coberly

Last active
3 years, 4 months ago
  • coberly commented on the blog post Political Centrism Is a Hoax

    2012-11-03 19:42:17View | Delete

    bluedot

    i’m not so sure there will be consequences. one reason for elections is to help them gauge what they can get away with.

    i don’t claim any special knowledge about this, and i admit there are some “facts” that don’t seem to fit my paranoid conspiracy theory. but if it’s not a case of both parties being tools of the same Power, then the best explanation I can think of is that we (all of us collectively) have gradually been fooling ourselves more and more until we all essentially believe the same nonsense.

    not that we all believe the same thing about abortion, but that we all believe the same thing about Social Security

    which could be fixed by raising the savings rate (we call it the payroll tax) of the workers by about forty cents per week each year to pay for their longer life expectancy… at a higher real level of benefit… out of a higher real wage. this is a mathematically true and provable statement, but you never hear about it from ANY party. why is that?

  • coberly commented on the blog post Political Centrism Is a Hoax

    2012-11-03 17:51:07View | Delete

    The author is incorrect to say, “They eschew ideology and attack problems with reasoned analysis and logic; construct policy within firmly defined, “realistic” parameters; favor efficiency over principle; define leadership as managerial competence;”

    unless this is meant as ironic, or perhaps “This is what they believe about themselves.”

    They in fact no more apply reason, analysis, and logic, than any other political interest group, which is what they are. “reason” is “rationalization.” analysis is usually clever lies, and logic is the logic of the con artist.

    The “elite” are “the powers,” and they would be called “the right” in any rational political discourse, but they have managed to convince most of us that “the right” means “anti abortion” or even “racist” when these are no more than tools to divide the people and keep them confused about where their real interests are.

    Otherwise the article is perfectly on target, and the question is what can we do about it. I am not optimistic.

  • You need to make very clear:

    Social Security does not increase “the deficit” AT ALL. EVER.

    The projected shortfall in Social Security’s own funding can be closed entirely by raising the payroll tax one half of one tenth of one percent per year (CBO Options 2 and 3).. that’s forty cents per week each year in today’s terms.

    This would avoid all the political problems of “raise the cap.”

    Understand: the workers can continue to pay for their own Social Security as they always have, for an extra forty cents per week each year. This avoids all the “politics”… IF you can get the people to hear and understand this.

  • “a structure of government with a judicial review that feels free to parse legislation line by line and make what amount to ideological pronouncements on what can go forward and what cannot sounds a death rattle for progressive governance over time.”

    this is stupid.

    whatever you think of the stupidity of the present Court, or of the stupidity of past Courts in general, the whole idea of the American Constitution was to create a structure that would, one, check and balance itself, and two, resist the passions of the mob.

    just because the passion of your favorite mob looks like it might be struck down by the Court is not sufficient reason to call for mob rule.

  • People need to start taking note of the “liberals” who are for the payroll tax cut. They are your enemy. They are either really really stupid, or they are just politicians incapable of thinking beyond scoring points against the other side, or they are in some way on Peterson’s payroll.

    The payroll tax cut is the death of Social Security. Up to this time the greatest strength of Social Security was that it did NOT contribute to the deficit, was not paid for by “the rich,” was not “welfare.” The workers paid for it themselves. It was the only way they had to save their own money for their own retirement, protected against inflation and market losses by the genius of pay as you go with wage indexing, and insured against personal bad luck from death, disability, or just failure to make enough money to save enough to retire.

    Social Security was never in trouble itself. It could continue forever with no changes at all, or if future generations are going to live longer and want to retire at the standard of living of their own times, they would need to raise their own tax about one half of one tenth of one percent per year…. that’s about forty cents per week per year in today’s terms.

    I don’t think the people are capable of stopping this. The enemy has too much money and is too well organized. And apparently if you offer people something “for free” too many of them are too dumb to turn it down.

  • coberly commented on the blog post Social Security Solvent for the Next 28 Years

    2011-08-08 10:54:20View | Delete

    pJack

    no. it sounds good. but it’s the wrong way to go. Social Security was designed NOT to be welfare. It is important that the workers continue to pay for it themselves. They can do this forever with a tiny increase in the tax to pay for their longer life expectancy. One half of one tenth of one percent per year will do it. That’s about forty cents per week.

    When you turn it into class war, we lose.

    It’s bad enough that the Petersons and the PRess and the President are lying about it now. Raising the cap would make their lies “true.”

    But you must keep telling everyone every chance you get: Social Security has not a damn thing to do with the budget deficits. The workers pay for it themselves.

    And if you don’t understand yourself, it’s because you have been lied to about it for thirty years.