Let the "moderate" Democrats fault on the debt! (0.00 / 0)

We're becoming a third-world nation by every other measure. Why make an exception in this case? Let them do it! That'll sure show us progressives! And the rest of the world too! You think the global economy's bad now? You just wait! Don't mess with the U.S. conservative proto-fascist agenda!

Yeah. They should do that. That'll learn us alright!

---

by: Michael Harold @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 08:07:47 AM CST

On Moderates (4.00 / 2)

By the way, why is it that politicians who want to do things that put lots of cash into the pockets of the wealthiest at the expense of the rest of us are always called "moderates" and "centrists?"

Because they stand between the "liberals," who don't want to put lots of cash into the pockets of the wealthiest at the expense of the rest of us, and the "conservatives," who want a revolution followed by a theocracy based on racial stratification.

(disclaimer: this post is a joke.  Kind of.  One of those "joking, but I really mean it" kind of deals, I suppose.)

---

by: DavidN @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 09:12:33 AM CST

Just stop. This is a pure myth. (0.00 / 0)

"The reason Social Security is a "problem" is that, starting with Reagan, the huge surplus from the Social Security payroll tax was used to give tax cuts to the rich."

There were no huge surplus from the Social Security payroll tax in the Reagan years and what surplus there was only financed a tiny fraction of either Reagan's tax cut or his defense spending. I am all for bashing Reagan for his sins of commission but on Social Security he was forced into doing the right thing totally against his will, he tried to kill Social Security in 1981, failed, and ended up cutting a deal with Tip O'Neill that saved Social Security for at least a generation.

Neither Ronald Reagan or Bush I did a single thing to 'raid' Social Security during their tenure. The main goal of the Greenspan Commission was to keep retirement checks flowing while slowly rebuilding the Trust Fund back to their mandated level over a ten-year period. And their cobbled together deal did exactly that, Bush I handed Clinton a Trust Fund which by inauguration day was precisely where the law mandates it to be, no more and no less. The big surpluses in Social Security didn't start until 1996 and were neither planned for or anticipated by the Commissioners in 1981-82.

Reagan deserves plenty of blame for all kinds of things. But he ended up turning over a healthier Social Security system to Bush I than the one he received. In this case the numbers just don't lie.
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/200...

The problem is not that this is just a myth, it actually plays into the hands of the people who want to kill Social Security. They want people to believe that in the end you just can't trust government to do anything at all. Perpetuating the myth that Reagan stole Social Security to fund tax cuts just assists their cynical selling of  that underlying message. Progressives by accepting this particular myth are biting into the poison fruit.

Yes Reagan bashing is fun. No it is not always productive. Just stop.

---

by: Bruce Webb @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 11:53:58 AM CST

The tax cuts were funded by the Social Security Payroll Tax (0.00 / 0)

There is no way around it. Reagan's tax cuts were funded by the Social Security payroll tax hike and borrowing.

If you think otherwise, tell me where the money that was built up in that trust fund IS, if not gone to tax cuts?

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

---

by: DaveJ @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 14:16:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Clarification (0.00 / 0)

OK I see what has you upset. It's the word "surplus."  

I am writing about the additional revenue from the payroll tax increase.  In the Reagan years the increased revenue was not generating as much of a surplus as it later did.  But it was this revenue, coming from working people's payroll taxes, that helped make the tax cuts for the wealthy seem to be having less of a negative effect.

But the fact is that the money that should now be funding Social Security payments is gone, and it is gone because taxes were cut for the rich.  

So NOW they are asking regular working people to cut back their retirement, rather than raise taxes at the top to cover the money that was borrowed from Social Security.  Any cuts in Social Security really is a default on the debt.  Why they pick Social Security bonds to default on in particular rather than bonds for rich people that are in Cayman Islands banks, is open to discussion.

--

Seeing The Forest -- Who is our economy FOR, anyway? Twitter: dcjohnson

---

by: DaveJ @ Wed Nov 25, 2009 at 15:44:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]