Thread: Ron Paul's vision fer old peoples and children...

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Ahoy pirate!

It be a real conundrum pirate...

As SS is a socialist pyramid scheme, and by nature pyramid schemes collapse, sombody will be screwed in the end. Basically it be generational theft.

So what generation should take the hit?

The social security trust fund has been looted by the baby boom generation that have been in control o' Washington fer so long.

Perhaps it be them that deserve to get screwed.

YARRRR!


- Capt'n Hairball

You see, this is exactly the kind of Goebbels-like propaganda ministries like Fox spew.

Social Security is a social insurance program, not a pyramid scheme. And it was the great socialist Ronald Reagan, who stole $3 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class and transferred it to the opulent. He raided Social Security to pay for his tax rake off to the opulent...says who? The father of Reaganomics told me...

Looting Social Security
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

You see, this is exactly the kind of Goebbels-like propaganda ministries like Fox spew, and parrots repeat.

Social Security is a social insurance program, not a pyramid scheme. And it was the great socialist Ronald Reagan, who stole $3 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class and transferred it to the opulent. He raided Social Security to pay for his tax rake off to the opulent...says who? The father of Reaganomics told me...

Looting Social Security
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

But not all is lost, I'm sure MeadHallPirate needs a parrot...

ahoy Bfgrn,

matey, 'tis not that i think the entitlement plans be a pyramid scheme...nor do i think it be a ponzi scheme.

here be what i do think, though....

the monies that was collected by the government was then used fer various other pursuits, be it wars, or highways, or pell grants, or NASA, or any number 'o other worthy (or unworthy, as the case may be) spendin'. them programs were voted in, by the electorate, and now that the same electorate be agin', well....they want thar cake and they want to eat it too.

that vexes me, as its me who be payin' fer the cake. hell, if them folks were blameless in votin' fer politicians who enacted the very policies (many 'o which ye mentioned) that led us to this point, i'd not have such vitriol fer them...but they're responsible, thar be no gettin' around it.

me anger be even more volatile on this topic when it comes to conservatives, specifically, elder conservatives. they want low taxes...they want a huge military...they want thar ss and medicare...

and they don't want to pay fer it.

worse yet, they be fine with Paul Ryan's proposal that i indeed pay fer thar cake, and after they eat thar cake, well....then we can have fiscal discipline (just in time fer me own retirement), and them programs can finally be "reformed" into oblivion.

can't ye see how i find this a bit upsettin'?

i find it more nettlesome that Dr. Paul, who ought to know better, be fine with this program (as he's endorsed Mr. Ryan's plan fer the future).

i've bought this point up several times in the last few years, and the sober response to me always be a variant of, "what can i say, Mead...it sucks, but life isn't fair."

i find that answer very unsastifyin' me friend.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Bfgrn,

matey, 'tis not that i think the entitlement plans be a pyramid scheme...nor do i think it be a ponzi scheme.

here be what i do think, though....

the monies that was collected by the government was then used fer various other pursuits, be it wars, or highways, or pell grants, or NASA, or any number 'o other worthy (or unworthy, as the case may be) spendin'. them programs were voted in, by the electorate, and now that the same electorate be agin', well....they want thar cake and they want to eat it too.

that vexes me, as its me who be payin' fer the cake. hell, if them folks were blameless in votin' fer politicians who enacted the very policies (many 'o which ye mentioned) that led us to this point, i'd not have such vitriol fer them...but they're responsible, thar be no gettin' around it.

me anger be even more volatile on this topic when it comes to conservatives, specifically, elder conservatives. they want low taxes...they want a huge military...they want thar ss and medicare...

and they don't want to pay fer it.

worse yet, they be fine with Paul Ryan's proposal that i indeed pay fer thar cake, and after they eat thar cake, well....then we can have fiscal discipline (just in time fer me own retirement), and them programs can finally be "reformed" into oblivion.

can't ye see how i find this a bit upsettin'?

i find it more nettlesome that Dr. Paul, who ought to know better, be fine with this program (as he's endorsed Mr. Ryan's plan fer the future).

i've bought this point up several times in the last few years, and the sober response to me always be a variant of, "what can i say, Mead...it sucks, but life isn't fair."

i find that answer very unsastifyin' me friend.

- MeadHallPirate

Stealing is stealing, even when it is not a poor person who would end up in prison. From the father of Reaganomics:

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables–a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror–are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/02/...cial-security/

Even if the financial system was regulated, it wouldn't make Social Security sustainable, and it wasn't sustainable from the beginning. If it had been sustainable, it wouldn't have been necessary to make the tax 7 times higher than when it started. The program was sold with a "low introductory rate". if FDR had been honest and quoted a 15% tax from the start, the public would have opposed the program.

Ever notice how all liberal programs start out at a low introductory rate? That's the very definition of predatory.

Originally Posted by adaher

Even if the financial system was regulated, it wouldn't make Social Security sustainable, and it wasn't sustainable from the beginning. If it had been sustainable, it wouldn't have been necessary to make the tax 7 times higher than when it started. The program was sold with a "low introductory rate". if FDR had been honest and quoted a 15% tax from the start, the public would have opposed the program.

Ever notice how all liberal programs start out at a low introductory rate? That's the very definition of predatory.

From the father of Reaganomics:

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

Stealing is stealing, even when it is not a poor person who would end up in prison. From the father of Reaganomics:

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables–a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror–are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

Hmmm...

So Bfgrn ...

Are you Craig Roberts or are you just plagiarizing what he wrote?

Originally Posted by hairballxavier

Hmmm...

So Bfgrn ...

Are you Craig Roberts or are you just plagiarizing what he wrote?

No plagiarizing going on. I'm not dishonest, are you? Post # 242 is pretext to the excerpts...

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

You see, this is exactly the kind of Goebbels-like propaganda ministries like Fox spew.

Social Security is a social insurance program, not a pyramid scheme. And it was the great socialist Ronald Reagan, who stole $3 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class and transferred it to the opulent. He raided Social Security to pay for his tax rake off to the opulent...says who? The father of Reaganomics told me...

Looting Social Security
by PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

Stealing is stealing, even when it is not a poor person who would end up in prison. From the father of Reaganomics:

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables–a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror–are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

ahoy Bfgrn,

matey, i agree with alot 'o what ye write, so please don't take this as a hostile salvo imma lobbin' at ye...but actions have consquences.

i understand what yer sayin'.

i understand the mantra 'o the Reagan administration...to starve the beast, somethin' that David Stockman owns up to.

imma just sayin' that the Greatest Generation (which hath largely passed away now) and the Baby Boomers did this, and now they have to own it. the acolytes 'o President Reagan, the vast ocean 'o republicans who even now venerate him and the Baby Boomers who hath run our nation o'er the last few decades did this to us. they wanted thar low taxes, they wanted thar profuse government spendin' and now the check be due, particularly with medicare.

if aggressive efforts aren't made to make sure them entitlement plans are funded and reformed now, this very moment, then i say cut'm immediately.

i refuse to pay fer these plans as they are fer the next three to four decades so the Baby Boomers can sail off into the sunset and have me own generation bulloxed outta my share, which be line and verse what congressman Paul and congressman Ryan be proposin'. imma not interested.

what imma describin' be not class warfare, but it is generational warfare thats bein' waged on folks in me age group.

YARRRRR!

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Bfgrn,

matey, i agree with alot 'o what ye write, so please don't take this as a hostile salvo imma lobbin' at ye...but actions have consquences.

i understand what yer sayin'.

i understand the mantra 'o the Reagan administration...to starve the beast, somethin' that David Stockman owns up to.

imma just sayin' that the Greatest Generation (which hath largely passed away now) and the Baby Boomers did this, and now they have to own it. the acolytes 'o President Reagan, the vast ocean 'o republicans who even now venerate him and the Baby Boomers who hath run our nation o'er the last few decades did this to us. they wanted thar low taxes, they wanted thar profuse government spendin' and now the check be due, particularly with medicare.

if aggressive efforts aren't made to make sure them entitlement plans are funded and reformed now, this very moment, then i say cut'm immediately.

i refuse to pay fer these plans as they are fer the next three to four decades so the Baby Boomers can sail off into the sunset and have me own generation bulloxed outta my share, which be line and verse what congressman Paul and congressman Ryan be proposin'. imma not interested.

what imma describin' be not class warfare, but it is generational warfare thats bein' waged on folks in me age group.

YARRRRR!

- MeadHallPirate

I understand your concern. But, A) two wrongs don't make a right, and B) the debate is being framed by conservative chicken littles who suddenly say the sky is falling. It is not. WHERE were these doomsayers when Bush was in office? Debt, what debt? Raise the debt ceiling? No problem; 7 times in 8 years.

What I learned from hanging out with deficit hawks

A David Walker speech is always worth listening to with care, for Mr. Walker is a reliable and thorough enumerator of popular deficit-scare themes. Three of these in particular caught my attention on Friday.

To my surprise, Walker began on a disarming note: he acknowledged that the level of our national debt is not actually high. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. And to give more credit, the number Walker used, 63 percent, refers to debt held by the public, which is the correct construct — not the 90+ percent figure for gross debt, commonly seen in press reports and in comparisons with other countries. The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

I understand your concern. But, A) two wrongs don't make a right, and B) the debate is being framed by conservative chicken littles who suddenly say the sky is falling. It is not. WHERE were these doomsayers when Bush was in office? Debt, what debt? Raise the debt ceiling? No problem; 7 times in 8 years.

What I learned from hanging out with deficit hawks

A David Walker speech is always worth listening to with care, for Mr. Walker is a reliable and thorough enumerator of popular deficit-scare themes. Three of these in particular caught my attention on Friday.

To my surprise, Walker began on a disarming note: he acknowledged that the level of our national debt is not actually high. In relation to GDP, it is only a bit over half of what it was in 1946. And to give more credit, the number Walker used, 63 percent, refers to debt held by the public, which is the correct construct — not the 90+ percent figure for gross debt, commonly seen in press reports and in comparisons with other countries. The relevant number is today below where it was in the mid-1950s, and comparable to the early 1990s.

ahoy Bfgrn,

imma familiar with Mr. Walker....both he and Paul Krugman would agree that the hysteria o'er debt be o'erstated and propelled by partisan hysteria, and imma not disagreein' with them, to a point.

the unfunded nature 'o our healthcare entitlements, however, be a real issue....'tis not manufactured. as the weight 'o these programs continue to swell o'er the next few decades, they'll become unsustainable in thar current form, just in time fer me to reach me own retirement.

this cannot continue, and it be inherently unfair that the babyboomers insist that a) taxes remain low, b) the entitlement plans continue as they are, c) government spendin' continues unabated on things like our drug war, fossil fuel subsidies, our immense military, building a 2000 mile militarized fence across our southern border etc, etc. my vitriol in this case be especially reserved fer conservatives who are 55 and older, but 'tis a generational thing that Reagan democrats also be guilty of.

please understand that me anger o'er this issue be not partisan, fer its not a partisan issue, really.

'tis a generational one, and Mr. Walker does not address this.

the programs either need to be reformed and paid fer now, or they need to aggressively cut (or even ended), now. today.

- MeadHallPirate

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Bfgrn,

imma familiar with Mr. Walker....both he and Paul Krugman would agree that the hysteria o'er debt be o'erstated and propelled by partisan hysteria, and imma not disagreein' with them, to a point.

the unfunded nature 'o our healthcare entitlements, however, be a real issue....'tis not manufactured. as the weight 'o these programs continue to swell o'er the next few decades, they'll become unsustainable in thar current form, just in time fer me to reach me own retirement.

this cannot continue, and it be inherently unfair that the babyboomers insist that a) taxes remain low, b) the entitlement plans continue as they are, c) government spendin' continues unabated on things like our drug war, fossil fuel subsidies, our immense military, building a 2000 mile militarized fence across our southern border etc, etc. my vitriol in this case be especially reserved fer conservative senior citizens, but 'tis a generational thing that Reagan democrats also be guilty of.

please understand that me anger o'er this issue be not partisan, fer its not a partisan issue, really.

'tis a generational one, and Mr. Walker does not address this.

the programs either need to be reformed and paid fer now, or they need to aggressively cut (or even ended), now. today.

- MeadHallPirate

I don't believe it is a generational thing. It is a partisan thing. As long as Grover Norquist has control over the Republicans with his no tax pledge, the only avenue is cutting these critical social services, which is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. We need to raise the marginal tax rates like we did to pay for the Great Depression and World War II. We need to reform corporate tax by lowering it to 25% and eliminate all loopholes.

But we don't have any Democrats with a spine. They were assassinated.

Originally Posted by Bfgrn

I don't believe it is a generational thing. It is a partisan thing. As long as Grover Norquist has control over the Republicans with his no tax pledge, the only avenue is cutting these critical social services, which is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. We need to raise the marginal tax rates like we did to pay for the Great Depression and World War II. We need to reform corporate tax by lowering it to 25% and eliminate all loopholes.

But we don't have any Democrats with a spine. They were assassinated.

ahoy Bfgrn,

perhaps me hearty....perhaps...i don't really agree though, at least not any longer. i see a POTUS who be more attached to the idear 'o bein' a two term president than showin' he hath iron in his will. i see taxes lowered, not raised...i see corporate loopholes so big i can sail me ship through them....i see the Bush tax cuts now bein' the Obama tax cuts.

so no, 'tis a generational issue, 'tis moved beyond partisan politics.

and i say this;

whats good fer the goose is good fer the gander. them 55 and older conservatives want fiscal discipline? well, i'll give to'm with both barrels. cut the entitlement plans and let'm bleed, as i will bleed.

see how they like it...and to bring this back to me OP, Ron Paul be a grotesque dissapointment on this topic, fer he endorses Ryancare.

- MeadHallPirate

ps - so ye know whar i stand on this topic in general, imma fer single payer...but Joe Leiberman frowned at Mr. Obama and thats all it took fer him to raise the white flag and surrender. that really, really ticked me off, aye.

Originally Posted by MeadHallPirate

ahoy Bfgrn,

perhaps me hearty....perhaps...i don't really agree though, at least not any longer. i see a POTUS who be more attached to the idear 'o bein' a two term president than showin' he hath iron in his will. i see taxes lowered, not raised...i see corporate loopholes so big i can sail me ship through them....i see the Bush tax cuts now bein' the Obama tax cuts.

so no, 'tis a generational issue, 'tis moved beyond partisan politics.

and i say this;

whats good fer the goose is good fer the gander. them 55 and older conservatives want fiscal discipline? well, i'll give to'm with both barrels. cut the entitlement plans and let'm bleed, as i will bleed.

see how they like it...and to bring this back to me OP, Ron Paul be a grotesque dissapointment on this topic, fer he endorses Ryancare.

- MeadHallPirate

ps - so ye know whar i stand on this topic in general, imma fer single payer...but Joe Leiberman frowned at Mr. Obama and thats all it took fer him to raise the white flag and surrender. that really, really ticked me off, aye.

I agree that Obama is spineless, and too many Democrats are the same. The Senator from Aetna was a huge roadblock, but so was that little weasel Rahm. The only thing I can say, is as disappointed as I am with the Democrats, I don't see Republicans as anything other than a danger.