Tweet
Rob Kuttner writes in the Washington Post this morning that billionaire Social Security slasher Pete Peterson was originally scheduled to be a keynote speaker at today’s fiscal responsibility summit (as reported here last Wednesday), but anonymous sources speaking on behalf of the White House tell Greg Sargent it’s not true.
Today, the New York Times reports that Obama’s plans to push for a "social security task force" have been shelved because of opposition from Democratic Congressional leaders (also reported here last Wednesday). But now anonymous White House sources are triangulating against Peterson and present Peter Orszag’s plan as a moderate defense play against the kinds of changes Peterson wants to make.
Ezra Klein’s White House sources tell him:
Any fixes would look more along the lines of, well, the Orszag-Diamond proposal — which most liberal[s] embraced as the responsible alternative in 2005 — than the Pete Peterson plan.
Joe Conason also writes today about Peterson the bogeyman, and his anonymous White House sources tell him the same thing they told Ezra — the administration’s goal is to disentangle Social Security from Medicare and Medicaid:
[T]here is no urgent reason to tinker with Social Security today or tomorrow. And there is every reason to reassure the boomers who will soon start receiving those checks, after paying into the system for the past 40 years or more, that there will be no significant reductions.
My emphasis. Ian Welsh has a rundown of why the proposal is anything but "liberal" (nor as Chris Bowers notes did a majority of Americans — let alone liberals — support the plan at the time of its release.) Here is the language of the Diamond-Orszag plan:
Workers who are 55 or older will experience no change in their benefits from those scheduled under current law. For younger workers with average earnings, our proposal involves a gradual reduction in benefits from those scheduled under current law. For example, the reduction in benefits for a 45-year old average earner is less than 1 percent; for a 35-year-old, less than 5 percent; and for a 25-year-old, less than 9 percent. Reductions are smaller for lower earners, and larger for higher ones.
I interpret "a reduction in benefits" to mean a reduction in benefits. Conason titles his piece "Reform healthcare — and leave Social Security alone." He says "President Obama must not cave in to the privatizers and slashers," but apparently that still allows for the benefit reductions of the Diamond-Orszag plan, which are not deemed "significant."
The NYT piece says Democrat Ellen Tausher is calling for "a bipartisan group to take up the issue and devise a plan," and Mitch McConnell is still pushing the Gregg-Conrad plan (which calls for a group to make recommendations that will receive an up-or-down vote and cannot be amended by Congress).
There is no compelling reason to tinker with Social Security, which will take in $180 billion more than it pays out this year and continue to run a surplus for the next 10 years. The "looming crisis of 2041" could as Atrios notes be accomplished with the simple payroll tax increase Obama suggested during his campaign.
Cutting Social Security, "significantly" or otherwise, is a sop to the Blue Dogs and the Republicans to get them to buy in to healthcare reform, which is no doubt why Rahm Emanuel is meeting with Lindsay Graham about "entitlements generally, health care and Social Security" per the Times (I guess he didn’t get the same memo that Ezra and Conason did about the administration’s deep desire to stop reinforcing the "message of the center-right coalition" by disentangling the two.)
There is going to be a huge push from the center-right to cut Social Security as the price of a buy in on health care reform. "Anonymous White House sources" seem to be laying the groundwork for a "victory" if Orszag’s plan of "modest tax hikes and benefit cuts" saves the benefits of baby boomers from Pete Peterson’s axe. But since they’re never named, we don’t know who we’re supposed to hold accountable for what appears to be a bunch of weasel words that don’t let us know what Rahm Emanuel and Lindsay Graham are really talking about behind closed doors.
I’m betting that before this is over, we’re going to have it out over whether "liberals" find it acceptable to have reductions in Social Security benefits. Not that they need our support — it could be achieved with a NAFTA-style Blue Dog/Republican coalition — but it will still be interesting to find out where everyone comes down.
98 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
I’d be in the manageable one percent group, but I’d hardly call
and for a 25-year-old, less than 9 percent
insignificant.
Anonymous sources, secret meetings,and zero tranparency. Change we can believe in?
I am sick to death of trying to ‘balance the budget’ on the backs of working people when they can no longer work. Is there anyone who actually receives Social Security benefits that gets more than about $35,000 per year? Most people get half that or less.
With the death of defined benefit pension plans (thanks to all the union-busters and the creeps who allow companies not to fund these and then discharge them all in bankruptcy), two huge stock market crashes resulting in the losses of 401K and IRA funds in the last 10 years, Social Security has become the only pension for millions of workers. By default.
And this crap of reducing benefits – fine – but only if you can reduce the cost of food, energy, rent, gasoline, and every single other expense a person must pay in order to live. The benefits need to be increased IMHO, because this group (the baby boomers) have been paying extra into the system since Raygun, and they also have been the most active in funding alternate things like IRAs and 401Ks, both of which have been wiped out by the wonderful bankers with the help of Congress.
Phooey!
I’m with you. I don’t think a 9% cut is insignificant, especially when the average social security check for a woman is just over $900 per month.
I’d like to see some of these people who are advocating these cuts (any cuts) try to actually live on a social security check for a year.
Just damn glad that I am not in social security at all. Of course when I retired I did have to pay back $15K to get totally out of the system-money earned prior to 1980 while in US military-so I now have zero connection to SS. Thank god for that.
I interpret “a reduction in benefits” to mean a reduction in benefits.
That’s what I took it to mean, too. Glad I’m not alone.
My final point.
Social Security is NOT an entitlement. It is an annuity or an insurance policy that workers pay into.
You can buy a policy/annuity like this from many large insurance companies. They don’t consider it an entitlement. You put money in over time – then when you retire, you get it back out.
Peterson will be 83 in June. I wonder how many years he’s collected SS to add to his billions. I notice he’s the chairman of Blackstone Group.
Lucky you being able to fund your retirement on your own.
Not an option for millions of hard-working people in this country.
Please, oh please, tell me where the $35k line is!
With interest, hopefully.
I don’t know where it is – but Senator/Commander John McCain may know something about it. He reportedly collects about $2300 in Social Security benefits per month.
The more important figure is the $900 per month one.
Sorry – and I’m there too!
Well, the “interest” is in the fact that it is an annuity thing.
Once you start collecting, it does not stop no matter how long you live. Most people live an average of about 10 years after they retire, and they put in plenty of money to cover that. But for every year after that – well let’s just say that if you live to be 100, you get out way more than you put in. The system balances because there are also a group of people who don’t live 10 years after they retire.
Good post thank you Jane for sticking up for We The People.
McSFB, and others in his financial position, collecting SS rubs me the wrong way. We all know that what is taken out of our paychecks each payday goes to pay those on SS now. Its original intent was to provide a little security in the “golden years” for those who had no pension plans and/or didn’t make enough to have a pension they could live on. McSFB doesn’t need the money but, like many others in our country, suffer greatly from entitlement disease. You can bet yer sweet bippy that all these congresscritters who rant against SS will collect every dime they can when the time comes.
Wherever there is senseless capitulation to blue dogs and republicans, Rahm seems to be there. Does he get pleasure from snatching food out of the mouths of little ol’ grannies? Jerk.
That does not take into account that most recipients of ss so far have received far more for their contribution than if they’d bought an annuity. SS is not a annuity, it is a transfer payment.
And what’s the point of the fiscal responsibility baloney anyhow? Is it to prove that Obama can walk & chew gum at the same time? If so, I’d prefer he concentrate on walking at the moment, since there are hot coals under his feet.
Or, is it the stalking horse for cutting ss and med benefits?
Yep! I remember about 20 years ago there was a push to do something about SS. The fix then was to make the benefits means tested. Boy you should have heard the screams from all the (rich) congresscritters and others of their ilk.
The crap of it all is that since these jokers are considered ’self-employed’ they actually pay 75% of the total contribution instead of the 100% combined employee/employer contribution. So not only are they taking out when they don’t really need it – they never put in as much as the working stiffs did in the first place.
Orzag’s up.
To Jane Hamsher:
CA State senator Mark Leno wants to do a post here on single payer health care for all was paaed and vetoed by Arnold…now another bill is in the legislative works. Your PR is touch with them. Do you approve what couls be a series with some Book Salon…maybe you could invite Micheal Moore?
I just don’t understand why they can’t focus on and solve the healthcare crisis first, which, if properly resolved, could make the trust fund issues more malleable or even irrelevant (i.e., the establishment of a viable national health system would greatly reduce the burden on the trust funds). IMO, this is all still kabuki.
OT – for those who are following the convoy to Gaza there’s a diary/blog from the convoy itself. They crossed the border between Morocco and Algeria yesterday, a border that has been closed for 15 years. They’re currently in Algiers or just leaving on the way to Tunisia.
put another way, Americans sure the heck won’t give up social security benefits until they know that their healthcare needs will be met, and they shouldn’t be asked to. Solve the latter problem, and they might very well be willing to have their SS and other trust fund benefits cut, but let’s have that conversation later, when we have the confidence that the healthcare issue is out of the way.
Obama’s up.
There seems to be a lot of people who aren’t liberals or progressives telling us what we think and what we support.
I’ve pointed out before but the Diamond-Orsazg plan came out in 2003 and is based on a largely paper economy that no longer exists. It’s a little like deciding to change our national defense strategy based on a plan that includes charges by horse cavalry.
What really bothers me about this though is why it is being brought up now only one month into the Obama Administration. Facing a depression, two wars, and the toxic residue of the Bush years, Obama has chosen to expend his political capital on a program that won’t need any adjustments until 2017 (after he is out of office if he gets elected to a second term) and with the removal of the income cap and an imposition of a maximum benefit would be solvent indefinitely into the future.
When a politician decides come hell or high water that he/she will take on a problem even where one doesn’t exist and that he/she will “fix” it using an outdated plan when a perfectly reasonable solution is at hand, that tells me this is about ideology. In this, it is very Bush-like. Just like Bush, Obama rolls out a stupid idea to change Social Security. It gets shot down and he comes back with it again. Bush used to include privatizing Social Security in every one of his budgets even after it had been totally discredited. Looks like Obama is using our worst President in history as a model. That in itself is a dumb idea.
There is no compelling reason to tinker with Social Security, which will take in $180 billion more than it pays out this year and continue to run a surplus for the next 10 years. The “looming crisis of 2041″ could as Atrios notes be accomplished with the simple payroll tax increase Obama suggested during his campaign.
_
two quick points.
_
Social Security is slated to run a surplus through at least 2026 — while payroll taxes will be less than benefits paid out beginning in 2017, interest accrued by the trust will continue to result in annual surpluses (those are the SS Trustees numbers…the CBO numbers are far more optimistic.)
And IIRC Obama proposed raising the cap on earnings, but did not suggest increasing the rate of payroll taxes. I’m not sure that raising the cap will be all that effective, however, because of the way that benefits are calculated (based on the best 30 years earnings).
However one way to extend the life of Social Security without raising taxes is to raise the minimum wage, which will increase revenue to the trust without a corresponding increase in benefit costs down the road. Because SS benefits are based on an individuals best 30 years of earnings, minimum wage jobs that are held early in someones worklife are excluded from the calculations for many people.
Well if they want to reform something – how about Medicare Part D?
That thing is a cash boondoggle of the highest order benefiting Big Pharma and the insurance companies with absolutely no limits.
And the people who need it the most find themselves in that ridiculous ‘donut hole’. The prices of the drugs on the Part D formulary went up 20% in the two months prior to its implementation, and have gone up an average of 5-7% per month ever since.
Oh, and I can hardly wait – that stupid thing expires! At the end of next year!
Oh wait. Probably good riddance. Then we can start over and get something sensible. Well, I can dream can’t I?
Uhm, ya, I want an 83 year-old billionaire making decisions about my retirement years. Something tells me, he was not altruistic in accruing his money.
If there waw a God, Mr. Peterson would suddenly discover that all of his money was invested with Madoff, and he has to live off of the SS he wants to kill. THAT would be karma I could believe in!
meanwhile, back in the real world:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/h…..rage_N.htm
health insurance premiums soaring for individuals and families….
Oh great, Obama’s ruling out fiscal stimulus in the future by reinstating paygo. Or, he’s talking out of his ass.
If old and disabled Americans are forced to eat cat food, perhaps even tainted cat food, they won’t live as long. Voila, less stress on Social Security. Perhaps early death of recipients due to malnutrition is the core of the Zombie Billionaire Plan to Steal Your Social Security Again?
Maybe it would be helpful if House and Senate pensions were done away with and they were given instead the average Social Security pay out.
Where are you listening to all this?
I know I may be a tad too progressive however I haven’t thought much of any of Obama’s ideas or choices. I’m gettin’ a bad fellin’ bout this prez.
cspan
Obama’s beginning to remind me of my hectoring lecturing parents. That is not good.
cnbc sez Obama’s a hypocrite. He should have reinstated paygo first, then done the stim. So stoopid it hurts.
The reductions come at the high end. The $900 per month beneficiary gets an increase to above the poverty level. The $2400 per month beneficiary gets the 9% cut.
Fixing the obscenely low benefit paid to low lifetime earners is something that should be done. Paying for higher benefits to those workers (and widows and orphans) has to be done somehow – either through increased tax receipts (this can be via economic growth or an increase in the payroll tax) or lowered benefits.
We should be calling for increasing “floor” benefit levels now. Money going to below poverty level retirees will be spent immediately and help the economy.
Obama is making clear with every passing day that he knows zilch about the economy and that his economic advises reflect his level of expertise on the subject.
Paygo? Going into a depression? Is he mad, stupid, or both?
BTW, you have just seen the “transparency” part of the “fiscal responsibility” program. A couple of pretty speeches, then move along, nothing to see here.
Well, he knows more than Wall St. See my 38.
Obama has chosen to expend his political capital on a program that won’t need any adjustments until 2017
this is false. No actual “adjustments” are necessary at all, insofar as the law regarding benefits provides for automatic cuts in benefits to match revenue if/when the social security trust is completely depleted.
secondly, as I noted above, there is nothing special about 2017 — SS continues to run a surplus through 2026.
finally, the reality is that in 2042 (when the trust is projected to be completely depleted) social security benefits will equal 6.5% of GDP (its currently 4.5% of GDP, and doesn’t really start rising until around 2012). But that 6.5% of GDP is reached in 2032, and remains stable through at least 2075 (which is as far as projections go.) In other words, the US economy will have a decade to adjust to paying 6.5% of GDP toward social security. Moreover, because general revenues will be necessary to redeem the securities held by the Social Security Trust from 2027 on, once the trust runs out of securities to be redeemed, using general revenue to supplement the money collected through payroll taxes in order to provide full scheduled benefits would not create any additional burden on the economy.
Didn’t Poland explore that rationale in arguing that smoking deaths help the health care system?
The way I read those ‘reduction’ plans was that it was based upon the person’s age – not their income.
If a person is 25 right now – by the time they retire (at age 67 or 69) the benefits they would be eligible for would be 9% less than they would have gotten if they were close to retirement age right now. Nothing to do with wages.
My memory of that stellar revelation is that it was someone working on W’s staff who pointed out that out.
yikes! was away from the computer, but had cspan radio on and just hear obama’s statement.
Oh, and Hugh, Obama’s obsession with medical IT is pure stupidity, at least as far a cost savings are concerned.
3/4’s of citizens are angry. I wonder why? When simpletons that have all the welfare they require because it is a critical part of their pay package, reduce the people of this country to begging for health care, it is likely time to remove every damn one of them from the congress. They will not respect their responsibility to protect the nation from the courts and the president, they have failed.
The country allows the gop superminority to dictate policy. That is insane. They will take whatever is dished out and learn to like it. It benefits them in ways their altered self may not understand. It will keep the country solvent. They don’t like this for some reason, and fight against it.
Time to force our government to do our bidding. Do not agree to anything that involves a compromise now. The compromise will mean death. Refusing to compromise will end the GOP and conservative values. Since they neither conserve or have any values, it is no loss. Our government is decayed and corrupt. Their only job is to be reelected as they see it now. We must make them realize it is to serve us, and not on a platter.
end the reign of these slumlords.
Jane, another aspect of SS that isn’t mentioned at all is how the COLA is calculated far differently for SS than for other ‘entitlements’; SS COLA is calculated taking into effect “food, energy, rent, gasoline, and every single other expense a person must pay in order to live.”.
Some links here and here
Part of what they might do would be to change the COLA calculation based on current age because the CPI_U is ususally less than the CPI_W.
I really really really wish the TradMed could refrain from calling anyone to the left of Reagan a “librul”.
They wouldn’t know what a real liberal looked like if they tripped over a convention of socialists.
I have been using the word depression in about every other comment I have been making. But there doesn’t seem to be even a pretense anymore to take strong, smart, concerted action on the economy. Instead we have Obama and his team content to go through the motions and now backpedal into a series of dumbest economic ideas of the week.
I no longer think that depression can be avoided and I am having increasing doubts as to whether our elites are capable of doing anything to mitigate its length and severity.
For those of us Americans who have not gotten in on the “sure thing” kind of jobs that would have presented pension plans and health insurance and holiday and sick day pay this talk of SS being cut back or moved farther up the eligible age chart is more of the same.
It really will not get better until all Americans are brought into the same game. This would mean federal,state,Congress,education,American military and the big money corporates all are part of one American government retirement and healthcare system.
No break outs for Congress in particular.
See how fast Congress passes good long term American SS provisions and a comprehesive Universal American Health Care/Plan System when it comes back to what each House or Senate member stands to get,gain or lose.
By that example, Widespread Poverty keeps us from becoming obese.
Any change in COLA adjs are just as likely to work against as for, as those things change back & forth. No real money there. Which doesn’t mean that someone won’t claim there is.
SS has been on a downward track for years. COLA increases have not hardly begun to keep up with inflation. Last years “COLA” did not even cover increases in health care costs.
i’m so far behind that i was only finally listening to summers (from charlie rose a few days ago) this morning. even summers said that keynes was the economist that most influenced his thinking on the current crisis. where exactly do the urgent paygo & budget concerns come from then?
Actually that’s exactly wrong. Apparently there are many more fast food restaurants in Harlem & S Bronx than supermarkets. So when more & more of us become poor, the PTB (powers-that-be) will allow ff restaurants to take over the space now occupied by grocery stores in our neighborhoods.
Aren’t the poor more likely to be obese? All they can afford to eat is food-like substances mass produced in super-sized processing plants far, far away.
Riiiiiight. From a Friedmanite free trader to a Keynesian in one easy lesson. If Keynes influenced him that much the stim would have been a lot bigger and the Rethugs would have had strokes.
Of course, when the media moguls are themselves conservatives, it’s not surprising that they would think this way.
the last few days this bit from mayer’s, they thought they were free, has been on my mind (typos are mine):
hope i’m just over reacting.
Massive Blue Dog pushback, apparently it’s the price they’re demanding for both health care reform AND Stimulus Package 2.0, coming this summer.
See my 58. And here’s a map of the farmers’ markets in NYC [pdf]. Note that they’re concentrated in rich areas.
yeah. the words do not match the actions.
Dining on frozen dinners and other assorted processed crap is a great way to put on pounds. Sugar and carbs aplenty. Protein and vitimins/minerals, not so much.
Yes they are. It’s not just the ff restaurants but the cost and availability of food in the ‘neighborhood’ groceries. All the cheap stuff is high carb, low quality, and while it succeeds in providing calories (fat), it does not provide high quality nutrition.
That’s why in this country, people are always criticizing poor people because they are fat and complaining that if they are fat they must be getting plenty of money to eat so much. Which is not true at all. There are different types of starvation. The little kids from Africa with the big bellies and pipestem arms and legs is one kind. The obese inner city or poor rural denizen is another.
And I’ll tell you what jkat was told last week:
Federal employees already ARE part of Social Security/Medicare, we’ve paid into it ever since Reagan changed SS during his presidency (1987?). We have 3 things we have to pay into for retirement, Social Security, our Federal pension plan (FERS), and the Federal Thrift Savings plan (the Federal equivalent of a 401(k)).
Reagan also changed the retirement age — if you were born in 1955 you can’t file for Social Security until you are age 67. You can still get REDUCED benefits at age 62.
Hugh: A second stimulus pack is coming, likely as soon as this summer. It would have been better for it all to come at once, but the Azure Mutts balked at the price tag.
any evidence, whatsoever, that obama’s economic team is not on board with this too? i’d love to think it was only the bluedogs, but i don’t see it.
We might organize KSL (Keynes as a Second Language) courses for Blue Dogs. Seems like a more productive path to follow.
The Administration has become incoherent in its economic policy. With the stimulus, it was already very unclear. But when Geithner presented his joke giveaway to banks via a plan even he couldn’t explain economic policy jumped the shark and has been in Lala-land ever since.
On the economy at least it’s like Bush never left. Got a major problem? Give a speech. There, fixed. I mean what’s the difference?
Many people are newly dependent on Social Security as the primary or only means of support. This depression will last a long time. It will further deplete limited resources. Those include cash, of course, and family mental health and integrity. They also include credit ratings that are now needed for everything from borrowing money to borrowing from the library (almost). More than 40% of employers use them as a general filter for “worthiness”, however unrelated or illegal so vague a concept may be to doing the job. Not coincidentally, that creates a vicious cycle: those most in need of a job, any job, have the most vulnerable credit scores and are the first to be “filtered out” (a new Orwellian term, perhaps).
ANY reduction in benefits would be significant. Raise them.
If the administration had the audacity to nationally lower usurious credit card rates from highs of 25-30%, to say, 21%, a modest reduction, all hell would break lose among the faux states’ righters and Wall Street Democrats. (Lowering it to 12-18% would have them keening in the streets and slashing in the smoke-filled rooms.)
This modus operandi has the hallmark of Rahm Emanuel managing the populace’s expectations. Whew, they only cut my benefits five percent, just in time to help pay for food that’s gone up 15%, a mortgage rate that’s gone up from 5% to 7.5%, and college tuition rates that are off the scale, what with state budget cut backs.
If Obama thinks cutting food from the tables of Main Street Americans is necessary to get cooperation from extremists in his own party, as well as those across the aisle, he should use his famous FDR loquaciousness and tell us that. The public can they make known whether they agree with that spending priority, or whether they’d rather subsidize corporate America and foreign wars less. Don’t “manage me” into relieving you of responsiility as a public official. Manage me by being straight. The capacity to be that was why many voted for Obama instead of the infamously mercurial and truth-challenged John McCain. Stop claiming you’re helping your Base when in fact the base you’re helping remains major corporate contributors.
Social Security benefits should increase, not decrease. To make ends meet, trying snipping off the longer end. Institute the dreaded “means test”, perhaps by capping benefits for those with incomes who most benefited from Bush’s tax cuts. (His commitment to reverse those cuts Obama seems to have lost under the bed, along with his socks.)
could not agree more. imo, you’ve nailed it.
Now you’re going way overboard. Obama’s done plenty more than give a speech in his first month. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it was the rigt stuff or enough stuff, but I don’t think reasonable people can say all he’s done is give speeches.
lol. i’d sign up for that class too. also minsky
well said. the only thing i’d disagree on is the means testing – instead institute a 90% marginal tax rate over some income amount of your choosing.
I agree with this a lot. We are seeing much of the same marginalization on economic issues that we saw on WMD in Iraq and torture. Only viewpoints that fall within the narrow range of Obama speeches and Congressional statements are allowed and it doesn’t matter that neither has any connection to reality.
It was nice to see Roubini and Krugman on ABC’s This Week but was this a one off? I have seen on Charlie Rose such get-togethers where a few progressives are invited on and then are followed by months and months of the tritest practitioners of the CW.
The last time I listened to Baghwati was about 20 years ago. I listened to the whole thing this morning. The man has changed a lot (seeds were visible back then). Now, about 90% of his speech was ridicule of his opponents, based on clever phrases, not evidence. It was very worth my time, since I now know to discount what he says, as he’s become an advocate not an analyst. You may have come to that conclusion earlier, but for me it was today.
Prolly should read the damn thing meself.
do you see any of the the actions obama has taken re the economic crisis as doing anything to prevent a depression or significantly mitigate the effects of the crisis on ordinary people?
serious question. i don’t see it, but that doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Why do you think the stim does nothing?
well, i didn’t have that good experience of 20 years ago because i only started paying attention after sept 12, 2001. a small benefit i guess of being completely ignorant of a topic – all i’ve heard is the kind of thing you heard today… also wanted to make sure you knew of my later comments – that while i don’t like him, i do NOT think he is batshit crazy (as i do most freetraders)
The stimulus may create 3.5 million jobs, maybe. But the jobs needed are 9.5 million. So yes, the stimulus is something but enough? or even close to being enough? or even in the same ballpark? No.
So we have a very weak stimulus.
An incomprehensible Geithner plan for banks
A housing plan that will mostly help those who need only a little help
I add this up and it spells depression.
But in your prior comment you said Obama has done nothing. Then in 84 you list what he has done. Which is it?
Any evidence for one? And how does this fit in with Obama’s statement today that any further stimulus would fall under paygo rules?
I’m getting the distinct impression that most of this stuff is smoke and mirrors to cover bailing out the monied/ruling class while the rest of us starve. Wasn’t it Carnegie who handed out dimes during the Depression? Then went home, where his servants took care of everything, and routinely ate meals the folks on the street would kill for.
It may be semantics. Yes, Obama has done some things. Has he done anything that will avert a depression? No.
Nothing covered the increase in healthcare costs but the SS COLA WAS higher than the CPI-U.
more like if it doesn’t make a significant impact, is it worth the cost? i don’t know the answer to that, but i don’t think our ability to borrow at low interest rates is infinite – so the opportunity cost is not zero. also, i don’t think obama’s political capital is infinite – and he’s spending that down if he doesn’t take effective action.
so while there may be something on the positive side, on balance does it outweigh the costs (political, economic, etc) on the negative side?
I agree that a lot of what Obama is doing seems premised on the notion that if the rich are taken care of that somehow this will trickle down to the rest of us. Just compare the $2 trillion Geithner gets to bail out the banks to the $850 billion (the stimulus plus housing plan) that is set aside for the rest of the economy. The discrepancy is even greater if we add in the Bush $160 billion stimulus and compare it to the $350 billion that Paulson spent on the TARP and the more than $2 trillion that Bernanke spent in his own version of bailing out the banks.
Well said when it comes to jobs; the ‘paygo’ statement probably refers to increased taxes. As Whitehead said, “There are no whole truths: all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil.”
NOT SS but this just in(and to say it’s more of the same unwillingness to address the structural flaws is redundant)
fyi – masaccio’s diary is up: Remember When We Gave Banks All That Money?
http://oxdown.firedoglake.com/diary/3827
The TARP and FED monies are supposed to be loans that SUpposedly will be repaid. Whether those monies are repaid may be up in the air and Paulson supposedly made some very bad deals. But that is a conceptual difference.
The top 20% earners in the US own 85% of the wealth. The lower 80% earners in the US own 15%. The hardest hit by this Depression will be those with the least to lose. Any cuts to social programs at this time are unfair, reinforce inequalities which are already severe, and work against any economic recovery.
We have loaned $45 billion to Citi and guaranteed some $306 billion of their assets. Citi’s cap today was hovering around $12.4 billion. I agree that these are loans to be paid back is completely conceptual because how a company whose total worth is just a shade over a quarter of what we have already lent it is going to pay back any of this stuff or how we don’t lose more tens of billions out of those asset guarantees is beyond me.
And that gets to the reality in place of the atmospherics. We can call this money anything we want but it has been poured down the drain and loan or gift it is not coming back.
That’s the FOOD, damn them.