TPMDC

Slash and Privatize: How House GOP's Shadow Budget Eliminates Deficit ... In About 50 Years

Spread the word and support this article. Share it on Digg!


Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

President Obama has read it, and the detailed plan is the only thing the Republicans have so far, but it seems like Rep. Paul Ryan is out there on his own with a budget blueprint that cuts the deficit by slashing Social Security and Medicare benefits and by creating private accounts and a voucher system.

The talk about Social Security changes that would essentially amount to privatization of the entitlement plan raised eyebrows earlier this week - and even prompted some in the GOP to back away - but it's right there in black-and-white in Ryan's formal budget plan released last week.

The official line from House Republican leadership is that Ryan's budget is not the GOP alternative. Leadership aides pointed TPMDC to last year's far less specific budget proposal and stressed their plan will be presented during floor debate that is likely to happen this spring. Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, will write that plan too.

The current Ryan plan includes a disclaimer: "This document was prepared with the assistance of the Republican staff, Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives. It has not been approved by the full committee and therefore may not reflect the view of individual committee members."

And we've yet to find leadership offices embracing the Social Security and Medicare cuts. Notably the package of proposals House Republicans formally presented to Obama last week at their retreat didn't include Ryan's budget proposal or any detailed budget blueprint, but rather referred him back to last year's much-mocked skeletal budget outline.

That 2009 budget that leadership aides referred us to offers vague plans to make "small adjustments in the benefits for higher-income beneficiaries if the Social Security Administration determines the program's Trust Fund cannot meet its obligations" but not starting until 2036.

Last year it was voted down in April when Democrats passed the Obama budget.

Ryan (R-WI) says his current plan "rescues and strengthens Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - allowing them to fulfill their missions and making them permanently solvent."

Translation - Social Security benefits will be reduced for those younger than 55, and the retirement age will be increased.

The budget plan states, "All other workers will have a choice to stay in the current system or begin contributing to personal accounts. Those who choose the personal account option will have the opportunity to begin investing a significant portion of their payroll taxes into a series of funds managed by the U.S. government."

It's similar to the Thrift Savings Plan used by members of Congress and federal workers, Ryan contends.

Another big cut is to Medicare - starting in 2021, new enrollees would be given vouchers to purchase private health insurance.

In all the Ryan budget plan dubbed the "Roadmap for America's Future" would take the deficit from 11 percent of gross domestic product in 2009 to 4.8 percent in 2030 and 2.6 percent in 2050. The Congressional Budget Office shows the GOP plan would end the deficit around 2060 and they would produce a surplus of 6 percent of gross domestic product by 2083.

"The Roadmap would put the federal budget on a sustainable path, generating an annual budget surplus of about 5 percent of GDP by 2080," the CBO wrote in its analysis.

I spent most of Wednesday scouring the Ryan budget proposal to try and understand how he manages to cut the deficit and ultimately end it - in 50 or so years.

The plan - highly unlikely to ever see the light of day beyond a perfunctory party-line vote as a substitute to the Democrats' budget - offers a mix of tax cuts as well as changes to Social Security and Medicare.

It also eliminates income and payroll tax exclusions for employment-based health insurance starting next year.

Other money-saving bits in the Ryan plan would be limiting malpractice award settlements and rescinding the unspent funds from the 2009 $787 billion economic stimulus plan.

It also includes the same discretionary spending freeze (for 10 years) that Republicans mocked President Obama for proposing last week.

Yesterday Ryan defended the Social Security changes in an op-ed at the National Review.

Ryan wrote:

On Social Security, the Roadmap provides seniors with the option either to stay in the traditional government-run system or to enter a system of guaranteed personal accounts. Neither option is privatized. In the personal-accounts system, the accounts are managed and overseen by a government board -- not a stockbroker or private investment firm. People choosing the reformed system select from a handful of low-risk, government-regulated options -- just as members of Congress and federal employees do.

The CBO analysis did not offer hard numbers but instead the plan as a percentage of gross domestic product. The 50-page report shows the Republican plan would indeed lower the deficit, and details how Social Security cuts would save the federal government money.

Check out the CBO's detailed analysis here.

OMB Director Peter Orszag last week said the Ryan budget provides a "contrast" to the White House plan and criticized the Social Security and Medicare elements.

"[I]ndividuals are on their own in the health care market. And the voucher does not keep pace with health care costs over time," Orszag said of the Medicare portion of the plan.

"There are many aspects of that that are worthy of further discussion and debate, but it is a dramatically different approach in which much more risk is loaded onto individuals and in which the Medicare program in particular is dramatically changed from its current structure," Orszag said.

President Obama also disagreed with the plan, though he called it a "serious proposal" that includes a "lot of detail."

Comments (137) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

February 4, 2010 9:30 AM   

Looks like the GOP is getting ready to pull their patented bait-and-switch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:19 AM    in reply to nickgrossman2000

Get the government off the backs of small business owners, unleash the "can-do" American spirit, and develop our energy resources: clean coal & domestic petroleum. That's the way to prosperity.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:27 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

Clean coal currently does not exist. Carbon separation and sequestration are very difficult and expensive. Sequestration is untested and no one knows if the CO2 will stay where it's supposed to.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:04 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

And magic ponies! Don't forget the magic ponies!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:23 AM    in reply to jsdc007

What do you expect? He thinks people can be military positions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 6:11 PM    in reply to jsdc007

i'm getting a magic pony? i didn't get the one obama promised yet. although technically president sham-wow promised me a unicorn.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:39 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

How, exactly, is the federal government "on the backs of small businesses"? Local governments are much more of a hassle for small businesses.
Do you think it's fair that working people and small business owners pay a higher tax rate on their earnings than hedge-fund managers, who pay a 15% capital gains rate on their earnings? Already more than any working stiff will ever see. All we hear from Republicans is that cutting the capital gains rate to zero is the ticket to prosperity. Is it fair for hedge-fund banksters to get away with paying no tax at all if cap gains zeroes out?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 7:48 PM    in reply to jeffgee

never got a job from a poor person.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 14, 2010 11:28 AM    in reply to jjdjjd

never seen a rich person put in a day's work.

your point?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:56 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

Tax cuts for small business - Done.

Getting rid of the burden of Health Care on small business - Tried to do. GOP cut that one out.

Getting rid of capital gains for small business - Proposed.

Domestic Energy Production - Proposed. Solar, Wind and Biofuel are domestic too! But Obama has indicated support for clean coal and even offshore drilling.

Lifting up the American Spirit - That's laughable if you think the GOP is doing this with all of their apocalyptic talk. I think Obama's record setting inauguration underscores the American Spirit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 15, 2010 9:09 AM    in reply to ohyeathatsright

Getting rid of capital gains for small business - Proposed.
I think this is dumb.
Unless it's an investment firm, small businesses shouldn't have capital gains to worry about.
Yes, yes, I can hear the protestations that small business needs to have a cushion in case of bad luck or hard times.
Very true - and it should be in a FDIC insured account, where it is guaranteed to be available in times of need.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

April 15, 2010 7:46 PM    in reply to kenga

You contradicted yourself. Not sure how to respond.

I love the idea of removing the capital gains burden from small businesses. It promotes innovation and the type of risk taking that IS the American Spirit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:51 PM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

"can do spirit"? you must be kidding. Are you talking about the professional victims that Americans have become?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 5, 2010 4:42 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

There is no such thing as "clean coal." That is a myth promoted by the coal industry. Give it up. It's a fantasy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 9:38 AM   

Why isn't some rich Democratic dude running ads that say:

"The Republican proposal for the budget calls for cuts in Social Security!"

If the spineless Democrats won't go out and accuse the Republicans of wanting to cut Social Security, why can't someone in the public sector speak up?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 9:52 AM    in reply to cambridgeMR

cambridge,

the Republicans are the Attila the Hun of politics, the Democrats are the Pee Wee Hermans.

It always seemed to me that the Republicans know how politically unsophisticated most of the public is and they play to that, while Democrats think the public are all the quantuum mechanics of political sophistication.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:16 AM    in reply to JohnW1141

For some reason THIS NEVER CHANGES. Dems always have to be so fucking high brow and the "good guys." Repubs play hardball and end up on top, that's why Dems have the better ideas but always lose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:18 AM    in reply to cambridgeMR

If we wait for rich Democrats in the public sector to act, good luck. The middle class has to act, even if it means lots of us pooling resources and time. Republicans are the enemy of the middle class, they count on us doing nothing or waiting or delegating or saying so-and-so should do it. Meanwhile our and our kids' future evaporates.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 9:39 AM   

The difference between the Obama and GOP budget alternatives is that of a unabashed shopaholic maxing out one credit card a year and a self proclaimed reformed shopaholic maxing out a credit card every five years. Both are literally driving America to insolvency, but Obama is doing it at a sprint while the GOP is on a stroll.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:34 AM    in reply to Bart DePalma

You don't seem to understand the difference between running a deficit in response to a massive recession and running a deficit during a period of expansion.

But I guess understanding stuff is irrelevant if you have only the same 1 solution to every problem.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:53 PM    in reply to Economides

Economomides:

When the nation can no longer pay the interest on the debt and there is a run on the dollar, does it really matter when the borrowing took place?

To the extent that you are arguing that Trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see are somehow necessary to pull the country out of recession today, I would note the utter failure of Mr. Obama's $1.4 trillion 2009 deficit spending to pull the nation out of recession. As a matter of fact, the markets are diving today on news that new unemployment claims went up rather than down as expected. Thus, there is no reason to expect Obama's even more insane $1.6 Trillion 2010 deficit to do anything more than put us on a road to national insolvency in a decade.

See Peronist Argentina for the joys of spending a nation into insolvency.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:25 PM    in reply to Bart DePalma

Yeah, so repeating yourself is a sure sign you in fact do not understand the difference.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:42 PM    in reply to Economides

Economides:

There is no effective difference between borrowing in times of economic growth and during recession unless you subscribe to the Keynsian error that government spending creates demand and thus economic growth. There is no evidence that government borrowing capital from Peter and spending it on Paul in the name of economic stimulus creates a net increase in demand, GDP or employment or has ever actually pulled a country out of recession. See the lost decades of the New Deal and Japan in the 1990s.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:12 PM    in reply to Bart DePalma

Well then, if YOU say so.

What has a bigger impact on long-term debt, the stimulus bill or tax revenue lost from the recession?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 3:02 PM    in reply to Economides

Economides:

What has a bigger impact on long-term debt, the stimulus bill or tax revenue lost from the recession?

To start, debt = spending in excess of the revenue you have. Calculating the revenue you might have had and lost because of an economic or tax event is pure speculation, usually driven by ideology. Thus, one cannot objectively calculate the amount of " tax revenue lost from the recession."

However, the borrowing to finance the stimulus bill is easy to calculate because all of the stimulus appropriations were borrowed. Because there was no discernible net economic growth created by borrowing capital which would otherwise be invested in the private sector and was instead pissed away by government, we do not have to calculate increased tax revenues from economic growth as we would with a cut in marginal income tax rates.

If you have another point, please get to it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 4:32 PM    in reply to Bart DePalma

I submit this as evidence of why it is not likely that we could possibly have a productive conversation:

Calculating the revenue you might have had and lost because of an economic or tax event is pure speculation, usually driven by ideology. Thus, one cannot objectively calculate the amount of " tax revenue lost from the recession."

I'm thinking most reasonably bright junior high school kids could propose a very accurate approximation.

Get back to me when you get a clue.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 4:38 PM    in reply to Economides

Oh, your second paragraph was equally bad. just sayin'

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 5:49 PM    in reply to Economides

BD: Calculating the revenue you might have had and lost because of an economic or tax event is pure speculation, usually driven by ideology. Thus, one cannot objectively calculate the amount of " tax revenue lost from the recession."

Economides: I'm thinking most reasonably bright junior high school kids could propose a very accurate approximation.

Really?

As a proxy for a reasonably bright junior high school kid, what is your estimate of the hypothetical GDP growth rate and tax revenues for FY2009 absent the foreclosures on the CRA junk mortgages and what evidence short of a crystal ball do you cite to support this estimate?

Simply assuming the same growth rate as prior to the foreclosures on the CRA junk mortgages does not work because GDP growth rates never remain the same.

There are a myriad of effects from removing the CRA junk mortgages from history:

1) No shifting of over $2 trillion from other investments into CRA junk mortgages. Where would that money have gone and what effect would it have had on GDP?

2) No consumer spending in reliance on rising home equity when CRA junk mortgage demand spiked home prices between 1997 and 2007. Without that spending, would your baseline GDP be smaller?

3) Many of these CRA junk mortgages went to immigrants. If there was no home at the end of the immigration, would as many immigrants have come to the country? Without those immigrants, would your baseline GDP be smaller or larger?

I could go on and on. As you see, any estimate of the hypothetical GDP growth rate and tax revenues for FY2009 absent the foreclosures on the CRA junk mortgage is pure speculative alternative history fiction.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 9:40 AM   

I can't wait for the TP nuts who were convinced Obama was going to mess with Medicare to protest this plan. Oh, it was proposed by a Republican? Never mind.

Of course these a-holes will trumpet that they can eliminate the deficit - in 70 years - when they claimed no CBO projections on healthcare beyond 5-10 years could be trusted. Selective amnesia is the gift that keeps giving.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 9:52 AM    in reply to calbearinillinois

The best thing about having a political base with selective amnesia is that every stupid idea is brand new and not yet known to be stupid every single time it gets repeated. Repeat the same stupid idea 50 times, then forget it and its underlying stupidity and you can proudly claim you came up with 50 great ideas.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 9:45 AM   

So the "party of Fiscal responsibility" would take another 50 years to get us back to where we were 10 years ago, before the greedy idiots of Wall Street nearly sent us into another great depression. The same greedy idiots that these guys want to hand our Social Security and Medicare funds over to.

If THIS is the best the Republicans have to offer and you believe that the Dem's ideas would be WORSE ... than I'm afraid this country is really screwed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 9:54 AM   

Like it or not, the entitlement train must be dismantled. Socialism doesn't work.

Many, nearing retirement, have planned for this inevitable scenario. I feel no sympathy for those who have not prepared. Crystal clear warning signs have issued for decades.

A one time payoff equaling SS and medicare contributions plus interest, for those under age 55, is in order. At least the kids behind us would have a chance.

I can live with it, can you?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:08 AM    in reply to Silence

You suffer from the same syndrome as most Americans. Rather than see themselves as middle class or poor or blue collar, they see themselves as "prerich" and oppose anything that may affect the wealthy - like the bogeyman "socialism," social security, pensions, medicare and the like. But imagining yourself as prerich is pretty much like going through high school "knowing" you're going to get a $20 million dollar basketball contract the moment you turn 18. All I can say is, good luck to you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:36 AM    in reply to Silence

You claim to be anti-socialist but what you are is anti-social. You say you feel no sympathy, no connection to the elderly. Large numbers of elders lived in poverty and poor health prior to Social Security and Medicare. Eating dog food was not unusual. But even if you blame the person for being "unprepared," as you say you do, it is not elders who will feel the biggest pinch. Elders would be dependent on the middle aged generation for support, making it harder for that group to "prepare" for their later years. The callous and unconnected may be out of luck at that point, for without empathy, they may not have relationships to sustain them. Members of a social species criticize mutual help at their own peril.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:54 AM    in reply to Iris

They'll get their money. Outside of DC, a promise made is a promise kept.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:51 AM    in reply to Silence

Do you really think the majority of Americans living paycheck to paycheck will invest in their future? Even if you gave them back the portion of their paycheck that goes towards Social Security and Medicare, most people are either unwilling or unable to plan for their financial future. Just look at the 'savings rate' prior to the recent financial crisis.

Honestly I think it would be great if I got to keep that huge chunk of cash I paid out in SS and Medicare taxes. I have the education, resources, and expendable income to take that money and invest it wisely for my future. Many Americans don't, however. No amount of personal responsibility on your part will change that, either.

Given the changes that have happened in this country over the last 80 years, and the continued downward pressure on wages and benefits we'll all see over the next 80 years, dismantling SS and Medicare would lead to social disaster.

Children already struggle to take care of aging parents who couldn't or wouldn't plan better. That's only going to get worse as medical costs continue to soar and the middle class stagnates in the face of cheap overseas labor. It's not like the 'good ole days' where grandma or grandpa could totter around the farm house until they died. We've come to rely on expensive medical treatments to extend our lives. Because we don't make anything anymore, we can't meet our needs directly. We sell our time to do that, and our time is worth less and less every day.

We've come to value our privacy and independence from our parents. Sure, some individuals may have strong ties and expect to care for their parents in old age, but unlike some cultures, as a society we have no expectation that our children will care for us. You might say that's in part a symptom of SS and Medicare, but it's where we are. Unless we have a major cultural shift, dismantling of those programs will lead to serious strife, and eventually unrest.

I'm not saying the systems are perfect, and our government could do a lot of things differently. But this blind faith that an unfettered capitalist market is somehow compatible with long term social stability is a farce. Didn't we learn ANYTHING from the Industrial Revolution and the first half of the 20th century?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:58 AM    in reply to Forrest

So, what you're saying is that some people are too irresponsible to live.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:17 PM    in reply to Silence

GOP platform for the middle class--"DIE". Great, run with it!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:28 PM    in reply to Silence

Many are irresponsible. Some are unlucky. My parents for example. I would consider them responsible, and they worked their asses off to support our family while I was growing up. Even so, we always struggled. There was never spare money to invest for their future, because they were busy investing in the future of their two children.

Eventually, once his children were grown and out on their own, my father started his own business. It was a residential framing company, and he enjoyed some modest success. Success meaning the bills were paid on time and they could afford the mortgage on a modest house. Until the housing collapse, anyway. My parents lost everything as a result of that. Thankfully my mother has a union job. She doesn't earn much, but she has spectacular health care. Otherwise my father would be dead.

So yeah, I hear all this 'personal responsibility and hard work' talk and I see it for what it is - bullshit. Sure, if you have the right opportunities, with hard work and responsibility you can be successful. Thanks to my parents, I've been given those opportunities and I've capitalized on them. I'm not foolish, though - not everyone is as blessed as I have been.

But none of that really matters. Hungry, pissed off people are dangerous. Without social programs and regulation, capitalism can lead to an awful lot of hungry and pissed off people. Like it or not, social stability in a 'free' post-industrial society requires safety nets for the inevitable economic losers that capitalism produces.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:35 PM    in reply to Forrest

You owe your parents, not me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:47 PM    in reply to Silence

Of course I do, and that's why I've kept them afloat financially for the last two years. Lucky for them I don't yet have a family of my own to provide for, and I live below my means.

If I hadn't been able to support them, they literally would have been homeless. You can say that's just life, I suppose. With a little compassion and charity, though, life doesn't have to be that way.

Do you honestly think that if state and local governments offered absolutely no social programs, and only provided for national security, that society as a whole would be better off?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:57 PM    in reply to Silence

If you're incapable of caring for those who weren't afforded the opportunity to succeed, and it seems you are, think about this from your what's mine is mine and fuck everyone else perspective:

Economic stability is crucial to economic prosperity and, therefore, your wallet. SS and Medicare help provide that by eliminating the number one cause of bankruptcies in America - the cost of healthcare - for a large segment of the population. You'll be better-able to live comfortably if we keep these programs strong so that's a plus for you.

Continuing on our path towards concentrating the vast majority of wealth at the very top will lead to civil unrest. Every NGO out there will tell you that nations are unstable which have very high income disparity. Removing SS and Medicare would accelerate this process. It'll be much harder to keep living the way you do if there's bread riots and guerrilla warfare between the haves and the have nots.

If you're a sociopath and can't care for the rest of society, consider the repercussions to you if we remove the economic safety net. It's not pretty.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:12 PM    in reply to worthy9

Afforded the opportunity? What the hell does that mean? This is the United States of America...the land of opportunity.

If you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:44 PM    in reply to Silence

It makes for a great national motto but the fact is that poverty is not a choice for millions of Americans. Let me ask you - if you had a choice, would you choose poverty? Would you choose to wonder where your next meal comes from? Would you choose to have to make a choice between rent and food for your children? Would you choose to live with the shame that you can't provide for your family? Who the hell would choose that? Do you even know how much paperwork and time it takes to get into a government program? A shitton and months if not years.

This is the whole reason that the lower classes vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. It's really hard to live through true poverty and believe it's a choice and that with some bootstrapping you can have that white picket fence and a lawn in the suburbs. Get real. Go out and work two shitty, full-time jobs that pay minimum wage for 6 months with 3 kids to feed and no spouse to help out because the alcoholic asshole disappeared one day after saying they were going out to get a pack of smokes. *Then* you can tell me what is and isn't possible for the poor.

This debate is always framed by conservatives as being against people who take advantage ("welfare queens" and such) instead of being for people who need help and it's a red herring. Saying we should scrap the whole system because some people take advantage is like saying one of your tires is flat so you shouldn't own a car anymore.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 5:09 PM    in reply to worthy9

I think lots of people share Silence's beliefs - at least the ones I can glean from his comments here at TPM. They're tired of seeing so much (or any) of their income taken away, for whatever reason. They want the 'handouts' to stop so they can keep more of what they earn.

I can understand that. You think I liked looking at my W2 last week to see the whopping amount Uncle Sam took off the top? Of course not. Do I think the government could do a better job of managing what they take from me? Absolutely.

I'm still not stupid enough though to think that if I kept all I earned that somehow America as a whole would be better off. To be a productive member of society, there has to be a society. Assurance of access to health care, insurance against loss of wages, and assistance for those who need it are REQUIRED elements of a post-industrial society.

Without those things, the inevitable economic losers that capitalism *guarantees* have nothing to turn to but theft, violence, or both to obtain what they need to survive.

Go ahead...remove Social Security. Remove Medicare. Remove regulations and unleash Capitalism. You better invest in some guns, and a defensible position in your home, though. Eventually the peasants will revolt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:41 PM    in reply to Forrest

Awesome comment. Thank you.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:17 PM    in reply to Forrest

Well said.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:12 PM    in reply to Silence

"A one time payoff equaling SS and medicare contributions plus interest, for those under age 55, is in order. At least the kids behind us would have a chance."

By your own previous admissions, you don't expect to receive SS or Medicare upon retirement, and you plan to 'give away' or 'donate' your entitlements to your children or grandchildren anyway.

So you can stuff your talk of a "payoff." It's just like a Republican to talk about cutting social programs at the same instant he starts sniffing around for a handout of his own.

Pathetic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:01 AM   

I really like the 6% surplus by 2083. If it doesn't work out maybe their great grand children could apologize to everybody elses great grand children.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:01 AM   

"Like it or not, the entitlement train must be dismantled. Socialism doesn't work."

Conservatives are so cute when they toss around words they don't understand, like "socialism". Read an economics textbook sometime, perhaps you'll learn something.

Like Al Franken said, you're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. SS and Medicare are nowhere near going under. Go look at Chile's pension system, privatized under Pinochet, to see how well private government pensions work. (Hint: the pensions evaporated years ago.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:04 AM    in reply to Sacanagem

Look at a balance sheet some time. You might learn something.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:06 AM    in reply to Silence

BTW, unemployment is up again.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:10 AM    in reply to Silence

Unemployment is up you useless troll because a) the greedy filth on wall street drained the economy of money and b) the greedy filth who pocketed billions in bailout money refuse to lend it to anyone.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:16 AM    in reply to georgecs

Exactly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:47 AM    in reply to georgecs

Although the bank offer loans every month, I won't be needing any money.

I'm writing a new software module that will eliminate another 6 positions....permanently. You see, the 80's were a little short on career programmers, so many business owners quickly learned to write their own software.

Recessions afford the time and opportunity to rediscover and unleash one's inner programmer. Everyday, I wake up with another 'lean' idea. To be quite honest, I'm impressing the hell out of myself with very clever time and motion solutions. Sales may be go down, but profits will be up.


Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:00 AM    in reply to Silence

As if anyone but yourself would be impressed with a fat half-wit on disability who's only other source of income is being paid by Dick Armey's "grassroots" organization to attend teabagging festivals.
But a side benefit is that the little fantasy world you've created for yourself distracts you from inflicting your idiocy on the greater society.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:06 AM    in reply to human

Compilation complete - no errors. This is fun!

Have a nice day.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:14 PM    in reply to Silence

doesn't take much to amuse and distract a half-wit like yourself. Next, you go watch the pretty lights in a store window or some dangling teabags. Anything to keep you distracted. Have fun!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:16 PM    in reply to Silence

"BTW, unemployment is up again."

"I'm writing a new software module that will eliminate another 6 positions....permanently."

It's beyond belief that you can complain about unemployment and crow about how you're eliminating jobs, both within the same hour.

Hypocrisy, thy handle is "Silence."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:44 PM    in reply to Signalman

Obama promised higher taxes on those earning over 250K. That translates to higher taxes on small business. I believe him and will take the appropriate counter measures to preserve my business.

Not to do so, would be reckless.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:21 PM    in reply to Silence

"Obama promised higher taxes on those earning over 250K."

Yes, he did.


"That translates to higher taxes on small business."

No, it doesn't. It translates into higher taxes on *individuals* making more than $250K per annum. If you are a business-owner who falls into that category (and you've claimed so many different things about you background and job that it's hard to tell whether I should bother believing you or not in this particular instance), there are plenty of ways to shelter your income.

Reduce the salary that you receive from your business (this is the best way to do it, as any additional profit in your business would be taxed at lower corporate rates, which REFUTES your mistaken/lying claim above)
Restructure your business as a tax-advantaged entity (such as a S Corp)
Increase your personal charitable giving

And you can always consult with a tax professional to determine other legal ways to accomplish tax avoidance in a valid and ethical manner.

In any event, I doubt you realize that the increased taxes only apply to the portion of your personal income that exceeds $250K. If you're making $275K, only that extra $25K gets taxed at the higher rate, genius. That's a better deal than even Ronald Reagan offered with his tax cuts.

All this bellyaching about taxation is nothing but childish whining. President Obama's proposed tax increases *still* leave the wealthy paying lower rates than they did under Reagan and Bush 41 -- and that's a fact.

Be a man. Strap on a pair and pay your taxes like an adult.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:02 PM    in reply to Signalman

If the govt starts showing some fiscal responsibility, I will happily step up to the plate and hit at least a triple. It's what I do best.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:26 PM    in reply to Silence

Actually, you're going to pay your taxes regardless of what the government does.

Right?

Because that's what an adult would do.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:39 PM    in reply to Signalman

Of course. I'll pay taxes on $249K. After this year, it wouldn't be fair to earn any more than that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:52 PM    in reply to Silence

And there you go. Problem solved.

So quit bellyaching.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 5:05 PM    in reply to Signalman

Yup. Problem solved.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 5:30 PM    in reply to Silence

BS. You're telling me that you would turn down another $20,000 worth of taxable income because you could only keep 60% of that 20k instead of 70% of it? Why, just to spite the government?

I've never owned my own business, so maybe I'm missing something, but I've never understood that argument. It's not like making $250,001 dollars would actually *cost* you money when compared to making $249,999.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 5:41 PM    in reply to Forrest

Though I have no evidence of it, I doubt he owns his own business and I doubt he makes anywhere in the neighborhood of six figures. The number of people who would be affected by a tax increase on wage or salary income over $250K is so small (and those people have better things to do than to bleat on internet message boards) that I automatically suspect anyone I meet on the net who claims they'll be affected by it -- ESPECIALLY when they seem not to realize that the tax only applies to income earned in excess of $250K.

And FWIW, you're right. Giving up an extra $20K or so of income is pretty silly, especially when your stated reason is a slightly higher marginal tax rate. But if it leads to increased investment in business or increased charitable giving, it's not all bad. If bleating conservatives can be shamed into actually doing what they've always claimed they do with their wealth (e.g. invest in business and create jobs), I'm okay with that. You did notice, I hope, that I had to point that out as a valid method of tax avoidance to Silence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 6:43 PM    in reply to Signalman

Right. I keep hearing that 'more taxes on the rich' will kill our economy, because those top earners won't be driven to earn as much. Which I think we all know is crap. Anyone whose income is that high above the national average is in some way driven to earn such a salary.

They'll piss and moan about their tax burden, but they won't turn down money just to avoid paying increased taxes on it. In fact they might actually do what you suggest - invest or donate their money - to lower that burden if that top marginal rate was a bit more painful.

This country has seen periods of explosive economic growth throughout its history, in spite of the top marginal tax rate being *significantly* higher during a lot of that history. I'd love to see the now 30+ year old refrain that lower taxes on the rich always equates to greater economic growth dispelled once and for all.

It may not be fair to overly burden the 'rich', but if that's the real concern let's at least be honest about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 5, 2010 9:04 AM    in reply to Forrest

"I'd love to see the now 30+ year old refrain that lower taxes on the rich always equates to greater economic growth dispelled once and for all."

Well, we only have to look at the Bush Administration for that. It was an unmitigated financial disaster, marked by profligate deficit spending and willy-nilly TAX CUTS, mostly for the wealthy. If deficit spending and tax cuts werre the miracles that conservative proclaim them to be, we'd be in a lot better collective economic shape right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:38 AM    in reply to Silence

Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the sense that you are gleeful that unemployment is up, as though you are happy to see Americans suffer if it means you can pound on the president? Are you glad to see your fellow citizens in a bad way?

This is what I find so personally appalling about so called conservatives. They don't seem to be willing to take any responsibility for their part in causing the mess that we are in and seem to be glad to try to continue the mess if it means they score political points. I don't think this should be about trying to create winners and losers. I think it should be about fixing our country. What positive contributions do you think you could make to that endeavor?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:53 AM    in reply to twoviragos

they only pretend to give a damn about unemployment, social security, medicare, etc.--it's all just to get votes from moronic half-wits like Silence and his fellow teabaggers. Everything the right actually proposes would completely destroy the middle class, as opposed to bringing it to its knees like they already did after eight years of complete mismanagement and criminal incompetence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:46 AM    in reply to Silence

Unemployment isn't up, you mouthbreather. First time jobless claims are up. Learn the difference or shut your pie hole!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:53 AM    in reply to FreeRider

"The figures come a day before the Labor Department is scheduled to report the January employment figures, which are expected to show a tiny gain in jobs. *The unemployment rate is forecast to rise to 10.1 percent.*

The number of people continuing to claim benefits was unchanged at 4.6 million. That data lags initial claims by a week."

------------------------------------------------------
Straight from the article on TPM.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 5, 2010 9:01 AM    in reply to Silence

And now *you* look like a dumb@$$ for jumping the gun. When will you learn?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35254011/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:48 AM    in reply to Silence

Get a clue for once in your life instead of dragging your ingnorant teabagging ass around these boards, making a fool of yourself for the umpteenth time.
any problems with social security can be easily solved by raising the retirement age a little bit and raising the payroll tax cutoff. End of story. Oh wait, but that wouldn't involve privatizing it and forcing everyone to give their money to your heroes on Wall Street who created this gigantic mess.
Stick with attending your teabagging festivals with your fellow fat white racist tools, people with more than a grade school education are in charge now and they're not going to go right back to repeating all the mistakes that caused the financial disaster that your conservative braindead heroes brought upon us. It's bad enough that your GOP half-wits in congress are actually still trying to protect the banksters and bailout beneficiaries from being held accountable.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:15 AM    in reply to human

Radical Shifts Take Hold in U.S. Manufacturing
by Mark Whitehouse
Wednesday, February 3, 2010

provided by
wsjlogo.gif

America's industrial base is undergoing its most radical restructuring in decades as manufacturers rethink their businesses in the wake of the recession.

From Dow Chemical Co. to Intel Corp., iconic companies are telling stories of wrenching change -- both contraction and recovery -- as they report their earnings for 2009.

Dow Chemical said Tuesday it is aiming to shed some $2 billion worth of basic-chemical factories and other assets this year as it moves into more-profitable specialty chemicals. Appliance maker Whirlpool Corp. said it cut about a tenth of its capacity in 2009 as it struggled with a 9.6% drop in sales. **Intel, by contrast, is investing billions of dollars in its U.S. plants as demand for computer gear recovers.***
........snip.........

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/108745/radical-shifts-take-hold-in-us-manufacturing
------------------------------------------------------------
Ticktock, Ticktock.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:10 PM    in reply to Silence

oh, that changes everything, NOT. Yet another response as flaccid as you are.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:37 PM    in reply to human

I see you didn't read it. I'm not surprised.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 5:45 PM    in reply to Silence

No one wants to read your dribblings.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:14 PM    in reply to Silence

One of the things that really amuses me is that, almost uniformly, conservatives believe they truly understand Economics. As someone who actually holds a degree in Economics, I can say with full knowledge that you know just as much about it as 90% of the population. You take a few intro to Economics courses, you maybe go to business school and maybe you even run a business and now, suddenly, you're a goddamn authority on macroeconomic theory. It's as if 25% of the population went around saying they're experts on literature because they took some English classes in college and attended a lecture on Proust.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:28 AM    in reply to Sacanagem

You know when those pension plans evaporate all that money goes somewhere. Wonder who ends up with it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:05 PM    in reply to fpie

No one. It's vapor.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:33 AM   

Why are Republicans doing a budget? They're still the minority party. Also, has the CBO scored this and if not, will the GOP submit it? Instead of working on a budget when you're the tiny party, why aren't they working on legislation. You don't get to construct a budget until YOUR PARTY WINS THE WHITEHOUSE! Idiots!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

sbv

user-pic

February 4, 2010 10:37 AM   

" Would Privatize Social Security ... Replaces Medicare With Vouchers For Private Insurance ... Calls For Big Cuts In Benefits"

is this really the way the tea partiers - the small percentage who seem to have grabbed the cajones of all congress, the all important independents - who love to talk about smaller government and no regulations and the moderate gop - who don't exist anymore, really wants, or perhaps their parents or grandparents?

just who will benefit from these ideas? let's see: privatize social security = wall street, investment bankers and anyone willing to leverage risk for the sake of bigger bonuses; vouchers for medicare = the health insurance industry to make even bigger profits; and those above aforementioned - tea partiers, independents and non-existent moderates think these are okay guys on their side

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:38 AM   

Brace yourselves folks!!! Today could be one of those triple digit LOSER
days on the market. How'd you like to have your future medical, medicine,
and retirement riding on the rampant irresponsibility of U.S. Government
gamblers? After all, Rep. Ryan begs for this!!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:41 AM   

As a federal employee who is enrolled in the Thrift Savings Program (TSP), I am also going to be getting Social Security, and a government pension under the federal retirement system (FERS) when I retire. So, the claim that privatizing Social Security gives people what federal employees have (TSP) is really disingenuous, since I will be getting social security in addition to my TSP savings and my pension. I pay into all 3. If I only had the TSP, I would have to work for a long, long time to make up for my TSP losses in the great recession. I am grateful that at least my social security and pension are not linked to market fluctuations.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:43 AM   

"Better solutions".....

They must mean drink more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:44 AM   

I had skimmed this article but, I just read the whole thing. The CBO scoring at least on those specifics doesn't help these tools. As the President said yesterday, why would you go and vote for the same policies that brought us here? I'd also add, why do idiot voters not get that? Why would voters think Republicans could handle the economy better? This is why many voters are tagged as being stupid. What else could you call it?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:49 AM   

IMHO
Mr Boner, in the picture with this article, has the look of a whiny "victim". "We have a perfectly good budget, but they won't listen to me". Ohhhh. If he only had Lieberman's voice!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:53 AM   

What I find most amusing is that people who call themselves 'conservative' are not conservative at all. Social security is conservative; investing life savings in accounts that fluctuate with the markets is basically gambling, and that is not conservative.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:21 AM    in reply to mikekinseattle

There are many low-risk vehicles for effective retirement planning. Stocks are not the be all and end all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:39 AM    in reply to Silence

Sorry to disagree, but that is not really true. A retirement portfolio HAS to include stocks, or it simply will not last. And are you thinking bonds? Watch what happens over the next few years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:56 AM    in reply to davcbr

Depends on how much risk you want to take. In the past few decades we have become too accustomed to thinking that seeking high returns is the key to investment success. Turns out high returns come with high risk of losses as well. Instead you should think about increasing the percentage of income you save and being completely disciplined about it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:49 AM    in reply to Silence

A person who buys and holds a corporate bold to maturity is betting that the future productive value of the firm will be sufficient to pay off the loan with interest.

A person who pays tax to the government and expects a regular stream of income from social security is betting that the productive value of the entire national economy subject to taxation will be sufficient to pay off the promised benefits.

Which is the more diversified, and therefore less risky, alternative?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:00 PM    in reply to Economides

At this point, they're just about even steven.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:12 PM    in reply to Silence

If you are talking about buying the entire bond market (which you can do in a index fund) then you might have a point. But any one company or even a small group of companies is far riskier.

If you think the country as a whole doesn't have a chance of making it then why would you think some particular company you pick has a chance? The ability of future workers to pay off future investors will depend on their productivity no matter if that productivity comes out as profits of the private sector or tax revenues of the public sector.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:51 PM    in reply to Economides

People will always need things to live.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:55 AM   

Just when I think Conservatives are going to kick our ass .... they come up with this. An early Xmas gift for Democrats.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:56 AM   

Are Republicans sure they want Americans to know about their "alternatives" to the Obama agenda? Can only imagine the outrage that the literal destruction of Medicare would cause among the protesters from last summer...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 10:56 AM   

Just when you thought that nothing could be worse than their behavior, policywise, than the previous years of Bush & Republican control of our government, they come out with this.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:19 AM    in reply to acf_ma

Let this be a warning to all the unhappy indies and progs that this is what you'll get if you don't vote in 2010 or switch sides.

I wouldn't wish these folks on the worst enemy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:02 AM   

By Dan Strumpf, AP Auto Writer , On Thursday February 4, 2010, 10:35 am

NEW YORK (AP) -- Home and auto lender GMAC Financial Services said Thursday it lost $5 billion in the last three months of 2009, as losses from its mortgage operations kept the company in the red for another quarter.

GMAC, which is owned by the federal government, is still working to sell its troubled home lending business, ResCap. Mortgage operations overall lost more than $4 billion during the quarter, and GMAC $3.3 billion charge related to its efforts to sell the unit.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Boy, the feds sure know how to pick the winners. What would the taxpayers would do without them. Dare I say the 'P' word?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:14 AM   

Translation - Social Security benefits will be reduced for those younger than 55, and the retirement age will be increased.

Amazing, isn't it, potentially screwing a voting block, libertarian leaning GenXers and GenYers, or GenNext or whatever, who will be reaching retirement age within the next ten to twenty years.

But what is even more amazing is that a significant percentage to voters falling into those generational cohorts will back this crap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:07 PM    in reply to ETSpoon

Yes. Good parents care about their kids and are willing to sacrifice for their futures.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:34 PM    in reply to Silence

Exactly. But what happens to those good, sacrificing parents if and when they become too old to work? Hope their sacrifices led to children who are prosperous enough to care for them?

If so, great. If not, I guess there's always cat food and an early grave.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:36 PM    in reply to Forrest

Be nice to your kids.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:54 PM    in reply to Silence

That looks like a bumper sticker to me.

GOP Retirement Plan: 'Be Nice To Your Kids'

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:55 PM    in reply to Forrest

See lost decade of Japan.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:16 AM   

Republicans are really f-ing stupid. I can respect conservative intellectuals like David Brooks, but the Republican Party is an association of asses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:33 AM   

Republicans and Libertarians argue that tax cuts stimulate growth, which then leads to enough growth to exceed the revenue lost because of the tax cuts (deficits), which then creates surpluses (presumably used to pay for the deficit borrowing). This is sometimes referred to as "supply side" macroeconomic theory. Another twist is acknowledging that the tax cuts necessarily benefit the wealthy (they already have most of the income and assets), so the money that they retain must somehow "trickle down" to benefit everyone else (specifically through investment that creates jobs).

Got it? OK. The Bush tax cuts were the biggest trial of this idea ever. They started almost ten years ago. During that period, we have incurred the largest deficits in U.S. history, and we have had zero growth in employment. The experiment failed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:44 AM    in reply to sunnysteve

Ok, hold onto your knickers here. This is crazy talk to the money tree believers.

Lower taxes AND cut spending. I know. It's insane. But, let's give it a try anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:22 PM    in reply to Silence

Unfortunately, cutting spending also cuts jobs. That would be especially unwise during a recession. Indeed, a large part of the stimulus bill was to replace lost state and local government revenues, so that their employees would not be laid off, which would have caused even more unemployment and an even worse recession.

In a fashion, the Clinton administration did what you propose, but during a period of expansion. The tax burden was lowered selectively to divert federal revenue to private sector investment. Entitlement spending was lowered through welfare reform. Most importantly, unproductive federal spending (defense being the largest category) was selectively redirected to productive federal spending (investment in infrastructure, basic research and education).
We can argue about why Clinton finished with a very large budget surplus, but his policies should get some of the credit, in my professional opinion. Most certainly, he did not make things worse.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:25 PM    in reply to sunnysteve

What jobs? Govt jobs? We'll live. Half of them don't work on Fridays and the rest sneak home at around 3pm after a 2 hour lunch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:12 PM    in reply to Silence

If you ever need a cop or a medic, don't dial 911, just telephone your "inner programmer".

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 2:34 PM    in reply to sunnysteve

Ohm stop with the cop and the medic crap. You know exactly what govt workers I'm talking about.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 5:03 PM    in reply to Silence

I would suppose they are the ones you don't need at the moment and the ones who are the exception to the rule. You are too smug about your own abilities, especially your ability to get along entirely on your own. And you are too prone to take the behavior of a few and generalize to the whole.

I detect some real intelligence, but are you smart? About the whimsical nature of life, I mean.
Although I am not a religious person, I have always liked the quip: Want to know how to make God laugh? Tell him your plans.

Don't always count on being able to get along entirely on your own. And do something for someone else every once in a while. It comes around.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 5:45 PM    in reply to sunnysteve


The redistribution of wealth through taxation is NOT charity. It is confiscation ie. legal robbery.

Charity given, freely and without coercion, is the only true measure of goodness.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:55 AM    in reply to sunnysteve

Since the Republicans just love "dynamic scoring" for their tax cuts, I've often wondered why they just didn't call for cutting tax rates to zero, which should spur a moonshot for the economy which would lead to a gusher of new revenues on the vastly expanded incomes everyone would be receiving. I do realize this makes just about as much sense as the rest of Republican policy proposals.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:03 PM    in reply to sunnysteve

Some clarifications:

Most economists would agree that tax cuts can stimulate growth (temporarily) beyond what it would have been without the tax cut. depends on the type of tax cut, timing, etc.... Notice the claim is that they will increase growth not necessarily employment. (it is possible as we learned during the Bush years to have one without the other).

No economist worth a damn believes that the additional revenue that comes from increased growth makes up for the revenue lost by the tax cut itself.

So tax cuts can be stimulative but they also increase deficits. The proper use of tax cuts and spending as well are as kick starts, not magic cost free cure-alls.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:10 PM    in reply to Economides

I agree with everything you say.

I was outlining the Reagan-Bush talking points, unfortunately still being advocated today.
Indeed, "no economist worth a damn" believes their arguments.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:19 PM    in reply to sunnysteve

It's important to point out that the right wing politicians continue to spouting the fairytale,and even republican economists say they are full of crap. That was true even in the Reagan years. The real economists (not George Gilder and Arthur Laffer) knew what was gonna happen. Even GHWB knew it.

I'll bet if you asked the 20 most important TV political journalists most would not know that this is pretty much a settled fact. And yet they never, ever call BS when people continue to spew this crap.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 11:59 AM   

You guys have to be kidding....you are kidding right? You expect the Democrat Party to make hay out of this? What planet are you living on? Dems will f@ck this up like they f@ck everything up, they have zero political acumen. And don't expect the MSM to call this to the American people's attention either, Corporate America wants these policies and they didn't buy up the media for nothin'. Watch, you'll see old white people screaming that socialism is destroying Social Security by August, and demanding that their benefits be cut to prevent socialism from destroying Social Security. George Stephanopoulis will nod his head.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:10 PM    in reply to Max Thrax

You are a troll. No democrat refers to the democratic party as the democrat party. Fuck you you steamin pile sorry excuse for a human being

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 1:21 PM    in reply to lousgirl84

No one who has even a minor grasp of the English language calls it the Democrat party. This may be part of the problem -- making bad policy and being illiterate is no way to go through life, son ;).

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 3:28 PM    in reply to twoviragos

Neither is being a clueless soccer mom. I clearly stated I have no respect for the Party, and that is the basis for referring to it in a disrespectful way. Go back to baking brownies honey.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:21 PM   

Ask the citizens of Chicago how they like privatized parking meters.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:21 PM   

No actually I'm not a troll, I just hate the party I vote for you stupid bitch. One party is insane, the other preternaturally cowardly. You're not paying attention.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:38 PM    in reply to Max Thrax

I'm paying attention and what's obvious you whining, sackless, self pity wallowing ass-snorkler troll is that you have no convictions or confidence. The'Democrat' party? Go join Sailormarlowe in his crusade for the Soapy Sisters, Sarah and Michelle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:45 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

You can shove Sailormarlowe up your ass punk. The Democrat Party is hapless, useless and infuriating. I will vote Green anytime there's one on the ballot, the rest of the time I'll hold my nose and vote for the DEMOCRAT PARTY....which will then capitulate to the Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:49 PM    in reply to Max Thrax

Actually, as much as sailordouchelove would enjoy being in my ass, it was a pleasure to call you out. Keep holding your nose then, sissyboy, the Green Party is smoke.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 4, 2010 12:55 PM    in reply to Marinus van der Lubbe

The Green Party will get just as much done in Congress as the DEMOCRAT PARTY will bitch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?