How will we seniors live without the Social Security and Medicare we paid for?

[Star Man]

Robert Scheer's Columns
Debt Madness Was Always About Killing Social Security

Posted on Jul 27, 2011

AP / Carolyn Kaster

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio looks on during a news conference at The Republican National Committee.

By Robert Scheer


This phony debt crisis has now passed through the looking glass into the realm where madness reigns. What should have been an uneventful moment in which lawmakers make good on the nation’s contractual obligations has instead been seized upon by Republican hypocrites as a moment to settle ideological scores that have nothing to do with the debt.


Hypocrites, because their radical free market ideology, and the resulting total deregulation of the financial markets, is what caused the debt to spiral out of control this last decade. That and the wars George W. Bush launched but didn’t have the integrity to responsibly finance. The consequence was a banking bubble and crash leading to a 50 percent run-up of the debt that has nothing to do with the “entitlements” that those same Republicans have always wanted to destroy.



Even Barack Obama has put cuts in those programs into play, warning ominously that a failure to lift the debt ceiling could cause the government to stop sending out Social Security checks. Why, when the Social Security trust fund is fully funded for the next quarter-century and is owed money by the U.S. Treasury rather than the other way around? Why would we pay foreign creditors before American seniors? The answer, offered as conventional wisdom by leaders of both parties, is that we cannot endanger our credit by failing to back our bonds, even though the Republicans have aroused the alarm of the main U.S. credit rating agencies by their brinkmanship on the debt.


What a topsy-turvy world when the same credit rating agencies that gave the thumbs up to the bankers’ toxic mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps now threaten the AAA rating of U.S. Treasury bonds. According to them, it will not be enough to merely lift the debt ceiling—what had been assumed by both Republican and Democratic presidents to be a routine act. In addition to that, as the credit agency Standard & Poor’s has insisted, more than $4 trillion has to be cut from programs that mostly benefit the victims of the banking meltdown. Otherwise the agencies will downgrade the U.S. credit rating, leading to higher interest rates that will destroy what remains of the U.S. housing market, dim the prospect for any improvement in employment and further enrich the Chinese government and other holders of U.S. debt.
President Obama and the Senate Democratic leadership are clearly poised to cave in to those demands in the spirit of “compromise,” Obama’s favorite word, but the Republicans keep upping the ante. The GOP is shameless: Speaker John Boehner has sanctimoniously responded to Obama’s plea for a bargain that gives up almost everything to the right wing by rebuffing the president on the grounds that the Republican Party is the last line of defense against big government.



Boehner dared blame Obama for “the largest spending binge in American history,” which he attributed to the health care reform, most of which has yet to be enacted, and a stimulus program that was an underfunded effort to save American jobs. Not a word from Boehner or the other Republicans about the banking collapse that resulted from their deregulatory policies, the real cause of the inflated debt.

Boehner’s slogan, “I’ve always believed, the bigger government, the smaller the people,” is downright bizarre coming from someone who supported the Bush tax cuts for the rich, the banking bailout and the highest war spending since World War II, all of which is what caused government to get this big. Was it job stimulus spending that kept GM jobs in this country that made people smaller, or the loss of their homes and jobs as a result of the policies that are at the core of the Republican program?



What is at stake is a radical Republican agenda to totally reverse the progress in economic justice that began with the great reforms of Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal. Consider the direct consequence of the economic crisis that unfettered Wall Street greed has wrought, particularly in reversing the gains made by the most underprivileged sectors of the population. As The Wall Street Journal reported, based on a Pew Research Center study from 2005 to 2009, “The wealth gap between whites and each of the nation’s two largest minorities—Hispanics and blacks—has widened to unprecedented levels amid the housing crisis and the recession. … The disparities are the greatest since the government began tracking such data a quarter-century ago. …”


But there is plenty of suffering to go around as a result of the deep recession. The wealth of whites in that period declined by 16 percent, not to mention the ever-greater chasm between the top 2 percent and everyone else. That’s the same 2 percent whose tax cuts the Republicans are determined to preserve.

______________________________________________________________________________


We're headed for terrible times, WaccoBBians. The super-rich have enough money to hire private armies to protect themselves. Law Enforcement will become an even more powerful tool to enforce the domination of the oligarchs. When the social safety net ruptures, every one who falls through it will be fighting with each other to survive. American cartels, like the Mexican drug cartels, will emerge, equally as brutal and vicious. Seniors, who paid for their Medicare, will die unattended because the Republicans, the Democratic President, and much of the Democratic Party have destroyed the social system that has worked so well since the 1930s. They are destroying what we already paid for because the Military-Security Industry is taking the money. No one is talking about saving America $2 billion per day by ending our illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and now Libya. No one is talking about shrinking the global military presence. Why do we still have troops in Japan? South Korea? And 160 other places world-wide? If you're a senior -- or if you're planning on becoming one some day -- you should be very concerned.



Star Man

[someguy]

No one is talking about saving America $2 billion per day by ending our illegal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and now Libya. No one is talking about shrinking the global military presence. Why do we still have troops in Japan? South Korea? And 160 other places world-wide?

Well Ron Paul is talking about everything you just said. He also would not cut into medicare and social security only modifying SS so people can opt out if they so choose. Maybe we should all consider voting for this man.

Hypocrites, because their radical free market ideology, and the resulting total deregulation of the financial markets, is what caused the debt to spiral out of control this last decade.

Also it wasn't the free market and deregulation that brought on this crash. Our regulators were giving AAA ratings on these junks loans! The fact is our government was/is colluding with Wall Street through phony regulations.

[anathstryx]

Well Ron Paul is talking about everything you just said. He also would not cut into medicare and social security only modifying SS so people can opt out if they so choose. Maybe we should all consider voting for this man.

Also it wasn't the free market and deregulation that brought on this crash. Our regulators were giving AAA ratings on these junks loans! The fact is our government was/is colluding with Wall Street through phony regulations.

I can't bring myself to considering Ron Paul.

I'm reminded of when I rode motorcycles and briefly belonged to the H.O.G. group on the central coast. The big deal at the time was the helmet law. A lot of the H.O.G. members were actively...well... ferociously, really...brow-beating everybody to vote for some politician down south who "promised" to keep the helmet law from passing. I looked into this politician and his platform was 180 deg. from my political stance so I refused to vote for him even though I was also against the helmet law at the time. For me, I have to be on board with 100% of what the candidate represents or not at all.

Ron Paul opposes birthright citizenship, abortion (hence a woman's right to choose) and his Sanctity of Life Act would undo all the years of struggle to preserve Roe v. Wade. He is apparently against the separation of Church and State, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and believes that ownership of private property trumps environmentalism.

While I am in great fear of my meager SSI check being tampered with and the loss of Medicare (I have year to go before I'm eligible for Medicare...I haven't been able to afford any form of health insurance for five years...which will take a significant chunk out of my SSI check...yes, you do have to pay for this "entitlement"!!), I'd give it all up to preserve that which Ron Paul would like to undo.

Anathstryx

[Speak2Truth]

I would consider Ron Paul because he is loyal to American principles, first and foremost. He wants the Federal Government to stop meddling in things that are, per the Constitution they all swear to uphold and obey, within the realm of State jurisdiction. That includes abortion.

Birthright Citizenship is anti-Constitutional as well. It is also being taken advantage of by willful lawbreakers to secure an "anchor" in this nation, rewarding them for willfully criminal behavior. Those are not the people who respect our nation enough to follow the lawful means of gaining Citizenship, therefore they are not the people you can trust to be your neighbors.

Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights prohibits, absolutely, any government meddling with the freedom of religious expression. "Separation of Church and State" is in the Soviet Constitution, which is why the Communist-founded ACLU tries to push it on the USA.

Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
"In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."
https://www.constitution.org/cons/ussr77.txt

I strongly disagree with Ron Paul on some foreign policy issues. However, he seems to be the only candidate who WILL NOT BE LYING WHEN HE TAKES THE OATH OF OFFICE.

If you want to actually trust a politician, you can only vote for one who will do as he swears to you. He will defend and obey the US Constitution. That's Ron Paul.

It sure as hell isn't the guy in office right now who threatened, well in advance, to "fundamentally transform" the United States without telling us what it would look like when he and his Communist cohorts were finished.

By the way, the Leftist in Power is threatening to cut off Social Security checks if the debt limit is not raised. But THAT IS ALREADY PAID FOR! He's trying to blackmail the American People into turning against the folks who are trying to put a stop to our nation's economic suicide. That guy needs to be impeached. Now. Or at least he should be forced to allow scrutiny of his documentation so, at long last, he can be legally certified as legally eligible for the job he has taken. But he continues the fight to prevent that. Holy smokes!

[anathstryx]

Separation of Church and State is not in the Constitution. Instead, the Bill of Rights prohibits, absolutely, any government meddling with the freedom of religious expression. "Separation of Church and State" is in the Soviet Constitution, which is why the Communist-founded ACLU tries to push it on the USA.

Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
"In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church."
https://www.constitution.org/cons/ussr77.txt

"Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society."
— Thomas Jefferson

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I know that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead."
— Thomas Jefferson

[Speak2Truth]

Jefferson provides many quotes railing against Government interference with religious freedom and expression and they are almost universally misapplied. The "wall of separation" is a phrase he used to assure the Danbury Baptists that the Federal Government would have no power, whatsoever, to interfere with their religion. They had written him with some concern about the possibility of an official State religion. Notably, Jefferson did not tell them that their State could not have an official religion, as the Constitutional limitation only applied to the Federal Government.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

Thomas Jefferson objected very strongly to the Government controlling religion and one offical Religion using power of government to oppress other religions. That was the system he was born into as a British Subject, under the Church of England. Under that system, other religions (such as Catholicism) were punished.

Jefferson so loved religious freedom that he personally signed approval to establish an Episcopalean church inside the US Capitol building, where services were held until after the US Civil War, when the Congregation got too big to fit. He created the University of Virginia and ensured a pastor ministered to the students every week, also ensuring they rotated pastors from various churches to provide diversity.

President-Elect Thomas Jefferson personally approved establishment of Church in US Capitol and attended services there
https://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissu...cles.asp?id=90

So, let's not pretend Jefferson, or any of the Founders who attended Church in the Capitol or opened sessions of Congress with prayer to God for guidance or who were happy with the Supreme Court opening with Prayer, had any inclination to "oppress" freedom of religious expression. They were in fact standing against government doing anything to suppress that freedom by ensuring Government had no power to do so. So says the 1st Amendment.

The Communist perspective, embraced by the Communist-founded ACLU, is stated clearly in their Constitution. By "separation" they mean religion must be eradicated from the halls of government and the schools. That's why they attack and attempt to eradicate Christianity from those places in the USA, even though the Founders went to great lengths to ensure the nation's Christian foundations were well represented in those places. The ACLU fights for the Communist position and is an enemy of our 1st Amendment freedom.

[anathstryx]

Jefferson provides many quotes railing against Government interference with religious freedom and expression and they are almost universally misapplied.

How exactly does one misapply "Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society." regardless of the context in which it was spoken or written?

Anathstryx

[Speak2Truth]

I'll reply in the new thread I created for you. It has your name on it.

Let's not get these other threads off-topic.

[podfish]

I wish people wouldn't frame the issue like that. "We paid for" isn't true and it's a distraction. If it was paid for, in theory you could split off those who've already retired and create a separate fund which consists of those people's contributions and the earnings derived from them - and from then on, treat that pool of people & money as a closed self-sustaining system. The social problem is that without additional contributions, that pool wouldn't have sufficient resources to provide for all the people in it. Thus the claims that it's a Ponzi scheme.

So don't try to pretend that it does work that way. Just focus on whether as a society we want to provide for those who are eligible. Possible answers: 1) NO! the hell with them 2) well, maybe, for some of them. 3) sure, generously for all of them.

Once it gets too wrapped up in who deserves what, or who's earned what, it gets much harder to deal with.