Presidential Race (Respector Edition)

[Guest Jules]

Not as much as being an actual shoeshine or lawn maintenance guy.

 

Don't be so sure.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Not to get too crass about it, but I suspect that your average lawn care guy would give his left nut for a day to live in a mansion that has elevators for the owner's cars.

Wow, this has really, really gotten away from serious discussion about the issues.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

http://economicsonlinetutor.com/useconomichistory.html

 

I don't vouch for the accuracy of this chart, but it sure is interesting. Ironically, the site has a note on it saying "No correlation exists between the tax rates of the highest income brackets and the performance of the economy." Yet if you look at the Top Marginal Tax Rate from 1932 to 1981 - during which time we saw the largest expansion of a prosperous middle class in US history - that tax rate was incredibly high. At the least, this is interesting to me.

[Guest Jules]

The tax rate was high but you could "write off" almost anything. The rate itself only tells part of the story.

[lost highway]

Also interesting about that article is that the GDP has never really dropped, except from 2008 to 2009 in the height of the recession, but it jumped up to a record high in 2010.

[IRememberDBoon]

Senator Bernie Sanders

In the 77 years since President Franklin Roosevelt signed Social Security into law on August 14, 1935, the retirement program has been one of the nation's most successful anti-poverty programs. Before Social Security existed, about half of America's senior citizens lived in poverty. Today, less than 10 percent live in poverty. Today, Social Security not only provides retirement security but also enables millions of people with disabilities, and widows, widowers and children to live in dignity and security. In these highly volatile economic times, when millions of Americans lost their life savings in the 2008 Wall Street crash, it is important to remember that since its inception, through good economic times and bad, Social Security has paid every penny owed to every eligible beneficiary. Despite Wall Street and right-wing misinformation, Social Security, which is funded by the payroll tax, does not contribute to the deficit. In fact, the Social Security Trust Fund today, according to the Social Security Administration, has a $2.7 trillion surplus and can pay 100 percent of all benefits owed to every eligible American for the next 21 years. Further, unlike the huge commissions paid out to Wall Street firms, Social Security is run with very modest administrative costs. Despite Social Security's popularity and overwhelming success, we are now in the midst of a fierce and well-financed attack against Social Security. Pete Peterson, the Wall Street billionaire, has pledged $1 billion of his resources to cut Social Security and other programs of enormous importance to the American people. Other billionaires and Wall Street representatives are also working hard to weaken or destroy Social Security and endanger the well-being of millions of Americans. We must not allow their effort to succeed. Let us never forget that the current deficit of $1 trillion was primarily caused by two unpaid-for wars and tax breaks for the rich. These policies were strongly supported by "deficit hawks." The deficit is also related to a major decline in revenue as a result of the Wall Street-created recession. The deficit is a serious issue, but we must not move toward deficit reduction on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor. This would not only be immoral, it is bad economic policy. At a time when the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well and their effective tax rate is the lowest in decades, the top 1 percent must begin paying their fair share of taxes. At a time when large corporations are enjoying record-breaking profits, we have got to eliminate the huge corporate loopholes which result in a massive loss of federal revenue. At a time when we have tripled military spending since 1997, we must take a hard look at a bloated and wasteful Defense Department.

 

House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has been a proponent of privatizing the retirement program by putting seniors' savings into risky Wall Street investments. Even before tapping Ryan as his running mate, Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney said he wants to begin the process of privatizing Social Security. He also would gradually increase the retirement age to 68 or 69. And he favors slowing the growth of benefits for persons with "higher incomes." Under a plan floated by Romney's allies on Capitol Hill -- Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) -- someone making about $45,000 a year today who retires in 2050 would receive 32 percent less in annual Social Security benefits than under the current formula. By that definition, the top 60 percent of all wage earners would be considered "higher income."

 

President Barack Obama, meanwhile, was a staunch defender of Social Security in his 2008 campaign. So far this year, however, Obama has refused to stand behind his four-year-old opposition to cuts. In fact, the president has signaled that he may be open to lowering benefits by changing how they are calculated. In my view, it is long past time that the president told the American people in no uncertain terms, as he did in 2008, that he will not cut Social Security on his watch.

 

To keep Social Security's finances sound in the future I have introduced legislation -- identical to a proposal that Obama advocated in 2008 -- to apply the payroll tax on incomes above $250,000 a year. Under current law, only earnings up to $110,100 are taxed. The Center for Economic Policy and Research has estimated that applying the Social Security payroll tax on income above $250,000 would only impact the wealthiest 1.4 percent of wage earners.

 

Those who want to cut Social Security benefits are looking at a number of proposals. One of the most talked about ideas is moving toward a so-called "chained-CPI," which would not only impact seniors, but also military retirees and those who receive benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The "chained-CPI" approach changes how the Consumer Price Index is calculated, so that a person 65 years old today would earn $560 a year less in Social Security benefits once they turn 75. Benefits would be cut by nearly $1,000 a year once they turn 85. Instead, I have proposed legislation to base Social Security cost-of-living adjustments on a Consumer Price Index for the Elderly, a measure that would increase benefits because it would take into account the real-life impact of rising health care costs and prescription drug expenses paid by seniors.

 

While we often take Social Security for granted, we must not forget that Social Security today is providing dignity and security to tens of millions of Americans. It is a program that is working and working well. We must stand up today, on the 77th anniversary of this enormously important program. We must pledge to continue the fight against the right-wing Republicans, some Democrats and their wealthy backers who want to destroy the program.

 

Thank you for all that you do.

 

Sincerely,

 

Senator Bernie Sanders

[uncool2pillow]

You quote Sanders as saying SS is fine for 21 years. Yesterday, you said Republicans destroyed it. Which is it? Maybe that they want to destroy it

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Bernie Sanders is awesome...one of the few Independents in Congress. I would still be one myself if you didn't have to register as a D or an R to vote in the primaries here.

He made the point I was trying to make, but much more succinctly: "The deficit is a serious issue, but we must not move toward deficit reduction on the backs of the elderly, the children, the sick and the poor."

[lost highway]

We should make a new campaign finance law. If lobbyists and corporations wish to donate to a candidate, 30% of their donation is taxed and allocated to the government. If we have a political system that generates billions of dollars for obnoxious attack ads there should be a way to channel some of that into something productive.

[Winston Legthigh]

We should make a new campaign finance law. If lobbyists and corporations wish to donate to a candidate, 30% of their donation is taxed and allocated to the government. If we have a political system that generates billions of dollars for obnoxious attack ads there should be a way to channel some of that into something productive.

 

Corporations can't donate directly to a candidate - they can donate to a PAC or special interest group, which in turn can donate a max of $5,000 to a single candidate.

[ih8music]

That cap is meaningless. There's no limit on what can be donated to a PAC, nor any limits on what that PAC can do with that money. The money doesn't have to physically go to the candidate to be used in the candidate's favor.

[KevinG]

Stewart talks about Voter ID. Pretty much what I think is the biggest problem in this upcoming election. I do see the GOP trying to steal the election, or at least try to make it easier for their side to win. It is pretty sickening.

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-16-2012/daily-show--democalypse-2012---cockblock-the-vote?xrs=playershare_fb

[Winston Legthigh]

That cap is meaningless. There's no limit on what can be donated to a PAC, nor any limits on what that PAC can do with that money. The money doesn't have to physically go to the candidate to be used in the candidate's favor.

 

I don't argue with any of that. I'm just saying a corporation can't donate directly to a campaign.

[lost highway]

Stewart talks about Voter ID. Pretty much what I think is the biggest problem in this upcoming election. I do see the GOP trying to steal the election, or at least try to make it easier for their side to win. It is pretty sickening.

 

http://www.thedailys...=playershare_fb

 

Yeah I didn't realize how blatantly partisan these laws are. State House Republican, Leader Mike Turzai actually had the balls to brag about it. Pretty shameful stuff.

 

I don't argue with any of that. I'm just saying a corporation can't donate directly to a campaign.

 

You're right. I should propose we tax the PAC and SUPERPACs.

[Sparky speaks]

Don't forget to factor in the cost of those hollow point bullets on the Social Security Fund in your calculations...

 

Social Security Administration Explains Plan to Buy 174,000 Hollow-Point Bullets

 

http://cnsnews.com/n...w-point-bullets

[KevinG]

You're right. I should propose we tax the PAC and SUPERPACs.

 

It is a pretty tricky situation here. Since Citizens United corporations are protected under the first amendment and we don't want to start taxing speech.

 

Really Citizens United needs to be overturned, in order to have any affect on campaigns.

[Sparky speaks]

In case you were wondering...

 

SOCIAL SECURITY

 

Social Security has been running a deficit ever since 2010. There is no trust fund. The trust fund is a pile of IOUs from the Treasury. Here is the wording from the 2012 report from the Trustees of Social Security. "The Department of the Treasury currently invests all program revenues in special non-marketable securities of the U.S. Government which earn a market rate of interest."

 

Therefore, every time the trust fund sends an IOU back to the Treasury, the Treasury must borrow money to be able to send money to Social Security. The deficit in the general fund rises.

 

How much in the hole is Social Security? First, there is the red ink from insufficient FICA tax revenues. Here is what the Trustees of Social Security say.

 

Social Security's expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits.

 

Second, there are interest payments on the IOUs in the so-called trust fund. These payments go from the Treasury to Social Security. The Trustees failed to mention this in the body of the report. That would make things look a lot worse. To find this figure, you must do some digging. I have done it for you. It is reported in an unnamed table about one-third of the way into the report. Social Security's interest income from the general fund in 2011 was $106.5 billion. Add this to the $45 billion deficit, and we get $151.5 billion. That was the total deficit in the program in 2011.

 

We can see where this is headed: deeper into the red-ink lake.

 

At some point, there will be calls in Congress for a tax hike for FICA. My guess is that the earned income subject to the FICA tax will go from $110,000 a year to at least $150,000. This way, the average wage earner will not pay more than what is already scheduled. It will come out of the pockets of the upper middle class. But this is a political issue. Members of Congress will have to test the opposition to any increase. They will make a cost-benefit analysis – for their careers, not the victims' income.

 

All of this is political. It is short term. It is sound and fury signifying little for the total unfunded liability of all of the federal welfare programs. The relentless growth of the unfunded liabilities dwarfs anything that Congress is willing to discuss.

 

http://lewrockwell.c.../north1187.html

[IRememberDBoon]

that article is 100 percent fiction.

 

SS has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus and the idea that its full of "worthless IOUS" is completely insane.

 

"The actual issues with the solvency of Social Security are extremely minor. The massive Social Security trust fund will allow the program to pay out benefits at the current level until 2038. At that point — absent modifications to the program — revenues will only be able to pay out 81 percent of promised benefits. That is to say, if the federal government did absolutely nothing over the next 27 years to shore up Social Security, a one time cut of 19 percent in 2038 would make the program solvent into the infinite horizon. This would be a sub-optimal way forward, but it underscores how solid Social Security is: even at 1.9 workers per retiree, the program could pay out at 81 percent of the current, inflation-adjusted rate without increasing revenue at all."

[Winston Legthigh]

that article is 100 percent fiction.

 

SS has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus and the idea that its full of "worthless IOUS" is completely insane.

 

"The actual issues with the solvency of Social Security are extremely minor. The massive Social Security trust fund will allow the program to pay out benefits at the current level until 2038. At that point — absent modifications to the program — revenues will only be able to pay out 81 percent of promised benefits. That is to say, if the federal government did absolutely nothing over the next 27 years to shore up Social Security, a one time cut of 19 percent in 2038 would make the program solvent into the infinite horizon. This would be a sub-optimal way forward, but it underscores how solid Social Security is: even at 1.9 workers per retiree, the program could pay out at 81 percent of the current, inflation-adjusted rate without increasing revenue at all."

 

So did the GOP destroy the SS fund or not? You're all over the place.

[LouieB]

Here is an op-ed piece from the NY Times today. this one is dedicated to the neocon members of the VC community who say there is no connection between music and politics. Enjoy.

 

LouieB

 

August 18, 2012

 

As Woody Turns 100, We Protest Too Little

 

By LAWRENCE DOWNES

 

In October the Kennedy Center will throw a centennial party for Woody Guthrie, a star-studded concert with tickets topping out at $175. It will be America’s ultimate tribute to a beloved troubadour. “Through his unique music, words and style,” the Kennedy Center says, “Guthrie was able to bring attention and understanding to the critical issues of his day.”

Poor Woody. The life and music of America’s great hobo prophet, its Dust Bowl balladeer, boiled down to this: He brought attention to the critical issues of his day.

Maybe that’s what happens to dissidents who are dead long enough. They are reborn for folk tales and children’s books and PBS pledge drives. They become safe enough for the Postal Service. “For a man who fought all his life against being respectable, this comes as a stunning defeat,” Arlo Guthrie said in 1998, when his father was put on a 32-cent stamp.

Will Kaufman’s book “Woody Guthrie, American Radical” tried to set the record straight last year. The sentimental softening and warping of Woody’s reputation began early, even as he was dying, in the 1960s. But under the saintly folk hero has always been an angry vigilante — a fascist-hating, Communist-sympathizing rabble-rouser who liked to eviscerate his targets, sometimes with violent imagery. He was a man of many contradictions, but he was always against the rich and on the side of the oppressed.

He wrote hard-hitting songs for hard-hit people. Most have never heard them. Many were never set to music, and only a relative handful were ever recorded. The most famous, “This Land Is Your Land,” is too often truncated and misinterpreted. America has a lot of warmth for Woody, but maybe warmth means the pan is off the flame.

Woody’s musical heirs tried their best. But as a protest leader, Bob Dylan is done. Arlo is a Republican; he endorsed Ron Paul in 2008. Pete Seeger is still around, bless him. At President Obama’s inauguration he sang the neglected verses of “This Land Is Your Land,” condemning private property, with Bruce Springsteen and a large choir. But Pete is very old. Bruce writes brilliant stuff, but are people paying attention? None of his darkly challenging populist songs have been able to keep Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey — a Republican who likes to demonize labor unions — from being his near-obsessive fan.

It’s hard to be a troubadour with dangerous ideas if people refuse to be challenged or offended by them. Mitt Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, is a hard-baked right-winger who wants to bleed the government so it has no money to help people but all it needs to wage war. Yet he says one of his favorite bands is Rage Against the Machine, whose members gave inspiration to the Occupy Wall Street movement and organized resistance to the anti-immigrant freak-out in Arizona. This boggles the mind.

Not to sound too morose: Billy Bragg, the British folk-punk-rock singer and Woody Guthrie devotee who sang his own verse of “The Internationale” at a 90th birthday party for Mr. Seeger in 2009, says that creative dissent never died, it just moved on. It’s there in hip-hop and other musical forms; it’s on Facebook and Twitter; it’s people banging pots and pans in the street. And while American folk-protest singers may occupy the tiniest niche on public radio today, people power is still toppling tyrants, mostly overseas.

Some old-schoolers and young artists are rising to the occasion here at home, for the new era of greedy bankers, suffering migrants and dispossessed homeowners. The Woody Guthrie Archives has been helping musicians turn a huge trove of his unpublished, unsung words into music. The singer-songwriter Jonatha Brooke released an album in 2008, called “The Works,” that is made up almost entirely of Woody’s lyrics.Other musicians are making their own statements. Rick Good, a banjo player from Ohio, has a topical

that I like. “It’s not for sale,” he sings, referring to the White House, while grandchildren pass in front of the camera to blast the fat cats with hand-drawn placards, sort of like a Bob Dylan

[uncool2pillow]

Here is an op-ed piece from the NY Timestoday. this one is dedicated to the neocon members of the VC community who say there is no connection between music and politics. Enjoy.

 

LouieB

 

 

Has anyone made this case here? Obviously I'm one of the more right-leaning people here. It it wrong for me to appreciate political music even if I don't appreciate the politics it espouses?

[Tweedling]

I've mentioned in the past about being displeased when I'm at a show and the band/singer rants about politics. I wouldn't watch Bruce Springsteen play at Obamas inauguration but I would pay money for a ticket to go see him live. I find it a bit narrow minded to insinuate because of your political beliefs you can't enjoy music from those artists that don't think the same as you.

[IRememberDBoon]

The federal budget surplus of 2000 quickly disappeared when Bush took office, turning into a sea of red ink. Bush borrowed heavily from the Social Security surplus to help obscure the fact that federal taxes were not bringing in enough revenue to pay for the wars and his tax cuts.

[lost highway]

I've mentioned in the past about being displeased when I'm at a show and the band/singer rants about politics. I wouldn't watch Bruce Springsteen play at Obamas inauguration but I would pay money for a ticket to go see him live. I find it a bit narrow minded to insinuate because of your political beliefs you can't enjoy music from those artists that don't think the same as you.

 

Well, as your post indicates you are comfortable with hearing someone sing their politics, but not speak them.

 

As for what people can and can't enjoy, it is narrow minded and silly to tell people what their capable of appreciating. But it might also be narrow minded in extreme cases (like Paul Ryan listening to Rage Against the Machine) for someone to be a "fan" of something without really taking in its central message. If I listen to Dead Prez I'm going to hear some extreme politics, some of which I don't agree with. It would be goofy if I said I liked Dead Prez just cause it had a good beat. That would be like saying I enjoy the movie Milk, but dislike the gay rights conversation in politics.

 

No one could tell me I can't enjoy things on these terms, but it's still a strange kind of fandom.

[mountain bed]

Has anyone made this case here? Obviously I'm one of the more right-leaning people here. It it wrong for me to appreciate political music even if I don't appreciate the politics it espouses?

 

Of course not, man. But just don't listen to Ted Nugent and you'll be just fine.