Social Security Reform
The Republicans want "Social Security reform" to solidify and make permanent the tax gains they achieved in the 1980s and under Bush the lesser. The Social Security Trust Fund surplus, generated by increases in the payroll tax passed in the 1980s, has made the massive tax reductions for the wealthy possible. Surprisingly, the wealthy are so greedy they do not want to share this money with the rest of us.
Yes, there is money to pay for our government including Social Security, Medicare, health care for all of us, infrastructure, and whatever else you might need. Somebody has it, and that somebody is the folks that got the tax reductions paid for with our increased payroll taxes. Tell those greedy folks you have had it up to here with them.
Whenever you hear anyone propose Social Security reform, there is one and only one reform to support:
1. Raise the ceiling on the the payroll taxes (eliminate it) and expand it to non-payroll income.
2. Continue the benefits under current practices (as if the ceiling were not eliminated).
3. Use the surplus thus generated to solve the health care finance problems.
Now cross posted with more discussion @ dagblog.
Yes, there is money to pay for our government including Social Security, Medicare, health care for all of us, infrastructure, and whatever else you might need. Somebody has it, and that somebody is the folks that got the tax reductions paid for with our increased payroll taxes. Tell those greedy folks you have had it up to here with them.
Whenever you hear anyone propose Social Security reform, there is one and only one reform to support:
1. Raise the ceiling on the the payroll taxes (eliminate it) and expand it to non-payroll income.
2. Continue the benefits under current practices (as if the ceiling were not eliminated).
3. Use the surplus thus generated to solve the health care finance problems.
Now cross posted with more discussion @ dagblog.
Advertisement
Absolutely!
Exactly!
January 31, 2009 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Son of a Bush
January 31, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
You say expand it to non-payroll income. But what about taking out of your retirement? Or social security itself? Would you tax these two as well? Or did you have just investment income outside retirement accounts in mind?
January 31, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would, of course, recommend exempting Social Security income. I favor exempting Social Security from income tax.
Other forms of retirement are more complicated as they involve investment income. Some compromise would have to be worked out.
January 31, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Social Security is already taxed! But you mean the "social security tax" I assume.
That would be a pretty heavy tax for retirement money if it's both taxed, as it is, and then taxed for the social security you're already getting. In many cases, with the current tax on social security anyway, I'd bet the entire social security amount would become null and void, once you pill on all the taxes. Maybe I'm overdoing it, but if that happens, it then becomes a reason to save less in your retirement account, I'd think.
January 31, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"once you PAY on all the taxes" (not pill!) Oh, what the fingers do when you're not paying attention...
January 31, 2009 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I mean I oppose the current tax policy of taxing Social Security Income. It is a regressive tax. I favor removing Social Security Income from taxable income.
January 31, 2009 1:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The amount of taxes paid on Social Security income depends on gross income. There is a point before which SS income is *not* taxed. And the tax is progressive after that.
January 31, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The payroll tax floor stops at approximately $100 thousand right now. The marginal rate just above that is MINUS 15% and the so called progressive rate for all amounts higher than that never quite catches up to the amount of a person just below $100 K. THAT IS NOT PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.
The marginal rate (on income) excluding payroll taxes at $100 K is either 25 or 28 %, depending on precise circumstances. It NEVER goes above 35% (and that excludes special benefits for investment income). The marginal rate including payroll tax at the maximum income taxable for social security, is 40 to 43% depending on precise circumstances. and the payroll tax alone never goes below 15%. We do not have a progressive tax system.
January 31, 2009 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have said the change in the marginal rate is minus 15%.
January 31, 2009 3:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you talking about FICA? Or are you talking about SS income? I thought you were talking about SS income, but I think your talking about FICA...
Are you saying, then, that the FICA portion of one's income shouldn't be taxed?
January 31, 2009 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
FICA is the payroll tax.
January 31, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both FICA (the payroll tax) and taxation on Social Security have been discussed here. If you follow the thread of thought, it is not difficult to keep them straight.
With respect to FICA, I have suggested taking the lid off.
With respect to taxation of Social Security benefits, I have suggested eliminating the current practice and going back to the old practice of exempting Social Security.
With respect to the amount of Social Security benefits, I have suggested continuing current practices AS IF we did NOT take the lid off of FICA.
January 31, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said, a compromise would have to be worked out. I would not favor exempting large amounts of private retirement income because that would produce a way around taxing investment income. However, a small amount (something equal maybe to the maximum SS benefit?) might be exempted.
January 31, 2009 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I'm beginning to like your ideas here. I like the exemption you suggest for retirement accounts for two reasons. First it's more equitable and protects those who have managed to accumulate the least that way. Second, since "investing" can result in either profits or losses, it protects people when the market turns down at a time they need to access the money.
I am all for a progressive tax system. And for years it has been very unfair that people who can most easily pay that social security tax are the ones allowed to avoid it on much of what they earn.
I have another question. Self-employed people are obliged to pay that tax twice, as both employer and employee, so 15+%. I'm assuming that if one's retirement account distributions are taxed for social security purposes, you mean the 7.5% and not the 15%.
Thanks for enlarging on this. :)
January 31, 2009 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
TheraP, at present I am discussing the general idea, not all the specifics. I know the specifics have to be worked out. But the basic idea is to get past the notion that investment income is exempt. Many people, such as the bankers who brought us the current economic crisis, are able to decide up front to manipulate how their income comes to them so that it is "earned income" or "investment income" whichever is more tax favorable (and with that choice, it will ALWAYS be investment income). The point is simply to eliminate any benefit of making such a selection and give everyone the same tax floor.
If we have a 15% tax floor on income of people who earn $6 an hour, why should people who earn much more than that have a lower tax floor? If 15% is too high for higher incomes, why not restructure it so that the amount is lower for people with lower incomes? If we are going to exempt retirement income, then we should exempt the same amount for everyone. I am not proposing a punitive system, just one that is reasonably fair to everyone.
Also, while there are poor elderly, it is families with children who are the poorest people in the US (and those families all pay 15% payroll tax on all their non-"welfare" income), so after exempting plenty of income at the lower levels, this policy would produce a fairer tax and benefit system within the country.
January 31, 2009 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I see where you're going with this. In that case "tax reform" - as opposed to social security reform - is really you're discussing. And I don't mean to be side-tracking you with details, but for some people, the devil is in the details.
I'm hoping Obama, through his bully pulpit and ability to teach and ask for responsibility, can help people see the wisdom of everyone paying their fair share.
Honestly, I think your topic is tax reform period.
January 31, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have been a cruel country with regard to the poor and disabled. A country that has punished those who are at the bottom. And that's just wrong! It grieves me.
January 31, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
FYI it is more like 13% because only something like 92% of the income is subject to the 15% rate. Silly, but true.
Social Security payments should be a safety net. That is, if you have other income, the SS payments should decrease over a certain threshold. So if you have pension or investment or a part-time job, you should get less SS. It should not be punitive but I think it's wrong to pay out SS to people who have say $100K other income, and I'd argue that even $50K total income is in the realm of reductions.
January 31, 2009 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I completely oppose all means testing for Social Security. Means testing is demeaning for those who are eligible and those who are not eligible. The benefit should go to all, but should not exceed a ceiling based on the current schedule where the maximum benefit goes to those with roughly $100 k in taxable income. The ceiling should rise with current practices.
I repeat, means testing is demeaning and degrading for those eligible, for those not eligible, and for those employed in the business of means testing.
January 31, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
How is means testing demeaning in a bad way?
(that's your term, but I'm willing to use it here)
SS is a SAFETY NET not a PENSION PLAN.
January 31, 2009 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
But, even if it were, I would remain opposed to means tested programs. I worked on the front lines of means tested programs early in my career. The whole practice is demeaning (as in subjecting people to humiliating processes) for both the clientèle and the workers. Why would we ever believe that basic human wellbeing should be denied those who aren't quite broke this month. The whole process saves us small sums of money while giving away our human dignity.
January 31, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have never voted for a Republican candidate.
Try again. This time don't just assert that it's inaccurate, say why you believe this. It came out of the Depression along with unemployment insurance, another safety net function. If it has been abused historically since than as if it were a pension plan, we should fix that not act proud of the abuse. The abuse is part of what is killing the future of the country.
Basic human wellbeing is exactly SAFETY NET. But people making $50K in retirement are well above the poverty level, for instance, so your attempt fails the test of reason. People making $100K are wealthy. They don't need SS payments.
January 31, 2009 7:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
But $400K isn't enough for a Bank CEO?
I think you confuse me.
January 31, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you muddle apples with oranges but can't make tasty fruit salad here. Fair 'nuf?
January 31, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I acknowledge that you wish it was a welfare program, but it isn't, never was and never will be.
January 31, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
SS is and was in no way shape or form a matter of promoting the general welfare?
If you're not kidding, ick.
January 31, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess no one can argue with the Clown Face. He knows all.
All hail to the Clown Face!
We're not worthy!
We're not worthy!
January 31, 2009 8:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Arguing with a clown might be more fun than arguing with an internet idiot!
January 31, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Social Security has become a pension plan for millions of Americans as companies no longer provided that benefit. We need to expand the program to cover what is needed, not keep shoving it back into a box of what was designed for a completely different age.
February 1, 2009 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds ducky to me. The amount received in benefits should be taxed for those making a certain sum of money and I do not care if its dividends, interest, capital gains or lottery winnings.
Good, simple, post!!!
January 31, 2009 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, great conversation. rec'd
January 31, 2009 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking consumer goods should take the hit if we're looking at increasing taxes..
I'd begin with a 25% tax on all beer selling for more than $12/case, 50% tax on beer going for more than $15/ case, and tax beer selling for more than $20/case at 75%.
The more expensive cuts of meat should be taxed the same way. 70/30 hamburger at 10%, 80/20 at 15%, round steak at 30%, ribeye at 50% etc.
The more expensive the cable TV package, the higher the tax rate should be.
Those enjoying luxuries in life the rest of us can't afford should be footing their part of the bill at some point.
January 31, 2009 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello, everyone, please do not feed this troll!
January 31, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Especially the likes of you!!!
January 31, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is called reductio ad absurdum and is no way to debate a subject. Social Security is hardly a luxury benefit and is something we all pay into. If you knew anyone actually living on SSI, you might not be so cavalier in your attitude, though I doubt it.
Social Security is no longer sufficient to what is needed, however, because American businesses no longer provide pensions, so many citizens have no opportunity to belong to group plans that pay out better benefits. We need to start pooling our resources across all classes and geographical regions in this country if we are truly going 5to design sustainable solutions.
We can no longer afford greed and selfishness from those citizens who have the most at the expense of those who have least. It's called living up to our creed and nothing could more patriotic.
I guess you're not a patriot if you advocate fellow citizens skipping their medications and eating dog food.
February 1, 2009 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nupe, you're wrong again.
I know a number of people who draw SSI. From reading your comment, I figure I'm more familiar with it than you. For your benefit, and that of others who might read this, I'll describe a typical SSI award.
A typical SSI recipient lacks a high school education, generally changes low wage jobs often, and if they have skills, they're generally in the construction trades or automotive repair. Often they’re being paid under the table to begin with.
Their income is sporadic and they begin to envy those in their social circle who are drawing SSI and enjoy more leisure time, have Medicaid, and have a guarantee of being able to pay their rent and utility bills the first O.
They begin questioning SSI recipients on how to get on a check. I've found myself in round table (cable spool, under shade trees, drinking twelve packs) seminars where two or three SSI recipients counseled an SSI aspirant on the process of getting on it. In the vernacular of this social class, these checks are known as ‘nut checks”.
The aspiring recipient is instructed to attend mental health 'group sessions' and is advised on how to participate with, among other stories, tales of childhood sexual abuse by a deceased relative etc. etc.. All, really, the participant has to do attend long enough to gain the sympathy of a twenty-five year old social worker and have her sign off on to their well rehearsed sob story.
From this point on in their life, they are forced to work under the table because SSI only pays a little over $500/mo. This may sound innocuous, but it’s one of the big, bad reasons social security is broke. And you ignorant Marxists bear 100% of the blame.
February 1, 2009 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You merely prove my point - the system no longer meets the needs of our citizens. How many people with real pension benefits go to round table discussions to figure out how to get their retirement started?
SSI is broken, thanks in large part to the "conservatives" you have canonized, but that doesn't mean the need has gone away. Like most of our debates in this country, it is come down to "either this or that" debates that do nothing to solve the problem.
Society is hardly a Marxist concept, though your vision for this country is one that Stalin would envy.
February 1, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice, Jason. Funny. First off, the troll is confusing SSDI with SSI. They are quite different, and it doesn't surprise me that the troll wants to conflate the two.
The people I know drawing SSDI have real problems, progressive degenerate diseases, disabilities, etc. and frankly, it's hard to hide that sort of thing. It tends to leap out at you. Go to any rooming house in any city and you will meet some. They are the forgotten in our society, and their road is FAR from easy.
They do tend to hold low wage jobs, and not for long, because they are too ill to work for long stretches, and the low end jobs tend to be the only ones that will take on people with limited capacities. I have always thought that ways should be found to help them become contributing members of society, for that is something most of them want to be.
I do think the above nonsense was lifted hook line and sinker from some FREEPer board. It is such typical nonsense that is used to scare and anger the witless and gullible (Welfare Queen driving a cadillac, anyone?) that I felt as if I was in a time warp back to the Reagan years.
There is no doubt some abuse in SSDI, but I seriously doubt the small percentage of scammers outweighs the help it gives to our injured, sick, and disabled.
It strikes me as evil that anyone would try to make that case, actually. It's petty.
February 1, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both of my parents are on SSDI, so I am quite familiar with the demeaning process of actually proving you are ill enough to warrant a little help. Took a congress woman to help my Mom get hers, so something is obviously broken.
I applaud renaye's continued intransigence. It helps moderate republicans begin to recognize the crazy, ultra-right wackos who have taken over the party of Lincoln. The louder they are the more resounding their losses in the 2010 primaries.
I say the crazier the better.
February 1, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK.
=D
Fair enough, and I am sorry about your folks. Truly.
February 1, 2009 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. It isn't much money, but it does let them worry more about getting well than about what's for dinner that night.
February 1, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Which is precisely what it was meant to do.
Thanks Jason.
February 1, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, though I think it could do much more if we redesigned the system in an intelligent manner that takes better advantage of economies of scale. We reply on a 20th Century solution that doesn't take advantage of 21st Century analysis.
February 1, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
You'll get no argument from me there. I think Marq's proposals will move that equation forward.
The time for caps and protecting the weathy at the expense of everyone else is over.
February 1, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is an argument to be made for a number of creative solutions.
The caps and class discussion is an important one, though selling it as such strikes a sour not with many Americans who have been sold on the idea that will be rich someday, too. They have to be sold on the idea that they never will be in order to support such class distinctions. That is a tough sale at the best of times.
What progressives need is a way to discuss common sense solutions without making them sound like self-evident truths. There is a play to be made to conservative patriotism that will match liberal populism all focused on smart, progressive solutions.
But to get there, we need to understand that some of the final solution set may include items that we don't personally support.
February 1, 2009 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great ideas, Marquis! I like what you have to say. Just getting social security taxes coming in on the billions of bonus bucks would have us rolling in dough for the things we need!
The payroll tax is the most regressive of all; the smaller your income, the bigger percentage of it goes into the Social Security system. And the outgoing payments are not means-tested.
You go! Oh, and Renny is kinda like an annoying little squeak you hear from time to time; oiling it with responses only makes THIS pip-squeak louder, so I agree. Ignore.
January 31, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly, CVille. Low-income folks already take the biggest hit from inflation and sales taxes.
Folks who are forced to spend 100% of their income on necessities don't have anywhere have limited choices when prices go up - they weren't going to Starbucks or movies to begin with so they can't cut back there. Inflation means less healthy food and more junk food (which costs far less per calorie). Which leads to more health problems, which leads to bigger expenses for Medicaid.
The trickle down robber barons have never understood that the richer they get the more it costs society as a whole.
January 31, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good good points.
I think there comes a point where riches rob these barons of their potential humanity. 'They' just have no idea. And Gulliani sp says it hurts the economy when the rich do not get bonuses.
Some just refuse to step in the shoes of those who have less, of those who work two jobs, or one job and take care of children.
January 31, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points; rec'd.
From what I've read, most of the potential funding problems in the future are with Medicare as opposed to SS (retirement and disability) anyway, so I completely agree that we should not be fooled with the Republicans Orwellian "reform" proposals.
January 31, 2009 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd Marquis. It bothers me that the protection & insurance for our retirement lops off high incomes from paying. The fact is, those same high income people could have been laid low by any of a 1000 things in life, and become utterly dependent on the fund. Surely, knowing this, they'd be willing to pay a bit more, since things worked out well?
January 31, 2009 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Needs testing helps prevent abuse.
Why is it that all lefties assuming that the rich are evil people, but the poor are pure?
Any government proposal should include needs testing. That includes TARP, that includes Social Security. What most people have to do for 40 years to earn a living is more demeaning than needs testing. If you find it demeaning, I suggest you see a shrink.
January 31, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I encourage you to go with someone to apply for food stamps, Medicaid, or TANF. Go through the whole process. The process is dehumanizing for both the eligibility worker and the clientèle. The government should not be in the business of dehumanizing its population.
Social Security provides a floor amount for retirement for everyone who has participated. People who are 40s, 50s, or 60s have relied on the availability of Social Security as part of their retirement planning for 20 to 40 years. Cutting it out with means testing would deprive them of a substantial share of their quality of life. THAT would be outrageous.
January 31, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now Marq, you said not to feed the troll.
=D
Meet the new troll, same as the old troll....
January 31, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I HAVE gone for food stamps, bub. And I've used unemployment benefits.
If you had gone for food stamps as I have, you would have seen that some people really needed them, and some people didn't. I know this from their own admission.
Get off your pretentious soapbox. I don't need pompous leftie nitwits like you to tell me how I feel about things.
There's nothing demeaning about needs testing. Except maybe if you are an elitist and have to rub shoulders with the real common man for the first time in your ivory tower life.
January 31, 2009 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been on both sides of the food stamps eligibility determination. It is inhumane. Folks who sit in the waiting room will say many things to retain their dignity, so what you think you know amounts to little.
January 31, 2009 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect. You got called on your BS, so now you simply say I don't count.
Needs testing should always be in place. For the rich, for the poor, for everyone. Makes life easy.
January 31, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry (everyone else) I didn't realize that this was spric, aka, Renaye coming back in a 3rd identity.
PLEASE DON'T FEED THIS TROLL, EITHER.
January 31, 2009 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
A troll for you apparently is someone who won't bow down to your arrogant opinion. I noticed that since you were informed I had been on food stamps you now get to calling me a troll.
If you want to listen to the poor, why don't you listen? Oh, I forgot, you aren't interested in listening to the poor. You already know what is good for me.
January 31, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trolls never have their own original blogs, they just try to hijack other blogs. If you have something to say, start your own blog and stop trying to hijack this one. You proposed means testing, I gave my reasons why that is a bad idea. Your continued harangue is trolling. It appears that you are spric/renaye with another login.
January 31, 2009 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
For some reason my response ended up down below.
But let's summarize:
You proposed no means testing.
I said, no, it's valuable.
Then you said, very arrogantly, that I should go with someone to get food stamps, etc.
And I, who have been on food stamps, should take such a pompous condescending statement and not respond??? That's trolling to you?
You must be used to having your ass kissed all day, because the shock that I didn't qualified me as a troll to you.
January 31, 2009 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Marquis, but I have to go with YIKES! on this one.
He made a fairly straight forward argument and you started calling him a troll almost from word one. His response was more measured than anything I have seen from renaye. A tad more patience and appreciation for the opinions of others seems to me a very "liberal" ideal.
YIKES!, perhaps you could describe what ",means testing" would look like to you? That word doesn't seem to have too many specifics around it, though you obviously think it would be a useful metric in running our arsenal of government programs.
I would be interested to hear how that might work for "rich" and "poor" alike.
February 1, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hardly. Measured.
=D
February 1, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not saying he didn't rise to the bait, but only after the thread turned into ad hominem partisan sniping on both sides. YIKES! self identifies as an independent, yet he is roundly criticized as being a "republican" troll. As I have been more than once.
February 1, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Rise to the bait?"
'Nuff said.
I haven't ever called you a troll, Jason. You are interesting and ethical, although we frequently disagree.
I think that one is looking for a fight, and requires too much attention. It's opening blog is a pathetic scream for attention. Not worth a comment IMO, but do as you see fit.
February 1, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll warrant that you haven't called me a troll, but many of the regulars around here have piled on when the group dynamics indicated that I was the current "troll" on a thread for having an opinion that fell outside the TPM mainstream.
I also don't think YIKES! initial blog is any worse or more self-promoting than anyone else around when they feel they have been misunderstood. I have been guilty of writing a few myself. We're all a bunch of drama queens around here, so in that respect YIKES! fits right in.
Anyone who speaks of both the democrats and republicans having a legacy of corporate dominance is clearly in the right ball park, even if all his comments aren't considered home runs by some around here.
February 1, 2009 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"that one"?
"that one"?
Who are you? John McCain? LOL!
February 1, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the support, Jason. Like quinn, it seems that the most open minded people have also been needlessly attacked here.
Isn't it ironic that you and I probably don't agree on anything political but, just because we aren't in the center with the Democrats we are viewed just as evil?
Who know some of my first positive experiences on this board would be with the people right of the people who are right of me!
February 1, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am actually to the left of Kucinich, from a solutions stand point, but think an old school conservative methodology could allow "liberals" to turn republican moderates into progressive advocates.
It would also enable a lot of smart and capable people to offer solutions to our most pressing problems. We need rank and file republicans focused on the right stuff for a change. The wingnuts will never change but they are a small percentage that can be safely ignored.
Imagine the confusion around here when Obama inspired me to join the republican party in August 2008 as an effort to support the moderate reformation underway with the other Obamicans. I took Teddy as my avatar at the same time, so anyone with a decent reading list would understand the move. Obama channeling Lincoln was his nod to moving the republicans toward something a little more reasonable and rational. Forcing Rick Warren to hitch his wagon to a more Christian evangelical movement is another masterful stroke that will pay long-term dividends.
It is less about conservatives not agreeing, which as of now they clearly don't, but that liberal positioning of very common sense ideas sounds like a lecture. It requires a mea culpa in order to facilitate acceptance. It's as if they don't understand how stubborn Americans are and how such a presentation is taken.
Ironic when one notes that the far right has been doing it to them for decades, but many democrats can't admit to the same tactics when it is in defense of their own arguments. It is just sad when such a response is in direct contradiction to liberal core values, including open-mindedness, charity and empathy.
Stick around and turn that voice to the issues. I think you have something to contribute. Most of the cats and chickens around here have good ideas, though I can't vouch for the duck.
February 1, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: Ouch. Sorry for the length and the narrowing of my thoughts.
February 1, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your thoughts weren't narrow but broad!
Left of Kucinich and in the GOP? No wonder people are confused. I'M confused!
Glad to meet you.
February 1, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto and welcome. I would submit that Teddy was left of Dennis as well. It's all about tactics and methodology. Cheers!
February 1, 2009 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
YIKES, You are mistaken. First of all, where did this come from:
"Lefties?"
There are many wealthy liberals: the Kennedy's, the Kerry's, Bill Gates, and many others. If anyone has a problem with assumptions, it is republicans who denigrate people like Kennedy and John Edwards for example, because they are enormously wealthy and work for the less fortunate.
They ridicule these people and cast aspersions on their motivations -- "How can someone living in a mansion care about poor people?"
They are only highlighting their own faults: They believe that if you are wealthy you deserve it, and if you are not, you also deserve that. They simply cannot imagine someone with money caring about someone who doesn't, and so they ridicule and condemn anyone who claims to.
So in answer to your comment that all lefties assume that the rich are evil people but the poor are pure, I would say that you are naive and borderline ignorant.
You need to educate yourself. There is so much out there, but I know you won't bother, so I won't list suggestions. You can go to the "google" if you want to learn.
I'm not holding my breath.
January 31, 2009 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
More pompousness. Tell me, oh tell me: have you ever been on food stamps? Or is this just an intellectual game for you? Or maybe you are just a Baby Boomer, close to retirement, who is scared that he will have to live like some of the rest of us have been doing for a bit of time.
We ask how much wealth is enough for CEOs, but never of others. Wake up and smell the coffee, wealthy politicians may work for you, but they don't work for me. With Kennedy's wealth, why is he even bothering to draw a salary at all?
Here's a word for you to "google": noblesse oblige. Maybe I'm just the "leftie man's burden".
I have found very few lefties who really care about the poor. They talk a good game, but they are afraid to really do anything. That's why the poor don't vote, because Democrat or Republican, the country is for the wealthy.
You suggested I learn by going to "google". So here's a suggestion for you: Go and leave your nice home if you really want to learn something. There's no Starbucks in my neighborhood. How long will you last, I wonder? Maybe you will realize that a Democrat is just a Republican who feels guilty.
January 31, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your answer is to back republicans? They absolutely HATE poor people! What is your effing point? Or are you just a miserable hunk of protoplasm that can't stand anyone?
Hint: Stick with the "lefties." At least we don't think you should starve to death.
January 31, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
So your answer is to back republicans?
I don't think that YIKES! ever said that. Then again, I don't actually think that he has an answer.
January 31, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are correct, I never said that.
You are wrong, I have an answer.
There are other options to Republican than just Democrat.
January 31, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are other options to Republican than just Democrat.
Interestingly enough, I'm a big third-party supporter myself. I guess the last election discouraged me so much that I didn't allow myself to consider that you were too (although as a Constitution Party voter, I think we are probably on the opposite sides of the third party spectrum).
February 1, 2009 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Probably. In fact definitely. But at least we can count to higher than 2!
I suppose neither of us "belong" here then.
February 1, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
WEll, if he hates "Lefties," who is he going to vote for? He asks: Why is Kennedy even getting a salary if he is so rich? The notion that people who are wealthy should take a vow of poverty to prove that they care about the poor is typical of the republican mantra. The republicans absolutely despise wealthy people who care about the poor. They consider them traitors.
Republicans believe that the rich deserve to be that way, and the poor deserve their lot in life. So, nothing complicated about that. No nuance. So easy. And also very easy to condemn wealthy people who want to help the poor -- they must have bad motives, or else they would give up their paychecks!
The nice thing about being a simpleton is that it is so damn easy!
January 31, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, dear simpleton. I guess there are only 2 parties in this country. Makes things simple for those who can't count to 3.
If he's not a Democrat... he... he... he MUST be a Republican!
Your logic is amazing.
January 31, 2009 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if you can't stand Democrats and you can't stand republicans, for whom will you vote to get what you want in place? Is there a High Horse Party?
Just being against everything is not the way to get your point across. And your frequent use of the term "pompous" on this thread and quinn's says more about you than it does about the people you say it to.
If "Lefties" are so hateful to poor people, tell me. Who do you suggest we listen to? Please. One name. One party. One little positive statement about the right way to go. I'm all ears.
February 1, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pompous aptly applies to people like Marquis who rudely (and foolishly) told me to go with someone who needed food stamps -- when I have been that person.
Pompous aptly applies to people like you who needed to hear just how poor I was before my opinions had any weight.
Listen to yourselves. I know you love to think you are compassionate people, but it's really noblesse oblige. That's why the Democrats have a hard time rousing many of the poor. We know that the difference between you and the Republicans is much, much less than the difference between you and where you should be to properly be considered left-of-center.
February 1, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that was the argument YIKES! was making.
I think he was saying many of the left give their rich people a pass on having lots of cash while condemning "conservative" rich people for having the same resources. I know more than a few "conservatives" with money who donate quite a bit to charitable organizations. Many conservatives have no problem helping the poor, they just think it can be done via other means than the government.
Debate that difference, if you will, but compassion isn't a purely liberal trait.
February 1, 2009 9:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hint: man up and become a Socialist. At least then you can practice what you preach.
My point is that there is little difference between the Democrats and Republicans. They are both bought and sold by corporations and wealth. Joe Biden won't come down hard on the credit card companies because they run his state. Need any more proof like that?
Your arguments boil down to comparing things like Hitler and Stalin: who was worse? Who cares? They were both awful.
Same difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. Sure, the Republicans throw me nothing, but the Democrats aren't any better just because they throw me crumbs. I want a whole slice, if not the whole loaf. Neither side will do that because it upsets the status quo too much. And deep down, you really like the status quo. Sure you feel a little guilt now and then, or perhaps the fear of losing a lifestyle in retirement because you grew up in a nice middle class home, but you don't really know what it's like to be poor.
If you did, you wouldn't be so pompous in your views.
Go read Howard Zinn or Noam Chomsky. Neither one is a big fan of the Democrats either. There's a reason for that.
January 31, 2009 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you poor, YIKES? How poor are you?
January 31, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Nice question. Where is the Clown Face going to tell you that needs testing of me to justify my position is dehumanizing?
To answer your question: I am near the poverty line, but fortunately a bit above it. An accident at work and a divorce turned my luck some what in the negative direction. Satisfied? Or you would like to see my 1040EZ too?
I hope you feel ashamed now for asking me such an obnoxious question.
January 31, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'ville, YIKES is a troll trying to hijack this thread. Please do not respond.
January 31, 2009 9:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What? You weren't upset by her needs based question?
Hypocrite.
January 31, 2009 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
YIKES! is no more a troll than I am, and the reception he has received on this thread could hardly be considered thoughtful, much less respectful. I seem to remember someone asking us to disagree without being disagreeable. Sounds like good advice to me if our goals is to actually fix what's wrong with this country.
February 1, 2009 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Jason, you are a troll at times. Sure, you're not crude like some trolls, but sophisticated trolls do exist. So basically you've pointed out that the other poster does troll sometimes, if your comparison is true enough. This other poster is much cruder than you are, of course.
February 2, 2009 4:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am a troll vased on what definition? Yours? You are clearly unable to articulate reasonable and rational arguments at times, so I am not surprised you would consider criticism or feedback as trolling.
But the term doesn't refer to disagreements, honestly stated and/or defended. If anything, you have the trolling behavior down pat with your obtuse hair splitting over points that someone either didn't make or perhaps poorly stated.
Of course, you don't really take responsibility ( or ever apologize) for your bad behavior.
February 2, 2009 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"vased" on common definitions of the term, Jason.
Neither criticism nor feedback is necessarily trolling nor trollish, Jason. Ditto "honest disagreements". You should know this, so you're still at it here.
February 2, 2009 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: You obviously have no idea what a troll is, because either you are or you aren't. There is no "tolling at times" and normal at others.
February 2, 2009 7:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
trolling is a behavior, Jason. It can come and go, whether it is a regular behavior such as ongoing conduct or a momentary (if repeated) lapse of reason such as remark one might care to apologize for, or anything in between.
February 2, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or the answer could be to reform both parties to more closely resemble what we need from Washington if a third party isn't realistically going to emerge.
February 1, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
They're Marxists, that's what Marxist have to do to justify their twisted world view.
February 1, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
(sigh)
it's like a hydra.
January 31, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
How true....
January 31, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad too. I like to assume the best when viewing comments, but this recent spate has made me want to just ignore anyone so obviously out of it in spirit or intellect.
January 31, 2009 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I lament the dearth of KoolAid drinkers here also.
February 1, 2009 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whenever you hear anyone propose Social Security reform, there is one and only one reform to support:
1. Raise the ceiling on the the payroll taxes (eliminate it) and expand it to non-payroll income.
2. Continue the benefits under current practices (as if the ceiling were not eliminated).
3. Use the surplus thus generated to solve the health care finance problems.
What would you do about the "Trust Fund?" Let's be clear here - the "Trust Fund" is simply an accounting of hwo much SS funding has been ploughed into the General Fund plus some estimate of interest, with the implication that the General Fund should be used to cover future SS deficits with the "Trust Fund" being either the maximum or the minimum that the General Fund should pony up.
If you raise the ceiling on the payroll taxes, would you (a) jsut erase the concept of the "Trust Fund," (b) count all additional revenues generated by the elimination of the ceiling (compared each year to what the adjusted ceiling would have been for that year) as General Fund revenues that are paying off the "Trust Fund," or would you (c) keep accounting for new SS surpluses as going toward a "Trust Fund?" If (c), then what would be the significance of the "Trust Fund?"
IF you are going for option (b), would it perhaps be better for accounting purposes to leave FICA the way it is but to alter the brackets for the income tax so that money earned over the limit is taxed at 15% higher, so that the money is counted against the "Trust Fund?"
One other point: considering what the "Trust Fund" really is (accounting of the ploughing of SS surpluses into the General Fund), would it not make sense when calculating the "Trust Fund" to deduct from it tax credits whcih are essentially used to subsidize SS tax cuts out of income tax revenue? (i.e. the "refundable" portion of the EITC, which is essentially designed as a FICA tax cut, should be counted against the Social Security surpluses when calculating the "Trust Fund.")
January 31, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I recommend (b), with a modification that I would allow the surplus to be "spent" on universal health care. Many years later a new generation can deal with what to do about the accounting practices. Right now, it is more important to take the incremental step of eliminating the ceiling on taxable income for SS.
January 31, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong. You made a lot of edicts in your blog. And I simply disagreed with your edicts. And you want to claim I'm a troll?
You are as phoney as a 2 dollar bill. Your version of debate is to hone presumed truths you pronounce. And if someone doesn't buy in to you presumptions, they are a troll.
If you don't want true debate, make a webpage where you can control all the content. You strike me as just as rigid as any Republican who also presumes to know what it's like for the "little people". Maybe you don't know all after all, huh? Is there just a chance of that?
I point out that you tried to trash eds who also disagreed with you. You responded the same way: just dig in deeper with a pronouncement.
How utterly elitist.
January 31, 2009 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, the $2 bill is legit. Your complaints are about as sound as your analogies. If you want to make a point, post your own blog. Stop trashing this one.
January 31, 2009 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, I should have hit the "3" key.
Score 1 for you. Now you are only behind about 50 points. Or 60.
I notice you still haven't apologized for your bombastic crack about me going with someone for food stamps or that CVille Dem wanted needs testing to validate my point of view.
You see? You are trashing your own blog because you are making disingenuous arguments.
January 31, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
YIKES, You hate Democrats and republicans. You can't stand "lefties." I get that you want a third party. OK.
Name a name. Name a party. Name some people who are in a position to do what you want, and whom you agree with.
Do you have any positive things to say about anyone? If you just can't stand anyone, and consider that "lefties" are just hypocrites, then name someone who isn't a hypocrite in your book, please.
Please. educate me.
February 1, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
I never said "hated" Democrats or Republicans. That's a stupid word to use here.
Do you know whom I "hate"? I hate the drunk driver to hit me and killed my son. That's an appropriate use of the word. Okay? So let's not dilute words' meanings.
I identified myself as a Socialist. You know, the word that even scares Democrats.
Go read about Brian Moore who ran as a Socialist. He used to be a Democrat. That's a third party. It should be the party that you belong to as well, if you are really left of center, but that's a topic for another day.
The fact is, I bet I'm more open minded than you about different political views. Maybe because I've often been in a room (like this Internet site )with enough like-minded people that I could afford to be lazy in my thinking because it's just so easy to use the power of the group to get my point across.
I call people like you Lefties ironically. Because you are only left of the Republicans, you aren't left at all. That's the one thing Fox News gets right... er... correct.
If you sincerely want to be educated, why not read Howard Zinn's A PEOPLE' HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES and see why he (and Noam Chomsky) don't fall for "the Democrats being all that different from the Republicans" mind trick.
February 1, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hypocritcal to claim compassion, understand, etc. and then to immediately act like a pack of wild hyenas tearing into a new poster because you think they are someone else.
It's also hypocritical for Marquis to talk about demeaning means testing while have you, on the very same thread, want to know just exactly how poor I am.
I think it's an accurate use of the word.
If you look at my blog, you will see that a number of people have already changed their minds and decided perhaps things got a little unfair towards me for reasons that had nothing to do with me.
February 1, 2009 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Marquis, that poster has been showing a bit too much attitude, but isn't really all that bad.
"Why is it that all lefties assuming that the rich are evil people, but the poor are pure?"
That's a gross generalization, fighting words perhaps. But the rest of the comment was totally legit in my view. You took it downhill from there.
Man up, stick with the topic.
January 31, 2009 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the conversation is an important one to be had, but those solutions sound like patches for a system that is no longer equal to our needs. A social safety net was a good idea when the majority of Americans had a pension that was merely supplemented by SSI, which is woefully inadequate to real needs by itself.
I agree that the funds should be sacrosanct and not subject to raiding by Congress or the president. I believe the entire conversation needs to start from scratch, however, because the system that has evolved since FDR's time isn't the right one for our times.
I think the health care solution we need is a non sequiter when speaking about what Social Security should become in the future. Each of these very pressing problems will require different, though perhaps complementary, solutions.
February 1, 2009 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right on, Jason! You can't tweak SS and move it to where people claim to want it to be.
And by the way, my "means testing" principle is the following. Unless everyone get something equally (you know, like a $300 "stimulus" check from the government, HA!), you need to check things out before handing out taxpayer dollars. That includes: government grants, SS, and TARP, just to name a few. I saw a nice HUD scam on the Sopranos and, while fictional, is exactly the type of crooked stuff that goes on. That's why so many government programs that mean well turn up with nothing -- the money is all scammed away.
February 1, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink