Republican Judgement

[Alien Allen]

According to the official 2010 Social Security reports, between 1984 and 2009 the American people contributed $2 trillion, that is $2,000 billion, more to Social Security and Medicare in payroll taxes than was paid out in benefits. You can verify for yourself by going online to the government’s annual OASDI and HI reports. ~PCR

I never said it was bankrupt at this time

Just do the worker to retiree ratio and it is clear as a bell it is not sustainable as it currently is

 

[Johnfromokc]

I never said it was bankrupt at this time

Oh really?

he lost all credibility when he said SS is solvent...

You lost all credibility a long time ago by constantly, unthinkingly parroting false political rhetoric.

These political discussions would be much more interesting if you would back up your claims with verifiable facts and numbers.

Just do the worker to retiree ratio and it is clear as a bell it is not sustainable as it currently is

OK, lets see this elusive worker to retiree ratio you parrot.

 

[Accountable]

he lost all credibility when he said SS is solvent

That is a crock of shit and anybody with a brain and an ounce of common sense knows it is headed for dire straits.

I don't define solvent what is in effect a ponzi scheme that is destined to bankrupt us. For at least 20 years there have been calls to do something about SS and all the politicians have done is wring their hands. The more they punt this further down the road the more it becomes a situation that is not solvable.

And please don't tell me it would be fine if only it had been in Gores lock box. It still is not sustainable as it is.

Now that does NOT mean I say to get rid of it. Serious modifications are needed and there is no will to do that.

I say get rid of it. We have safety nets for people that need assistance. SS is redundant to that and gives people a false sense of security such that they don't prepare adequately for retirement.

This is besides the fact that it is unconstitutional and a ponzi scheme.

 

[CityGirl]

he lost all credibility when he said SS is solvent

Surely you are not so quick to throw the baby out with the bath water. Really? One statement by a person and they lose all credibility???? Never use birth control pills. They are only about 98% effective.

Meet Paul Craig Roberts the Libertarian. You will learn a little about him in this interview from Daily Bell

DB: This interview will review material that you've gone over in your books and articles, but we hope you will answer the questions nonetheless as some in our audience are not aware of your works or point of view. But let's start at the beginning. Are you a libertarian? Can you briefly describe the belief structure from which you write?

Paul Craig Roberts: I am a libertarian in the sense that I am certain that there must be moral and constitutional limits on power as exercised by both government and private institutions. I am a conservative in the sense that I believe that reform of society must be piecemeal and based on good will. Progress has to be incremental. Reform cannot be achieved by violent revolution in one fell swoop.

DB: How did you come to your sociopolitical conclusions?

Paul Craig Roberts: During most of my life government power, the power of government bureaucracies, was excessive. The Soviet government was the epitome of unaccountable government power. In the US, government power over business and individuals grew.

DB: Is that still the case?

Paul Craig Roberts: In recent years there has been a redistribution of power in the US from government to private. The US now resembles an oligarchy of private interests. The most powerful ones are Wall Street, AIPAC, the military/security complex, the oil industry, agri-business, insurance and pharmaceuticals. These private interests control economic and foreign policy, write the legislation that Congress passes and the President signs, and have achieved the monopolization of the US economy by large-scale commercial organizations. As far as I can tell, traditional conservatives scarcely exist in the US today. They have been eliminated by the neoconservatives, essentially militarists committed to US world hegemony.

DB: That doesn't sound like a very healthy evolution.

Paul Craig Roberts: There's another. The Republican Federalist Society has succeeded in enhancing the
powers of the executive over the co-equal branches of government. Many federal judges and Department of Justice appointments are drawn from the membership of the Federalist Society, thus putting in place ideologues to advance executive power. Once executive power becomes dictatorial, we will have lifetime rulers and growing conflict between the executive and private oligarchic interests.
American elections are meaningless as the vast majority of those elected are dependent, or become dependent, on the campaign contributions from the private oligarchic interests. Today government bureaucracies (Child Protective Services and police, for example) have unaccountable power over private individuals, but the power of government over organized private interests has been beaten back. Today the private interests rule the state.

DB: Can you give us some other examples?

Paul Craig Roberts: The examples are endless. President Obama broke his campaign promises and renewed America's aggression against Afghanistan, because that was what the military/security complex demanded. The health care "reform" was written by the private insurance companies and was designed to provide the insurance companies with 30 million involuntary new customers. Environmental restraints on deep-water drilling were removed at the instruction of the oil industry, resulting, for example, in the extraordinary environmental destruction in the Gulf of Mexico. Wherever one looks, the external costs that private companies are able to impose on others are rising.
This change has occurred more quickly than libertarians have been able to adjust. Historically allied with private interests against government, libertarians have been slow to acknowledge the rise of unaccountable private power.

DB: It sounds like an ideological rigidity of sorts.

Paul Craig Roberts: In my experience with libertarians, especially during my tenure as Distinguished Scholar at the Cato Institute during the 1990s, I have encountered an ideological inflexibility, dogma if you will, that turns blind eyes to analytical and empirical evidence. Many, most likely most, libertarians regard jobs off-shoring as the beneficial workings of free trade. Those, such as myself, who present the clear facts of the case are demonized as "protectionists," which means that libertarians do not have to examine the facts and encounter the empirical evidence.

A similar failing has made most libertarians blind to the virtues of countervailing power. Libertarians line up with capital against labor. Libertarians, for example, supported the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, thereby setting the stage for the current world financial crisis. For libertarians freedom means no restrictions on capital, and they want labor unions destroyed.

DB: Libertarians are then naïve in this regard? ...

Paul Craig Roberts: I am convinced that liberty as epitomized by Anglo-American law and civil liberties has been lost. I make this case in my book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions. Both the US and UK governments have acted lawlessly by taking their countries to war based on deception of their domestic populations and the UN. Both have violated their own laws and international laws in torturing detainees, in spying on their own citizens, and in curtailing the civil liberties that historically have defined the UK and the US. Libertarians regard liberty as a natural right when in fact liberty is a human achievement fought for over hundreds of years by people who believed in liberty. Liberty was hard to gain, and it is easily lost.

DB You mentioned one of your books. Can you update our audience on some of your other writing?

Paul Craig Roberts: I regard all of my books as important. In my latest book, How The Economy Was Lost, I explain why off-shoring is not free trade. I also explain why the two necessary conditions set out by David Ricardo for the principle of comparative advantage, the basis for free trade, no longer exist. I further explain that when a country moves the production of goods and services that it consumes offshore, GDP growth and consumer incomes are moved offshore as well. Jobs off-shoring or "globalism" is a way to convert US labor income into executive bonuses and capital gains to shareholders. This is the explanation for the rising income inequality in the US.

DB: And also for rising unemployment?

Paul Craig Roberts: Since 2008 the lowest interest rates and largest federal budget deficits in US history have been unable to stop the rise in US unemployment, much less to call the unemployed back to work. There are no jobs to which to call workers back. The jobs have been given to the Chinese and Indians.

DB: Good points. Can you mention some other books?

Paul Craig Roberts: My first book, Alienation and the Soviet Economy, was appreciated by libertarians, because it showed that Soviet central planning was a failure, producing outputs worth less than the inputs. However, the deeper message of the book might have passed unnoticed. My book documents speculative excess as a force in history. The Marxist aspirations that gave rise to the Soviet economy were inordinate and did not bear on reality.

DB: You wrote a famous book about supply side concepts as well.

Paul Craig Roberts: My book, The Supply-Side Revolution, presented supply-side economics as a necessary correction to Keynesian demand management. The Keynesian policy of stimulating consumer demand with easy money while restricting output with high marginal tax rates resulted in stagflation. The supply-side policy, by reversing the policy mix, cured the stagflation. As far as I can tell, few libertarians have understood supply-side economics. Most demonized it as a form of Keynesian tax-cutting.

DB: It's still a controversial subject.

Paul Craig Roberts: One would have thought that libertarians would welcome lower income taxes as a move toward personal freedom. Historically, the definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. Serfs and slaves do not have ownership rights in their labor, and neither do people who pay income taxes. Curiously, libertarians get much more upset over tariffs as infringements on free trade than they do over the income tax's infringement of free persons.
http://thedailybell.com/1220/Paul-C...n-Evolving-Oligarchy-of-Private-Interests.htm
(Interesting "Daily Bell Afterthoughts" follow the interview. l

 

[Johnfromokc]

I say get rid of it. We have safety nets for people that need assistance. SS is redundant to that and gives people a false sense of security such that they don't prepare adequately for retirement.

Says the guy with the military GOVERNMENT pension and GOVERNMENT healthcare for life.

So a government pension is OK for you but fuck everyone else.

Oh almost forgot...on edit - So says you, who is also a state government employee. You're a government triple dipper but you want to deprive other Americans of their Social Security?

Have you not ever considered that?

This is besides the fact that it is unconstitutional and a ponzi scheme.

Wrong. Already been ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS in 1937. Further, it's a pay-as-you-go system that's been robbed by the government to pay corporate welfare and fund the military industrial complex.

Amway = Ponzi scheme. Social Security = all many elderly Americans have to live on.

See, you guys parrot the same shit over and over even though you have been repeatedly refuted.

How many times does this make?

 

[Alien Allen]

He is right about it being an Oligarchy. When my eyes can deal with it I will read more of the comments

 

[Minor Axis]

I never said it was bankrupt at this time

Just do the worker to retiree ratio and it is clear as a bell it is not sustainable as it currently is

So what's your preference, disband or modify?

Regarding the NYTimes opinion piece I posted this morning, it is SO EASY to pick apart the GOPs agenda and see the real objective, that is for anyone who is logical.

 

[Minor Axis]

Forget whether the view point is left or right. Is there any validity to the quotes Minor posted? Why or why not?

Most of the conservatives in this forum don't want to discuss the viability of any view that involves a social program unless it is program to help the poor millionaires/billionaires of this world. Take Allen's answer as an illustrative example.

Keep in mind the debt ceiling has never been tied to the federal budget before. The GOPpers where more than happy to raise it multiple times during the Reign of W, while debt skyrocketed. No problem when they were in charge. My impression is the GOP is now in a corner. If they give in to Obama, they claim they won't get re-elected. If they stand tough, this country may go down the shitter. I believe most voters will hold the GOP responsible since it is a crisis they orchestrated, a cynical dangerous game of chicken by a myopic political party who feels the political reward could be great, but care not what the consequences might be if the other side does not blink.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Most of the conservatives in this forum don't want to discuss the viability of any view that involves a social program unless it is program to help the poor millionaires/billionaires of this world.

:homo:It's not just this forum. It's like this all over Conservo-Bot-America. I've got a neighbor, very much like Accountable. Retired Air Force major, retired from the state of Oklahoma as a college mathematics instructor, drawing Social Security, enjoys top notch health care from TriCare. He's got all those GOVERNMENT benefits, but thinks everybody elses should be cut. On top of all that, he inherited a significant sum from his father, so he zero financial concerns.

The pinnacle of hypocrisy. And they can't see it, or more likely, choose to ignore it.

Interesting, no?

 

[Alien Allen]

I aint a republican I am a libertarian. Not as strict of a libertarian as Acc is. You won't find me condoning the way the republicans also spend.

You should have a clue Minor that this debt ceiling debate is nothing but politics for BOTH sides. After all it was not that long ago that a Senator Obama said it was wrong to raise the debt ceiling.

 

[retro]

Keep in mind the debt ceiling has never been tied to the federal budget before. The GOPpers where more than happy to raise it multiple times during the Reign of W, while debt skyrocketed. No problem when they were in charge. My impression is the GOP is now in a corner. If they give in to Obama, they claim they won't get re-elected. If they stand tough, this country may go down the shitter. I believe most voters will hold the GOP responsible since it is a crisis they orchestrated, a cynical dangerous game of chicken by a myopic political party who feels the political reward could be great, but care not what the consequences might be if the other side does not blink.

I think you need to mention the fact that the Democrats didn't want to raise it while the GOP was in power. Hell, both Reid and Obama voted against it in 2006, and Reid even had this to say.

“If my Republican friends believe that increasing our debt by almost $800 billion today and more than $3 trillion over the last five years is the right thing to do, they should be upfront about it. They should explain why they think more debt is good for the economy.

“How can the Republican majority in this Congress explain to their constituents that trillions of dollars in new debt is good for our economy? How can they explain that they think it’s fair to force our children, our grandchildren, our great grandchildren to finance this debt through higher taxes. That’s what it will have to be. Why is it right to increase our nation’s dependence on foreign creditors?

“They should explain this. Maybe they can convince the public they’re right. I doubt it. Because most Americans know that increasing debt is the last thing we should be doing. After all, I repeat, the Baby Boomers are about to retire. Under the circumstances, any credible economist would tell you we should be reducing debt, not increasing it. Democrats won’t be making argument to supper this legalization, which will weaken our

So that new debt was bad in 2006, but it's good in 2011? Now that Obama has involved us in a third unfunded and illegal war? The hypocrisy on both sides of the issue is ridiculous.

 

[retro]

I aint a republican I am a libertarian. Not as strict of a libertarian as Acc is. You won't find me condoning the way the republicans also spend.

You should have a clue Minor that this debt ceiling debate is nothing but politics for BOTH sides. After all it was not that long ago that a Senator Obama said it was wrong to raise the debt ceiling.

Hey, if you disagree with the liberals around here, that automatically makes you a right-wing authoritarian Republican.

 

[CityGirl]

Most of the conservatives in this forum don't want to discuss the viability of any view that involves a social program unless it is program to help the poor millionaires/billionaires of this world.

You may be right and that was true of me a few years back. I figure if I can have a paradigm shift after a lifetime of solely conservative ideology that it is possible for others to step back and make the effort to find the truths embedded in ideologies other than their own. Of interest is how facts backfire. I think we are ALL guilty of this

Most of us like to believe that our opinions have been formed over time by careful, rational consideration of facts and ideas, and that the decisions based on those opinions, therefore, have the ring of soundness and intelligence. In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we choose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

For me and many others who have shifted from long held views, the danger is and pardon the redundancy of this expression, but the danger is throwing the baby out with the bath water...in other words, resenting previously held viewpoints that no longer fit our new paradigm when some of those previously held viewpoints are not all incorrect and can fit into the new paradigm. Some people have to swing to the other extreme before swinging back toward center. In other words, they have to retreive the baby.

Our goal, in my opinion, should be to seek out core truths in any idealogies because those truths exist and we as intellectual beings have a responsibility to ourselves and to our society to sift through the smoke and mirrors with which we are inundated and find those truths. To me, that is the source of the complete and utter failure of our political system and I don't think it is an unintentional consequence...the extreme polarities that exist. That polarity is fueled and the fires are kept stoked in order to keep us divided. Should the people of this country ever begin to focus on our common struggles/issues and not be distracted by with the divisive issues, then and only then will real change occur. Divide and conquer is not just a military tactic. It is a societal control tactic, as well.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Hey, if you disagree with the liberals around here, that automatically makes you a right-wing authoritarian Republican.

Speaking only for myself here, but what strikes me about you guys who claim to be libertarian or whatever is how you support policies that harm the working class. Call me a liberal, populist or whatever you want, but I do not see the wisdom in political policy that allows the billionaire class to accumulate even more money than any time in history while paying less in taxes, and cutting programs that help the poor, disabled and elderly.

The standard comeback is "that's wealth envy" or "you're jealous" or "you don't like 401k's" or some other standard line - none of which are true - but they'll be repeated all the same.

The fact is that our economy is stacked against the working class, and you guys support stacking it even more in favor of the wealthiest.

Simple question: Why? Are any of you libertarian-conservative-whatever not a part of the working class? If you are a top 1% income earner, I could understand and respect that. Well, are any of you guys in that group?

Take a look at the chart below. Is this a sustainable economic model?


Lots more info here:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...-america-2010-4#look-at-the-wealth-gap-grow-4

 

[CityGirl]

Hey, if you disagree with the liberals around here, that automatically makes you a right-wing authoritarian Republican.

and the same thing can be said about those who disagree with conservatives....they are considered left wing socialists. It is stupid. There is truth and deception on both sides. Those in the leadership who make an effort to cull the truths are generally painted as quacks...i.e. Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders. Of interest, it seems most conservatives give very little regard to Bernie Sanders because he is perceived as left wing. It would be interesting if he and Ron Paul were to team up. Too bad the day has passed when the VP was not necessarily from the same party.

 

[Johnfromokc]

I actually intended to post this chart in the post (#574) above:

 

[CityGirl]

I think you need to mention the fact that the Democrats didn't want to raise it while the GOP was in power. Hell, both Reid and Obama voted against it in 2006, and Reid even had this to say.



So that new debt was bad in 2006, but it's good in 2011? Now that Obama has involved us in a third unfunded and illegal war? The hypocrisy on both sides of the issue is ridiculous.

It is all about whose guy is in the White House. If your guy is in...then your for it...if your guy is out...then your against it...that seems to be how it works. And we keep this going because we constantly legitimize this stupidity by pointing out that when your guy was in office it was okay if he did such and such but now that my guy is in office you have a problem with it. I get so tired of the comparisons. I remember when I defended my actions as a kid by saying "Well, so and so did it!" my parents response was "If so and so jumped off a cliff, would you jump off after him?" That seems to apply to party politics, too.

 

[retro]

It is all about whose guy is in the White House. If your guy is in...then your for it...if your guy is out...then your against it...that seems to be how it works. And we keep this going because we constantly legitimize this stupidity by pointing out that when your guy was in office it was okay if he did such and such but now that my guy is in office you have a problem with it. I get so tired of the comparisons. I remember when I defended my actions as a kid by saying "Well, so and so did it!" my parents response was "If so and so jumped off a cliff, would you jump off after him?" That seems to apply to party politics, too.

I know all of that. I'm bringing it up so that the libs around here will actually realize that BOTH PARTIES are full of hypocrites.

The Democrats and Republicans are different halves of the same side of the coin.

 

[Accountable]

The GOPpers where more than happy to raise it multiple times during the Reign of W, while debt skyrocketed. No problem when they were in charge.

Your point can be stronger if you used proof instead of blind partisan rhetoric. I tried to find a graph that showed every time the debt ceiling was raised since it was first established in 1917 under Woodrow Wilson (now there's a surprise :sarcasm) but this is the best one I found.

Throughout our history Congress has tried to find ways to cut corners and expedite their power grabs despite the roadblocks the Authors of our Constitution wisely threw in their way. The more "Progressive" (capital P) the government, the more irritating the constitution seems to be to them.

Prior to establishing a debt ceiling, effectively pre-approving debts without having to justify them, Congress would have to approve each debt issuance separately, a painfully slow (read wise) process. I think we would do well to return to that policy.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Your point can be stronger if you used proof instead of blind partisan rhetoric. I tried to find a graph that showed every time the debt ceiling was raised since it was first established in 1917 under Woodrow Wilson

You accusing Minor of blind partisan rhetoric? That's a good one, especially coming from a professed libertarian. "Libertarian" today seems more of a code word for conservative.

And anyway, how can someone who earns 100% of their living from the government be a libertarian or a conservative and not be a hypocrit at the same time? Truly I'm not attacking you Accountable, but I'd like an accounting of how you reconcile your source of income with your professed beliefs.

Oh, and here's a couple of debt ceiling charts going back to 1917: