Whenever I hear conservatives talk about Social Security, they say that the system is going bankrupt and is in dire need of reform. Some, especially those on the far right, say that the system is being abused by unethical “social parasites,” who abuse the social welfare apparatus for their own, greedy, personal gain. Although they say these things while pointing their finger at the poor and middle class recipients of said benefits, I think that the finger can more easily be pointed at the RICH CORPORATISTS who currently run this nation.
Indeed, it is the RICH and the CORPORATISTS who seem like the BIGGEST PARASITES these days. They are currently devouring our hard-won rights and savings in a bloody feeding-frenzy, one so big, so gory and ravenous, so filled with carnage, destruction and unrepentant rage that it makes the sharks and barricuda of all the world's oceans shy and bashful by comparison.
I have just finished reading “The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too,” by James K. Galbraith, award winning economist and son of the famous liberal American economist, John Kenneth Galbraith. (Free Press, New York, 2009).
One of the most interesting sections of the book concerns the “secret history” of Social Security Reform. Dr. Galbraith claims that “Social Security offers perhaps the clearest, simplest and most transparent large-scale example of the Predator State at work on a long-term project.” (Id. at 140)
Dr. Galbraith claims that FINANCIAL ELITES and their CONGRESSIONAL LAP-DOGS have manufactured the whole issue of SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM. It seems that, faced with a less productive economy and weaker manufacturing, Financiers have less access to traditional streams of domestically produced Capital. As such, they need to capture UNTRADITIONAL SOURCES of Capital and that this is where Social Security comes into the picture.
Apparently, FINANCIERS working for the biggest firms (like Goldman Sachs) want all the Social Security money that comes from the Payroll Tax diverted into Private Investment Accounts that would be managed by these very same firms, in much the same way that large companies like Sallie Mae currently manage student loans.
These Financial Services Firms would force the old, the sick, the poor and the forgotten to hire private financial advisors, invest their health and retirement money in an unstable and unpredictable stock market, and pay constant fees to these same Financial Consulting Firms in the process. Needless to say, these Firms would use most of this money to invest in highly dangerous, mercurial and capricious financial ventures, none of which would have a guaranteed rate of return. The Financiers would potentially make a great deal of money and the Pensioners would make the bare minimum. Further, if the Financiers lost money, it wouldn’t be theirs or those of a private corporate investor that would fire them. Instead, the investor who lost money would be the TAX PAYER, and since they would be a CAPTIVE MARKET, there is nothing the American People would be able to do to stop such expenses.
In much the same way that PRIVATE PENSION FUNDS have been hijacked by FINANCIERS, so would SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS similarly be hijacked. (Id. at 136)
I. HISTORY OF CORPORATE SOCIAL SECURITY "REFORM"
The history behind Social Security Reform, as delineated by Dr. Galbraith, makes for good reading and I will summarize it here for you.
In 1981, President Reagan and his Budget Director, David Stockman, declared Social Security bankrupt and wished to privatize it. Dr. Galbraith says that Social Security was not, in fact bankrupt at this time and was actually doing rather well. What was going bankrupt, slowly, though, was the U.S. Government, due to the proposed Reagan Tax Cuts. This wasn’t mentioned, though. The GOP just said that Social Security was bound to go bankrupt and they needed URGENT REFORM. This was a clever fraud, a rhetorical pretext for the GOP policy proposals to follow.
This proposal for Social Security Reform met a FIRESTORM OF OPPOSITION from Liberals, Progressives and Democrats, who at this time, were still sufficiently numerous and organized to halt the zany, hair-brained ideas and policy proposals of the Corporatists in the Republican Party. Led by the famous House Speaker, Tip O’Neil, the proposals were publicly, dramatically and famously shut down. The problem was that the Liberal Democrats didn’t spend enough time analyzing the financial and economic criticisms of the GOP. They based their opposition on purely political grounds, by mobilizing all those groups who would have the most to lose from the proposals. Without adequate Liberal Economic Data, though, they were ill equipped to fight the battle again, should these fraudulent GOP economic arguments re-surface. All the liberals thought they won, and their attention moved on to other spheres.
This was what the Republicans wanted. After the official, public “liberal victory,” the REAL WAR began. (Id. at 136)
In 1983, behind the scenes and without much public attention, the GREENSPAN COMMISSION was formed. It was headed by an infamously radical Ayn Rand devotee and neoliberal, laissez-faire-supporter named Alan Greenspan (who later became Chairman of the Federal Reserve). (Id.)
Behind the scenes, the Greenspan Commission did a variety of things to Social Security.
A. Increase in Social Security Taxes
Greenspan said the US needed to increase Payroll and Social Security Taxes. He justified this by saying that this was because Social Security was “going bankrupt” and needed more money. Liberal Democrats, who fought so hard to preserve Social Security from conservative attacks and efforts to abolish it, WORKED WITH GREENSPAN and COMPROMISED WITH HIM in the spirit of Bipartisanship. They felt that if the GOP was nice enough to let them keep Social Security, they should return the favor, and work with the GOP on making the US Social Welfare system more “financially efficient.”
Unfortunately, none of the Liberal Congressmen did their homework, because they proceeded to compromise and build a “Reform Coalition” based upon a FALSE PREMISE.
Dr. Galbraith says that Social Security was actually TOTALLY SOLVENT at this time. The problem was that the Reagan TAX CUTS ON THE RICH were projected to TOTALLY BANKRUPT the U.S. Government. If the results of these tax cuts were seen to be so damaging, so soon after implementation, the entire agenda of the CORPORATISTS would be cast into disrepute. As such, they needed to find a way to MAINTAIN GOVERNMENT SOLVENCY, while continuing to CUT THE TAXES OF THE RICH.
The entire purpose, Galbraith says, was to “mask the revenue losses from the Reagan-era tax cuts in the income tax. It was, in other words, the half-hidden part of a massive scheme to shift the burden of taxation from CAPITAL and onto LABOR, and to do so in a way that could be sold as supporting the retirement, thirty years down the road, of the baby boom generation.” (Id. at 137) (emphasis added)
The solution? Increase Social Security and Payroll Tax, a tax that predominantly impacts the poor and Middle Classes. This increase in Social Security/Payroll Tax was the BIGGEST REGRESSIVE INCOME TAX HIKE IN AMERICAN HISTORY.
B. Infiltration of Free-Market Spin
On the surface, Greenspan said that these increased funds would be used to purchase interest-bearing Government Bonds. He said that these bonds, with the interest they accrued, could then be redeemed by Social Security during the time when the Baby Boomers would retire. He said that the interest accrued on such accounts would be so formidable, though, that all of their health care needs would be met.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO LOCK-BOX on the GENERAL FUND created by these BONDS. This was Greenspan’s intention, though. The Government needed a way to pay for its programs in light of the reduced revenue caused by tax-cuts on the rich.
Further, Galbraith argues that the REAL INTEREST RATE on these funds, even if kept in a lock box, would be so low (because of the gvt rates prevalent at the time), that they wouldn’t really enjoy a sufficiently large return to cover the projected increased costs of retiring baby boomers. Galbraith, however, says that this SHORTFALL WAS INTENDED BY THE GOP.
It would allow them, rhetorically, to SHIFT THE RHETORICAL FOCUS OF THE DEBATE, to SPIN it in such a way that the debate was no longer:
(a) “whether Social Security should be privatized” per se,
but, INSTEAD:
(b) “what kind of account should Social Security be invested in, so as to provide the greatest rate of return?” (Id.)
In this way, the original political/economic/philosophical justification on placing Social Security Funds in a private, interest bearing account could be AVOIDED. Instead, by spinning and re-framing the issue in such a way that ASSUMES that such accounts are best, they can thus up-the-ante by asking the necessary (and equally evil) follow-up question, which is “what accounts are the most profitable?”
This would ensure, Galbraith said, that arguments to privatize Social Security would be very great during a time of ECONOMIC BOOM, when returns in the stock market would FAR EXCEED the conservative returns on Government Bonds.
The Republicans, thinking 10-15 years down the line, thinking ahead like GOOD CHESS PLAYERS, knew that when the stock market boomed, they would be able (they hoped) to persuade Americans that it was a GOOD IDEA to PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY and invest its proceeds in the STOCK MARKET. Galbraith points out that during a Financial Bubble, all non-Bubble related investments look bad and there is a general popular hysteria that wishes to place all extrinsic forms of investment into the medium experiencing the bubble; experience shows us that, over time, this can cause the whole economy to implode, but it makes the NOBLES richer and the PEASANTS poorer.
Could you imagine what would have happened if Social Security was invested in the Stock Market during the Bush Administration? Wouldn’t the level of suffering and misery currently felt by so many countless millions of Americans be at a level far greater, far graver, and far more inescapable? How could those who propose such tactics live with themselves? Aren’t they aware of the results that their power and their actions might bring? Perhaps they don’t even care? They are INDIFFERENT TO THEIR COUNTRYMEN.
II. THE BASICS BEHIND THIS TACTIC & WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOU
Galbraith says that “in order to make the move to a privatized and market system palatable, it is first necessary to persuade the public that the existing public system is failing and cannot be sustained. This is the broader public function of No Child Left Behind and it is the intended function of claims, endlessly repeated in official dialoge on Social Security, that the system faces a long-term financial crisis.” (Id. at 138)
As any good salesman can tell you, the first rule of salesmanship is to create in the potential buyer, an “essential need.” Here, the GOP, to sell their bullshit about privatizing Social Security, has manufactured, through BOGUS STATISTICS, a FRAUDLENTLY CONTRIVED POLICY NEED.
Basically, he says that the GOP put a TROJAN HORSE into the Social Security Legislation, to ensure that the “new system” created for it, would go broke, thus necessitating a radical FREE MARKET SOLUTION. I.e.,à taking all these public, taxpayer funds and putting them in the private sector, where all the Corporate Parasites will have access to them.
Galbraith says that everybody “knew that eventual payroll tax receipts (might) start to fall short of benefits due and that at some point in the future, the bonds accumulated in the trust fund (would) have to be retired.” (Id.)
Yet, Galbraith says, that this is EXACTLY WHAT GREENSPAN INTENDED. The Corporatists WANTED to initiate reforms that would not only fail to solve the problem, but exacerbate it. Furthermore, the problems would be exacerbated in such a way as to GAIN CREDIBILITY for Right-wing Conservative Solutions. (Id. at 138). (emphasis added).
However, Galbraith says that this is only the surface. The fact remains, he says, that if there was a LOCK BOX for Social Security, there would be, in fact, NO CRISIS. The only reason the fund appears to be losing money is because a large portion of it is being DIVERTED TO COVER OTHER GOVERNMENT REVENUE SHORTFALLS. Basically, he says that the poor and the middle classes are subsidizing the TAX-CUTS of the RICH.
Indeed, this is the BRILLIANCE OF THE TACTIC: Social Security is Reformed when the Rich want major tax cuts, so they can rob from the poor, Sheriff-of-Nottingham style, in order to maintain government expenses.
III. FRAUDULENT CORPORATIST SOLUTIONS
According to Galbraith, the Corporatists are devising TWO BASIC WAYS of Reforming Social Security, both of which are fraudulent and are a form of LEGISLATIVE OBFUSCATION, in that they not only don’t solve the problem they intend to solve, but beg the question, make the problem worse, and make its eventual impact even more damaging and detrimental to future generations. These two FAUX-SOLUTIONS are (a) Cutting Benefits and (b) Increasing Payroll/Social Security Taxes.
A. Cutting Social Security Benefits
The first, and major TRICKSTER SOLUTION the Corporatists always propose is to cut everybody’s Social Security Benefits, while still maintaining an unlocked Social Security fund, continued tax cuts for the rich, and continued revenue shortfalls. (Id. at 139)
This would be horrible, Galbraith says, because all the Baby Boomers who paid drastically increased Social Security Taxes in the 1980s and 1990s, would see all the money they paid go to waste. They would only be able to receive a FRACTION of what they paid into the system.
This is because the RICH have been LOOTING THE FUND. They are looting the fund by (a) getting their income taxes cut, (b) not establishing a lock-box and (c) robbing the Social Security fund to pay for other, underfunded, government programs and expenses, such as the WAR IN IRAQ and TARP.
B . Increasing the Social Security Tax.
The second TRICKSTER SOLUTION consists of increasing the Social Security Tax.
This would be an even greater REGRESSIVE INCOME TAX and would fall on the backs of a new generation of the working classes, folks who are even less well paid than their parents (in terms of real wages, taking increased costs and inflation into consideration) and often underemployed, in terms of the scarcity of available work.
Further, by not LOCKING THE FUND, and by perpetuating continuous government shortfalls caused by a TAX-EXEMPT NOBILITY, it would ensure that when this generation retires, they, too, will NOT SEE A DIME OF THE BENEFITS THEY CURRENTLY PAY.
It’s a giant PONZI SCHEME. A FRAUD in which the poor are promised a “RETIREMENT” but in reality, they aren’t. They are being forced, by way of legal mandate, into paying for benefits that the Rich hope that they (the poor) will never receive. This is because the Rich don’t want to use Social Security Funds to pay for Social Security purposesà they want to use the money for their own pet projects, the needs and interests of the poor, elderly and handicapped be damned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_Scheme
The Social Security Administration, by the way, is very sensitive to its system being called a "Ponzi Scheme," and has an entire website dedicated to refuting this. Although they are correct in saying that a "Pay as You Go" system is not really a Ponzi Scheme, and although they distinguish between the two, they FAIL TO SUFFICIENTLY ADDRESS THE FACT that Social Security currently LACKS A SUITABLE LOCK-BOX.
The UNDENIABLE TRUTH is that because Social Security LACKS A LOCK BOX, it cannot realistically be seen as a Pay-As-You-Go System. This is because it is being LOOTED BY CONGRESS.
As such, the attempt to refute the Ponzi-Scheme argument, by saying that a Ponzi-Scheme is different from a "pay as you go" system, is basically, a form of SOPHISTICATED OBFUSCATION. It BEGS THE QUESTION.
By making these arguments, Social Security is, in effect, actually AIDING and ABETTING the CONGRESSIONAL ROBBERY taking place on Capital Hill.
SHAME ON THEM!
http://web.archive.org/web/20011007160228/www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.html
IV. THE REAL SOLUTION
A. Watch out for Democratic Party Wolves in Sheep's Clothing
Galbraith cleverly points out that the Corporatists know that they can't privatize Social Security if it remains a PARTISAN ISSUE. If it is seen as a REPUBLICAN POLICY, then many Democrats and Liberals will not trust it and they will instinctually oppose it.
Galbraith says that the CORPORATISTS overcome this by INFILTRATING and/or CO-OPTING the Democratic Party. He says that numerous PSEUDO-PROGRESSIVE GROUPS have been formed, comprised of Pro-Corporate (presumably DLC) Democrats, that aim to sow misinformation among Democratic Party faithful, so as to achieve BIPARTISAN UNITY in the attempt to DISECT and DISMANTLE Social Security under the FALSE PRETEXT OF REFORM. (Id. at 140)
Here are the names of a few Pro-Corporate Democratic Party Groups that advocate privatization on the behalf of the FINANCIERS and FINANCIAL INDUSTRY:
1. Robert Rubin's "Hamilton Project." (Rubin was a former Treasury Secretary). It is based out of the BROOKINGS INSTITUTION, which is also a Pro-Establishment think tank that often makes overt efforts to win the support of liberals and progressives, but often for ends supported by the FINANCIAL ELITE (which is why they fund it...duh)
2. The Concord Coalition (allegedly "non-partisan")
3. The Fiscal Wake-Up Tour (led by former Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker). (Id. at 140) (citing Joe Conason, The Raw Deal, Sausalito CA: PoliPoint Press, 2005).
In many ways, this is the key purpose of the Democratic Leadership Council or DLC and similar-such fiscally-conservative, pro-business groups within the Democratic Party.
For those unfamiliar with it, the DLC is a major, corporate-funded caucus within the Democratic Party that aims at making CORPORATE SOLUTIONS more tolerable to the Democratic Party rank and file. Bill Clinton was a key member of this group and President Obama is also highly influenced by them and their leading members.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council
What you often see during Republican Administrations is that a handful of corporate-endorsed/pro-business Democrats get meaningful jobs and/or positions within the GOP-controlled Administration or Federal Bureaucracy. Others go to work for influential, pro-business, Democratic-Party supported think-tanks.
This ensures that when the Democrats next win-office (which they invariably do), they have at their disposal a large number of pro-business "Economic Experts" who can help them draft and sculpt policy.
If these so-called "experts" come from the above-mentioned "Pro-Democrat" think tanks, they are easier to "sell" to the Democratic rank-and-file, because they are seen as ideologically and politically trustworthy and reliable.
If the new Democratic Administration needs folks who have bipartisan credentials, then they can pick Democratic "Economic Experts" who had worked in economic positions during the previous Republican Administration.
The key thing to remember is that ideology has nothing to do with which "economic advisors" a President picks. It has to do with which Congressmen are sitting on the Committee that has oversight over such appointments, or what local political conditions mandate. Sometimes you need to seem partisan, other times bipartisan. But they KEY THING IS: this doesn't matter and has no influence on policy. This is because CORPORATIONS HAVE INFILTRATED & CO-OPTED ALL OF THE AVAILABLE OPTIONS.
B. Meaningful Policy Solutions
Dr. Galbraith offers a real solution to the nation's apprant Social Security Crisis, a workable, common-sense solution, if, indeed, there really was a crisis (which there isn't).
If there was a crisis, though, and if we were serious about solving it, then the clearest, most common-sense solution would consist of the following:
“If any tax measures were necessary, which they are not, a new “Social Security Rate” on the income tax—say, 50 percent for incomes over $2 million—would be much better than another rise in income tax. A revived estate tax, set at say 80 percent for estates over $50 million and credited to Social Security, would be better still. The latter would have two especially good effects: projected earnings would help close any projected shortfall in Social Security funding and the threat of the tax would greatly stimulate philanthropy among the very rich.” (Id. at 139, footnote).
V. CONCLUSION
At the end of the day, it seems that the poor and the middle classes aren't the parasites. The parasites are what Tom Cordle calls the BANKSTERS and the FINANCIAL CLASS that seeks to LOOT, PILFER and STEAL what remaining CAPITAL exists in our system, so that they can GAMBLE WITH IT.
BUT THAT'S NOT ALL: Not only will they gamble with our tax dollars, but all the losses they sustain through such reckless gambling will be SUBSIDIZED NOT BY THEM, but BY US, the AMERICAN PEOPLE!
This is the basic, essential truth.
In the meantime, our whole country is falling apart and everybody's living standards are collapsing. We find our hopes for a better tomorrow smashed upon the hard rocks of modern financial realities and our legal/social condition slowly being reduced to that of serfs and/or indentured servants.
Its ironic that the very same Corporate-owned Republicans and "Rent-Boy Democrats" that have no scruples about terrifying senior citizens with the prospect of "Death Panels" are the very ones who will make their avoidable illnesses and preventable deaths an inevitable reality, by cutting their Social Security benefits and destroying the very system that was designed to give them hope and security.
The true danger we are facing isn't "Death Panels," so much as it is "Negligence Panels" and "Robbery Panels" headed by the biggest corporations, lobbyists and corporate stooges ever known to man.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Ted Frier
Tom Degan
pob2006
500words
john guzlowski
Bob Simpson
Salon.com
Comments
There has always been an actuarial issue with Social Security, in which keeping it out of the normal budget is a mistake, because the government has to pay its bills one way, or another.
It is Peter and Paul, and I think a less ... negative interpretation would be that our political system has built in incentives to overpromise in the short run, because people can't agree on what they want and how to pay for it, and then the bill comes due later.
In other words, people on the far right want low taxes and a big military, people on the left want more government services, and so one solution is to split the difference and borrow the money, where it is true that the financial markets do have incentives to want to grab a chunk of the pie, with of course the borrowing too.
Capital and the state are usually on somewhat of the same team.
The Bush proposal was classic in this regard, because it's rate of return figures didn't add to up to admitting how much benefits would come down.
I paid in to SS for all of my working years.
I have my own business in which one does NOT get a pension, even if there still were pensions other than for cops and other leeches.
Imagine how a person like me feels when he is at risk of having his savings stolen without recourse.
And, that is exactly what these con artists have wanted to do, steal our money with no recourse and charge us a fee to so much as inquire about our own money.
I'm an American veteran.
I love the land of America butt, I hate this fucked up country and its government.
rated
I'm glad you read this book so I don't have to and I'm doubly glad that you could condense it into such understandable terms. I will be book marking this page to use for future ammo against conservative thinkers. This should be on Big Salon.
Now what?
Instead, we can say that Progressives/Liberals are a minority in the US. They only exist as a CURRENTLY POWERLESS FACTION within the Corporate-controlled Democratic Party. They dont exist at all among the GOP, though.
Stellaa: I should definately get something from these folks. Even if only a hamburger! 8)
XJS: They are totally robbing the people, left and right alike. And it has nothing to do with ideology. It has to do with pure greed and pure corruption. This issue should unite all under the banner of REFORM.
Kate: Shock Doctrine is a great book!
Sheila: WE SHOULD COMPLAIN TO OUR CONGRESSMEN! WRITE THEM LETTERS TELLING THEM TO TAKE A STAND. THEY NEED TO KNOW THE BANKSTERS DONT HAVE THE ONLY POINT OF VIEW.
JW: thank you!
Michael Rogers: Glad it was helpful. Kemstone also wrote something about this and you should check it out, too.
David Price: true. If it operated without constantly being looted, it would be highly sustainable and then some.
Sal: See the suggestion I gave Sheila, above.
Rw, i can hardly see straight, I feel that angered. Though you have spoken wisely, no doubt, I cannot keep myself from boiling over at this time, and hence, must take a breather. I ay come back --only if I can calm down. I have never had the flames of righteous indignation turned up so much at the thought of what's being done. Yo have just confirmed for me, as per Galbraith, will that I had been suspecting.
I'm practically seething. Must go.
Rated
Lezlie
the rich will last longer in their air-conditioned caves, but it won't be much fun. enjoy the sunshine, it's all that is free, at least until monsanto and xe think of a way to patent it and defend it.
by the way, don't get angry at the rich, they are just pursuing business opportunity. the real weak link in human society is the 'progressives.' they don't actually move, so the label is mis-leading. perhaps they are a creation of the rnc, as indeed the dnc appears to be. there is only one party in the usa, the political party. the factions struggle for wealth and power, the cattle watch while munching their grass, if they are lucky enough to have any, and the 'progressives' preach 'progress.' pretty much like priests used to preach to the serfs, keeping them quiet with visions of heaven, if they are just good little serfs.
but that 'cattle' is the problem: the average american homo sap is so ignorant, so dumb, so easily led, that it would be literally against nature not to exploit him. and the women not much smarter.
Al Loomis: Some say you can lead a horse to water, but can't force it to drink. In my real-life, outside of the bloggosphere, I am actually persuading a fair-share of folks to not only drink of this stuff, but to actively do things about it. More on that later.
If only the TEA Partiers could be made to see who their real enemies are, there might be some hope.
Oh, hell, when's the next "American Idol" start?
The problem with the Liberal response to Rush Limbaugh and Savage Nation, is that it was TOO ELITIST. Al Franken is NOT an everyman. He comes-across as snooty, obnoxious and well-healed. Same thing goes for Bill Maher (not to mention Maher's conspicuous, activist atheism which would help the GOP more than it would help the Working Classes, which are very religious and socially conservative as a mattery of course)
Michael Moore, however, has figured-out the CORRECT APPROACH. Willie-Nelson, too. Folks like that ALWAYS APPEAL TO THE WORKING FOLKS.
What we need are good, working class, left-wing folks who can talk to the WORKING CLASS. POPULIST types.
RADIO is key, though, because it is PASSIVE. You can listen to it on the way to work. It also needs to be rough, coarse and entertaining, like Rush Limbaugh.
Finding a station is the first key. Then you need sponsors. THEN YOU NEED PUBLICIZING. The Unions could do this. So could various non-profits.
It would need to be VERY BIG in one region, first, then grow from there. Interesting....
Radio is key though. We must CONQUER RADIO before we can RETAKE TELEVISION.
Blogs are just the beginning...
What we need is evidence in a form that the sheep can easily see and understand. There's evidence in abundance in books, blogs, etc., but that requires being literate. I'm afraid by the time the evidence is obvious enough for the sheep to see and believe, it will be far too late.
They do not seem to understand that when they outsource our jobs, steal from our retirement funds and cut support for the poor...then no one is buying their crap or putting money into their financial products!
It's time for a general strike that goes on until the Bushes and Cheneys put our trillion dollars back into our Federal treasury.
Imagine a GLOBAL GENERAL STRIKE? Workers in China, Mexico, Guatamala, Indonesia, Turkey, India, France, Germany, Russia, America, Canada and England, ALL PROTESTING and GOING ON STRIKE and WITHOLDING THEIR LABOR!!!!
Even more important if WHITE COLLAR WORKERS in the West would engage in this, too. United with Western Blue COllar, Service Industry folks. AND industrial and agricultural labor folks in the West and throughout the World as well!!!!
Imagine what would happen!!!
The TIME HAS COME TO TURN AROUND, STOP RETREATING and START FIGHTING.
ALL OF US: Left and Right, see the problem. We just disagree on the long-term solution. That said, we see the enemy. We see the serpent. We see the harsh hand of OPPRESSION and ABSOLUTISM. Perhaps we should put our long-term differences aside and UNITE against Tyranny and Absolutism?????
The Founding Fathers had many political differences, yet they were able to put these aside and focus on the common enemy. Today, the common enemy is Corporate Coruption. We should put our differences aside, too, perhaps, and fight the good fight TOGETHER.
If we are to win, and PRESERVE DEMOCRACY, this cannot be a partisan fight. It cannot be a liberal fight or a conservative fight. It must be an AMERICAN Fight.
But not only that. Since the economy is global and these companies TRANS-NATIONAL in nature, it must also be a GLOBAL FIGHT as well.
What we need to do is launch the WORLD'S FIRST TRULY GLOBAL PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT, with truly GLOBAL POLICIES and POLITICAL AIMS.
Go to http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np to see for yourself (if you Google Intragovernmental Obligations, wikipedia explains what they are.
The reason they are listed as "debt" is because the money has already been spent (on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).
In my view this is the real motivation for privatizing Social Security - it immediately wipes $4 trillion of debt off the books.
Of course, those greedy fuckers couldn't get away with it if we weren't greedy fuckers as a whole too.
This is what the GOP fails to understand. The PRC may very well become a mixed-market system. They may even become Capitalist in many ways. But this doesn't translate into colony or dependency.
Even the most hard-core Capitalist in China refuses to go back to 1839-1842, when the Opium Wars initiated China's "Century of Humiliation."
What amazed me was that so many of the issues we commonly discuss on OS, in the open, are frequently discussed by the Congressmen and those who appear before them. Even more shocking, is the ABOUT-FACE REVERSAL so many of them make when they come out of Committee.
The explanations and stories they give to the newspapers, TV stations and public-at-large are often FAR REMOVED from the substantive content of the debate that takes place within the Committee Chamber.
I wish newspapers would actually look at these printed Committee Transcripts, rather than interview Congressmen, many of whom lie and obfuscate.
If they can erase the Federal Debt (even through slight-of hand), then they can say they accomplished a great deal which helps their short-term political prospects. The sad thing, though, is that it ruins the country's long term viability as a result.
I really hate these guys.
This is why we must, if we value our future and the lives of our children and grandchildren, COMPLETELY IGNORE THE REPUBLICANS and ALL THEIR ARGUMENTS. Sure, we must debate them, but we must assume that they AUTOMATICALLY LACK LEGITIMACY and are just PEDDLING BULLSHIT and TRICKS.
I really can't give them the benefit of the doubt in any policy discussion anymore. The party is so filled with lies and half-truths, in all of their policy analyses and proposals and studies that they really don't even know what is true anymore, even when they are trying to be truthful and objective.
They are caught in a feedback-loop of chronic lies and dishonesty. There is no escape for them.
It's funding is, of course, complex, to say the least. Much of the SS fund is tied up but it's availability to expanded appropriations was a source of both misconception and political appeal for years, largely for conservatives trying to undo the programs of the Great Society. So this fits in with your previous post on healthcare. People in my mother's generation (or rather a little bit younger, since I'm almost ancient), believed that SS was being raided to pay for welfare. This idea was spread by conservatives trying to derail the Great Society long before Reagan came along with his despicable caricature of the welfare queen.
There is speculation already in the political blogosphere that 112th Congress will have to ratchet back seriously on its promises to the Tea Party folks on spending cuts. The promise of $100 billion in domestic cuts the first year has been lowered to $50 billion by some GOP leaders, while others have it as low as $30 billion. The high minded (and long winded) say they're shooting for $200 billion over 2 years. And the game continues...
Considering the bent of this administration, though, people might be surprised, and it might just be the White House that leads the charge on cutting. One of the possible lessons the considerably more conservative Blue Dog advisors that surround Obama now, and who have the upper hand post-tax-cut deal, might learn from the recent "victories" is that playing on Republican turf is the way to go. Those who trumpeted the tax deal as some sort of stroke of pragmatic genius might want to take a lesson in Machiavelli here--get your opponent thinking the way you do, and sure enough, you don't have to do all the heavy lifting.
Whoever initiates serious discussion--and we're a long way from that, since the big prize is still two years away--keep in mind that this administration has been more than harsh on domestic spending. They've been downright ruthless. For those who believe privatization, or partial privatization, of SS is off the table from the get-go, consider this:
Project Censored named as one of its top underreported stories of the year, the Obama record on domestic spending on entitlements versus defense/security spending. They note that while non-defense/security spending accounts for only 17% of the budget, Obama's proposal caps it for each of the next three fiscal years, requiring huge cuts at the state level. This could explain the more than lackadaisacal approach to state races by the Dems in the last election: set the limits up top, blame the cuts on the GOP at the state level. Meanwhile defense accounts for 55% of discretionary spending, and the OMB estimates it will increase at the current rate by over $500 billion over the next decade. The rise in defense and security spending since 1998 is bigger than the Kennedy/Johnson and Reagan surges put together.
So, you tell me, where is the money going to come from? States are broke, the government borrowing limit may be upped, but there are serious limits to this, too (I'll have to explain this in a post soon--my own pick for most underreported story of 2010), and despite popular misconception SS is not fully vested by workers, and will be even less so in the future. The answer is that privatization WILL be proposed and this administration, at the end of the day, after all the shouting and screaming is over, will rely on the same people who went along with the tax compromise to swallow another much bigger one on SS. That's what that was all about to begin with, folks.
Rated.
You talk about strikes and sectors of people joining up with unions in this country to cause chaos and violence. You forget this is America; Patriots will fight you in the streets if we have to. We will not allow your organized violence to gain your own entitlements. We will not allow you to beat on innocent people because they do not want to be like you. Do you really think liberal progressives are the only ones that know how to organize? You live by the sword; you will die by the sword.
Union and public workers are the best paid workers in the nation with their obscene salaries and pensions. They are bankrupting this nation and it the sweat of the non union blue collar workers paying for them through their taxes. Progressive liberals use the poor as pawns for their own agenda. These Obama administrations entitlements are merely a way to get The People under the progressive thumb and do their will. THAT IS GOING TO END!!!
The social security reform would mostly affect the population 25 and under. The younger generation would be better off keeping their money and investing it themselves. That way they would have much more to retire on. Wait, I forgot, you progressives are too stupid to do something on your own and would rather be puppets of a progressive government spoon feeding, burping and wiping your butts. You need to work for what you get in life instead of other people working for these union and public sector obscene salary and pensions.
Before you go trouncing on Corporate CEO’s and their money, take a look at your own corrupt and very obscenely wealthy progressives. Gore is becoming a billionaire off of a lie called global warming; his wife could not even live with him anymore. Gore looks like he is eating very well also, the greasy fat cat that he is along with the rest of the progressive hypocrites. Obama is now a millionaire and Michelle has about 30 people serving her every need with obscene salaries. She takes an obscenely lavish vacation costing millions in tax payer dollars, not to mention a jaunt to NYC for Obama and his wife for one night. Then there is the Pelosi lavish lifestyle with her private jet and booze bills. Then we can go to Charlie Rangel not paying taxes, and what makes that ridiculous is he is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. They all take jets everywhere and huge gas guzzling vehicles. They own mansions with the carbon footprint of a small town. Yeah right, they really care about you. It is do as I say and not as I do.
Progressive liberals are now throwing tantrums like babies that have had their bottle’s taken away from them. WAHHHH, WAHHHH, I can’t have it all my way now.
You liberal progressive people are a bunch of stinking hypocrites.
There isn't much we can do to affect global finance, even as an organized force, union or political party. Wall Street and the corporations own every asset of this country. Boycotts and strikes make sense, but the couch-potato public is spoonfed with so many media lies that participation would be slim.
Something I'm researching is a community-based economic layer that supports its membership - from the poor to the middle class - with most of their needs including full employment, with very little interaction with the larger economy. I'm not talking just about alternative currencies, they are mostly ineffective on their own, but combining that with incorporation (using their loopholes against them) "club" buying and community-based supports. We can at least get through the worst of the cuts, and at best, we can starve the corporate beast out of the US by just opting out. Sure, it's a work in progress and not many think tanks are working on a real plan (try New Economics Institute, though they are mostly policy wonks), but I think that the existing channels are too corrupt to make a difference.
Rated.
abound.
Holy last boat to Brazil (or somewhere in the morning shade of the Andes)!
The first few paragraphs are well laid out. I suppose there are some ideologues who love the winners and losers aspect of privatization. Most of the folks who'll be passing the legislation are just beholden to the powers with money. It's hard to see how privatization of Social Security is in the public interest.
You have made me rich with information.
I would also add this: Barack Obama is poised to appoint Bill Daley, former Chairman of J.P. Morgan Chase (a "bankster") as his new chief of staff. He's also refused to say that he opposes any cuts to Social Security. The moment he starts using the rhetoric of "we need to have a serious discussion about cuts to the program" you know that half the progressives in the country are going to believe him and the poll numbers that now say 77% of Americans are opposed to cutting Social Security will start to drop dramatically. That's when we're in real danger.
DON'T BUY THE HYPE!!! Whether it's coming from a Republican or a Democrat.
The eastern world, it is exploding
Violence flarin', bullets loadin'
You're old enough to kill, but not for votin'
You don't believe in war, but what's that gun you're totin'
And even the Jordan River has bodies floatin'
But you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don't believe
We're on the eve
of destruction.
Don't you understand what I'm tryin' to say
Can't you feel the fears I'm feelin' today?
If the button is pushed, there's no runnin' away
There'll be no one to save, with the world in a grave
[Take a look around ya boy, it's bound to scare ya boy]
And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don't believe
We're on the eve
of destruction.
Yeah, my blood's so mad feels like coagulatin'
I'm sitting here just contemplatin'
I can't twist the truth, it knows no regulation.
Handful of senators don't pass legislation
And marches alone can't bring integration
When human respect is disintegratin'
This whole crazy world is just too frustratin'
And you tell me
Over and over and over again, my friend
Ah, you don't believe
We're on the eve
of destruction.
Think of all the hate there is in Red China
Then take a look around to Selma, Alabama
You may leave here for 4 days in space
But when you return, it's the same old place
The poundin' of the drums, the pride and disgrace
You can bury your dead, but don't leave a trace
Hate your next-door neighbor, but don't forget to say grace
And… tell me over and over and over and over again, my friend
You don't believe
We're on the eve
Of destruction
Mm, no no, you don't believe
We're on the eve
of destruction.
The Corporatists see us as pawns, as numbers, as meaningless, expendable drones. We are means-to-an end, as Kant phrased it. We are not valued as fellow-countrymen. We are not valued as people.
We are meaningless numbers. They grind us up, chew us up and spit us out. We are meaningless to them.
Kids without healthcare, seniors without social security. Soldiers sent off to fight a war based on a lie.
Human life, our lives, don't mean ANYTHING to these fucks.
The truth of the refiner's fire.....
Noticing what the last 3 letters of "fire" spell......
Thanks.
This was beautifully written, even if disturbing--perhaps in that it has to disturb us out of complacency.
Wish I could give it a second rate.
These are just different tools in the toolbox of Capitalist Oppression. Wake up. Stop drinking your American Kool-Aid and start sipping strong Latin American coffee.
It will wake you up. Plus, its good to the last drop!
Yes as citizens who have put up with their bull shit for years we are entitled to what we have worked sweated and some of US know those who have died for these so called entitlements.
The US government never went broke by spending its money on the its people. Do the math.
http://www.lp.org/platform
But the problem enters the picture with the free market concept and corporations. In a world constantly bent on greed, free market concepts which the Libertarians support seem but a fairytale. In order for the Libertarian view to exist, it seems that virtually every law and regulation in existence would need to be erased down to the basics of the Constitution and we would have to depend upon people’s “morals” to guide them and their business ethics. Not everyone has morals or business ethics, now do they. Do people TRULY want true self-accountability (especially in the world of money)? Is this even possible??
Just as Don Rich pointed out, I’ve often felt that the housing bubble is but a continuation of a large-scale scam by the elite, the results of which we’ve only just begun to witness, in order to obtain more capital including property; who now owns much of the property foreclosed upon due to the very scams that generated those foreclosures? The banking industry and the parasitic elite!
Along with the all the others with half a brain like myself, I see dead people, oh wait, that’s the other issue, I see the problems in crystal clear vision, but what I’m wrestling with are the answers. One can easily look back through human history and it seems every attempt to form a governing system, including today’s capitalism, is met with abject failure, the strong preying upon the weak, wars as a result of cultural ignorance and political maneuvering. What’s the answer, where’s the fix? How do we form a free society, yet protect the society from the greedy leaches?
As a child, I had a question that kept me awake, sometimes night after night and it has never been answered, except by my ultra-religious father. The very simple question was; “if God created us, then who created God.” “Some things aren’t meant to be known” was of course the answer we’re all familiar with, the one that comes from all religions. Of course there is no answer to such foolishness since the entire concept is foolishness.
I’m beginning to wonder the same thing about governance and human beings. IS THERE AN ANSWER??? Is it all just a foolish idea that we can expect humans to govern other humans without corruption?
That said, I find some, but not all, Libertarian studies regarding PROBLEMS as being rather interesting. The difference between me and them, though, is that I propose Left/Progressive SOLUTIONS.
The Libertarian studies can give us perspectives on how certain problems occur, such as with Regulatory Capture, above. Rather than adopt the GOP proposals of abolishing the gvt, though, we should just REFORM and MODIFY the way we do business. Create a bigger, buffer firewall between Business and the Government. This is key, I believe.
Also, major penalties for corporate lobbying. I have an idea about how to modify this. The first thing, of course, is to say that companies aren't individual persons and have NO freedom of speech. Individuals do, but not companies.
Muzzle them and require that they funnel ALL profits to the share-holders as a mere market mechanism, rather than an entity and tax the wealth gained by the individual share-holders. End government corporate subsidies and corporate welfare programs, corporate CEOs and CFOs seem to have become far too adept at finding ways to enrich their boards of directors and the "corporate entity."
What do you think of the concept of KILLING campaign contributions and lobby efforts, simplifying government to the point the average citizen can understand it and create a "draft" wherein government officers are drafted from the general public to serve for a short period of time rather than “elected?” I’m sure this would require some forethought to avoid drafting criminal minds and such, but it seems it would be a true government of the people.
However, none of these folks would be able to meet with or contact elected representatives at all. They would only be able to persuade the American people directly, through TV. There would also be major Union and Socially Progressive folks in this chamber, too, who could debate these guys.
Congressmen would only be able to meet with individual citizens. If normal citizens heard these args and supported them and wrote a congressman a letter on x program's behalf, then fine. However, a major firewall would thus be protected.
However, because they get to debate and print stuff on TV and present it to the public, their "first amendment" right to speech wouldnt be infringed.
Of course, this chamber would be purely advisory and have no ability to pass actual legislation. Only suggestions. But we would know where all these suggestions came from and would have access to the debates.
It would force all of the special interests into the light and prevent them from hiding behind Congressmen and members of gvt. By giving them this platform, we could thus adopt a Reverse-Maoist program.
Mao had the "Thousand Lights" program. He said "Let a thousand flowers bloom, a thousand points of thought contend." After all the enemies exposed themselves, he purged them.
Here, we will not purge the companies, but by giving them this freedom, would bring them into the light, for the public to see.
Further, by forcing citizens to write letters or discuss these issues with Congressmen, they would become the crucial go-between. It would introduce a necessary Citizen-based Check and Balance upon the whole concept of Corporate Influence.
What do you think?
Pls see my one-sentence today; not wholly unrelated. TY.
Why not expand the scope of "Time, Place, Manner" and apply it to corporate speech in the Congressional arena? In this "Council of Corporations," they would have their free speech, but its potency would necessarily be curtailed and a Crucial Firewall thus created, counter-intuitively, so to speak.
hrmmmmm...
I grew up in a very small community in the 50s and 60s where corporate business was virtually unheard of, yet it found a way to seep into the community (the first corporate stores I saw were JC Penny and Safeway) and they both opened the door to obliterating community businesses and eventually the entire concept of community. Gone overnight were the corner grocery stores, meat markets, bakers and even the barbers. Places where people congregated to share values and ideas went by the wayside because people began to spend at the pace of corporate advertisement. Needs gave way to unbridled lust as corporations furiously advertised and the neighborhood competition was absolutely destroyed.
I have a rather unique (and probably deadly if this ever gets out) vision of life at the micro-level. I was raised in a very poor family in a small rural community in Oklahoma, while my wife is a city girl from Southern California; WILDLY different “needs!” She owns clothing she bought in the mid 70s and they still have the original tags on them, never used. She bought a “Kuerig coffee maker because her deceased mother wanted one, we have a perfectly good coffee maker. She spends at the drop of a dime so to speak and watches friggin QVC like a religious zealot watched Jimmy Swaggart (I’ve often thought about pursuing litigation against QVC for robbing me of my retirement :-). We have closets packed so full of shit we’ll never use and wouldn’t use when it was new that I’m afraid to open the doors.
She was literally shocked that our water came from “the ground” and that propane was used for something other than BBQs when we moved to the mountains outside Durango Colorado in 1991.
I have one thing from my childhood, a .22 ca bolt-action carbine given to me by my grandfather and my wardrobe consists of several pairs of shorts, sleeveless t-shirts and tennis shoes, all of which are worn summer, winter, spring, and fall and will likely be so full of holes by the time they see the rag bag that it would take several minutes to see that they were once what they were made to be. Yet, I can’t make my way through the house without bumping into something or walking around something to avoid it due to her insatiable desire to spend.
We are only one year apart in age. Her parents and mine were very similar in personality and they were all very thrifty people, yet the cultural differences, the ideas of needs and the differences in the ability to survive are almost beyond comprehension. The way I see it, that can only be a result of corporate influence. What else would cause someone to spend like a maniac? What else would destroy otherwose perfectly healthy communities?
OK. I'm off the soapbox now. Sorry for that.