Skip to main content

View Diary: A little history about Social Security cuts and other changes (92 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Because it is a cut. (24+ / 0-)

    It results in less income and the tax increases from it are regressive and pushes people with lower income into higher tax brackets and takes away peoples eligibility for food stamps which has the highest multiplier of anything. Don't ever talk about this being Keynesian, not that the era that Keynes was in is the same as now and he wrote about a future where things would change as they had in 1972 when we got off the gold standard when he wrote a Treatise on Money. That's where we are today.

    We don't need revenue to pay off the debt and interest on the debt. WE never have enough revenue to do that. WE Mark up the money needed to do it at the Fed on a computer.

    Less income to keep up with the price level means less demand. I agree on raising the minimum wage a lot, but that needs to be done anyway, just to keep up with the CPI-U and CPI-W as it is and why the trust fund, which isn't in real danger and has 3 scenarios, and the price level now. In fact I learned from this diary that Jimmy Carter actually had a good plan that wasn't implemented in funding the program from GR from unemployment above 6%. You can't pretend that changing how we measure the price level can happen in a vacuum because you think Obama is awesome.

    It changes veteran's benefits, those eligible for Medicaid, and numerous other things. The minimum wage would have to be a hell of a lot higher than $9 an hour and the President can't be trusted to raise it anyway because he already promised this and didn't deliver.

    That's why your arguments are so offensive and wrong. The desperate craponomic arguments I have heard defending the chained CPI lately are astounding.

    I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

    by priceman on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 02:06:53 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  The cost of living is going up (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevvboy, mmacdDE

      because there are more people doing more things on this planet, and we are trying to maintain a quality of life higher than most of them.

      We want our wages to stay relatively high relative to everyone else to protect our quality of life but don't like it if people look to hire cheaper labor elsewhere or automate factories just as we as consumers would buy cheaper goods or substitute something else.

      We can't live without a home, a car, communications,  utilities to include HVAC, plumbing, electricity, not just  food, clothing and shelter but that plus plus all the things you can order off the internet, pay for with a charge card, and get delivered to you or you to it next day.

      People on fixed incomes, the elderly, the poor, the disabled,  that don't have jobs or the education, health and physical well being to get jobs are becoming as expendable as the clean air we breath and the clean water we drink.

      Keynes was looking at an economy as painted by   Frank Frazetta and Boris Vallejo and not Ronald Reagan running his fingers through Milton Freedmans voodoo economic fantasies.

      For him wages and benefits were hard to drive down because unions fought for them and then were hero's. That was before Reagan got rid of the air traffic controllers.

      I agree the minimum wage should be higher than $9/hr but like social security, medicare, medicaid, veterans benefits, education,  immigration, gun control, marriage equality, collective bargaining, equal pay for equal work, and a long list of other things to include climate change the President needs us to be steadfast in his corner to get anything let alone everything done before its too late.

      Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

      by rktect on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 04:55:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong (9+ / 0-)

        You want to know why the cost of living is really going up? There are number of reasons it can happen when it's cost push(partly why food prices are going up via climate change in addition to speculation) or demand pull inflation. It's monopolistic market power, like the OPEC oil cartel in the 1970s and 1980s. It's why health device companies among other health care devices are allowed to have the prices they do because no one is there to stop them except for Medicare which does what it can, but if Medicare for All were slowly replacing the health insurance and health device monopolistic market, prices would come down quick and that would be part of what bring the cost of living down.

        It's market power that allows wealthy merchants to buy Congressman to write their trade laws. It has nothing to do with the so called greedy American consumer. It's trade law and patents set by the biggest merchants with the most monopolistic market power. It's monopolistic market power that gives big pharma their data exclusivity rights and patents and can bankrupt. This isn't a case of big market participants versus small in a functioning free market looking for lower prices. I know you hope you can sell that story, but it's easily debunked.

        For instance, your story falls apart when we look at China. Sure their wages are low(which also keeps the price of their goods low because they keep their currency low, though they are not the only ones, but that is the dynamic), but to stop riots among other things the Chinese subsidize as little standard of living as they can and subsidize production just to subsidize production making those goods even cheaper than at Walmart on the street in those vendors in those provinces throughout the country. It's not about Americans demanding unrealistic wages as if wanting to be bale to keep up with the price level set by the big firms and merchants with the market power Obama works for who want to get their hands on social security for the private market.

        The painting you are painting is more Boris than Frazetta whom Boris wishes he was; it's ironic because it's a fairy tale what you are painting. Someone should tell the Scandinavian countries that they can't set their own wage laws without impoverishing others, but it's not true. This is really Thatcheresque what you're saying. You're saying the Great Divergence(1979 to now) is here and there's nothing that can be done because there is no alternative.

        It's true that wages are sticky and stickier now than the Keynesian age because of the decline of unionization and the era of the jobless recovery, but that hardly refutes the General Theory or supports what you hope it does. It's actually a pretty bizarre argument. Unionization has been steadily declining since Taft Hartley was passed with Democrats and Republicans overriding Truman'as veto; the first grand bargain though it took awhile to be completely dismantled and Reagan provided the finishing touches though Carter was not a great friend of labor.

        People on fixed incomes, the elderly, the poor, the disabled,  that don't have jobs or the education, health and physical well being to get jobs are becoming as expendable as the clean air we breath and the clean water we drink.
        Yeah which is why cutting their income is not Keynesian or awesome like you think it is. And they are not greedy. they paid into the system when they were young for seniors of that era and the young paid into the system for their benefits. You can let Wall St off the hook and blame the American worker if you want to selling them the magic of mobile capital if you want and that this is all our fault, but people should just know it's not really the story. Chained CPI is a cut. This isn't Keynesian though we can do better than Keynes whom is still relevant as is the General Theory.

        Building off of Keynes we can shrink the supply of labor by adopting Hyman Minksy's employment of last resort a la job guarantee bringing up wages which factually would not impoverish anyone overseas. It's not ordinary Americans' fault. They don't own huge firms like Merchants and global plutocrats do. Social Security recipients are not greedy.

        You really need to stop this, but at least you agree that we need to raise the minimum wage. That is what will help the economy and the Social Security trust fund until we realize as a country that we don't need it and we can expand social security; doing so is not evil. Globalization proponents and their corporate backers would like us to believe it's all our fault and they fund new Democrats in Congress to go after the New Deal and get people to believe in some of their nonsense like you seem to.

        Nothing I said in my first comment was answered, but I will strike down craponomic chained CPI arguments and historical revisionism. This is actually how we got here.

        I don't negotiate grand bargains with deficit terrorists!

        by priceman on Fri Apr 12, 2013 at 09:06:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The essence of your argument (0+ / 0-)

          is that we can no longer afford to work for a living, and even though most of us are too weak to survive without some sort of income, there are too many people doing too many things on their own without the support of community organizers, unions, or safety nets for any of us to demand a fair wage because that is the system we have allowed the corpocracy with its institutions of  church, state and media to create.

          In return for tithes Religions control norms, mores, conventions, the rites (rights) of passage, birth, education, certification as employable, marriage, working for a living to support a family, rinse, repeat, die in peace if your lucky.

          In return for taxes States control the legislation, regulations, enforcement mechanisms, coercive sanctions.

          In return for ratings and advertisement revenues media controls the attitudes and values that tell us whats important and what isn't

          In return for profits corporations destroy our humanity and turn us into purchasers.

          There is nothing economic about that system, its not well thought out or controlled, powerful or following a plan, its just gone greedy and rogue like a big gang of bandits.

          World wide the basic message is that nations and states, religions and governments are bigger than we are, so they make the rules and we have to either meekly accept the very edge of subsistence or flirt with disaster to survive.

          All of the familiar institutions we accept as authorities exist to control the individuals behavior. In most urban areas they can prevent individuals from organizing into gene, oinkos or phratre, ie; clans, tribes, or brotherhoods large enough to become established as communities by substituting the diversity of the city as a melting pot that is anything but homogeneous.

          Communities that do successfully organize can become a part of the decision making process as political parties, think tanks, trade unions, or advocacy groups.

          Groups that have been marginalized but continue to actively resist their loss of liberty may try to set and determine a fair return for their labor and protections for their freedom and quality of life.  In many cases ethnic groups, migrant workers, teachers, nurses, unions and the elderly who do so are ruthlessly targeted for eradication by the corpocracy.

          Students and others with the leisure to become well informed and motivated to attend protests or otherwise become activists are marginalized so that women, minorities, or urban populations by association with other groups with issues automatically get labeled as socialists, communists, or lefties, as if it were still the fifties and those were still successfully propagandized as bad things to be

          Labeling as criminal drug users as drug abusers, gays as queers or faggots, atheists as godless and amoral,  forces groups of would be patriots, militias, gangs, organized criminals, bands of rebels, tea parties or terrorists to act as criminals and initiates a self fulfilling prophecy because although resistance to the borg is not futile it can be difficult to keep it non violent when the beat downs become regular.

          Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

          by rktect on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 04:48:49 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oh, I see now -- the current version of Rothbardis (0+ / 0-)

            m seems to be what informs your views. Subtle, though.

            "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

            by jm214 on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 08:42:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Hes unlikely to have informed my views (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RonV

              since I never heard of the man till you mentioned him, and when I googled him to find out who he was, he came up as almost the antithesis of anything I think would inform my views. You can't get more subtle than that.

              My libertarian anarchist thinking is more along the lines of if you had no laws you would have no crimes and the sort of self actualization that results in an aristocracy of the people, from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs.

              Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

              by rktect on Sat Apr 13, 2013 at 09:56:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site