Forum Post: The Disconnect between the People and the Political Parties
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 21, 2011, 2:01 p.m. EST by suyabaa01
(244)
from Milford, CT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
On Jan 4th, 2011 a poll released by "60 minutes" showed that 81% of Americans favored taxing the rich and/or cutting military spending as the best way to cut our deficit. Only 3% recommended cutting Social Security. The results reflect the outcome of rational thinking.
On this Wednesday, political parties supposed to release US austerity plan for the next 10 years. After spending so much tax dollars they were supposedly converge on what was on the table since the beginning of this year. Any party opposing people's will is a public enemy. Here is the latest quote from Reuters:
"The deadlock focuses on Republican opposition to tax increases, particularly on the wealthiest Americans, and Democratic refusal to cut into federal retirement and healthcare benefits without such tax increases." — Mon Nov 21, 2011 12:41pm EST; http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/21/us-usa-debt-idUSTRE7AJ0KE20111121
Remember the words? "Government of the people, by the people and for the people."
YOU BE THE JUDGE WHICH PARTY IS THE PUBLIC ENEMY, WHICH HAS TO TAKE A HIKE NEXT ELECTIONS.
Social Security is NOT part of the budget, it is separately funded, it is a TRUST fund. That is why it is designated the Social Security Trust Fund.
It is also a very attractive sum of money and a holder of over 2.8 trillion dollars of US debt.
So when you hear of cutting SS, keep in mind that they've already redirected the interest the fund earns, keep in mind that the Highway Trust Fund is another attractive target.
SS and SSI are two entirely separate programs administered by one office.
Always ask for clarification of which program they are speaking.
I presume with SSI you are referring to Supplemental Security Income ("program that pays benefits to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources.") My guess is that no one is disputing that as it's marginal compared to SS on cost basis.
Regarding the poll, why do you think that the poll organizers mixed apples and oranges in the same budget question?
Just curious.
Ever hear the term razzle dazzle?
If the public and be convinced that the trust fund programs are part of the budget. By combining these programs in the public view, it pads the expenditure portrayal. Padding the expenditure image then leads to the concept of reducing or eliminating not just one program but two. Eliminating the programs then appears to have reduced the deficit spending thus coming closer to balancing the budget.
This circular logic was used in the 80's (not taking time to look up exact dates, sorry) to redirect the interest the SS Trust earned into the general fund. Basically with an active work force paying into the fund, it would self sustain without the interest which then could be introduced to the general fund, thus offsetting the deficit.
Short form here but it'd take hours to cover the entire subject.
Here is an interesting opinion piece on SS:
How can Social Security be saved? Social Security is in trouble, no doubt about it. It is in political trouble. The most cited problem of Social Security is that the ratio of workers to retirees is changing. There are fewer workers relative to retirees, currently 3.3 to 1 and 2 to 1 in 2040. Social Security estimates tend to support that it will not get much worse than that.
It is true that the support of the baby boomers, being a disproportionately large age group and coincident with substantial increases in life expectancy, could not be sustained under the old pay as you go system. The chairman of the Federal Reserve, Allan Greenspan, ostensibly saw the problem coming. He, in a political capacity, advised Social Security to increase Social Security taxes on baby boomers in 1982. That happened and baby boomers have been paying higher taxes than their forbearers ever since, to "save up" for their benefits beginning in about 2015.
It was not a conceptual problem then, but has become one. Where do you invest very large amounts of money? The best, safest saving vehicle in the world was and is the U.S. government bond. Unfortunately for the baby boomers, the U.S. government has lost the political will to repay those bonds. Since default is not a likely option, the U.S. government will probably try and print money, or monetize the debt, to repay it. This will devalue the benefits received by the baby boomers and essentially significantly reduce the benefits that the Trust was supposed to fund. So the whole accelerated payments program will have become a sham and will have amounted to a regressive income tax on the working class.
The money set aside by the baby boomers in the Social Security Trust Fund is a significant percentage of the total collections of the SSA. In 2004 SSA collected $566 billion and paid out $421 billion, $145 billion went into the Trust Fund, 25%. Of that $145 billion all of it is being used for current operations of government. The U.S. Budget in 2004 was $2,293 billion. So, if Social Security Trust Fund accumulations were to be ceased, your taxes would go up 6% to make up the shortfall, as if anybody in government cares right now. If the Social Security Trust Fund is not going to be honored by government, let’s just stop collecting the extra 25% now, before we throw more any more money into a government that does not honor its obligations, raise income taxes and get on with it. This will bring the next problem, worker to retiree ratio, into sharper focus.
http://mondaymorningeconomist.com/sssaved.html
Yep, it all goes back to the same place...government. Yet the simple fact is that monies where paid and are now will be withheld. Meantime 'grandma' gets shafted.
Thanks. I'll take a look at from this point on.
Welcome. It's sad how little we actually know and are too often blinded by the 'pretty lights'.
RonPaul 12!
I've written about this more extensively in an article I did recently on my blog ( http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/bushwhacked-by-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/ ), but the short argument here is that that the top 1% make over 50% of the money but pay less than 50% of the taxes. Clearly it is no redistribution of wealth as Republicans falsely claim, to expect those who make more than half of all the money in the U.S. to pay a share of taxes that is proportionate to that!
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
81% of Americans agree with you. And I'm one of them.
Cut the military and government and eliminate income taxes. Let people run their own lives.
I presume you are against any state structure.
Absolute minimum state is defined as a state that provides ONLY security. There is a reason for that: Lack of authority is always filled with one dominant authority (such as mob). Do you really mean that?
My preferred form of government would be minarchy. More power to the people and the states, but above all close adherence to the letter and spirit of the Constitution.
I see what you mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minarchy). You are referring to constitution based "absolute minimum state".
After witnessing state corruptions here and around the world, I'm kind of inclined to agree with you. But could not 100% give up same caretaker functions of the government yet.