Whitehouse Insides: Everyone: Everyone Stunned At How Little Barack Obama Understands

[Original63]

Better yet how the repubs play politics with peoples lives. They are both fucked and lets be honest....the fucking system is broken. REVOLUTION!!!!

But if I revolt can I still see Jersy Shore..lol

[lpg]

Let them cut Social Security and other programs. Certian sacrifices have to be made to save this nation from financial default. The U.S. government 100 years ago should plan a debt ceiling in the first place. They could ahve stick to the orginal plan and go with the flow of investment plans as a safety net.

Baby Boombers should plan their own retirement plans and three or more safety nets instead of relying the gov't for some money.

Hmmm. Interesting. What about the cash that was deducted from our checks for the last 45 years ? Did a conservative 401k, 1/4 vanished in the crash. Banks are paying less than 1/2% interest. Like to hear your plan for retirement. If you are too old to work, what do you propose be done with old people, including your family members ?

[GOAT]

But if I revolt can I still see Jersy Shore..lol

Nope. Because they will have to be the first casualties. We need to stop the dumbing down of society and it starts with those shit-bags, then the ones who broadcast it followed by those who still clamour to watch it.

I like you Original63, so don't become a casualty. ; )

[Original63]

That was my attempt at sarcasm. Entertainment is Fucking people here. Folks worry more about having a good time instead of taking care of business.

The only way things have gotten so bad is thru miseducation, misdirection and people having a good time when they should be kicking these narrowly focused politricksters in the Ass.

[Detroitej72]

Like to hear your plan for retirement. If you are too old to work, what do you propose be done with old people, including your family members ?

If it were up to cons, anyone who didn't have money or health care can just die off, and decrease the useless population.

[lpg]

If it were up to cons, anyone who didn't have money or health care can just die off, and decrease the useless population.

Right. Wasn't there some guy in Germany around 1933 or so had the same idea ? He even set up retirement camps in the country.

[mjs]

You need a better understanding of history and why the Nazi party was able to appeal to so many Germans. The Nazi party was a socialist party that appealed to the lower middle class because their platform was the expansion of government and government assistance programs during very bad economic times. The anti-semitic views were an extension of a belief that the wealthy, and especially the wealthy bankers, were the root of the bad times. The Nazis would have said the solution to the debt crisis would be no cuts and all revenue increases. Another part of their platform was the dismantlement of capitalism and laissez-faire policies so Nazi party members would actually be in favor of raising expenditures for medicare, medicaid, social security, and nationalized health care.

Now, I'm not saying Democrats are Nazis. Their views on violent enforcement and expansion of their views differ as do their views on minorities. But, I am saying the old emotionally laden "your a Nazi" hysterical hyperbole is most absurd in this argument.

[firstandten]

Or you can rent a copy of Soylent Green and see our future

[lpg]

You need a better understanding of history and why the Nazi party was able to appeal to so many Germans. The Nazi party was a socialist party that appealed to the lower middle class because their platform was the expansion of government and government assistance programs during very bad economic times. The anti-semitic views were an extension of a belief that the wealthy, and especially the wealthy bankers, were the root of the bad times. The Nazis would have said the solution to the debt crisis would be no cuts and all revenue increases. Another part of their platform was the dismantlement of capitalism and laissez-faire policies so Nazi party members would actually be in favor of raising expenditures for medicare, medicaid, social security, and nationalized health care.

Now, I'm not saying Democrats are Nazis. Their views on violent enforcement and expansion of their views differ as do their views on minorities. But, I am saying the old emotionally laden "your a Nazi" hysterical hyperbole is most absurd in this argument.

My point is there is a feeling that older people are a drain on the economy. The younger generation has the feeling that there will not be any retirement for them. This leads to the same us against them mentality that gives rise to radical thinking as a solution. I had family members that survived in Poland as slave labor so I am fully aware of the Nazi way of thinking. By the way, I never used the word Nazi.

[mjs]

And I never used the word tulip. When you clearly imply that the people that believe that social programs need cuts are like followers of a 1933 German leader, you don't have to use the specific word Nazi.

Look, I was asked on this site if I want to be the one to tell seniors that social security has to be cut. I don't want to be the one, but I'd rather tell them the hard truth than feed them the lies the democrats have been feeding them for decades. Two plus two is still four even when it upsets people and even when people call you a terrorist or a Nazi.

[firstandten]

You need a better understanding of history and why the Nazi party was able to appeal to so many Germans. The Nazi party was a socialist party that appealed to the lower middle class because their platform was the expansion of government and government assistance programs during very bad economic times. The anti-semitic views were an extension of a belief that the wealthy, and especially the wealthy bankers, were the root of the bad times. The Nazis would have said the solution to the debt crisis would be no cuts and all revenue increases. Another part of their platform was the dismantlement of capitalism and laissez-faire policies so Nazi party members would actually be in favor of raising expenditures for medicare, medicaid, social security, and nationalized health care.

Now, I'm not saying Democrats are Nazis. Their views on violent enforcement and expansion of their views differ as do their views on minorities. But, I am saying the old emotionally laden "your a Nazi" hysterical hyperbole is most absurd in this argument.

I tried.. I really did try to ignore this convoluted comparision of Nazi Germany style of socialism vs a marxist style of socialism which I'm sure your referring to. I don't want to jack the thread with the economics of Nazi Germany but this couldn't be a more apples to oranges comparision.

Now I understand the comparision that Ipg makes targeting a segment of the population deemed as useless.

But making the case that the Nazi's would have handled the debt crisis similarily as Dems today just makes me hope you don't teach history to impressionable high school students.

The reasons are more complex than Rush Limbaugh would have you to believe. Yes, there was tons of government spending[[ most of it military), stimulus, deficit spending all the good stuff which got the economy to full employment [[from around 30% unemployment) . However Hilter didn't give two hoots about the economy other than how it would build up his countries infrastructure to get it ready for war and his expansionist policies.

I just shake my head when people say .... look the Nazi's were the National Socialist Party thats the same as the wealth redistribution Dems in this country.

No, if you want to label the Nazi's I think right wing fascists comes about as close as it gets.

[oladub]

The term 'nazi' is usually overkill with suggestions of gas chambers and endless wars. What is usually meant is economic fascism or corporatism. Economic fascism sometimes, but not always, leads to broader fascism but it always proceeds broader more negative aspects of what we think of as fascism including naziism.

Economic fascism, or corporatism, is characterized by the subjugation of the individual to collectivism, the collusion of big government with big business, and government planning. Government might align itself with both certain major corporations and unions. Nazi planners and Roosevelt's planners had a lot of good things to say about each others' efforts to control their respective economies. This expressed harmony was, of course, before war broke out.

Obamacare is a corporatist construct. Government has colluded with the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals to keep the prices high while locking everyone into the system. 1,500 companies and other entities have been provided with special privileges.

The bridge from corporatism to nastier variations of fascism occurs when the planners have to muffle dissent and opposition when and if their plans fail according to Hayak. I don't think that President Obama is a nazi except for his Libyan war and a few other things. He does however exhibit a strong inclination for corporatist solutions to solve failing corporatist policies.

[lpg]

And I never used the word tulip. When you clearly imply that the people that believe that social programs need cuts are like followers of a 1933 German leader, you don't have to use the specific word Nazi.

Look, I was asked on this site if I want to be the one to tell seniors that social security has to be cut. I don't want to be the one, but I'd rather tell them the hard truth than feed them the lies the democrats have been feeding them for decades. Two plus two is still four even when it upsets people and even when people call you a terrorist or a Nazi.

And I will ask the question again, what is to be done with people that are too old to work ?

[gazhekwe]

And who have faithfully paid into the system their whole lives, expecting to benefit from it. It isn't a handout, folks. The government "borrowed" the money so the trust fund isn't as flush as it should be. Well, guess what?" We want them to pay it back so our money is used for the purpose it was paid. To do otherwise is to tax us at a far higher rate than was ever authorized.

If you add the weekly SS tax into the federal withholding for all those years that we paid and the government "borrowed" what we paid, it adds up to far higher tax than we ever approved.

[Whitehouse]

What have I got to do with it??

[mjs]

I don't understand by what you mean by what to do with seniors. It's not like most seniors are a lame horse. A 10 or 20 percent cut in their checks isn't a death blow. Social security was meant as a supplement for the seniors that came on unexpectedly bad times, not a sole means of survival for everyone over 62.

Of course most seniors will get less than they contributed. I'm so baffled as to how that comes as a shock to so many. Social security is based on a pyramid system where the money from the new investors is used to pay the old investors. Its also designed to provide funding to aid poor old people, widows, and orphans. It's mathematically impossible to have a non-interest bearing account where some get more than they put in and everyone else gets what they put in. Again, the system was designed to help the less fortunate that can't contribute as much as they need. You are not supposed to get back what you put in. Again, it's a pyramid investment where the later you get in, the less you will get back.

Yes, social security is full of government IOUs. So are the retirement funds that the "rich" seniors build on their own. They are commonly referred to as U.S. Treasuries. Problem is that there are insufficient treasury holdings in the accounts to cover the shortfall between revenues and expenses. Once again, long term deficit spending spread over decades that is now very quickly threatening to bury us. The difference between social security treasury positions and 401k treasury positions is that in the coming decade, as U.S. Treasuries continue to take downgrades, 401k fund managers have the option of gradually moving you into other lower risk bonds.

[Zacha341]

Precisely! I used to argue this early on... when it was being touted as being a benevolent alternative to the big bad insurance companies. Not they are without blame but I knew this things was a money shift, making people captive audiences to reduced care [[the ultimate outworking).

Further, if we thought we could AFFORD in then back when Pelosi was smiling and boss-talking we KNOW WE CANNOT NOW! Duh!

....Obamacare is a corporatist construct. Government has colluded with the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals to keep the prices high while locking everyone into the system. 1,500 companies and other entities have been provided with special privileges.

[jiminnm]

And who have faithfully paid into the system their whole lives, expecting to benefit from it. It isn't a handout, folks. The government "borrowed" the money so the trust fund isn't as flush as it should be. Well, guess what?" We want them to pay it back so our money is used for the purpose it was paid. To do otherwise is to tax us at a far higher rate than was ever authorized.

If you add the weekly SS tax into the federal withholding for all those years that we paid and the government "borrowed" what we paid, it adds up to far higher tax than we ever approved.

Ah, but it is a handout - and I say that as one who is receiving that handout.

I retired at age 52. Even with no substantive contributions after that, I and my employers had paid the max into the system for 31 years [[about $170K, starting when the max salary taxed was about $7K). I opted to start receipt at age 62 because I had never expected S/S would still exist when I got to that age or that I would be ineligible due to means testing or some other rationale. Despite the reductions for early receipt, my benefits [[without COLA) will pay back those contributions in less than 9 years. If I live an average life span for my age, I will receive about 3 times what I put in. I expect that those who retired before me will receive a greater multiple because of the low early contributions.

That return might be appropriate if the underlying funds were invested in a growing investment, but they weren't. The funds were loaned to the Feds for the lowest possible return. Consequently, everyone working today is paying my and other folks' benefits because too much future benefit was promised for the money paid in.

Some reductions in future payouts have to happen. The better option is to push the retirement age for 100% back, push back the age when one can begin receiving S/S of any amount, and rework the formulas so there is much more correlation between amounts paid in and amounts received and that reductions for early receipts, payments to those who haven't paid in, etc. are based on actuary analysis and not arbitrary. Coincidentally, I would streamline and ease the regulations, process and eligibility for investing in IRAs and 401[[k)s to provide the opportunity for folks to set up their own retirement plans.

I also recommend that the Feds begin sending every recipient a statement showing how much that person received to date compared to how much that person contributed while working. Some, probably too few, would hopefully see the problem.

But, if my payment and others in similar situation must be reduced to solve the problem, so be it.

[lpg]

I don't understand by what you mean by what to do with seniors. It's not like most seniors are a lame horse. A 10 or 20 percent cut in their checks isn't a death blow. Social security was meant as a supplement for the seniors that came on unexpectedly bad times, not a sole means of survival for everyone over 62.

Of course most seniors will get less than they contributed. I'm so baffled as to how that comes as a shock to so many. Social security is based on a pyramid system where the money from the new investors is used to pay the old investors. Its also designed to provide funding to aid poor old people, widows, and orphans. It's mathematically impossible to have a non-interest bearing account where some get more than they put in and everyone else gets what they put in. Again, the system was designed to help the less fortunate that can't contribute as much as they need. You are not supposed to get back what you put in. Again, it's a pyramid investment where the later you get in, the less you will get back.

Yes, social security is full of government IOUs. So are the retirement funds that the "rich" seniors build on their own. They are commonly referred to as U.S. Treasuries. Problem is that there are insufficient treasury holdings in the accounts to cover the shortfall between revenues and expenses. Once again, long term deficit spending spread over decades that is now very quickly threatening to bury us. The difference between social security treasury positions and 401k treasury positions is that in the coming decade, as U.S. Treasuries continue to take downgrades, 401k fund managers have the option of gradually moving you into other lower risk bonds.

I agree with you on why Social Security was implemented and how it works. How many people whose retirement funds were in 401k's were either wiped out or badly depleted ? Not very many companys still offer a traditional pension. Now Social Security is what they will need to live on. And remember a fixed income is just that. Also if the government continues to loot the fund the problem will only get worse.

[maxx]

The President did control the House for two years to show us what to expect when surrounded by friends. He extended and expanded Bush's wars, started a war of his own, extended Bush's bailouts, sent jobs abroad with new trade pacts, lobbied for illegal workers in this country, oversaw the worsening of housing and unemployment statistics, and extended tax breaks for the rich. I can understand that as a "die-hard Democrat", growth is anathema to you. With Obama as President, you probably need not worry about economic growth.

A lot of those House Dems were funded by the same people who funded Reps.' campaigns. They are DINOs. Afghanistan was abandoned by W who fell all over himself to invade Iraq and enrich Halliburton. The jobs went abroad under W during that 2004 tax holiday businesses received. And you know that the tax breaks for the super-rich were extended because the Reps. were holding people's UE benefits hostage. And you won't get any economic growth from the Reps.'s plan to just keep lowering taxes. We're headed for the days of the 1920's before there was any Soc. Sec. or federal monies for public schools.
Krugman says that Paul Ryan et al are turning us toward a much harsher society " in which ....more and more people are cast out into a situation of not having health insurance and poverty... back to a Victorian notion that life is full of evils ...but that's the way God made the world..."


From New York Mag., May 2 :