"Super Committee" decides to go full stupid

Darla said:
He is insufferable and arrogant! It's funny insufferable and arrogant people don't bother me as long as they have something to be arrogant about, and he does. I was with a guy friend one of the times I heard Krugman speak (as you know I'm sort of a Krugman groupie), and Krugman starts out by saying that asking questions was fine, but making speeches was not - people came there to hear him not you. And my friend got so pissed, I mean he was fuming. He was all like "wtf did he just say? did I hear that right?" And I was like, yeah you heard it right - he said shut up no one is here to hear you, they're here the hear him. And then he got even madder, I couldn't stop laughing.

But I like it.
Click to expand...

Some of the very best TV I have ever seen was Krugman debating O'Reilly. Krugman keeps a real calm about him, but O'Reilly looks & sounds like he's ready to blow the whole time. And I think Krugman's calm makes it even worse for him. I think Russert was doing the interview w/ them...it was TV gold. It's probably on youtube somewhere.
 
Darla said:
LOL But that would never happen. That's why Wall St is salivating. They want our money. And they know that they own enough politicians, including our current President, and our next one, that they can get it. It's just like Carlin said - they want you SS so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall St.

Sorry SF, no sale.
Click to expand...

Tell us Darla... who currently holds the SS funds?
 
Superfreak said:
Tell us Darla... who currently holds the SS funds?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter SF. They can't do anything other than invest them in US Treasury Bills. Why don't you tell me - why is Wall St lobbying for privatization? What's in it for them? The good of the people? Is there or is there not a profit in it for them, and how will they be making that profit? Is this a charitable act?
 
Onceler said:
Some of the very best TV I have ever seen was Krugman debating O'Reilly. Krugman keeps a real calm about him, but O'Reilly looks & sounds like he's ready to blow the whole time. And I think Krugman's calm makes it even worse for him. I think Russert was doing the interview w/ them...it was TV gold. It's probably on youtube somewhere.
Click to expand...

I'll have to watch it. O'Reilly always looks like he's about to keel over from rage. His face is always purple.
 
Damocles said:
There are no potential consequences. They'll simply amend postmortem. The idea that you can limit future legislation with current legislation is ridiculous.

Basically, before the "consequences" go into effect they'll change the rules on the fly.

And I agree. This should have been a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
Yup. You are right. That's exactly what they'll do.
 
Schadenfreude said:
only if they can get it past obama's veto
Click to expand...
They would have to get it out of the Senate first. The house can change the tax codes so that no one making more then a million ever has to pay taxes and legislate the ending of all social programs and triple the defense budget and it would never see Obama's desk cause it would never get out of the Senate.
 
Onceler said:
Who thinks that SS & Medicare will be intact for their children?
Click to expand...
Social Security will. It's an easy fix. Hell it's not even a problem yet and it doesn't contribute to the deficit so it shouldn't even be on the table. Medicare I don't think will be around because when health care reform has taken it's course it will have been mooted and will no longer be needed.
 
Darla said:
It doesn't matter SF. They can't do anything other than invest them in US Treasury Bills. Why don't you tell me - why is Wall St lobbying for privatization? What's in it for them? The good of the people? Is there or is there not a profit in it for them, and how will they be making that profit? Is this a charitable act?
Click to expand...

I don't think SF will answer because he probably knows that right now SS runs on 3-5% admin fees. If privatized- or more accurately 'profitized' -the fees will go up to 30%. The main goal here for the right is to milk profits from grandma. But that's ok to them because they no longer believe in society.
 
Onceler said:
Darla, that's just not correct. SS is going to keep chewing up a bigger portion of the budget pie until it is wholly unsustainable. And what is tragic about that is that the more pie it takes, the less there is for many other progressive ideals to move forward.

By mid-century, life expectancies will exceed 100. Combined with exponential population growth & cost of living, SS will fail, in a big way. It's amazing to me how many times I have heard people brag that SS can stay the way it is until 2037, at which point we'll have to cut it by 25%. Do you want to be the politician who has to tell seniors that their checks are going to be cut by 25% in 2037? Or 40% 30 years after that?
Click to expand...
Site. All the data I've shown is that by lifting the payroll cap to $100,000 (which is a very small raise) adds 70 years to it's solvency. Why not lift the pay roll cap to $250,000 and make it solvent for the next 200 years? TopSpin is right. This is a made up crises.
 
The Dude said:
the 1% should lose some of it's grip but the occupiers are too stupid to know how to ask for it.
Less Lobbying, CEO's and boards stripped of the country club mentality. IE I'll pay you $250,000 a year to come rubberstamp my $3,000,000 salary thereby assfucking shareholders without the curtesy of a reacharound.
Click to expand...
I agree. We desperately need reform for public corporations that give a greater voice to stock holders.
 
Superfreak said:
1) According to the Social Security Admin, we DO need to act now.
2) Your privatization comments are simply scare tactics used by people like Krugman. Privatization does NOT mean the money is 'gambled' or that it is all invested in the stock market or that it all goes to Wall Street firms to be run at their whim. It means the money is untouchable by the US government. You can privatize and require that the entire amount go to Treasury bonds (not bills) and thus not change the risk factor. That would be a start. The benefit of private accounts is that each person funds their own. You don't have a rob Peter to pay Paul ponzi scheme that is can be threatened by demographic trends like we are seeing today.
Click to expand...
Scare tactics my ass. After 2008 only a moron of staggering proportions would argue for privitizing SS. You think for a minute I'm going to let some greedy Wall Street investors responsible for my SS? Not going to happen.
 
Crashk said:
I don't think SF will answer because he probably knows that right now SS runs on 3-5% admin fees. If privatized- or more accurately 'profitized' -the fees will go up to 30%. The main goal here for the right is to milk profits from grandma. But that's ok to them because they no longer believe in society.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with that. Wall Street serves an extremely valuable service to our nation and their job is to maximize prophets with in the economy and to keep capital flowing and they do a great job of that. But Wall Street has it's limits and for some things they are not to be trusted. Like the publics money.
 
Crashk said:
I don't think SF will answer because he probably knows that right now SS runs on 3-5% admin fees. If privatized- or more accurately 'profitized' -the fees will go up to 30%. The main goal here for the right is to milk profits from grandma. But that's ok to them because they no longer believe in society.
Click to expand...
pure unadulterated crap.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Scare tactics my ass. After 2008 only a moron of staggering proportions would argue for privitizing SS. You think for a minute I'm going to let some greedy Wall Street investors responsible for my SS? Not going to happen.
Click to expand...
curious question. after enron and we saw how fastow was able to not only able to hide the money he took, but keep it all as well, why would we put blinders on and strap a law that binds ALL of our economy instead of removing some of the laws that protected the criminal actions that allowed fastow to profit from his theft?
 
it's the 1% sty, the SEC and public auditors know. But when some accounting dweed making $100,000yr is stimied by politicians, lobbyist, and exects making 10x that this is what you are left with.
 
Darla said:
It doesn't matter SF. They can't do anything other than invest them in US Treasury Bills. Why don't you tell me - why is Wall St lobbying for privatization? What's in it for them? The good of the people? Is there or is there not a profit in it for them, and how will they be making that profit? Is this a charitable act?
Click to expand...

Again... if you can mandate where SS funds are invested now, you can do so again.

Wall Street already benefits in the bond transactions.... JP Morgan to be precise.

Wall Street would continue to benefit, the difference would be that JP Morgan would not have a monopoly. Wall Street would also benefit from more money being put into the market by those that chose to do so. Though the fees would be comparable if you limit the investment in the market to an index like the S&P 500 or Wilshire 5000.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Scare tactics my ass. After 2008 only a moron of staggering proportions would argue for privitizing SS. You think for a minute I'm going to let some greedy Wall Street investors responsible for my SS? Not going to happen.
Click to expand...

You truly are a fucking idiot. Again, YOU run off at the mouth with your spoon fed kool-aid induced SCARE tactics.

Privatization does NOT mean Wall Street gets to be responsible for your investments. It means YOU get to be responsible. You MAY have the option to invest in the market or in Tbonds. But privatization doesn't mean even that. It means the GOVERNMENT no longer has control over YOUR asset. YOU DO. You would not be forced to give your money to wall street. No matter what your moronic masters keep telling you. You seriously need to get your head examined coward. Because all you do is spout off left wing nut talking points and then pretend they are fact. You have proven on yet another topic that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

Now... run along and hide again.... because we all know you are nothing more than talking points these days. Stupid Parrot.
 
Crashk said:
I don't think SF will answer because he probably knows that right now SS runs on 3-5% admin fees. If privatized- or more accurately 'profitized' -the fees will go up to 30%. The main goal here for the right is to milk profits from grandma. But that's ok to them because they no longer believe in society.
Click to expand...

LMAO... do tell us where you get that nonsense?

The RIPOFF is that SS admin fees are 3-5%. You know what our admin fees are for our clients? $0.

The cost to manage money on the most aggressive of platforms... 3%.... most are in the neighborhood of 1.5% on average.

JP Morgan is ripping off the tax payers with their excessive fees. So keep on pretending you know what you are talking about. NO investment firm charges 30% you fucking dolt. the SEC would put the hammer on anyone trying to charge the 5% you think is no big deal.

You put the SS funds that people CHOOSE to put in the market into an index fund and the fee would be 0.25% at MOST.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top