RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Hudson writes: "The pace of Wall Street�s war against the 99% is quickening in preparation for the kill."

'Wall Street strategists view this state and local budget squeeze as a godsend.' (photo: Unknown)
'Wall Street strategists view this state and local budget squeeze as a godsend.' (photo: Unknown)


Wall Street's Next Profit Scheme

By Michael Hudson, Michael Hudson's Blog

8 October 12

 

Across America, schools, roads, and water systems are for sale to the highest Wall Street bidder.

he pace of Wall Street's war against the 99% is quickening in preparation for the kill. Having demonized public employees for being scheduled to receive pensions on their lifetime employment service, bondholders are insisting on getting the money instead. It is the same austerity philosophy that has been forced on Greece and Spain - and the same that is prompting President Obama and Mitt Romney to urge scaling back Social Security and Medicare.

Unlike the U.S. federal government, most states and cities have constitutions that prevent them from running budget deficits. This means that when they cut property taxes, they either must borrow from the wealthy, or cut back employment and public services.

For many years they borrowed, paying tax-exempt interest to wealthy bondholders. But carrying charges on these have mounted to a point where they now look risky as the economy sinks into debt deflation. Cities are defaulting from California to Alabama. They cannot reverse course and restore taxes on property owners without causing more mortgage defaults and abandonments. Something has to give - so cities are scaling back public spending, downsizing their school systems and police forces, and selling off their assets to pay bondholders.

This has become the main cause of America's rising unemployment, helping drive down consumer demand in a Keynesian nightmare. Less obvious are the devastating cuts occurring in health care, job training and other services, while tuition rates for public colleges and "participation fees" at high schools are soaring. School systems are crumbling like our roads as teachers are jettisoned on a scale not seen since the Great Depression.

Yet Wall Street strategists view this state and local budget squeeze as a godsend. As Rahm Emanuel has put matters, a crisis is too good an opportunity to waste - and the fiscal crisis gives creditors financial leverage to push through anti-labor policies and privatization grabs. The ground is being prepared for a neoliberal "cure": cutting back pensions and health care, defaulting on pension promises to labor, and selling off the public sector, letting the new proprietors to put up tollbooths on everything from roads to schools. The new term of the moment is "rent extraction."

So having caused the fiscal crisis, the legacy of decades of property tax cuts financed by going deeper into debt are now to be paid for by leasing or selling off public assets. Chicago has leased its Skyway for 99 years to toll-collectors, and its parking meters for 75 years. Mayor Emanuel has hired J.P.Morgan Asset Management to give "advice" on how to sell privatizers the right to charge user fees for previously free or subsidized public services. It is the modern American equivalent of England's Enclosure Movements of the 16th to 18th century.

By depicting local employees as public enemy #1, the urban crisis is helping put the class war back in business. The financial sector argues that paying pensions (or even a living wage) absorbs tax revenue that otherwise can be used to pay bondholders. Scranton, Pennsylvania has reduced public-sector wages to the legal minimum "temporarily," while other cities are seeking to break pension plans and deferred-wage contracts - and going to the Wall Street casino and play losing games in a desperate attempt to cover their unfunded pension liabilities. These recently were estimated to total $3 trillion, plus another $1 trillion in unfunded health care benefits.

Although it is Wall Street that engineered the bubble economy whose bursting has triggered the urban fiscal crisis, its lobbyists and their Junk Economic theories are not being held accountable. Rather than blaming the tax cutters who gave bankers and real estate moguls a windfall, it is teachers and other public employees who are being told to give back their deferred wages, which is what pensions are. No such clawbacks are in store for financial predators.

Instead, foreclosure time has arrived to provide a new grab bag as cities are forced to do what New York City did to avert bankruptcy in 1974: turn over management to Wall Street nominees. As in Greece and Italy, elected politicians are to be replaced by "technocrats" appointed to do what Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair did to England: sell off what remains of the public sector and turn every social program into a profit center.

The plan is to achieve three main goals. First, give privatizers the right to turn public infrastructure into tollbooth opportunities. The idea is to force cities to balance budgets by leasing or selling off their roads and bus systems, schools and prisons, real estate and other natural monopolies. In the process, this promises to create a new market for banks: lending to vulture investors to buy rights to install tollbooths on the economy's basic infrastructure.

Elected public officials could not engage in such predatory and anti-labor policies. Only the "magic of the marketplace" can break public labor unions, downsize public services and put tollbooths on the roads, water and sewer systems while cutting back bus lines and raising fares.

To achieve this financial plan, it is necessary to frame the problem in a way that rules out less anti-social alternatives. As Margaret Thatcher put matters, TINA: There Is No Alternative to selling off public transportation, real estate, and even school systems and jails.

Dismantling Public Education and Police Departments to Pay Bondholders

Local tax policy used to be about education. The United States was divided into fiscal grids to finance school districts, along with roads and bus lines, water and sewer systems. Municipalities with better schools taxed their property more, but this made it more desirable to live in such districts, and thus raised rather than lowered real estate prices. This made urban improvement self-feeding. Lower-taxed districts were left behind.

This no longer is the American way. Education in particular has been demonized. California's formerly great school system is the most visible casualty of the state's Proposition 13, the property tax freeze enacted in 1978. The Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association employed its political front man, Howard Jarvis, as a lobbyist to promise voters that little would change by cutting back education and libraries. He claimed that "63 percent of the graduates are illiterate, anyway," so who needed books. Education and other parts of public spending was frozen as property taxes were slashed by 57% - from 2.5 or 3% down to just 1% of assessed valuation, and were frozen at 1978 price levels for owners who have kept their property. The result is that California's school system has plunged to 47th rank in the nation.

For neoliberals, the silver lining is that downgrading education makes citizens more susceptible to the Tea Party's false consciousness when it comes to how to vote in their economic interest. Back when Prop. 13 was passed, for instance, commercial investors promised homeowners that across-the-board tax cuts would make housing more affordable and that rents would fall. But they rose, along with real estate prices. This is the Big Lie of neoliberal tax cutters: the promise that cutting property tax will lower costs rather than provide a windfall for property owners - and also for banks as rising rental values are "free" to be capitalized into larger mortgage loans. New buyers need to pay more, raising the cost of living and doing business.

Back in 1978 on the eve of Proposition 13, commercial owners paid half the real estate taxes and homeowners the other half. But now the homeowners' share has risen to two-thirds, while commercial taxes have fallen to one-third. Bank loan officers have capitalized the tax cuts into larger mortgages, so housing prices have risen, not fallen. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa exclaimed ruefully last year that "the time is now to address the inequity of Prop 13 that allows large corporate interests to get a windfall meant for homeowners. We are not funding government. We are just decimating government and the services it provides."[1] He proposed a two-tier property tax, restoring higher rates for commercial and absentee investors.

School teaching is an exhausting occupation. That is one reason why teachers are one of America's strongest labor unions. Their wages have not risen as fast as their expenses, because they have agreed to take less income in the short run in order to get pensions after their working days end. These contracts are now under attack - to pay bondholders. States and cities are now insisting that bondholders cannot be paid without stiffing their labor force.

So we are now seeing the folly of untaxing property and replacing tax revenues with borrowing - paying tax-exempt interest to the nation's wealthiest bondholders. Cutting the property tax base thus finds its twin casualty in the wave of defaults on pension promises.

Real estate taxes have plunged from two-thirds of urban revenues in the 1920s to just one-sixth today for the United States as a whole. Federal grants-in-aid also are being cut back, and state aid to the cities is following suit. But instead of making housing more affordable, these tax cuts have "freed" rental value from the tax collector only to end up being paid to the banks.

Here too, California has led the way. In 1996 its voters approved Prop. 218, requiring any new tax, fee or property assessment to be approved by two-thirds of voters. (A few exemptions were made to keep local sewer and water systems viable.) This stratagem "starves the beast," with the "beast" being public infrastructure and social services. Police forces are being downsized and social programs are cut back. And as urban poverty increases, crime rates are rising, imposing an "invisible" cost of living.

The most important economic fact to recognize is thus that whatever the tax collector relinquishes tends to be capitalized into mortgage loans. And by leaving more rent available to be paid as interest, cutting property taxes obliges homebuyers to go deeper into debt. Lower property taxes thus mean higher housing prices - on credit, because a home or other real estate is worth whatever a bank will lend to new buyers. So by capitalizing the after-tax rental value into a flow of interest, bankers end up with the rent - and hence, with the property tax cuts.

That is what a free market means today - income created by public-sector investment, "freed" to be paid to banks as interest rather than to be recaptured by government.

Most urban revenue is a free lunch created by taxpayer-financed roads, schools, sewers and water systems. But neither real estate speculators nor their bankers believe that this investment by taxpayers should be recovered by taxing the increased site values created by providing these public services. Instead of making the public sector self-financing as it expands public services to create wealth, private owners are to get the benefit - while banks capitalize the gains into larger mortgage loans, which now account for 80% of bank credit.

The core of the bankers' "false consciousness" - the cover story with which Tea Party lobbyists are seeking to indoctrinate U.S. voters - is that taxes on land and financial assets punish the "job creators." Going on the offence, the beneficiaries of this public spending claim that they need to be pampered with tax preferences to invest and employ labor, while the 99% need to be kicked and prodded to work harder by being paid low wages. This false narrative ignores the fact our greatest growth periods are those in which U.S. individual and corporate tax rates have been highest. The same is true in most countries. What is stifling economic growth is the debt overhead - owed to the 1% - and tax cuts on free lunch wealth.

The Public Pension Squeeze is Part of the Overall Debt Crisis

Republican Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan and Texas Governor Rick Perry have characterized Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. This is true in the obvious sense that retirees are supposed to be paid out of contributions to new entrants. That is how any pay-as-you-go system is supposed to work. The problem is not that the system needed to be pre-funded to provide the government with revenue to cut taxes on the 1%. The problem is that new contributions are drying up as the economy buckles under its expanding debt overhead.

Social Security can easily be paid. After the 2007 crash the Fed printed $13 trillion on its computers to give to bankers. It can do the same for Social Security - and for federal grants-in-aid to America's states and cities. It can pay state and local pension obligations in the same way it has paid Wall Street's 1%. The problem is that the Fed is only willing do what central banks were founded to do - finance government deficits - to give to the banks. The aim is to save bondholders and the banks' high-flying counterparties, not the 99%.

The problem is that the financial system itself is rotten. This has turned today's class war into a financial war, with the major tactic being to shape how voters perceive the problem. The trick is to make them think that cutting taxes will lower their living costs and make housing cheaper, rather than enabling banks to take what the tax collector used to take. That is the key perception that needs to be spread: cutting taxes leaves more "free lunch" income available for banks to lend against, loading the economy deeper into debt.

Here's why the present track can't possibly work. State and local pension funds are $3 trillion behind because they are only making 1% returns these days (the only safe return), not the 8+% that they were told to make in order to pay pensions by "capital" gains (that is, the bank-financed free lunch). The Fed is keeping interest rates low in an attempt to re-inflate real estate and other asset prices back to the happy decade of Bubblemeister Greenspan. If interest rates rise - by enough to enable California, Chicago and other localities to obtain enough interest to pay retirees what they promised - then banks will see the collateral for their mortgage loans fall.

So the Fed has locked the economy into low returns. Neither Democratic nor Republican politicians are willing to raise taxes on the finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector. They vote in line with what their campaign contributors are paying for - to make Wall Street rich.

At issue is the old Who/Whom choice. Given the mathematical fact that debts that can't be paid, won't be, the question is who should get priority: the 1% or the 99%?

Debt-ridden austerity and downsizing government is being urged as if it is inevitable, not a policy choice to put bondholders and the 1% over the 99% - a reward for the lobbying money it has spent on buying politicians and misleading voters to believe that cutting property taxes and cutting taxes on the rich will help the economy.

But if America still lets the 1% write the laws - or what turns out to be the same thing these days, to contribute to the political campaigns of lawmakers - then the economy will get much poorer, quickly. The era of America growth will be over.

Something has to give: If bondholders won't be paid, states cannot pay labor's deferred wages in the form of pensions, and will have to cut back public services.

So it's time to default. Otherwise, Wall Street will turn us into Greece. That is the financial plan, to be sure. It is the strategy for today's financial war against society at large. In Latvia, I spoke to the lead central banker, who explained that wages in the public sector had fallen by 30 percent, helping push down private-sector wages nearly as far. Neoliberals call this "internal devaluation," and promise that it will make economies more competitive. The reality is that it will up the internal market and drive labor to leave.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
Email This Page

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+94 # Barbara K 2015-10-31 09:51
I know that he and his supporters will probably try to enact some of that junk. I hope that the Senate can stop him from overtaking us, and that the President has a good Veto Pen in hand.

..
 
 
+81 # Old4Poor 2015-10-31 10:35
Making it even more essential that the next VETO hand is Democratic.
 
 
+37 # HowardMH 2015-10-31 12:34
Things are going to get a lot worse before they start to get better with this bunch of clowns in charge.

The American Spring will start when there are thousands of really, really pissed off people at the Capital all at the same time raising some serious hell against the Lunatics, and idiots absolutely nothing is ever, ever going to happen to these totally bought and paid for by the richest 400 families in the world that are becoming more and more powerful with each passing rigged election thanks to the stupid people.

So, scream, yell, chant, stomp your feet, threaten to hold your breath, and beat your drums so the media can show it on the evening news, while all of those who can actually do anything about it are home counting their donation money and laughing all the way to the bank.
Yes there is still hope for the America we used to know, but I agree it is fading fast.
 
 
-138 # Roland 2015-10-31 10:17
 
 
+97 # Old4Poor 2015-10-31 10:43
No, hun, you don't understand what it is to be aging and wearing out. Depending on health, work done, and sometimes pure luck of the draw, some of us are OLD physically well before 65 no matter how much longer we may live.

I desperately needed Social Security long before I was 65 due to injuries when my car was rear-ended. Did I collect anything from insurance? - NO, they had 1 Million and one loopholes and expensive lawyers.

Instead of vouchers we need single payer not for profit health care and to get the middle men (Insurance companies) out of it and stop letting them strip so much money off the top, and then control the run away profits many hospitals, suppliers, and doctors charge.

Making obscene profits off of other people's bad health is like charging for air and water. Oh, wait, someone is already doing the latter.
 
 
-93 # Roland 2015-10-31 11:25
 
 
+42 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:16
medicare fraud is a conservative action, by the way. get rid of conservatives, the USA goes back to a balanced budget and a higher standard of living for ALL citizens, not just a few. there isn't a single conservative "idea" or policy that doesn't benefit the few at the expense of the many, not one.
 
 
-54 # Roland 2015-10-31 14:42
Medicare fraud is a conservative action? What does that mean?

Get rid of conservatives and you will have a balanced budget? Not only doesn't that make sense, it has no historical backing. Who controlled Congress when Clinton was in office?

Most conservative policies benefit the most people. Min. wage as I have been talking about on this page is just one example. A free market is another. Deregulation brought you cheaper air fares and cheaper long distance phone calls, etc.
 
 
+39 # ericlipps 2015-10-31 16:01
Quoting Roland:
Most conservative policies benefit the most people. Min. wage as I have been talking about on this page is just one example. A free market is another. Deregulation brought you cheaper air fares and cheaper long distance phone calls, etc.

It also brought you lowered air safety standards, increased concentration of the telecom industry (meaning less genuine competition) and, oh yes, how could I forget, a banking collapse which brought on a savage recession from which it took years to emerge.
 
 
-42 # Roland 2015-10-31 20:04
Conservative policies brought you the recession? What drugs are you on? The Fed, Liberals blocking reform to Fannie and Freddie lending and excessive risk taking by financial institutions brought you the recession.
 
 
+22 # JCM 2015-10-31 21:45
The conservative policies she is talking about is the policy of free market or less regulation that led to the excessive risk taking.
 
 
-29 # Roland 2015-11-01 08:49
The excessive risk taking was based on pools of mortgages that were written with lax standards due to the govt. (mostly liberals) wanting people who couldn't afford houses to buy houses.
 
 
+19 # JCM 2015-11-01 11:44
Wrong. The Bush administration wanted to put people in homes and gave the wink to F & F to get people in. Whatever the reason there were bad mortgages and that did contribute to the crisis but by far the unregulated derivative market that repackaged the mortgagees many times with little to no capitalization and being insured by little to no capitalization and rating companies calling subprime mortgagees AAA investments nearly destroyed our country. So much for free market. Look it up yourself. Otherwise your just pedaling republican propaganda.
 
 
+1 # jcdav 2015-11-02 20:16
do not forget the removal of Glass/Steagall yes Clinton did this.
 
 
+12 # Old4Poor 2015-11-01 00:31
Good grirf, Roland. How much of that Kool Ade did you drink?
 
 
+22 # cavewoman 2015-10-31 17:47
Since the fraud is committed by big buck providers owned by mega rich conglomerate groups who tend to run conservative I would say ronjazz is spot on.

Remember that the biggest proven case of Medicare fraud was a company whose CEO was Rick Scott of Florida (aka Gov Skeletor)
 
 
-21 # Roland 2015-10-31 20:09
not all people in business are conservatives - what is your point?

Is the business (shown on 60 Min.) set up to sell medical equipment to Medicare patients conservative? they were crooks who stole credit card info and billed Medicare without any patients requesting or getting the equipment. It is the govt. that doesn't spend the money to prevent such theft.
 
 
-3 # Depressionborn 2015-11-02 19:24
A good SS idea, ronjazz, might be to make it voluntary. We could all retire early and have more retirement income.

A balance budget would be great too. Lets do it. What would you start with?
 
 
+30 # cavewoman 2015-10-31 17:45
Traditional Medicare has the shortest turnaround time, lowest error ratios, and lowest cost per claim in the industry. Physicians know that the reimbursements will arrive regularly and with little problem. There is no CEO and a plethora of high mucketymucks taking home multimillion dollar salaries and benefits. (while the employees are underpaid)

Government does not cover all Medicare costs. We pay premiums, deductibles, and co insurance and a portion of everyone's SS withholding and employer matching $ goes into the plan.

Regarding SS disability, one does not just walk into the bureau and receive SSI. That process can take up to 3 years and there are mountains of hoops through which one must jump. before one is approved..

The vast majority of fraud is by providers. I worked for a Part B carrier in the compliance unit; I investigated fraud. Only one case of patient fraud was proven over a 15 year period.(ER hopping for pain meds.) Compare to the multimillion $$$ frauds committed by HCA/Columbia and other facilities.
Commercial insurance costs more because of those excessive salaries. Medicare has a limited annual % increase.
 
 
+3 # Karlus58 2015-11-02 17:47
I agree with you. I'm retired physician. Medicare was best payor, on time, and fair. I had no problems following the rules. There need to be rules or else its the wild west. Private insurance is a middleman cartel. They paid when they wanted, what they wanted and if they wanted. The fraud you mention, though, well, what providers are you speaking of? Physician providers are only 15% of the pie. The vast majority of fraud is from other providers, ie. hospitals and DME providers who get the lionshare of Medicare payments. If one was to thnk it through logically, the best solution is Medicare for All. It would be easy to get everyone into the system and rid ourselves of the insurance cartels who provide no care for anyone, yet dictate who gets cared for, how much care they receive. Obamacare was a give away to these players. It will not last. Single payor must be enacted. It is the best moral AND business solution.
 
 
+11 # Old4Poor 2015-11-01 00:30
I could not qualify for SSI as I had spent most of my adult life as a homemaker and mother.

At the moment my younger son is badly disabled and has not been able to work for several years. Despite medical reports from his doctor that he is unable to work SSI keeps denying him, often for reasons that have nothing to do with him or his claim.

Naturally, he has a lawyer working on his behalf, which means that when he finally does get accepted (Crossing my fingers for that) he will have to turn a large chunk over to them.

In the meantime he has no income as his unemployment has run out and as with so so many in this situation is close to destitute.

Fortunately, I had an extra bedroom for him, and my grandson is sleeping on the couch.

We were a very upscale, upper middle class professional family, and look at us now, living on my not quite $900 per month of Social Security.

Yes, I would love it if those who abuse and rob Medicare were punished. Can we start with Gov. Rick Scott of Florida?

The fix is in and while both parties add to the corruption, the GOP is far and away the worst offenders.
 
 
+3 # jcdav 2015-11-02 20:13
Take a look at the VA helthcare system. overhead runs 7-8%...insuranc e companies oh runs 17%...how would saving 10% of our medical costs each year save? one major difference is the amount the ceo of the ins co rakes in and the amount the head of the VA EARNS.
 
 
+28 # JCM 2015-10-31 12:17
Old4Poor, don't waste your time with this guy. He is not an honest broker of the truth just another ideologue that can't think straight from all the propaganda. All or at least most his facts are either wrong, incomplete or distorted. His philosophy is more burden on the poor and middle class and less on the rich. A true republican conservative. Nixon wouldn't believe the stuff they pitch.
 
 
-45 # Roland 2015-10-31 14:50
Most who post here are ideologues that won't accept facts I post, along with sources. I have gotten very few facts wrong and when I do get one wrong I admit it unlike most people here. I made and error 2 weeks ago when I thought that Walmart had laid off over two thousand people. It was actually 450. I checked and admitted to that error at that time. I have never had anyone admit to being wrong after presenting the facts to them with sources. The people here do not care to address anything that is counter to their deeply held beliefs. If it is counter, they will not check - they will just deny it.
 
 
+24 # JCM 2015-10-31 15:31
I have checked and countered multiple times your facts, distortions and partial cherry picked sources and have given you sources. To name a few: Have you seen the video of Morell I sent you multiple times. Do you still think Bush and Cheney didn't lie? Do you still think Cheney is charitable even though he gained more money by contributing. How about Koch, still a great guy? Lets see who is the ideologue and the excuser and apologist?
 
 
-24 # Roland 2015-10-31 20:13
I agree with Woodward that Bush didn't lie. Of course Woodward must not be aware of that tape. It wasn't covered in his research, I guess. I did watch it, but you should know there are other factors that have to be taken into account as well.
 
 
+15 # JCM 2015-10-31 21:37
 
 
+19 # ericlipps 2015-10-31 15:56
Do you actually post facts, or just claims you cherry-pick from here and there without bothering to check whether or not they're actually true? Based on what I've seen here and elsewhere, it's the latter.

Quoting sources isn't enough if the sources you choose are worthless, or if you quote them selectively so as to distort what they actually said.
 
 
-19 # Roland 2015-10-31 20:14
Any source you don't want to hear is apparently worthless.
 
 
-3 # Depressionborn 2015-11-02 19:53
Quoting Roland:
Any source you don't want to hear is apparently worthless.


rsn green thumbs find reality revolting. I do not know why, except maybe they want life to be fair. (That's a joke) The problem I have with most of them is that they find voluntary an unnecessary evil and freedom fearful. Which is understandable as freedom can be a fearful thing. But you know all that.
 
 
+4 # Old4Poor 2015-11-01 00:37
I know what Roland is, but he presents me with so many opportunities to make points that matter to me.

I am not trying to convince him - impossible task there - but to send my situation, variations abound for so many others who cannot express it, and I send it out into the Universe when I can in hopes of eventually creating changes that will benefit someone like me down the road.

Thanks, Roland for yet another such opportunity.
 
 
+14 # Doc Mary 2015-10-31 20:34
FWIW, the mandatory retirement age was a necessary correlate to old age SSA - because one of the goals was to get OLDER workers OUT of the workplace so YOUNGER workers (many raising children) could get JOBS. Also, whether it is a hardship to keep working depends on the type of job you do and your own health. Perhaps it could be optional. Just keep in mind that one of the major arguments for SSA old age "insurance' back in the 1930s was to make room for younger workers, just as one of the main arguments for Medicare was so the middle class wouldn't end up spending all they were making taking care of their parents.
 
 
+8 # Old4Poor 2015-11-01 00:42
Excellent point. Create jobs for younger workers by retiring the older ones.

Another aspect of this is public safety. Recently, a friend who's husband is developing senility and should stop working continued his job as a long distance trucker because she was disabled and needed his health insurance until she hit 65 and could finally go on Medicare.

This put everyone on the road with him in danger.
 
 
+55 # revhen 2015-10-31 10:47
1. Most people are working longer, but not by choice. I'm 81 and still do part time work.
2. I'm not wealthy yet I pay tax on my SS benefits. The only people who don't are the at the poverty level and living almost wholly on SS since retirements have been drastically cut so the wealthy can have more wealth.
3. The large corporations and very wealthy would love to have a $0.00 minimum wage so they wouldn't have to pay their workers adequately and acquire more wealth for themselves. The states that have raised the minimum are doing better economically because people have more to spend.
4. "Marketplace" and "competition" are really nonexistent since the wealthy and corporations control.
 
 
-73 # Roland 2015-10-31 11:33
1. true but more are capable of working longer. And if people are living decades longer than when SS was first created, that is a problem
2 I don't know where the tax on SS benefits starts but the poor do not pay it. The progressive tax rates kick in on those who do.
3.The poor and unskilled would love a shot at a job. Too bad with a high min. wage that won't happen. People with more skills will take the jobs that remain.
4.Corporations control the market for TVs for example. What has happened to the prices for TVs over the last 2 decades? Or airfares and long distance phone calls since deregulation?
 
 
+33 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-31 13:35
1. But people who depend on SS aren't living decades longer than when it was first implemented. You knew that.

2. And why should the poverty striken pay tax on SS? It isn't the poor, but the impoverished who aren't required to pay tax on their SS.

3. As has been pointed out ad nauseum, higher minimum wages reduce jobs only in the right wing echo chamber. In the real world, jobs and economic activity are increased. That is one of the reasons that things were so much better before the buying power of the minimum wage had shrunk to a small fraction of its original value. In today's dollars, the present minimum wage would be around $20, and if it followed increased productivity, it would be even higher.

4. Corporations most assuredly do not control the market for TV's. There are too many of them making TV's for them to control the market. And as for the price of airfare, it has been going through the roof and as the number of airlines is reduced through mergers, airfares are increasing even faster. And that is while the price of fuel has been falling and doesn't even consider the added fees for just about everything that are included in the air ticket. It also doesn't consider that more people are being crammed into smaller spaces and service has deteriorated.
 
 
-26 # Roland 2015-10-31 16:21
 
 
-25 # Roland 2015-10-31 16:32
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2015-11-02 19:44
First 15% SS never fed taxed; the rest is taxed at two rates depending on income. A single guy is pretty safe if his income is less than $25,000. States are different. Some do not tax SS.

Taxing SS is an atrocity regardless of income. If money is spent, someone has to earn it.
 
 
+27 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:22
there is no problem with SS that can't be solved by electing liberals instead of traitors. a hike in the minimum wage has NEVER FAILED to lift the economy. and the progressive taxation system has saved the USA, time and again, from the depradations of the evil, greedy right. deregulation has cost the American consumer BILLIONS in unnecessary charges, deaths, illnesses, and even security lapse, like 9/11. The price for TV has skyrocketed because of deregulation; yes a television set is cheaper (thanks to research funded by the GOVERNMENT), but the price for reception is very high, and shows no sign of going lower. airfares and long distance calls are also less expensive because of GOVERNMENT FUNDED research into improving technologies.

You are always wrong.
 
 
+13 # angryspittle 2015-10-31 11:06
Roofers, steelworkers, carpenters, plumbers, masons, concrete finishers, would all agree.... let's raise the retirement age to 72 or so....
 
 
+37 # vicnada 2015-10-31 11:07
In your case, Roland, you've worked way too long trolling. Time to retire.
 
 
+6 # cavewoman 2015-10-31 17:54
I wonder how many Amazon gift cards he has received?
 
 
+28 # cymricmorty 2015-10-31 11:20
Trolling is a pretty cushy job; still working at age 95, are you, Roland? And still with the same oppressive ideas.
 
 
-56 # Roland 2015-10-31 11:38
The more the govt. controls you life, the less free and more oppressed you are.
 
 
+37 # reiverpacific 2015-10-31 11:58
Quoting Roland:
The more the govt. controls you life, the less free and more oppressed you are.


Right -a TeaThuglican version of what passes for "government" or Corporate/Milit ary dominion over everything diminished quality public education, for massive profit health care and crumbling infrastructure, with a militarized police force to keep any "unruly" freedom seekers in check.
You have to be a total conformist fink to live under that system without trying to resist it.
 
 
-50 # Roland 2015-10-31 12:26
 
 
+33 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-31 13:50
Again with the "inaccuracies."

We most assuredly do NOT spend more on education. The red states have been cutting education spending at the least excuse. When Gov. Goodhair needed to balance a multibillion dollar shortfall in his budget, he did it by cutting over $5 billion from education, and then when the economy improved, neither he nor Gov. Dipstick even considered restoring the cuts. The same thing applies to other states like LA and PA. In PA the present governor is trying to restore the cuts, but the repub legislature absolutely refuses. They would rather extend tax breaks to the fracking corporations.

And the police have been very adept at killing unarmed people who have car trouble, who are jaywalking, who are just sitting there doing nothing. Frankly I didn't realize I needed protection from them. And to claim that working for $5.00/hr is freedom is the same as saying Arbeit macht Frei. AS has been measured time and again, raising pay scales improves economic activity. Why do you think that despite all the right wing nonsense spouted by the red state governors, they are doing much more poorly economically than blue states? There is a good reason that the red states are net recipients of federal largess while the blue states are net contributors. Tell me about all the new industry attracted to Kansas, to Louisiana, to Alabama, to Mississippi. Even Wisconsin isn't doing well compared to Minnesota.
 
 
-19 # Roland 2015-10-31 16:38
look at the states that are spending huge and not getting results.

that is right, you know what is best for others. Don't give them the opportunity to decide for themselves. Typical liberal. And yes, that job could be the difference between living in poverty for the rest of their lives or getting the first step up.
Which state are in the most economic trouble?
 
 
+25 # reiverpacific 2015-10-31 13:59
 
 
+16 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:31
we spend more on education than whom? wasting tax dollars on education is the perfect conservative phrase, showing how very stupid one must be to claim that title.

the police do a fairly good job of being too late to do anything but investigate, or too trigger-happy to do anything but murder. our right to protest should affect your freedoms, so you'll get it, it's not a show, it's an action to make you think, and if it affects your precious freedom to get someplace on time, too bad. stop voting for criminals and sociopaths, you'll have fewer protests to worry about. our right to protest NEVER STOPS, according to the Constitution, another bother some document the right likes to denigrate and ignore. as far as your $5 an hour foolishness, that is not freedom, it is slavery, and, once again, you prove your lack of patriotism and common sense. lastly, college and health care is so expensive because of CONSERVATIVE government interference.

And if you look at the characters around the world today, you'll find that many of the worst were created by the CONSERVATIVE TRAITORS of the USA., so that they could make billions from selling them weapons, and manufacturing and selling us weapons with which to fight them.
 
 
+15 # cavewoman 2015-10-31 18:41
Healthcare costs are also out of control because of the out and out greed of their CEOS and the excessive profit margins of their products For Profit Hospitals were the beginning of all this
 
 
+18 # ericlipps 2015-10-31 16:13
Quoting Roland:
You know we spend more on education and get among the worst results. How do you want to waste more tax dollars on education?

Roland, Roland, Roland . . . we do not spend more, per capita, on education than does anyone else. I do agree, however, that by the evidence the money has been wasted--in your case. One can lead a horse's ass to knowledge--but we all know and how little goes into a horse's ass other than the occasional enema, and what usually comes out.

Quote:
The police do a fairly good job of stopping part of population from taking the freedoms of the rest of the population. This includes protests as well. Your right to protest stops when it affects my freedoms. If you want to block traffic or burn a car or building or business you have affected the freedoms of others.
Then I take it you'd agree that the police have every right to break up "pro-life" demonstrations blocking access to family planning clinics and to arrest the participants.

Oh, ad Roland, it's "themselves," not "them self." What was that about education again?
 
 
+19 # cymricmorty 2015-10-31 12:52
Roland, I could do with a new job skill and I don't want to take on a huge student loan. Is there any future for me as a leftist troll?
 
 
+25 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-31 13:37
Of course. It's much better to let corporations control your life. They really care about how well you are doing.

Oh, please.
 
 
-26 # Roland 2015-10-31 16:47
who said to allow them to control your life? However your standard of living is much better due to businesses and free markets.
 
 
-3 # Depressionborn 2015-11-02 21:29
Quoting Texas Aggie:
Of course. It's much better to let corporations control your life. They really care about how well you are doing.

Oh, please.


yes, please: tell me:
Why should I let corps control my life?
 
 
+23 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:25
the more governm,ent is owned by corporations, the less freedom everybody has. government control is far better than corporate control roland, you blind fool. government doesn't have a profit motive, thus is inherently less evil than corporations, as the Founders knew. Government is also, when not fascist like ours has become, responsive to the people.

again, you must take great pride in always being wrong, since you are so consistent at it.
 
 
-3 # Depressionborn 2015-11-02 21:05
question for ronjass:

How can a corp control me unless they have purchased gov? An honest question, please help me understand.

If a corp bugs me why can't I just tell them to bug off? Like, go mind your own business.
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2015-11-03 12:54
Quoting Depressionborn:
question for ronjass:

How can a corp control me unless they have purchased gov? An honest question, please help me understand.

If a corp bugs me why can't I just tell them to bug off? Like, go mind your own business.

They HAVE purchased government.
What rock have YOU been living under, "Depressing and Boring"???
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2015-11-03 13:07
exactly, which is why, I suppose, I am depressed and boring?

I think you are great, but you need reading glasses? I wrote "How can a corp control me unless they have purchased gov?"!!!
 
 
+13 # suzyskier 2015-10-31 15:24
That is total right wing BS! I would bet you don't have to worry about money, just like a conservative to think only of themselves and the hell with those who are have nots ! The era of selfish right wingers is what is wrong with this country.
 
 
+13 # ericlipps 2015-10-31 16:08
Quoting Roland:
The more the govt. controls you life, the less free and more oppressed you are.

"Your" life, Roland.

And in case you hadn't notice, in this country the people control the government. If they didn't, there would be no point in conservatives voting for Republican office seekers; they'd just have to pick up their guns and shoot their way into power, as in any self-respecting Third World country.
 
 
+14 # cavewoman 2015-10-31 18:35
Funny I do not feel the least bit controlled at all. I have insurance on my car, medical insurance, homeowner's insurance, pay taxes, obey driving rules, worship where I please and when, read what I please, say what I please, vote for my choice.

I am oppressed by the past 20 years of earning less money than I should because my field was dominated by women and we were all underpaid and by the current economic model which reduces a company's workforce by not replacing employees who leave, resulting in doubling the workload of the remaining employees
 
 
+27 # Charles3000 2015-10-31 11:26
You are repeating a real fairy tale, that there is fiscal pressure on SS payments. That is just untrue.
 
 
-55 # Roland 2015-10-31 11:44
When you believe that you have are really gone over the edge.

Sure, why not expand benefits, like Bernie proposes? Is he buying your vote with such redistribution ideas? Too bad those ideas won't work without taxing the middle class as they do in Europe. Do you think we will get a VAT tax? Do you think he will follow the successful Nordic counties with a 0 min wage or the failing southern European counties?
 
 
+24 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:34
bernie is buying our votes with patriotism and concern for the 99%, while the GOP is buying your votes with greed and pie-in-the-sky lies. trickle down is a failure. republicans suck as national security and fiscal stewardship. in fact, republicans suck at governing, as they are showing so well. they don't suck as theft, treason, mass murder and vote fraud, though.
 
 
+11 # cavewoman 2015-10-31 18:53
Raising the annual salary cap so that those who earn more contribute would pretty much take care of things.Instead of 6.2% of earnings up to $118,000, increasing that ceiling to the first $150,000 and then maybe an additional 1 or 2% of the amount over $150K. There are several ways to make adjustments that would increase the income of the program It has needed to be done for some time
 
 
+12 # Salus Populi 2015-10-31 20:11
The reason the Nordic countries have no minimum wage is that the unions in those countries are powerful enough to counter the instinctive greed of the corporations. In Denmark, for example, the normal wage for starting workers is around $18.00 per hour. Other countries, like the "failing state"of Ireland, have much higher minima than the U.S., and their economies are flourishing. The only developed country with a lower minimum wage than the U.S. is Japan, still bogged down by recession twenty years after its economy collapsed, at the same time as the traditional tri-partite national contract with the workers there that guaranteed them lifetime employment was unilaterally abrogated by the corporate-gover nment elite. In U.S. dollars, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, France, San Marino, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the UK, and Ireland all have much higher minimum wage levels than the U.S., in Australia's case more than twice ours; and even in the parity calculations they are well above the U.S., generally by around a third to a half. (http://https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country")

(continued next post)
 
 
+12 # Salus Populi 2015-10-31 20:22
Of course, my guess is that you are rabidly anti-union as well [as the fascists say, unions have "outlived their usefulness," conveniently omitting that when around a third of U.S. workers were unionized, the income distribution was a great deal less lopsided than it is today, and that since Reagan began supporting the corporations in their massive union busting, wages have shrunken, while hours have lengthened, and real un- and underemployment is and has remained since 2007-8 at similar levels to those of the Great Depression.
("http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts")

Hence the "free market" in Scandinavia would be anathema to you, unless you could get a far reicht government installed that would crush the unions and reduce the workers' bargaining power to appealing to the charity of the bottomlessly greedy.
 
 
+40 # David Starr 2015-10-31 11:44
 
 
+26 # reiverpacific 2015-10-31 12:11
@ David Starr.
Please don't waste y'y time and goodness on his trollship.
He actually seems to believe all the reactionary baloney that he's been scripted and fed from that "Liberal" media he and his ilk blatter on about.
His life-experience seems to be VERY limited, like his opinions, which of course, he's absolutely free to pop up and infest RSN with.
You just try and get a call in or a post on a right wing media outlet. If you're luck enough to get through, you'll get plentry of abuse and even death-threats in response; I'm speaking from experience here.
 
 
-41 # Roland 2015-10-31 12:35
Yes, the system was set up that way under FDR. Secondly why don't you just say you would like to retire at say 50, or 45?

I didn't say the wealthy shouldn't pay the tax on SS, just that they do.

It hasn't been a free market for decades. The % that the govt. controls through Medicare and Medicad affects the market. Also, companies have trouble competing over state lines due to regulations. The costs of drugs generally come down over time due to competition - the ability for generics. Yet, the govt. still restricts the generic manufacturers. Good article in this weeks Barron's. If not for the profit motive the life saving drugs would not be created. It can cost 2.5 B to bring a new drug to market.
 
 
+26 # Jim Rocket 2015-10-31 14:19
Health care will never be a free market because while you can decide to buy a new car or not you cannot decide not to treat your cancer and still live.

It does cost a lot to bring new drugs to market but pharma companies spend more money on marketing than they do on research.
 
 
+7 # reiverpacific 2015-10-31 19:24
Quoting Roland:
Yes, the system was set up that way under FDR. Secondly why don't you just say you would like to retire at say 50, or 45?

I didn't say the wealthy shouldn't pay the tax on SS, just that they do.

It hasn't been a free market for decades. The % that the govt. controls through Medicare and Medicad affects the market. Also, companies have trouble competing over state lines due to regulations. The costs of drugs generally come down over time due to competition - the ability for generics. Yet, the govt. still restricts the generic manufacturers. Good article in this weeks Barron's. If not for the profit motive the life saving drugs would not be created. It can cost 2.5 B to bring a new drug to market.

Then they limit who can get it or afford it, with the help of the "Free market" insurance/pharm aceutical behemoths.
 
 
+19 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-31 13:21
Shall we look at just a few of your "inaccuracies?"

Some of us are living longer, the ones who are wealthy enough they don't need social security. The ones who need it aren't living longer. But you knew that because the article told you.

And yes, SS is regressive. The poor are paying a larger percentage of their income into SS than the rich are, and in most cases, the percentage of their income that is paid in total taxes by the poor is higher than the percentage of their income of total taxes by the rich. A study in Texas which has no state income tax showed that the poor spent a much larger percentage of their income in taxes than the well-to-do did.

The right doesn't understand that it isn't premiums that will be affected if only market forces were at work, but the people who are insured. The ones who are likely to need insurance are the very ones who will be denied, and if anyone slips through the cracks, they will be cut off as soon as they file a claim. In other words, we go back to preACA days when premiums were rising a LOT faster than they are now.
 
 
+18 # CL38 2015-10-31 13:25
Just a few thoughts.

Roland, congratulations on doing your job as a goose-stepping, in-lock-step Republican.

The left gets what republicans have been up to: imposing fascism for 40 years, one step at a time.

-56 down votes and counting.
 
 
+9 # Quickmatch 2015-10-31 14:32
I don't get your "regressive" point, or that the "wealthy pay more in. Any family with above approximately the median-family income pays income tax on up to 85% of the benefits.Famili es making less than $32k don't pay. That's progressive. Of course, people who are making $118,500 in 2015 (is that wealthy, or just well off?)pay more than those making less, and the rate is the same for all. That's neutral. But, a family making $100 million pays exactly the same SS tax as one making $118,500. That's a poster example for regressive taxation. Let's not forget that Social Security was intended to allow the elderly to live in security of some semblance of dignity in their dotage. Any family, or single person, earning median family income or more has attained that security and can afford to be taxed on the excess.
 
 
+13 # ericlipps 2015-10-31 15:52
I don't understand why the right makes a religion out of vouchers. They only introduce an extra layer of bureaucracy, which conservatives supposedly despise, while reducing the likelihood that poor people will actually get what the vouchers are supposed to pay for. In other words, they are designed to make government work less well, not better.

I know right-wingers hate government, but do they really hate it so much that they'll deliberately sabotage it? Or are they just so blinded by ideology that they assume by reflex that OF COURSE vouchers will work?
 
 
+5 # jsluka 2015-10-31 16:50
Do not feed the troll.
 
 
+8 # rayb-baby 2015-10-31 18:43
We've all known here for some time that you're one right-wing, ignorant f**k, but you've REALLY shown it here.

"It is regressive? The wealthy pay more into SS and also pay taxes on their SS benefits"

NO ONE pays FICA beyond their first $118,500. Ultimately, there are FAR FAR less FICA contributions per capita by the wealthy and in total number than by the rest of the population.

Question 1: Why do you waste your time commenting here when you NEVER convince ANYONE of ANYTHING?
Question 2: Do you get a kickback from some right-wing propaganda mill every time you can prove you have made dumb right-wing talking points here?
 
 
+6 # iris.1 2015-10-31 20:35
an insurance co. once willfully crippled me for life with criminal ats designed to evade the cost of back surgery. If you havn{t noticed, the costs of coverage, prescriptions, and doctor bills has skyrocketed as a huge monopoly has formed. as in many other industries, where oncea there were fifty compaies in competition there are now only a few merging and remergeing and aquiring all the competition. for me the gas chamber would haave been more humane,but i survive on ssdi but had to sell my house and lwave the usa to sabe my legs and stop the pain.. iris
 
 
+38 # Shades of gray matter 2015-10-31 10:23
Thank god the GOPers are SCARING Dems and others to the polls, and to contribute. Paul needs 13 more Ideas like that. Convert Defense budget to state or individual vouchers? Educ vouchers for Home Schooling? Free sets of the collective works of Ayn Rand for every Sunday school (she's an avid atheist). Triple the interest rate on outstanding college loans to lower the Deficit? Draft Ryan at deadlocked Convention?
 
 
+43 # Salus Populi 2015-10-31 10:33
If Ryan's ideas were adopted, not only would Reich's predictions come true, but by 2050, the government would spend zero dollars on anything but war and repression of the populace. That is factual -- his budget would reduce government spending by mid-century to roughly three per cent of GDP, and without cutting military appropriations, which are presently three to five per cent of GDP.

I'll leave it to others to deal with the troll, only pointing out that billionaires are taxed for Social Security on approximately one ten-thousandth of their income, while poor people are taxed on all of it. Of course, reicht-wing shills focus on the total contributions, which are maxed out for the wealthy; but this is simply a diversion and dishonest way of avoiding the fact that poor people pay more taxes altogether now than any time in the last few decades, while rich people, who once paid 90 to 92 per cent on income over one million [three million in today's dollars] now routinely pay between Mitt Romney's 13 per cent and an absolute cap of 39 per cent. This is no accident.
 
 
-46 # Roland 2015-10-31 11:19
 
 
+25 # Jim Rocket 2015-10-31 12:26
"It sounds very counter to the republican platform of more personal freedoms and less govt. interference."

Roland I think you've missed the basics of Republican philosophy. The actual philosophy is more personal freedoms and less government intervention - for the wealthy only. That's why they want to read everyone's emails and criminalise any form of dissent.
 
 
-37 # Roland 2015-10-31 12:42
dissent like blocking traffic or burning a business?

Your "for the wealthy only" holds no water. Use my min. wage arguments on this page, as the argument. Easy for the left to mischaracterize , but it takes away the freedoms of the poor and unskilled, to improve their conditions.
 
 
+18 # Jim Rocket 2015-10-31 13:28
LOL! We're all still waiting for the heavy police crackdown on Wall Street crime. When will low-class robbers be able to pay a fine that is a fraction of the money they stole and not have to admit to criminal wrongdoing?
 
 
+20 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:11
blocking traffic to save lives seems like a small price to pay. burning businesses is a natural reaction to being warehoused in the worst neighborhoods, marginalized, beaten, killed by cops, and accused of laziness and stupidity by white honky bigots like you, roland. minimum wage gives teh poor more freedom to enlarge their skill set, by the way; it's amazing how often you are dead wrong, but not surprising, since you are basically a liar and apologist for the worst scum in the country: conservative whites. Jim Rocket is 100% correct, and, if you were capable of actually thinking and researching, you'd see that the rich take far more out of the US treasury in welfare than the poor; FAR more., and never get killed by rogue cops, even though they steal billions and destroy lives, while a kid who might have made off with a handful of cheap cigars gets executed on the street without a trial.
Sorry, loser, you haven't a single clue.
 
 
-2 # Depressionborn 2015-11-03 07:31
I am a conservative white. I am not scum.

I asked you a simple question:

"How can a corp control me unless they have purchased gov? An honest question, please help me understand.
If a corp bugs me why can't I just tell them to bug off? Like, go mind your own business."

You won't (can't) answer. What does that make you?
 
 
0 # reiverpacific 2015-11-03 12:55
Quoting Depressionborn:
I am a conservative white. I am not scum.

I asked you a simple question:

"How can a corp control me unless they have purchased gov? An honest question, please help me understand.
If a corp bugs me why can't I just tell them to bug off? Like, go mind your own business."

You won't (can't) answer. What does that make you?

See my response to y'r earlier post.
'Nuff said.
 
 
+13 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:37
your use of minimum wage as an argument fails, because you are wrong no the facts, as usual. earning a living wage instead of being a slave is a much better education. minimum wage gives the poor far more freedom to improve their conditions, because, more money is better.

your blindness and hypocrisy are infinite.
 
 
+10 # CL38 2015-10-31 18:31
have to say it,'roland'. all your comments are dishonest, deceitful....a joke
 
 
+7 # CenterLefty 2015-11-01 06:29
I want to second the good points made just above here by both Salus Populi and rayb-baby, and to make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Roland's question-&-answ er statement above on the Social Security system -- i.e., "It is regressive? The wealthy pay more into SS and..." is nothing short of utterly misleading baloney.

A few simple numbers will illustrate:

a) If someone below the poverty line makes only $20,000 in a year, s/he pays 6.2% of it in SS taxes.
b) If someone makes $100,000, s/he pays the same 6.2% of it to SS. That's certainly regressive -- but not yet the real point.
c) If someone makes $500,000, s/he pays only 1.5% of it to SS; someone making $10,000,000 PAYS LESS THAN 0.08% of it to SS!

If that's not the very definition of "regressive", I don't know what is.

Roland, I read somewhere above where you said that, when you have a mistake in your facts or logic, you admit it and correct it. Thats great to hear, so I assume you have already done that on this point. Uh... Roland?
 
 
+24 # jbell94521 2015-10-31 10:45
Unfortunately, the Democrats are not a whole lot better for the most part. Keep in mind that Clinton's first and last acts as President were: to cave in on Universal Health Care, even though he had a mandate and could have pushed it through; to sign into law the repeal of Glass Steagall, which led to the financial collapse of 2008, which mostly did not harm the super-rich elite, but hurt millions of the less privileged. Further, throughout his presidency he increased U.S. use of force abroad, including the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade. He also presided over quite an increase in domestic spying by the national security machine.

This is not a partisan issue. To be sure, there are differences, but they are not sufficiently substantive. We need to completely rebuild the system or this nation is doomed.
 
 
+10 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:39
perhaps, but burning down the barn first is not the best method.and the democrats ARE a whole lot better. and nobody did more harm to Americans than the GOP in the past 50 years; that's a simple fact.
 
 
+24 # motamanx 2015-10-31 10:52
In the past two decades, approximately 10 years of Rep, and 10 years of Dem; the results have been 0 progress. A new paradigm is called for: hence the emergence of Bernie Sanders. He may not win, but he points the way to a better America; and we should listen to him and vote accordingly. VOTE is the key word here.
 
 
+14 # jbell94521 2015-10-31 11:02
We should also keep in mind that we have a sitting President who is a Democrat and a person of color, who meets with his top advisers every Tuesday morning and reviews a rather special Power Point presentation. The slide show contains a number of candidates - candidates for murder. None of them have been charged in any court of law, let alone found guilty.

Those deemed gu8ilty are then targeted for assassination. Drones are launched and missiles are fired. More often than not, people not even targeted pay the ultimate price and are killed by this whole sloppy mess.

And this has wholesale, illegal murder has become normalized to the point that we all accept it as the price we pay for security as a nation. Except that we don't really pay it. Instead, children attending a wedding pay it; whole families attending some other innocent social even pay the price.

And this is under a Democratic administration that is supposedly in favor of peace and military restraint.

As citizens we are no better than the citizens of Nazi Germany who stood by and did nothing.

Wake up! This system is rotten to the core and MUST be changed.
 
 
+1 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:05
yes, fighting terrorism instead of ignoring it is what the president should do. then we could have another Bush-like failure, and another several thousand innocents killed. the drone program, while less than perfect, as usual with human technology, is a self-defense program. what's your solution?
 
 
+6 # Salus Populi 2015-10-31 20:48
"self-defense"? Against what? We are close partners with our "moderate" friends in Saudi Arabia, whose royal family gives extensive support to IS [and Israel, our other close ally in the Middle East, lets wounded IS fighters be treated in Israeli hospitals]. We support the illegal blockade of Yemen, which is leading to a humanitarian disaster. Russia destroys a large number of IS weapons, and the U.S. air drops 50 tons to replace them. John McCain poses with the leaders of Al Nusrah, now anointed as "moderate," although formally affiliated with Al Qaida. The drone program is very clearly illegal under a multitude of international laws and conventions. It is the first robot war, and is entirely aimed at killing anyone who might conceivably be a future threat of any kind to either our occupation forces and mercenaries in the region or our allies Israel, Egypt and the KSA -- all of which are run by fascists and/or feudal royalists. The Pentagon admits that it is mainly effective in creating new enemies of the U.S. in the form of the families and communities of the thousands of eviscerated innocents. [A recent study found that around 88 per cent of those killed were "collateral damage" or wrongly targeted. Some "less than perfect."

(continued next post)
 
 
+7 # Salus Populi 2015-10-31 20:51
My alternative? Go back to the pre-1967 policy of letting Israel, which is armed with 200 to 400 undeclared nukes and the delivery systems to hit Islamabad, Teheran or Moscow, survive without U.S. assistance and a dependable U.S. veto in the UN Security Council for any condemnation, however toothless and mild, of any Israeli action whatsoever, no matter how egregious or heinous.

While we're at it, we could go back to the pre-1954 policy of supporting the local liberation movements as a counterweight to the historical interference of the European powers in the region.

In the period right after WWII, the U.S. was regarded by the Arab world as both friendly and dependable, and the countries and their populations liked and admired the U.S. and U.S.ans. It took a lot of effort by the neo-cons and militarists to destroy that closeness and turn the U.S. into one of the two most reviled countries involved in the region.
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2015-11-03 08:16
what's your solution?

tO tell Russia to stop putting Russia so close to our military bases and BRING THE TROUPS HOME!
 
 
+12 # reiverpacific 2015-10-31 12:02
Well, if Paul Ryan(d) gets his way, at least I've got a UK/EU Passport.
Planning on goin' back anyway before I get much older; free health care is just one reason. And I DON'T plan to quit working at things I love to do, as I've always done and do now and I mean WORKING, not "hobbying".
 
 
+7 # Robbee 2015-10-31 12:03
just like the speakership, lyin ryan could ride into the zomblican national convention and break a deadlock by accepting zomblication as the party's prez candidate - maybe appoints bush 3 as his veep candidate - boy that's creepy! - tell me it's just haloween and just a nightmare!
 
 
+7 # Jim Rocket 2015-10-31 12:30
Since none of the current bonkers dozen of Republican candidates are worth a damn that scenario seems as likely as any other possible scenario.
 
 
+14 # Blackjack 2015-10-31 12:32
The Troll is back, spouting his angry, demented, bombastic, nasty diatribes. Obviously, that's all he knows because he has his head in the Right Wing vice and his heart was hardened so long ago that after childhood (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here), the word empathy was discarded from his mindset. In his world, everyone has the ability to be rich (and healthy, too), if they're not, it's their own fault, and all that really matters is satisfying one's own needs. As for Ryan, he's a bought and paid for corporate shill, and like others of his ilk, is extremely dangerous. He's just been given the keys to the Right Wing Kingdom, though, so that makes him even more dangerous.
 
 
-29 # Roland 2015-10-31 12:57
I suspect you have as much empathy as I do. This is something the left would never concede to anyone on the right. This would defeat their greedy and evil narrative. It is just the we disagree on how to help people. The min. wage arguments presented by me and Prager on this page show that. By the way, when did the laws of economics change?
 
 
+20 # Texas Aggie 2015-10-31 13:58
It isn't the laws of economics that have changed. It's that the right wing doesn't understand them.
 
 
+17 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:01
sorry, roland, you empty-headed excuse for an American, the right is all about greed and evil, and always has been. do you realize that no conservative leader has ever won a war, and the ones they start, they always lose? did you realize that freedom and equality are liberal values, not conservative? are you aware that in US history, conservatives have increased the size of government far more than liberals? do you realize that conservative "leadership" consists in allowing 9/11 and engineering depression and recession? by the way, when did any conservative ever care about the laws of economics? never, is the corret answer.

you can spew all the lying points you want, it only results in you proving the ignorance, hatred, greed and sociopathy of conservatives. I'll also note that you have answered none of the reasonable questions put forth to counter your stupidity, in the usual cowardly conservative fashion.conserv ative ideas don't work, except for a small handful of pigs like you. that's a simple fact: conservative ideas have NEVER worked, in human history.
 
 
+7 # CL38 2015-10-31 18:36
Endless republican projection. Do you ever speak the truth about gop greedy and evil narrative??
 
 
+9 # reiverpacific 2015-10-31 14:03
Quoting Blackjack:
The Troll is back, spouting his angry, demented, bombastic, nasty diatribes. Obviously, that's all he knows because he has his head in the Right Wing vice and his heart was hardened so long ago that after childhood (I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt here), the word empathy was discarded from his mindset. In his world, everyone has the ability to be rich (and healthy, too), if they're not, it's their own fault, and all that really matters is satisfying one's own needs. As for Ryan, he's a bought and paid for corporate shill, and like others of his ilk, is extremely dangerous. He's just been given the keys to the Right Wing Kingdom, though, so that makes him even more dangerous.

Neh; he's harmless. Have you ever wondered why he insists on makin' himself look so silly on RSN?
His worldly out on the street and in other countries experience is so obviously atrophied-to-no n-existent and views so blinkered, it would be pitiable if he weren't so blinded by hubris, a swollen opinion of his wisdom and blatant impertinence.
 
 
-8 # Roland 2015-11-01 08:56
Swollen opinion of myself? Have you ever read what you have written? No one else writes in the same affected manor.

I only look silly to those who are uninformed and apparently there are many of them here. The NY Times, WS Journal, US.gov, Forbes, The Washington Post among others are all sources I have used to support my statements. Often I post the link. I am proud to be as silly as those respected publications.
 
 
+5 # reiverpacific 2015-11-01 11:22
Quoting Roland:
Swollen opinion of myself? Have you ever read what you have written? No one else writes in the same affected manor.

I only look silly to those who are uninformed and apparently there are many of them here. The NY Times, WS Journal, US.gov, Forbes, The Washington Post among others are all sources I have used to support my statements. Often I post the link. I am proud to be as silly as those respected publications.


Well -I guess that I'm to the "affected MANOR" born, what?
Mind ya' manners lad AND spelling your trollship, before you criticize or respond to any post.
Now; "Avaunt, and quit my sight! Let the earth hide thee.
Thy bones are marrowless, thy blood is cold.
Thou hast no speculation in those eyes
Which thou dost glare with!"
-Or as they say in Yorkshire "There's none as DAFT as them as wants t'be".
 
 
+4 # countmarc 2015-10-31 13:45
This issue needs to be kept in mind when the Hillary bashing becomes a narrative about her "trustworthines s" or failure to lock step when gay marriage was first proposed. With as many as three Supreme Court Justices to appoint and because of the 2010 election caused gerrymandering making the districts secure for GOPs, there is little chance of recapturing the House,we need to keep our eye on the ball and SHOUT why we need voter turnout.
 
 
+8 # ronjazz 2015-10-31 14:14
at the rate it's going, the GOP will not see a president elected for 40 years or more. even the frontrunners in the Klown Kar Komedy only have about 1/5th of the rightwing idiots behind them.
 
 
+4 # lfeuille 2015-10-31 17:14
It's not her late conversion on gay marriage that is causing concern. A lot of pols were slow in evolving. They is little fear that she will backtrack on gay rights since corporations don't pay for gay bashing. The concern is with her sudden conversion on KXL and TPP just when Bernie is making inroads by bashing them. The wording of her announcements left too much wiggle room for her to switch back. And her failure to support glass-steigel leads us to fear that she is still too tied to her banker BFFs. Not to mention that her acolytes in the state dept have created a disaster in Iraq, Syria and Lybia which has has failed to disavow. She is the most hawkish democrat since webb pulled out.
 
 
+2 # cavewoman 2015-10-31 19:09
#SCOTUS
 
 
+3 # hd70642 2015-10-31 13:53
Every. pay check had social security taken out. true employers pay some but all this goes to a dedicated fund which has never effected the debt but funds are routinely. taken from it to pay for it and personal. earnings over certain do not contribute anymore
 
 
+6 # PABLO DIABLO 2015-10-31 14:19
ROLAND--- why do you bother? You are not open to any discussion. Your mind is made up. WAKE UP AMERICA. Massive (more than 50%) defense spending is a sure sign of a declining empire.
Vote Bernie. He may be our last chance. Or HUMP the TRUMP and vote THE DONALD and get the American Empire over with now.
 
 
-7 # Roland 2015-10-31 20:57
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2015-11-01 16:56
 
 
0 # Salus Populi 2015-11-15 10:48
The 16 per cent figure, also, is cleverly forged by including the administration of trust funds -- SS and Medicare -- as part of "total government spending." If I hire someone to carry a check to the bank and deposit it, does the total amount of that check get counted as part of the hiree's income? Of course not; it would be blatantly dishonest to do so.

You do the math.
 
 
+4 # Farafalla 2015-10-31 15:28
Roland now way ahead of MidWestTom as our biggest troll. He has a lot of words in this thread. He should pay for it. Meanwhile, "scroll to the troll", fire at will.
 
 
+2 # Dgreenb1 2015-11-01 10:04
Why don't we hear more Democrats saying this and educating the public. Elizabeth Warren can't do everything.
 
 
+1 # chaucer2 2015-11-01 21:52
We can comment and argue with one another and get nothing done......WRITE letters to YOUR congressmen and women.....WRITE to your Senators....... .and theirs......Tel l them all to pay for Bush's War....Rein in the Banks...Ronnie was no God....and pay for it all from the Citizens United Funds and the monies they have given the 1%...in all the tax breaks and the CEP's because the corporations have more money than they know what to do with....Write letters AND don't miss a Vote.....If enough letters arrive, something will be done!!!!.
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2015-11-03 08:23
HEY GUYS, WAKE UP

"In order to have a thriving middle class, you have got to have an economy that produces lots of middle class jobs, and that simply is not happening in America today.

You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here: . The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me:

38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

That first number is truly staggering. The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.

If you worked a full-time job at $10 an hour all year long with two weeks off, you would make approximately $20,000. This should tell you something about the quality of the jobs that our economy is producing at this point."

We are becoming a nation of losers!
 
 
+2 # reiverpacific 2015-11-03 12:57
Quoting Depressionborn:
HEY GUYS, WAKE UP

"In order to have a thriving middle class, you have got to have an economy that produces lots of middle class jobs, and that simply is not happening in America today.

You can find the report that the Social Security Administration just released right here: . The following are some of the numbers that really stood out for me:

38 percent of all American workers made less than $20,000 last year.

51 percent of all American workers made less than $30,000 last year.

62 percent of all American workers made less than $40,000 last year.

71 percent of all American workers made less than $50,000 last year.

That first number is truly staggering. The federal poverty level for a family of five is $28,410, and yet almost 40 percent of all American workers do not even bring in $20,000 a year.

If you worked a full-time job at $10 an hour all year long with two weeks off, you would make approximately $20,000. This should tell you something about the quality of the jobs that our economy is producing at this point."

We are becoming a nation of losers!


That's because; ----un-deux-tro is----CORPORATI ONS OWN THE GOVERNMENT!
 
 
0 # Depressionborn 2015-11-03 13:00
you betcha, riverp. Ever wonder who put it up for sale?
 
 
+1 # reiverpacific 2015-11-03 18:23
Quoting Depressionborn:
you betcha, riverp. Ever wonder who put it up for sale?

Actually, that's a damn good question mate; highest bidder comes to mind.
I've often thought, if I won a big chunk of lucre on some obscene lottery, I'd buy a politician, just to see them dance at my behest -could be a lotta laughs, eh, what?
Then I'd put them up for sale to the next bidder, just like the old slave markets.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN