“Fool me once, shame on . . . you. Fool me . . . You can't fool me again - he he"
Dubya’s still grinding away on Social Security, gonna save it, yep, gotta help the poor, gotta make it fair for African Americans, gotta have an “ownership” society - like in 1776 when rich white men literally owned Black people and figuratively owned poor white people .
Like one of our “Founding Fathers” said, “This country should be run by the people who own it.”
Well, while we are “fighting for Democracy” in Iraq, it might serve the general good to start fighting for Democracy here at home. Case in point: Social Security.
According to Edmund L. Andrews and Eduardo Porter of “The New York Times,” what Bush calls “generous benefits for low-income retirees” designed to “grow faster than benefits for people who are well-off” will yield a typical low-income worker earning $16,000 a year about 49% of his or her wages ($7,840 per year, or $653 per month, or $150 per week), which is the same amount they would get without Bush’s “plan.” Moreover, Dubya believes that with the generous sum of $7,840 promised per year, low-income workers “will not retire into poverty.”
Yeah, you can live really high on the hog with $150.00 in your pocket every week.
So, where does “Democracy” come into this? Well, to “pay” for this “no-increase/just-keep-the-same-‘generous’-$150/week benefit for the poor; the middle class benefits will be cut severely. Those earning an average income ($36,500) will have their benefits cut from 36% of their income ($13,140) to 26% ($9,490). Those earning $90,000/year (the ceiling income after which no payroll taxes are paid) would drop to $10,800 /year.
In addition, under these “generous” changes designed to “save” Social Security, the cost of living increases will be tied to a new factor that will decrease the rate of increase; and even THEN “other” additional options need to be exercised to “save” the system.
Ok, but where does “Democracy” come into this?
Well, the poor get to keep the paltry amount they get now, and other workers earning up to $90,000 per year are cut, and all these folks (94% of all workers) will face declining standards of living as the newly-reduced increases lag behind more and more, year after year.
Here’s the Democracy (or lack there of): having everyone pay payroll taxes on all their wages (not stopping at $90,000) would, according to actuarial experts, “raise almost enough money to eliminate the projected shortfall without needing to cut benefits at all.”
Yep, having the top 6% of wage earners pay on their entire wages just like the other 94% do now would solve the problem without screwing the other 94%.
Last time I looked 94% beat 6%; even Diebold couldn’t cook those numbers. And, relatively, there’s no hardship; if it’s tough for an average earner to pay on his entire wages, it HAS to be less tough for a millionaire.
Certainly, if we live in a “Democracy,” with elected representatives (who “represent” the people), the solution to this Social Security “crisis” is a slam-dunk, no-brainer; an open-and-closed case!!
Simply take the “cap” off paying payroll taxes. It wouldn’t change anything for 94% of workers and would have negligible impact on the remaining 6%.
Yeah. If this is a fricking Democracy, how could our loving President and his compassionate, Bible-thumping pals even consider a plan that screwed 94% for the benefit of a few fat-cats and some FDR-haters? Yeah, and if we have a free press dedicated to informing a free populace, why aren't they screaming bloody murder about the fraud presently under construction?
Well, it’s simple. This country is run by those who own it.
- Uke Man
Like one of our “Founding Fathers” said, “This country should be run by the people who own it.”
Well, while we are “fighting for Democracy” in Iraq, it might serve the general good to start fighting for Democracy here at home. Case in point: Social Security.
According to Edmund L. Andrews and Eduardo Porter of “The New York Times,” what Bush calls “generous benefits for low-income retirees” designed to “grow faster than benefits for people who are well-off” will yield a typical low-income worker earning $16,000 a year about 49% of his or her wages ($7,840 per year, or $653 per month, or $150 per week), which is the same amount they would get without Bush’s “plan.” Moreover, Dubya believes that with the generous sum of $7,840 promised per year, low-income workers “will not retire into poverty.”
Yeah, you can live really high on the hog with $150.00 in your pocket every week.
So, where does “Democracy” come into this? Well, to “pay” for this “no-increase/just-keep-the-same-‘generous’-$150/week benefit for the poor; the middle class benefits will be cut severely. Those earning an average income ($36,500) will have their benefits cut from 36% of their income ($13,140) to 26% ($9,490). Those earning $90,000/year (the ceiling income after which no payroll taxes are paid) would drop to $10,800 /year.
In addition, under these “generous” changes designed to “save” Social Security, the cost of living increases will be tied to a new factor that will decrease the rate of increase; and even THEN “other” additional options need to be exercised to “save” the system.
Ok, but where does “Democracy” come into this?
Well, the poor get to keep the paltry amount they get now, and other workers earning up to $90,000 per year are cut, and all these folks (94% of all workers) will face declining standards of living as the newly-reduced increases lag behind more and more, year after year.
Here’s the Democracy (or lack there of): having everyone pay payroll taxes on all their wages (not stopping at $90,000) would, according to actuarial experts, “raise almost enough money to eliminate the projected shortfall without needing to cut benefits at all.”
Yep, having the top 6% of wage earners pay on their entire wages just like the other 94% do now would solve the problem without screwing the other 94%.
Last time I looked 94% beat 6%; even Diebold couldn’t cook those numbers. And, relatively, there’s no hardship; if it’s tough for an average earner to pay on his entire wages, it HAS to be less tough for a millionaire.
Certainly, if we live in a “Democracy,” with elected representatives (who “represent” the people), the solution to this Social Security “crisis” is a slam-dunk, no-brainer; an open-and-closed case!!
Simply take the “cap” off paying payroll taxes. It wouldn’t change anything for 94% of workers and would have negligible impact on the remaining 6%.
Yeah. If this is a fricking Democracy, how could our loving President and his compassionate, Bible-thumping pals even consider a plan that screwed 94% for the benefit of a few fat-cats and some FDR-haters? Yeah, and if we have a free press dedicated to informing a free populace, why aren't they screaming bloody murder about the fraud presently under construction?
Well, it’s simple. This country is run by those who own it.
- Uke Man
2 Comments:
Thanks Uke Man-
Sometimes they can't see the forest for the trees...or the answer right under their noses!
I wish someone could explain the 'problem' with having NO cap on the wages taxed for Social Security.
Then again, maybe I wouldn't want to hear that 'crap' either!
It surely seems like a no brainer.
Oops...just go my answer...didn't I???
Phyll
My goodness, Tom, don't you get it?! George has to take care of the rich, the rich, the rich. Say that again - the rich!!!! Sondra
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home