Rhetoric vs. Reality

  • thomas paine

    Dear President Obama,

    In the next year and a half the Republican Party is going to mount the most intensive attack on Social Security ever seen. Indeed, it has already started.

    The citizens of the United States are counting on you to help combat the lies. You have already made a good start by declaring that any problems with financing Social Security that are anticipated to occur around 2036 can easily be solved by raising the cap on income that is subject to the SS tax.

    • Fred Dawes

      That is ok by me but in the last 50 years i paid into the system not my Boss just me about 98,000 dollars can i have some of that money back? its not only the boys on the right who hate the ideals of SS But also the other people NOW IN POWER; and for a real reason much of the money has disappeared into third world people who had no right to anything from this government but that money is long vanished and in fact a white paper was made about this BS 30 YEARS AGO.
      More and more hispanics/ The helpless and old of other nation have been receiving this money and will go on until the USA disappears.

      • thomas paine

        if you started at 20 you must be at least 70 so aren't you getting it back now?

        you should be getting at least 2k/mo so you get 24k/yr and will make your 98k back within 4 years of retirement

        and then you can count everything after that as the profit you would have made with the money if you had been lucky on the stock market

        except that if it's ss, there's no gambling involved

        • scum

          Ha Ha, yes indeed. Social Security, hands down, is one of the most brilliant, and most successful, of all government programs. The end of SS means the end of America. Watch and Learn. Remember the hatchet man Bob Dole, who tried to transform himself into a viable presidential candidate (LOL LOL). When Dole ran his campaing against SS, he got a little call from his 'mom', who said, 'Bobby dear, exactly what do you think I live on? Give it a break!' God bless her for putting some sense in the executioner…

  • geoff

    enerytime that i believe that i have seen it all or heard the unthinkable, just around the corner anotherspeech or video floors me like none before.

    i am a teacher and i am ashamed for the public servants of wisconsin. they do live in a bubble world populated only by bubble people and speak bubble language to other bubbleheads.

    please, time out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    geoff
    san bruno, ca

  • thomas paine

    However, your statement has been drowned out by the tidal wave of lies.

    In the coming debate, as Republicans mendaciously claim that they are trying to "save" Social Security, please speak out against them loudly, strongly, and repeatedly, and use the "Bully Pulpit" to full advantage.

    The trustees of Social Security, in their last report, declare that the trust fund may be so depleted by 2036 if nothing is done, the fund may only be able to pay 75% of promised benefits. However, if the current cap on income subject to Social Security taxes at about $106,500 is removed, or even raised to about $156,500, these problems can be permanently avoided.

    Please note that around 2036 the "Baby Boom" generation should be reaching mortality, which would substantially mitigate the problem after that time.

    It is highly necessary to assert these facts loudly and strongly, especially in light of the campaign of lies about Social Security which are being propogated throughout the United States:

    • Fred Dawes

      you are right this nation is dead it will become a third world nation state in civil war/race war. when the money disappears the nation will disappear and mass murder will be the watch word of hell.

    • HDThoreau

      Social Security is already depleted. I think you are referring to the total amount owed in Social Security being paid for with debt.

      We are already paying for Social Security with debt- just not all of the total funds. It is essentially bankrupt because it was emptied by the same people that invented it the scam. If social security was a business, and not a communist parasite, it would have died last year.

      T

      • thomas paine

        We are already paying for Social Security with debtwhat an interesting concept. you'll have to teach me how to pay for things with debt.

        • Steeloak

          It's simple really. Money for SS comes in and the government buys Treasury bills (IOU's) in the amount of cash they collected and deposits them with SS. The government then spends the cash. When the Treasury bills mature ( IOU's come due), if you're the government, you fire up the printing presses and print the money to pay for it.
          If you or I print money to pay our debts, it's called a crime and we go to jail. The government calls it inflation.

          • thomas paine

            if that were true, why would the government bother to collect taxes and borrow money from china and japan? if all the government has to do is "print money", why is there a national debt?

            your little fairy tale doesn't make any sense. try again

          • thomas paine

            if that were true, why would the government bother to collect taxes and borrow money from china and japan? if all the government has to do is "print money", why is there a national debt?

            your little fairy tale doesn't make any sense. try again

          • thomas paine

            if that were true, why would the government bother to collect taxes and borrow money from china and japan? if all the government has to do is "print money", why is there a national debt?

            your little fairy tale doesn't make any sense. try again

          • thomas paine

            if that were true, why would the government bother to collect taxes and borrow money from china and japan? if all the government has to do is "print money", why is there a national debt?

            your little fairy tale doesn't make any sense. try again

          • thomas paine

            if that were true, why would the government bother to collect taxes and borrow money from china and japan? if all the government has to do is "print money", why is there a national debt?

            your little fairy tale doesn't make any sense. try again

          • Steeloak

            The government collects taxes & sells debt to investors precicely because the government knows that inflation is very destructive so the more taxes they collect & the more suckers they can get to buy our debt, the less money they have to print – of course that is preferable to printing money. Currently, the government can't raise taxes enough, & foreigners are buying less & less of our debt, so the Fed is now monetizing our debt – ie, printing money to buy our debt – 600billion at the last announcement & much more to come. Nice try, but that dog don't hunt.

          • thomas paine

            the fed is increasing the money supply because they think that inflation is so low that it is hurting business, and they are trying to raise it

            but you admitted that most of the money for social security comes from actual revenues and borrowing, so I suppose we made some progress

            do you have a link documenting this 600 billion figure?

          • Steeloak

            So you admit that the government is paying for social security wth debt (original point of this thread is made).
            Here is a link to a Forbes article that mentions the $600 bil (although this was widely reported and should be consiered common knoweledge) http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/22/ben-bernanke-wro

            I trade currences for a living, it is my job to know what is going on with the dollar and other major currencies.

  • thomas paine

    Social Security is NOT a "Ponzi Scheme"

    The Social Security Trust Fund is NOT a "Myth" – Social Security ran at a profit for more than 70 years from the time of its inception until very recently, and the accumulated profits – those which were not raided to fund the regular budget – are invested in United States Government Securities, which have the highest rating in the world

    It's not true that "if I had all the money I put into Social Security, I'd be rich now". Even if a person started to work at age 21 at a salary of $106,500/yr, and made that much or more for 45 years, they still could not have paid more than $260,000 into the fund.

    Please, Mr. President, stand up to the bullies and liars and keep them from destroying Social Security.

    Thank you.

    • Fred Dawes

      its not about SS Its about making this nation into a third world monkey state, don't you see what is happening inside the monkey government?

      • thomas paine

        i see

        and how long have you had this problem?

      • scum

        Fred Dawes = Standard b**lshi* racism. Nothing more. Go to sleep, Fred. Or better yet, hang yourself from the noose you made for the monkeys….

    • Michael

      If that same person didn't pay into social security, but instead invested the money in a Roth IRA, yes, that person would be a millionaire.

      • thomas paine

        is that so?

        show your math

        • ebonystone

          Here's the math, Mr. Pain: your calculation leaves out the interest that deposits bring when invested. Paying ca. $6,000/yr into just a tax-free bank account at 4% brings one's total after 45 years to ca. %725,000, not the $260,000 you claim. Adding to that the equivalent amount that your employer pays on your behalf brings one to a total of $1,450,000, which is — I do believe, let me make sure now, yes, yes it is — over a million, just as Michael claimed. And that's just putting it into an insured savings account. Nothing fancy, no stocks, no bonds, no mutual funds.
          A retiree after such a program, could start drawing just the interest, and get $58,000/yr — which I believe, is more than any SS payments — and still have the nearly million-and-a-half to leave to his heirs.
          Note also that with SS, if you and your spouse both die shortly before reaching retirement age, or any time after retirement, your heirs get nothing.

      • scum

        So what?

    • Steeloak

      Of course it is a Ponzi scheme. There is no pool of capital that is earning compound interest to pay future benefits. The entire scheme depends on current workers to pay benefits for past retirees. If you pay all your life & retire at 66, then die within a few years of retirement (like the system is designed to take advantage of) your benefits stop and there is nothing to leave to your heirs. If your money was in private investments, all your money would still be there.
      I don't usually debat paid trolls, but sometimes you clowns just chap my rear end & I have to say something.

    • david Owens

      Social Security IS a Ponzi Scheme!. There are no accounts for individual beneficiaries, they are paid out of the money taken in each year thru SS taxes. No different than Bernie Madoff. You have obviously not studied the history or current operation of Soc Sec. How can there be a "Profit" on a system where the govt spends all of the money taken in on other projects and pays current beneficiaries out of the current tax payers???? Bill Clinton's budget "surplus" was only possible by not accounting for the fact that Soc Security was not actually paying into the accounts for those who deserved it.

    • truebearing

      Superficial analysis, at best. I noticed you didn't calculate what $260,000, invested over 45 years, would yield. You aren't qualified to be making any argument on something you so clearly don't understand.

      You seem to be enthralled with parasites. Might I suggest studying bedbugs or mosquitos?

    • crypticguise

      I just don't understand why someone like this person is as stupid as he is.

  • thomas paine

    "don't retreat – reload!"

    ahhhh, you don't like it so much when it's aimed at you, eh?

    now let me think, who is that sign quoting… hmmmm….

    amyway, that's the only sign that echoes right wing assasination rhetoric – how do I know that you didn't fake it?

    • Fred Dawes

      you can see.

    • truebearing

      I was there and saw it, repeatedly. There were plenty of other signs with varying degrees of implied violence, and some advocating rape, Marxist revolution, and suppressing the free speech of conservatives.

      The difference between the crosshairs the idiot left was posturing over and the ones in Madison is that the crosshairs on a map didn't imply shooting an individual, whereas the ones in Madison clearly did.

  • thomas paine

    Pew Research Center. Feb. 2-7, 2011. N=1,385 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

    "Is your overall opinion of labor unions very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly UNfavorable, or very unfavorable?"
    Very Favorable 11%
    Mostly Favorable 34%
    Mostly Unfavorable 25%
    Very Unfavorable 17%
    Fish 14%

    "As you may know, some labor unions represent people who are employed by private companies, while others represent people who are employed by state or local governments. Do you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of unions that represent people who work for state or local governments?"
    Favorable 48%
    Unfavorable 40%
    When's the game on? 11%

  • thomas paine

    "How about when you hear of a disagreement between state or local governments and unions that represent government workers, is your first reaction to side with the governments or to side with the unions?"
    Unions 44%
    Governments 38%
    Cheetoes 10%

    "Which comes closer to your view? Do you think union agreements give union workers unfair advantages or ensure that union workers are treated fairly?"
    Give unfair advantages 34%
    Ensure fair treatment 55%
    Fish 8%

  • Martel64

    This being Wisconsin, this Bernardine Dohrn native territory – Bill from Michigan. Don't be surprised if the Rosenbergs of the '60s – that escaped justice ,of course – are totally involved in this, and even got the whole thing going.

    • Jim_C

      It's a full on assault on a huge union–of course it's going to be controversial. Silly, fact-free speculation about "scary" 60s associations who literally haven't been relevant for 40 years is not needed. I'm surprised you didn't mention "Soros," that's always sure sign of a paranoid dingbat.

    • scum

      OK, that's just plain stupid. Almost as amazingly stupid as Glenn Beck trying to sum up the ENTIRE EGYPTIAN UPRISING by pointing out that 'Days of Rage' was also used a half century ago in a different country for a different purpose. Guess that means that Beck supports random torture, especially that of Khalid Said who was kicked to death by Mubarak's secret police. Truly, Glenn Beck did too much LDS in the 60s….

  • scum

    What we have here in this Youtube clip is a clear case of what David Horowitz doesn't like: Hypocrisy and the use of hate speech. How could anyone who believes in responsible political discourse use faulty innuendo and inflammatory language like that in Wisconsin. OH, THAT'S RIGHT, DAVID DOES. A quick look at the David Horowitz archives shows this: "Noam Chomsky's Love Affair with Nazis (5/15/06); "The Totalitarians Among Us" (11/2/09); "Serious Fascists in America" (10/1/09). That's just a sampling. What's really funny is that ON THE SAME PAGE OF FPM, WHERE HOROWITZ IS WHINING ABOUT EXTREME LANGUAGE, ONE FINDS RICH TRZUPEK'S ARTICLE ON "UNIONS FASCISTS IN WISCONSIN." Consider Horowitz DEMOLISHED.

    • truebearing

      Perfect name! it's so you! All you need to add so that your identity is totally accurate is "deranged". Of course you could add "obtuse", or "illogical".

      I know I am wasting my time, but David Horowitz is discussing the ideology of true extremists, whereas these photos are making vile attacks on an elected official, with no basis in reality. Did you hear that rushing sound? That was my comment going right over your head. Or was it the wind rushing between your ears? Probably both.

  • scum

    Once the neo-cons destroy all the jobs in America, and push all wealth up to the top, you're probably RIGHT, but for all the WRONG REASONS!! Do you think BUSH solved the immigration 'problem'? ANSWER HONESTLY