP ratio instead of absolute numbers. $1T would be a huge problem for a country with a $1B GDP. It's nothing for a country with a $20T GDP.

Our debt-to-GDP ratio is less than other times in our past. For example, after WWII our debt-to-GDP ratio was much higher. In addition, we have examples like Japan who have a much worse debt-to-GDP ratio than we do. They'll run into problems before we do - we don't have to worry about debt suddenly becoming a huge problem.

We simply pay interest most of the time.

False. When the bonds mature, both interest and principle must be paid. And as mentioned above, we are constantly paying off bonds.

We're sitting at 17 trillion. How much is high enough?

The fact that the number is large is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the interest rate we have to charge to get people to buy our debt.

So how's that interest rate going? Well, people are willing to buy US debt at a negative real interest rate. As in, you give the government $100, and they will pay you back $98. And people are signing up to do this.

So we can run that $17T up a lot higher before we even begin to have a problem.

The top 1% earn somewhere between 1-2 trillion annually (if i multiply correctly). If you take ALL of that, it would still take years to pay off the debt.

Government debt is not like your credit card. You can not pay it off in just a few years, because you can not pay it until the bonds mature.

If I'm so wrong, show me the proof that my facts are wrong.

Well, you've yet to show any facts. Instead you think government debt is exactly like you charging stuff on your Visa. It isn't, but the Republicans thank you for buying into their framing.

[Springslips]

99. Thank you!

What he was saying was a kin to freaking out because 100-percent of a year salary wouldn't pay off your house and car loans. Come on people!

[7962]

100. I appreciate your detailed response. (And I'm serious)

And without insulting me. Believe me, any time I post something that seems even slightly different than what the majority on DU thinks I get called every name in the book. Its like I missed the "Terms you MUST agree with" page when I signed up.
We continue to spend way more than we take in, and simply raising the taxes on the rich isnt enough.
So, I really do understand what youre saying. And yes, the bonds are due at different times. And also, the US public owns a lot of that debt. More than the Chinese. And contrary to what a few folks here think of me, I also think the Bush tax cuts shouldve ended when they were supposed to. But at the same time, there is a point where the rich, just like corporations, will do whatever it takes to avoid higher taxes. Its already happening in Europe. Back when we used to have 90% rates in the 50s, nobody paid that rate because we also had a million deductions. IMO, we need to do a couple things. I believe (and so does the president for the most part) that we should do away with all deductions and reduce the corp tax rate. It is one the highest, if not THE highest, in the world. If we did that, then the corps wouldnt have any reason to pay a thousand lawyers to get out of taxes. I believe that would actually raise the avg rate that corps pay from what it is now. We have a 25% rate, but nobody pays that.
Second, and here's where so many here hate me, we need a consumption tax. Not the "fair tax", more of a plain old sales tax like most of our counties use. With some sort of a check paid to cover the costs to the poorer folks. Because here's the problem with the current system: There are SO MANY people who pay little or no income taxes. And I'm not talking about the working poor. I'm talking about the cash-workers such as heat/AC folks, contractors, plumbers, mechanics, landscapers, electricians, etc etc. Sure they pay, but they also put a lot under the table. I know because I deal with a lot of them and a lot of them are friends. And a LOT of them make damn good money and brag about how much they get in cash that they dont claim. And thats not even including the illegal money from the criminal element that would now be taxed
We need more people paying something into the system. Just like the ACA was designed. EVERYBODY pays in so that lowers the cost for health care. Thats what the president always talked about when trying to get it passed. We should look at taxes the same way.

[jeff47]

103. Again, you still haven't backed up your position with any math.

We continue to spend way more than we take in, and simply raising the taxes on the rich isnt enough.

You continue to say this, yet don't actually back up your position with any actual math. Heck, do you even know that our annual deficit has been MASSIVELY reduced since 2008?

In addition, there is no deadline for paying off our debt. If you run the numbers, 2% inflation means we are best served by always running a small deficit - inflation eats away the debt so that we end up with more real spending.

What appears to be going on is you've bought into the media and right-wing framing of the debt issue.

But at the same time, there is a point where the rich, just like corporations, will do whatever it takes to avoid higher taxes.

If this was an actual problem, you would find the most wealthy people living in the lowest-tax states. Moving within the US is trivial, especially for the wealthy, so if larger tax burden were such a problem they would move to low-tax states.

The majority of the wealthy in the US live in California and New York. Our two highest-tax states.

If we did that, then the corps wouldnt have any reason to pay a thousand lawyers to get out of taxes.

Wow is that delusional. Corporations would still retain a bunch of accountants and lawyers to avoid paying taxes, because they want to avoid paying taxes. Corporations based in very low-corporate-tax countries like Switzerland still have armies of accountants and lawyers working to reduce their taxes.

But even better, you destroy this argument with your own next sentence:

I believe that would actually raise the avg rate that corps pay from what it is now. We have a 25% rate, but nobody pays that.

So you are arguing both that corporations would just pay their taxes because they are lower, and that they would pay higher taxes.

I realize this is the media and right-wing framing of the issue, but you have to take a moment to realize this is utterly contradictory: You are simultaneously claiming they would pay more and pay less.

Second, and here's where so many here hate me, we need a consumption tax. Not the "fair tax", more of a plain old sales tax like most of our counties use.

So you're very, very, very worried about rich people not having enough money, but you're happily going to slap a massive tax increase on the poor?

No, the rich do not pay more in sales taxes. What happens is "regular" people buy goods. "Rich" people buy services. For example: Lawn care. If you are not wealthy, you go buy a lawnmower. If you are wealthy, you hire a gardener. Let's slap some fake numbers on that to illustrate the point:

Not wealthy - $200 lawnmower, 10% sales tax, means $20 in taxes. That $20 is paid by one household.
Wealthy - Gardener buys $2000 lawnmower, 10% sales tax means $200 in taxes. Gardener has 30 clients. Each household pays $6.67 in sales tax.

There are SO MANY people who pay little or no income taxes. And I'm not talking about the working poor. I'm talking about the cash-workers such as heat/AC folks, contractors, plumbers, mechanics, landscapers, electricians, etc etc. Sure they pay, but they also put a lot under the table.

So we need to raise taxes on the poor, and lower taxes on the wealthy, because you witness people breaking federal law and refuse to report it.

You know, there's a much better solution to this problem...

And thats not even including the illegal money from the criminal element that would now be taxed

.......I don't think I've seen a dumber argument. You are claiming criminal enterprises would collect sales taxes? And submit them to the government? Thereby proving that they are a criminal enterprise?

Wow that's a dumb argument.

Just like the ACA was designed. EVERYBODY pays in so that lowers the cost for health care.

Because the ACA didn't include Medicaid expansion and massive subsidies.

[7962]

104. Ok, just a few differences.

First, I did say there should be some sort of payment to offset taxes paid by the poor. And of course the rich may buy services, they also buy Ferraris and BMWs and paintings, etc etc, that cost a crapload of money ANd you're not understandting taxing the criminals. The tax is a sales tax. So when the drug dealer goes and buys HIS car or jewelry or whatever, he pays when he buys. Of course the criminals wouldnt collect taxes!! That WOULD be a dumb argument! Maybe theres a store just for criminals....
And I'm NOT saying to cut the taxes on the wealthy, I'm saying we need more than what we'd get from them.

If there are NO deductions for corporations, there is no need to have lawyers with regard to taxes. For what? How would you get out of paying 8% if there are NO DEDUCTIONS? Thats about what they're paying now, and if you raise it they'll just work harder to avoid it. The US corp rate, according to KPMG, is 40%. NOBODY pays it, so whats the point of having it? Here's an analogy that makes perfect sense: If you get caught speeding and it only costs you 5.00, are you really going to think about slowing down? But if you pay 200.00, you'll darn sure use that cruise control. It works the same with taxes. Tax planning is a big deal to those with a lot of money. A friend of mine is in commercial real estate. He's told me about how people will come to him looking for an investment property to roll over a profit. Its called a 1031 exchange. You pay no taxes if you do one of these. So he says you'd be surprised at the not-so-great deals that people will do just to NOT pay the tax. But when that rate was lowered, half of that business went away. Because it wasnt worth the hassle to avoid paying a lower amount. A tax is looked at as a penalty. If the penalty is high, people will avoid it. When the rate was 90%, NOBODY paid that because of deductions. Look where Google and others have their heads.

Here's how Google gets out of paying here:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/ireland-business-blog-with-lisa-ocarroll/2011/mar/24/google-ireland-tax-reasons-bermuda They base themselves in Ireland and Bermuda. Apple and Microsoft do the same thing. And what does the US get? Nothing from those profits. Sure they'll spend money to get out of a 40% bill. The rich, whether corps or individuals, WILL find a way out of a higher rate.
I simply want what I believe is the best way to get more revenue for the govt. without hurting the poor. Obviously we disagree on the best way to do that, but thats life!

[JDPriestly]

85. That's because most people would not be able to eat or sleep under a roof at night if they

paid additional taxes.

The disparity in incomes between rich and poor mean that the poor cannot survive and pay taxes.

The average Social Security benefit for a retiree is $1,269. There is very little difference between the mean and the average benefits because the top benefit is somewhere around $3,300.

You can Google the top benefit.

Here is the link for the average benefit.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm

Don't be too embarrassed about your ignorance on this issue. Most Americans do not realize that the average Social Security benefit barely keeps a person above the poverty level.

The poverty level for a household with one person was $11,490 in 2013.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/13poverty.cfm

The average Social Security benefit is $15,228 per year. If you work 40 hours every week at the federal minimum wage of $7.50. You make $16,500 per year.

Increase the minimum wage and not only do incomes rise but so do tax revenues at the state and federal levels.

California's new $10 minimum wage per hour will mean that a person earning a minimum wage and working 40 hours per week will earn about $22,000 per year.

Low income workers put everything back into the economy. The rich hoard, save, "invest" overseas, buy luxury items, travel outside the US, live outside the US, and spend a much smaller percentage here in the US than do low-income people.

Every penny given to a person on Social Security or a person earning minimum wage goes back into our economy to increase our GDP.

Lowering taxes on rich Americans may help the Chinese economy and other foreign economies but nowadays, on the average, I don't think you would find that lowering taxes on rich Americans helps the American economy nearly as much as raising the incomes of low income people including people on Social Security does.

The Republican mantra about the "job creators" is not based on reason. The math shows you improve your economy when you have a BETTER BALANCE between the incomes of those who earn less and spend a larger percentage of what they earn and those who earn a lot and "invest" or save or spend outside the US most of their money.

Social engineering? Anything you do about incomes and taxes and investments, etc. will change the distribution of wealth to favor the rich or the poor. Doing nothing about it will also change3 the distribution of wealth. You end up with a feudal state if you just let people have whatever they can take, whatever they can grab, whatever they can outsmart others for. There is no way to avoid it.

Actions cause effects. That is true of economics just as it is of engineering or physics or even music. (Rub a string the right way and you get something beautiful. Press the string too hard with your bow and you get the sound of a dying cat.) The libertarian dream is so much hooey.

So we should tax the rich more and raise the minimum wage. We should increase not decrease Social Security benefits.

The GDP measures the flow of money from buyer to seller, from producer to buyer. We need to encourage the flow of money within the US to truly improve our GDP and end our deficits.

Every time you have an exchange of money for goods or services you improve the economy. The rich can only buy so much. The poor and middle classes keep the GDP going.

[riqster]

21. Kicking again.

Because we need more fact-based discussions about fiscal policy. Great response!

[Warpy]

22. I don't know who Dryly41 is, but I wouldn't change a single word of his rebuttal

It seems like a lot of people out there are waking up to the colossal screw job the wealthy with their paid for Congress have given us over the past 40 years.

Bravo! whoever you are.

[kristopher]

23. Great information - here's a direct link

This is the same post in the comments section of an Ezra Klein article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/28/would-the-white-house-accept-a-budget-deal-without-taxes-maybe/?commentID=washingtonpost.com/ECHO/item/1382982383-635-301

[dgauss]

24. So the Harkin-Sanchez proposal would

"change Social Security benefit formulas to produce an average increase of $60 per month" according to the editorial. 15 extra bucks a week for the elderly.

The editorial then goes on to complain that that would be a "massive transfer of income from upper-income Americans to the retired."

Nice perspective on the injustice of a massive transfer of money, given the last 30 years.

[WillyT]

25. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

Exactly !!!

[grasswire]

26. btw, WaPo -- isn't it "Loretta" Sanchez, not "Linda"? nt

[WillyT]

27. Here...

Linda Sanchez and her sister Rep. Loretta Sanchez

[grasswire]

29. ah!

Thanks.

[A Simple Game]

28. Excellent reply, I would only change one thing.

In 1983 Reagan signed a regressive FICA payroll increase so as to create a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund which has a $2.6 trillion dollar reserve as of December 2012.

I would have said: In 1983 Reagan signed a regressive FICA payroll increase so as to steal a surplus in the Social Security Trust Fund which has a $2.6 trillion dollar reserve as of December 2012.

Reagan didn't plan on it nor do todays Republicans ever plan to pay that money back.

[mimi85]

32. Hear, Hear!

Very well put!

[stillwaiting]

57. Indeed. And THAT is the massive transfer of wealth that may actually occur.

I'm sure the financial elite believe it is a done deal. I hope they are wrong.

Completely opposite from what the author stated in their propaganda piece.

[maddiemom]

90. Yessss...Oh so true. Only a bunch of liberal Socialist types keep bringing this up.

[hollysmom]

30. yes, even the rich have finite resources, they are just close to infinite resources and closing in,

[silvershadow]

31. Bravo! nt

[Uncle Joe]

33. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[WillyT]

98. Anytime... Uncle Joe, Anytime...

[dchill]

34. K & R.

[mckara]

36. Excellent!

[countmyvote4real]

37. Yes. Yes. Yes. n/t

[ReRe]

38. Social Security Proposal DENIERS are Wrongheaded!

... Budgetary Realism? How's about "Stacked Deck" Washington Post? Did some mogul buy WaPo recently? This sounds more like something the Washington Times would espouse. I don't subscribe to the WaPo as I'm out here in the hinterland, but if I did, I would cancel it. "The rich have finite resources..." my ass. Poor babies. Cry me a river, poor rich folks. Remember how they used to holler "Class Warfare" and the Democrats would sulk off to the corner and cry?

I don't know who "Dryly41" is, but that was a most excellent comeback. Frankly, I am shocked that WaPo printed it. But, as we all know, the WaPo knows who he/she is. "Dryly41" must have some mythical power? Told WaPo to "print it or else"? Where's that damn tinfoil hat when I need it?

Oh yeah, K&R

[abelenkpe]

39. K&R

[UtahLib]

40. What a great post! n/t

[Flagrante]

41. The numbers don't add up

FTA: "the bill would subject all wage and salary income to the 12.4 percent Social Security payroll tax, as opposed to only drawing from income up to $113,700 as is presently done. For someone earning $200,000 per year, this would mean a tax increase of more than $4,000 per year. For someone earning $1?million, the tax increase would be $58,700."

12.4% of ($200,000 - 113,700) = $10,700, not "more than $4,000."

and

12.4% of (1,000,000 - 113,700) = $109,901, not "$58,700."

Anyone know what's up with this?

[moxybug]

63. divide by half

I think they calculate only the 6.2% paid directly by the employee which would make the numbers 5350 and 54950. Still not the best math but considering the republican war on education that has been raging for 40+ years its not necessarily a surprise.

[gopiscrap]

66. welcome to DU

[rhett o rick]

42. k&r thanks for posting. nm

[BlancheSplanchnik]

43. who is that responder?

She deserves a medal!!!


That was a thing of beauty.


Facts. Imagine that.

[stopbush]

44. Why should the 90%+ of Americans who make under $113,000 pay FICA taxes on 100% of their incomes

while a person making $1-million pays FICA tax on only the first 10% of their income?

Talk about finite resources.

[Divine Discontent]

46. whatta great response! :) bravo!

http://www.zazzle.com/shutdown_the_gop_by_voting_in_2014_government-128195183613839642?rf=238107662556833486

[emsimon33]

48. K&R

[malaise]

49. K & R

Great post

[Laelth]

50. Hear, hear! k&r n/t

-Laelth

[Fumesucker]

51. Kick because I want to show this to someone later

[myrna minx]

52. K&R.

[reformist2]

53. The bottom line - the general fund owes Social Security $3 trillion. The rich have to pay that back.

THIS is the reason they keep coming back to Social Security "reform" over and over again - after of decades of borrowing
from the Social Security trust fund, and giving the rich huge tax breaks, our leaders now know the next few
decades everything will work in reverse - the government paying back Social Security, and the ultrarich having
to pay (gasp!) higher income taxes. Much higher income taxes. And the ultrarich are starting to freak out.

[unhappycamper]

54. 'Emergency' supplementals were used to keep the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures 'going'.

'Emergency' supplemental = National Credit card = debt. Period.

[DirkGently]

55. +++ A lot of those comments are worth reading.

[annabanana]

58. (thread worth DAYS of kicks!) . . .. n/t

[Enthusiast]

60. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch.

Love that response.

Hey, the wealthy are just going to have to cough it up or just migrate to somewhere else. Love it or leave it.

[Triana]

61. . . .

[ProSense]

65. I can't friggin believe they

"Yet even the rich have finite resources... "

...they wrote that.

Billionaires Collect Millions In Taxpayer Dollars Through Farm Subsidies
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/07/2912031/billionaires-farm-subsidies-snap-cuts/

[freshwest]

87. Thanks for the addition, just one of many challenges to outright lies being told!

[Larkspur]

67. I'm saving Dryly 41's response. It is an excellent response to the Fix the Debt hucksters.

You can tell Progressive Dems are hitting a nerve among the entitled rich with expanding Social Security instead of supporting transferring it to the entitled rich.

[66 dmhlt]

68. The Source documenting the Numbers ...

They're from Table B-79 on page 418 of "Economic Report of the President 2012"

http://www.nber.org/erp/ERP_2012_Complete.pdf

And the source for THAT reference was found in an entry (also posted by "Dryly 41" as was the WaPo one) with much the same text found here:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/10/whiskey-tango-foxtrot-wall-street-journal-bang-query-bang-query-is-this-some-strange-berkeley-acid-trip-i-am-on-weblogging.html

[L0oniX]

69. "pressure from the left flank of his party" Shame on all the others who call themselves Democrats!

[Aerows]

71. In just that poll, 79% think that the Social Security cap should be eliminated.

Hmm. That would affect people that make over $121,000 per year. Which 535 Americans make well above that and would have to pay more taxes? Why, the people that would vote to remove that cap, that's who.

Too many legislators are only concerned about themselves.

[bvar22]

82. Raise-the-CAP?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

72. What a TERRIFIC reply!!!!

This should go viral. Also, Jeff Bezoa is a libertarian asshole.

[whathehell]

73. Yes, Indeed!...Go On With Your Bad Self, Dryly 41

[NastyRiffraff]

74. Rec'd & bookmarked

More like this please. The response was devastating and complete.

[Burf-_-]

77. oooooooooooooooo

[link:|

[Wounded Bear]

78. You can almost hear the "WHOOSH!!!!"....

as this flies over the heads of the neocons running things these days, and their misinformed minions.

[klook]

80. Excellent - bookmarked.

Thanks.

[RobertEarl]

84. Solve a lot of $$ problems

If the rich want to horde that money, they have to pay a tax.

If they spend it by paying fair wages to the workers they won't pay much tax. What happens in that case is the workers pay most taxes.

A $15 min wage, and 15% tax on horded, unspent money, and things will be more fair and balanced.

[countryjake]

86. Perfect, thorough, zinging reply!

I love that it was the very first response, too!

[stage left]

88. K&R

For a great catch and a great response from Dryly 41.

[JEFF9K]

89. Truly excellent. That's a "saver!"

[GeoWilliam750]

92. Is there a reason

why our democratically elected Democrat leaders do not shout this from the rooftops?

[cliffordu]

94. K and fucking R. Perfect.

[mother earth]

95. Well done, can't argue the truth. WaPo just got served humble pie, a mighty slab of truth!!! K & R

[Springslips]

97. Awesome!

Whoever made that response is a great, great person!

[MindMover]

101. Absolutely AWESOME ....