Skip to main content

View Diary: Salon [re CPI]: "...outraged progressives are organizing in advance " (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It is a more complicated - or rather slightly (23+ / 0-)

    more convoluted - strategy with respect to bankers' and Wall Street's potential profits.

    If Social Security funds are withheld from distribution, those dollars do not go anywhere else.  They just sit in the fund that's all.

    Bankers and Financiers many profit from reverse mortgages and other screwed up business that allows them to loot from what's left of the middle class, but none of the undistributed funds will make it out into the economy - and they won't service the debt or deficit.

    Okay, so then what does cutting Social Security do aside from injure the economy for real people on Main Street?  What's the Wall Street angle?

    What happens is that if they successfully start to cut distribution payments, The People start to get pissed off and want that money and that's when the clever marketers of dismantling the New Deal make an appearance and say, "What we need to do is privatize Social Security so that YOU can have YOUR money whenever you want it."  

    Of course, then once they've convinced you that the "Lock Box" is screwing YOU and enough political momentum is produced to unlock the lock box and give you your money (which won't be as much as you probably deserve, natch), YOU would be encouraged to take YOUR money from Social Security and put it into Wall Street.

    Then they will promptly lose it all in some other gawd awful market bubble crash and YOU will be permanently divorced from YOUR money - and fucked and destitute.  

    That's the plan.

    •  Yes, you're right, it is more complex. (12+ / 0-)

      But I think we need to be able to make people feel what they're are actually supporting when we talk with them.

      Essentially, they are stealing the scraps off the tables of our Grammas to give to the banksters.

      I think that is one way to phrase it that people can understand easily and see as morally wrong at the same time.

      •  While I sympathize with your (6+ / 0-)

        intent, it doesn't really help the narrative since it is not actually an apples to apples swap - it is more misinformation in an ocean of misinformation and disinformation which is already endangering Social Security and other important programs as it is.

        The simple truth is the best approach which is that current Social Security beneficiaries will see cuts in their monthly benefit checks - less money - and that the cuts will hurt 65 Million people who rely on Social Security benefits as well as the economy as a whole.

        It won't change the debt or deficit situation except to reduce revenue because those dollars withheld from the economy will be a contraction.

        •  Ok, we'll disagree. (14+ / 0-)

          Not technically, but in actuality it is.

          This whole fiscal cliff debate is based on a lie and part of that lie is that SS is part of the problem.

          The intent of this meme is to cut entitlements while we don't debate the real issues.

          Semantics upon semantics...

        •  inclusiveheart, did you see this? (9+ / 0-)

          Move Single Payer Forward? Join 18,000 Doctors of PNHP and 185,000 member National Nurses United

          by divineorder on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 01:28:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not all in one place, but I've (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            emal, elwior, Bisbonian, aliasalias

            seen all of those points made.

            I am disappointed that no one is pointing out the anti-stimulative effect of cutting benefits especially in this economy, though.

            Why isn't anybody more important than me attacking on that important point?

            All day long, the end of the Payroll Tax Holiday has been mourned and the talking heads are all wringing their hands about those paycheck contractions, but no one makes the same issue of cutting the benefits checks of 65 Million Americans, most of whom have very few ways to bridge the gap and almost all of whom spend every dime of what they do get in the real economy.

            Am I wrong to think that reducing 65 Million Social Security checks - not including Veterans' benefits because I don't know that number - by something along the lines of $100 a month would hurt this fragile economy? Is there some other Cash Injection Fairy that I don't know about who will come in and make up the difference?

            Recommending your comment by "voice vote" as without Java turned on, I can't get the rec buttons to work.  Thanks for the reference.

        •  Which raises the query "and why cause (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jabney, blueoasis, elwior, inclusiveheart


          We have examples of Europe to show pulling money out of people's hands hurts the economy.

          We have the IMF sudden realization and British analysts, as they come onto their triple-recession, to tell us austerity is counter-productive.

          Are our political class and media unaware of the news, which we all can find or read in moments?

          Are they just stupid? On massive amounts of LSD, all day long?

          Or do they wish for, desire, the result? And why would they wish for a result that, in all normal politics, loses people's vote? Which is supposed to, according to the Conventional Wisdom, be what politician's are all about getting.

          President Obama keeps talking the neo-Lib talk about "make us competitive in the world marketplace." Conservatives, knowing their biggest expense against profit comes from labor, of course would be happiest with slave-labor but will settle for serfdom. For now.

          Both agree that wages should be driven down, and the way to do that is to make the US compete against slave-labor and a-touch-above-slave-labor.

          The more desperation in the air, the better for neo-Libs and Conservatives alike. The ordinary people? Shit, enough are so blinded you can get them to claim arithmetic doesn't apply, so a cut isn't a cut.

          Markos! Not only are the Gates Not Crashed, they've fallen on us. Actual Representatives are what we urgently need, because we have almost none.

          by Jim P on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 08:55:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  There is no money in the Social Security Trust (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Fund.  There are special BONDS, issued by the Treasury.    These bonds are ceremoniously put into a special safe and
      value of the money they represent is transfered by a bookkeeping entry to the general fund.  Then that money is spent as Congress dictates.  

      When the BONDS are redeemed, in the somewhat far off future, money from the general fund will have to be appropriated to redeem the bonds.

      Time is a long river.

      by phonegery on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 12:47:12 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes indeed. (5+ / 0-)

      That was the plan in 2005, and it's Wall Street's plan still, albeit a bit more opaque than when W decided to "spend his political capital" on it. I've returned many times over the intervening years to a 2005 Harper's essay (pdf behind paywall only, sorry for lack of link) by Michael Hudson, The $1 Trillion Pyramid, and recommend it highly as an explanation of Wall Street's obsessive quest to gain access to the Social Security Trust Fund. Long story short: they've already pissed away all the rest of the capital they could get their hands on. This is all that's left.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sun Jan 13, 2013 at 05:15:08 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site