Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

GOP Neo Cons, who needs them?

Expand Messages
  • scotpeden@cruzio.com
    Seriously... SS is what we paid into it, if it never got another dollar in it still has (or had, assuming it has already been robbed as reports from the last
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 20, 2012
      Seriously... SS is what we paid into it, if it never got another dollar in
      it still has (or had, assuming it has already been robbed as reports from
      the last dozen years suggest) enough cash to operate another 20 years...
      It is NOT an ENTITLEMENT, it is our Federal Savings program, which you
      cannot opt out of. Now Your Savings is on the budget table? WTF?

      So who needs Republican Neo Cons when 'your good guy' cuts your legs out
      from under you, on a monthly basis?

      Democrats represent who again? In Action it isn't representative of the
      sales job.



      Obama proposes Social Security cuts
      20 December 2012

      The cuts in Social Security and other critical social programs proposed
      Tuesday by the Obama White House as part of negotiations with House
      Speaker John Boehner over the so-called “fiscal cliff” mark a watershed in
      US social policy.

      Obama has publicly proposed to cut future benefits for Social Security
      recipients, underlining the bipartisan agreement that the working class
      and the elderly, not Wall Street or the super-rich, must pay for the
      crisis of American capitalism.

      According to press reports Tuesday, the White House counter-offer to
      Boehner calls for reducing future cost-of-living increases in Social
      Security benefits by adopting an inflation index that is deliberately
      distorted to underestimate the amounts that the elderly will have to pay
      for the essentials of life. The new inflation index, called a “chained”
      Consumer Price Index, will cut as much as $225 billion in spending over
      the next ten years, half of that from Social Security recipients and the
      rest from the pensions of retired federal workers and other benefit

      There are other reactionary features of the White House proposal: limiting
      the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts to families with incomes above
      $400,000 a year, up from the longstanding Obama position of $250,000;
      allowing the partial payroll tax holiday to expire, effectively imposing a
      two percent tax on the wages of every American worker; and maintaining the
      20 percent rate on dividend income, which goes overwhelmingly to the
      wealthy, instead of allowing it to rise to 39.6 percent as provided for in
      current law.

      Providing $1.2 trillion in tax increases and $1.2 trillion in spending
      cuts over ten years, the White House proposal embraces the Republican
      demand for a dollar-for-dollar equivalence between tax increases and
      spending cuts. This supposed “balance” does not take into account the $1.2
      trillion in spending cuts, to be phased in over the next nine years, that
      were enacted in the August 2011 budget deal between Obama and the House

      All told, the White House plan would cut $400 billion from spending on
      federal health care programs, mainly Medicare, $122 billion from Social
      Security, and another $400 billion from other domestic spending, as well
      as saving $290 billion in interest costs.

      The historical implications of a bipartisan deal on such a basis were
      spelled out in a New York Times analysis by Eduardo Porter, who wrote:
      “The truth is that both the president and House Republicans have agreed to
      shrink a critical part of the government to its smallest in at least half
      a century. This is regardless of which trillion-dollar proposal gains the
      upper hand.”

      The White House has proposed to cut discretionary domestic spending from
      3.1 percent of US gross domestic product in 2011 to only 1.7 percent by
      2022. House Republicans, using a somewhat different definition, would cut
      domestic spending from 4.3 percent of GDP to 2.1 percent over the same

      “To put it in perspective,” Porter continued, “this would cut the
      government’s civilian discretionary budget to the smallest it has been as
      a share of the economy at least since the Eisenhower administration—when a
      quarter of the population lived under the poverty line, thousands of
      children still contracted polio each year and fewer than one in 12
      Americans older than 25 had a college degree.”

      In other words, what is being worked out in the talks between Obama and
      Boehner is nothing less than the terms of a social retrogression of
      unprecedented dimensions. Using the concocted threat of a December 31
      “fiscal cliff,” when some $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts
      are scheduled to begin because of previous Washington agreements, the
      representatives of big business, Democratic and Republican, are proposing
      to begin the dismantling of the social reforms enacted in the 20th

      The White House decision to propose cuts in future Social Security
      benefits is of enormous political significance. Social Security has long
      been characterized as the “third rail” of American politics—touch it and
      you die. Obama and Boehner are seeking to break this taboo and create a
      new political framework for imposing brutal austerity measures on working

      Whatever the immediate outcome of the talks in Washington, whether or not
      a deal is reached before December 31, the overall direction is clear:
      entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are to be
      gutted. The only significant area of federal spending will be the
      military-police agencies required to defend the interests of the financial
      aristocracy—overseas against foreign rivals and revolutions, at home
      against the American working class.

      Patrick Martin
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.