It's Not Obama! Why Would You Think It's Obama?

[piece-itpete]

If it was in Wall Street at least half of it would still be there, unlike sad reality

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

If it was in Wall Street at least half of it would still be there, unlike sad reality

Pete

Here is the rub. At least the current missing funds were used to keep the debt down. The future missing funds will go directly to the wealth and some yet to be invented get rich scheme that a team of lawyers will keep "technically" legal.

In other words I'd rather have the money spent than stolen.

[piece-itpete]

It was stolen, and not to keep the debt down! Unless this is 'down'.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

It was stolen, and not to keep the debt down! Unless this is 'down'.

Pete

Please explain Pete.

[Combwork]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

My Father went to work in a logging camp in 1931 when he was fourteen. There were more than enough grown men who needed a job in Minnesota in 1931, but the company hired boys because it was cheaper. "Two bits a day and a hot lunch", as Pops put it. He saw kids die, crushed between the logs while "riding the river." No, I don't think we need to go back to that. That's absurd. (I didn't get my information from shills like Glenn Beck, or whatever "wingnuts" you may have on the rise over in the UK, I got it from people who lived it. And Beck, et al are a bunch of lying, worthless assholes.)

If we are having trouble with "taxes going up and wages coming down" then this is an issue to take up with politicians and employers, not a reason to support third world sweatshop conditions. The idea being to do our best to make the world a better place for as many people as we can, not to simply capitalize on misery. (WWJD?)

Dave

"He saw kids die, crushed between the logs while "riding the river." No, I don't think we need to go back to that. That's absurd.

If we are having trouble with "taxes going up and wages coming down" then this is an issue to take up with politicians and employers, not a reason to support third world sweatshop conditions. The idea being to do our best to make the world a better place for as many people as we can, not to simply capitalize on misery."

I sincerely hope you're missing the point. I'm not in any way, shape or form saying we should go back to those conditions but what I am saying is that by adopting the kind of conditions your and merrylander's father both worked in, and linking those conditions to growth instead of political ideology, China is doing what us Brits did a century ago only with their vast population, they're able to do it for themselves without invading anyone. Name a market and you'll find them going for it; hell they're even making good quality valve (tube) amplifiers, and that's as good a definition of a niche market as you can get. By our standards, working conditions are foul but compared to things under chairman Mau or his predecessors? They have job security (of a sort), housing (again of a sort but better than many of them had before). They've even got a government backed health service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_...-care_in_China They can (and are) not just out producing us, but by having a hell of a lot of Western capital locked in they're doing the classic capitalist trick; putting us in the position where we can't just walk away. They're fast learners. Who's to say? Maybe in two or three generations from now, we'll be looking to them to raise us up to their standards.

[westgate]

Originally Posted by Boreas

This was one of the games at a Catholic church carnival in Pennsylvania. What a disgusting place this country is becoming! When this sort of thing can occur at a church sponsored event for a mainstream religion it begs the question as to whether it will be possible to pull back from the abyss we're headed for.

John

i always thought the secret service could get involved in something like this...

maybe not. or not anymore. just dunno.

very disheartening, at any rate.

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by noonereal

Please explain Pete.

They 'fixed' SS in the 80s, tripling withholding to cover the boomers.

They spent it. And we still have a giant deficit. If this is to keep the deficit down.....

Besides, now we (meaning me! I'm 43) has to pay for SS - again.

Plus, SS as an operating income tax (which is how they've been treating it) is amazingly regressive to boot.

Pete

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

They 'fixed' SS in the 80s, tripling withholding to cover the boomers.

They spent it. And we still have a giant deficit. If this is to keep the deficit down.....

Besides, now we (meaning me! I'm 43) has to pay for SS - again.

Plus, SS as an operating income tax (which is how they've been treating it) is amazingly regressive to boot.

Pete

pete

the money was not stolen

it was spent elsewhere.

stolen is what will happen if we give it to wall street

here is a simple explanation of SS http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/glossa...cialsecmax.htm

as you can see it is a great system that favors the wealthy

spending the surplus elsewhere was wrong but why don't we address that instead of considering another lotto win for the elite?

[d-ray657]

I'm gonna agree with Pete as to what the problem has been. Stealing a pretty strong word to describe what has been done with SS funds, but it's pretty close. Maybe we can say it more politely and suggest that the funds were misappropriated (actually that is an almost perfect word for what was done.) I thought the fund was supposed to be a trust fund, but those who have allowed the govt. to use IOUs, which stand little chance of being paid back, have breached their fiduciary duty. I would say it was the Reagan and Bush tax cuts that did the most damage to the deficit (and thus created the situation of robbing Peter to pay Paul). Pete would likely point to the spending. It was obviously caused by some combination of the two. I think we agree on the actual effect of raiding the SS funds - conversion of the SS contributions to an extremely regressive tax.

The conversion of SS funds has definitely worked to the benefit of the highest earners, because they pay only a small portion of their income toward the fund. I say it's time to seek repayment of some of that benefit by taking the cap off of the contributions.

Regards,

D-Ray

[noonereal]

Pete is the one who said it was stolen. Check post 23