Isn't it a Freudian slip by the rich like yourself that you think you are in a separate class (of the rich) rather than you are part of the nation as a whole rich and none rich?
Being you believe that you are in a separate higher class, you start to enroll yourself in the clique of the top class against all others.
Clinton handed the Republicans a budget surplus without any yearly deficits. The Republicans ended the eight years of Bush Republican administration totally squandering not only the surplus, but creating huge deficits with unfunded wars, and the 2008 Great Recession. Now, the Republicans want the middle class, and the poor to pay down the deficits and damages the Republicans caused, while the Republicans refuse to help pay anything for the deficits and damages the Republicans caused.
It is a Freudian slip that you admitted that you are in a class of the rich, rather than you are in a class of all Americans.
I don't think 39.5% is class warfare. When it was 70% that was class warfare. They obviously also need to raise the SS age 2-3 years immediately and make it so people don't take advantage of Medicare by overusing it etc. Also need to access the mortgage deduction on 2nd homes, which is just sickening. In addition outrageous pensions need to be reset. And long term gains will need to go to 20%. On dividends I say let them be, as it is double taxation already. Everyone is going to have to pay to get it done, plain and simple.
Re: "....They obviously also need to raise the SS age 2-3 years immediately...."
FACT-CHECKERS SPUTTER AND FLOP ATTEMPTING TO EXPLAIN HOW SOCIAL SECURITY WORKS AND AFFECTS THE DEFICIT (IT DOESN'T!!)
A gaggle of fact-checkers recently attempted to bring clarity to the question of whether Social Security adds to the deficit. Much as they did during the campaign, the fact-checkers have instead confused what is in fact quite a simple issue.
SOCIAL SECURITY, BY LAW, DOES NOT ADD TO THE DEFICIT. IT IS NOT A DRIVER OF LONG-TERM DEBT. We’ve been over this. The reason no one can get it right is because here in this season of the fiscal cliff, no one is getting anything right. It’s a full-on headless chicken panic. EVERYONE NEEDS TO CALM DOWN, ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS, BUT ESPECIALLY ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY, WHICH DOES NOT EVEN HAVE TO COME UP DURING THE “FISCAL CLIFF TALKS” BECAUSE IT’S TOTALLY IRRELEVANT TO THE SITUATION AND WILL ONLY COMPLICATE EVERYTHING NEEDLESSLY.
Sweet nutty, here comes the Associated Press, relying on a familiar line of reasoning, arguing that the program does in fact add to the deficit because the government "spent that money on other programs, reducing the amount it had to borrow from the public, including foreign investors...IN RETURN, THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT ISSUED SPECIAL BONDS TO SOCIAL SECURITY. THE BONDS ARE NOW VALUED AT $2.7 TRILLION. THEY ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN TWO SOCIAL SECURITY TRUST FUNDS, ONE FOR THE RETIREMENT PROGRAM AND ONE FOR THE DISABILITY PROGRAM. THE BONDS PAY INTEREST LIKE OTHER TREASURY NOTES AND ARE BACKED BY THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT."
SOCIAL SECURITY ADDS TO THE DEBT IF IT SPENDS MORE MONEY THAN IT TAKES IN, SO LET’S LOOK AT HOW THAT’S DOING -----
IN THE MOST RECENT FISCAL YEAR
Social Security brought In---$831 B
Social Security Spent---------$775 B
TO SAY THAT SOCIAL SECURITY ADDED TO THE DEFICIT BECAUSE IT HANDED MONEY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS THE SAME AS SAYING THAT FOREIGN INVESTORS OR GRANDMOTHERS OR PENSION FUNDS WHO BOUGHT U.S. BONDS ADDED TO THE DEFICIT. Besides, what did the AP think the U.S. government would do with the money? Invest it in tech stocks? Hide it in a mattress? Replenish its gold supply? Of course it spent the money.
Glenn Kessler relies on similarly silly logic. "This looks like surplus, worth about $36 billion after rounding," he says of Social Security's surplus. "But notice that fully $110 billion of the income was interest on Treasury securities. But that interest is simply paid with new Treasury bonds." By Kessler's logic, China is running a massive, major, breakneck deficit because it holds Treasury bonds, and the only way to pay those off is with new bonds. Why it's supposed to matter to China or to Social Security how its bonds are paid off isn't made clear by Kessler.
But more importantly, how does Kessler know that the only way to pay that interest is to borrow more? He doesn't know that. In fact, the Treasury has many means at its disposal to pay interest other than through borrowing -- such as, I don't know, taxing people?
Instead of confusing itself and its readers, the AP and the rest could simply have referred to a 2011 Senate hearing, chaired by Max Baucus (D-Mont.), during which two of the foremost Social Security experts -- one liberal, one conservative -- answered the question.
Nancy Altman, head of Social Security Works, which opposes cuts to the program, read the law to the lawmakers. "THE LAW IS UNAMBIGUOUS. SO LET ME READ IT: SOCIAL SECURITY ‘SHALL NOT BE COUNTED FOR PURPOSES OF THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET,'" SHE READ. "SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT PART OF THE BUDGET. SO THAT $14.3 TRILLION DEBT THAT WE ARE AT, THE LIMIT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE -- OR AT LEAST HAVE TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO RAISE IN A FEW MONTHS -- IF YOU CUT SOCIAL SECURITY, THAT $14.3 TRILLION DOES NOT CHANGE. IT DOES NOT PUT ANY ROOM INTO THE DEBT LIMIT."
Baucus turned to Charles Blahous, a Social Security trustee who is also with the conservative Hoover Institution. "Do you agree with that, Dr. Blahous?"
"I do agree with that," he said.
Let’s talk once again about Social Security solvency, shall we? The way the Social Security works is that current workers make contributions, from their paychecks, to current retirees. (This arrangement is often forgotten about -- too many people have been led to believe that they are “paying in” to their own Social Security savings, and they aren’t -- those contributions will be made by a younger generation.) The solvency of Social Security is at risk if the following two things happen: 1) the number of recipients overwhelmingly outnumber the number of contributors and 2) American lawmakers forget how to do math.
What we popularly refer to as the “Social Security solvency crisis” refers to a large population of Americans (the “Baby Boom Generation”) entering their retirement years at a time when the number of contributors is less than ideal. Hopefully, however, SOMEONE AT SOME POINT IS GOING TO REMEMBER HOW TO SOLVE A SIMPLE ARITHMETIC PROBLEM, RAISE OR REMOVE THE INCOME CAPS ON CONTRIBUTIONS (RIGHT NOW, INCOMES THAT EXCEED $110,100 ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CONTRIBUTIONS BEYOND THAT AMOUNT), AND THEN WE WILL NEVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY AGAIN. .........
Sentiment: Strong Buy
FP, I'm really not sure I can relate there. Think about the history of unions, the class warfare used by the rich on the poor (there was no middle class to speak of in those days), the mines, the police owned by the industrialists and used to intimidate, beat, or kill any dissent. The result of unions was the middle class, I think by design. The industrialists since the beginning of the unions have been working to destroy them. They've been extremely successful in the past 30 years or so, and guess what? The middle class has shrunk, and with the demise of the unions we are heading back to a society of rich and poor.
Why do this? Well, the largest reason is that any business owner will tell you that the largest single cost of business is employees. If you don't have to pay them much, well your business is a LOT more profitable. You can spin that a lot of ways, you can even say that if you don't have to pay your employees more than minimum wage, you can afford more employees, but is that really the America we want to live in?
The middle class is beginning to stand up and rail against it's demise. I think it's high time they (we) did. Would you rather they (we) just sit back and accept the fate that our children are going to be basically slaves to a corporate elite class that controls our lives? Would you really rather we go back to the pre-1930's?
You are correct that a large portion of the middle class was a result from the creation of unions. The problem, was that the unions started to get greedy, and in prosperous times demanded huge concessions from companies, and threatened strikes. The companies, mainly manufacturers, could not afford a shut down, so they agreed to the unions demands.
But please remember the time frame, this was before Globalization, and competition from foreign countries. The Domestic Auto industry is a prime example of how, when your expenses are so high, that you are no longer competitive in a Global marketplace. Adjustments have to be made in our current competitive environment, in order to survive.
While I absolutely agree that some very poor decisions were made by the companies' executives, that contributed to the near collapse of the Domestic Automakers, the Legacy costs associated with unions contracts were uncompetitive and unsustainable.
There is no doubt that a healthy middle class is the driver of the economy, and we must work towards growing this class, but it must be done responsibly. It's a double edged sword, if we put tarrifs on imports, to be more competitive, those countries will also raise tarrifs on our exports. Again, a global economy, it's what killed our manufacturing industry. When a worker in China can do the same job for 1/4 of the wage of a worker in the US, it makes it tough for a business to survive in the US. I'm not saying it's right, and I'm not sure what the answer is, but we have to strike a balance somehow.
Now, what I have a problem with. is how our president essentially stoked the fire with his speech condeming the Right To Work law. He has misrepresented it horribly. It simply gives the worker a choice of weather to join a union, or not. And joining a union is not a requirement of employment. It is actually a much better deal for the worker.
I live in a Right To Work state, and yes, we do have unions. Our REAL unemployment is less than 6%, our state and local governments run in the black, we have more and more businesses coming here, we have no state income tax, and we also have a decent middle class in our state. Compare that to Michigan.