Forum Post: I <3 Robert Reich
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 19, 2011, 10:29 a.m. EST by benlebovitz
(11)
from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
The Seven Biggest Economic Lies http://robertreich.org/post/11329289033
Robert Reich is worth reading, just like many other's from all stripes are worth reading. It would still be foolish to embrace any of them.
What about Keynes?
Also worth reading. Hayek, worth reading. Marx worth reading. Friedman worth reading. Galbraith worth reading. These are all smart people that have something important to say. However we don't have to embrace any of them.
Friedman has a, shall we say, a different view of what a good socieity should be. Galbraith was Keynesian.
I selected only a couple of names from my memory to indicate there is a whole field of people who have had interesting thoughts.
I thought the goal of this whole exercise called OWS was to find a common message/enemy about the influence the richest one percent has on politics at the expense of the 99%.
Nearly all authors have much wider philosophies that we may not all agree with, but we can all agree that corruption doesn't belong in politics.
Marxisim has no relevance in reality. Keynes needs to be embraced because his models actually work. This the main flaw in political economic thought. Krugman explains this much better than I can: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/why-believe-in-keynesian-models/
Btw... I didn't say Marxism was relevant. I said Marx is worth reading. He made some important observations that have actually entered mainstream analysis. Let's not throw out some useful thoughts because the man who said them somehow got a bad name through the actions of others.
Yeah, but my time is a scares resource. How many books can I read? I could also read Rick Perry's autobiography, but I really don't have time for that nonsense.
On the other hand, I wish everyone at OWS would read "lords of finance" and learn about the economics of the great depression...
Krugman is also worth reading.
Direct quote:
"Social Security is solvent for the next 26 years. It could be solvent for the next century if we raised the ceiling on income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. That ceiling is now $106,800."
And social security is SELF-FUNDING, generate PROFITS for the U.S. government, which no one knows or ever talks about.
They want to "cut" social security---even though the benefits were ALREADY paid for and are self-funded---because ordinary people need, and ordinary people paid for, social security. They want to make social security tax a regular tax to go to Treasury then it goes to fund wars, bailouts, etc.
They want to make social security a ponzi scheme, but we will not let them; we are the 99%!
It already is a ponzi scheme.
Al Gore said, stop stealing from the trust fund. And we humiliated him for it because he wanted to help regular people. A ponzi scheme is where old investors are paid with new investors' money.
And how is that different from the way Social security is operated? Current beneficiaries are paid by current payees.
Right. Tell the Treasury and Congress to stop looting the Social Security Trust Fund. It is filled with IOUs.
That what treasury bills are, and they bear interest, but not enough to maintain the same level of benefits indefinitely.
well... you're mostly correct.. I mean, SS is from taxes, and if we tax properly then it'll be ok forever.
Right, like the Honorable R. Reich states: raise the ceiling.
Social security is NOT in a crisis. It is actually probably the most successful government "program" that I can think of, believe it or not.
EDIT: and it is a self-funded program!
Social Security was set up as a self funding program, the interest the funds in the trust were slated to pay future benefits while the trust continued to grow. This was short circuited by the interest being redirected into the general fund and of course the 'loans' secured by the trust itself, loans that also were placed into the general fund.
Regardless of these events SS is still self funding by the tax that is paid by the working public, some of the newer innovations legislated were done so for the good of the economy (supposedly)
Newer innovations include, federal workers able to draw SS after paying in 4 quarters, the draw to be based upon the pay received during those quarters.
This little gem created a new class of SS eligible people, people who paid into the fund for a much shorter time than the general populace, thus paying in a substantially smaller share while able to withdraw a matching share.
The interest redirected to the general fund was the single worst event in the history of SS. Billions of dollars redirected away from the present and future recipients of this government directed program.
Presuming that SS is a ponzi scheme is a presumption in error.
If the interest were returned to SS and the loans returned, the interest would exceed the needs of the beneficiaries for the foreseeable future even if NO funds were collected from the working tax payer.
So if the ceiling on SS contributions were to be raised and the interest returned SS would be the ultimate retirement program for the majority of the citizens and could easily include those who did not pay into the program or those who paid in short term.
F-in Bingo, my Friend. The government seriously, literally, and unjokingly steals from Social Security. Steals.
Things you OWSers should occupy:
DISCLAIMER: I should not feed the troll.
Economics: you ever heard of trickle-down economics? LOL. And you tell us to . . . whatever.
Library: we are fighting for the Constitution.
Rehab: baseless accusations, but that is how you operate.
Brooks Brothers: I have a corporate account with Brooks Brothers, but I would never (ever) buy a suit there. I get my shirts there, however, Just about all of my shirts are BB.
Shower stall: not funny. Pathetic effort too.
you love robert reich? did he object back when Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall? or Signed in Nafta?
dont' know at the time, but yes, he's spoken recently to restore it.
ok, good