Professor Reich: it appears that the consensus that all the pundits are demanding is that the cap on social security is scrapped -- and this can only happen if the november elections are a democratic sweep. are we voters capable of making such big decisions? sometimes, when i look into the screaming face of marjorie trailer queen, lauren boebert and others in the spit-spewing gang of rabid idiots, i despair for americans, for our collective intellect and for our future.
THIS is why Harris shouldn't heed the Democrats urging her to tack to the center. She is already riding high, and will ride even higher if she continues to promulgate ideas that Bernie Sanders would approve of.
That is why we never see the republicans tack out to the left, even a little. they want what they want ; what their donors want. Democrats, in the past have always fallen for the "bipartisan" mirage, which has never panned out well for the voters. any "Democrats " urging Kamala to "Tack to the center" are asking her to water down or weaken the ideas that can improve the lives of millions. They are not working for the Common Good, but maybe for their donors.
Rpbert I take exception to calling the Federal Insurance Contribution Act deduction a tax. FICA is what the name says, Federal insurance, our retirement insurance payment..
The employer makes a matching contribution and the likes of Jamie Dimond and Pete Peterson call that a payroll tax.
These greedy bastards look at the social security trust fund with lust, as they want to privatize it, so they can rake off commissions, and use our FICA contributions to churn the stock market and make themselves even richer, as we tumble down from middle class to serfs.
What wage earners who are fully and currently insured have is "social insurance," retirement plus disability for the wage earner and the family, worth on average more than $1M.
After 2033, birth rates of later generations flatten and the funds can be solvent. When the boomers reach peak in 2033, the slope of reductions from the funds (there are 2) will begin to decline as subsequent generation populations are smaller so future outlays beyond that date should be smaller.
I've been writing about this for 35 years. Here's an old ABA article for estate lawyers on how to flatten the curve.
December 01, 2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING
Social Security—Maybe Charity Should Begin at Home
By Daniel F. Solomon
For most of its history, Social Security was a terrific bargain: our parents and grandparents most probably received significantly more benefits than they paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund comprises the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds (OASDI, collectively).
In most cases, because our family units could rely on these benefits, they were able to enjoy enough financial independence to send people like us to school so that we could become lawyers—productive and, in some cases, wealthy, members of society. For 75 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has helped enable American soci- ety to achieve far beyond the aspirations of its founders, ultimately providing more than subsistence to retirees by also protecting widows, orphans, and disabled people. The dignity provided to needy beneficiaries surely far outweighs the economic value of the funds.
However, financial experts have long predicted a future insolvency of the funds. A majority of Americans have invested in the funds, recognize their social utility, and do not want to burden their heirs. Although there have been legislative attempts to “fix” the system, there is no consensus how to do it. The Congressional Research Service reported:
For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, “Social Security Reform” (October 2002).
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the “Greenspan Commission” after its chairman) was appointed by the Congress and President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to a short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the OASI Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. Congress rendered a compromise that extended the retirement age from 65 to 67, through a deal that raised payroll taxes and trimmed benefits enough to keep Social Security solvent. See Jackie Calmes, “Political Memo: The Bipartisan Panel: Did It Really Work?” New York Times, January 18, 2010. However, the legislation addressed only the immediate problem and did not address the long-term viability of the fund. See also Rudolph G. Penner, “The Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reforms of 1983,” in Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency, David Abshire, Editor. Washington: Center for the Study of the Presidency, pp. 129–31.
The George W. Bush administration commission deliberated on the issue and then called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (“individual” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.
President Barack Obama reportedly strongly opposes privatization or raising the retirement age but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program. He has appointed a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is to report and offer another fix.
Current estimates predict that payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084. 2010 OASDI Trust- ees Report, Figure II.D2, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/ trTOC.html.
Although the congressional plan was to ensure solvency through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, there is a private means to help: to also consider the humanitarian and charitable nature of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which has been possible since a legislative fix in 1972. Before then, bequests naming Social Security or a trust fund as a beneficiary could not be accepted, which caused problems in administration of some estates. Money gifts or bequests may be accepted for deposit by the managing trustee of the OASI and DI funds. Section 170(c)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code lists the U.S. government among the educational or charitable organizations to which donations are acceptable. Gifts must be unconditional, except that the donor may designate to which fund the gift should be donated. If no fund is designated, the gift is credited to the OASI Trust Fund.
However, SSA has not publicized its charitable persona. Although the agency has received some gifts and bequests, they have been insignificant and not given consideration in a possible fix. The concept has been so unimportant to the experts that the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin does not specify how much the administration has received in gifts and bequests. Total revenue from gifts to the trust funds has been quite small. From 1974 to 1979 the most received in any one year was $91,949.88. During that period, the average annual amount was only $39,847. In 1980, almost two-thirds of the gifts were less than $100. The median gift size was $50. One person, for example, donated $13.11. She arrived at that amount by applying 5.85% (the employee tax rate then in effect) to her benefit amount and donated it to help “‘shore up’ the sagging, dwindling Social Security fund.” However, the 2010 Social Security Trustees Report lists them as about $98,000 (www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/III_ cyoper.html#2). Compared to many other charities, this is a paltry amount.
Apparently, SSA has never done a feasibility study nor marketing research to determine how an aggressive campaign could raise funds to support Social Security, or how gifts and bequests could reduce the current estimates of impending doom. According to some estimates total deductions taken for all charities next year would be $413.5 billion. Estimates for fiscal year 2011 are that SSA will spend $730 billion. That amount is already covered through “contributions” (taxes), but it is reasonable that charitable contributions to the trust fund could significantly lessen taxpayer exposure for impending doom, if not return the fund to solvency.
As lawyers, we have the capacity to remind our families, our clients, and the public at large that there is a way to contribute to help endow future generations in the pursuit of the same kind of social stability that Social Security provided to our parents and grandparents.
Daniel F. Solomon is an administrative law judge at the U.S. Department of Labor, member of the ABA House of Delegates, past chair of the National Conference of Administrative Judiciary, Judicial Division, president of the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, and author of Breaking Up with Cuba (McFarland, 2011). All opinions expressed are those of the author and not any organization or group.
Daniel, thank you for this informative entry. Here is a thought: the offshoring of jobs over the past four decades depressed wages in the US. Stagnant wages led to stagnant contributions to the SS trust. Didn't they? Billionaires were the main beneficiaries of the offshoring. If so, perhaps we should talk about their moral and patriotic responsibility to meliorate the problem they created. We certainly must remind voters that the billionaires in no way deserved the tax cuts they received from Bush and Trump. Your thoughts?
Well, Trump and Republicans killed off about 1.2 million with Covid and saved SS a huge pile of money in the process. Now we are in another surge and it’s probably the elderly who weren’t given booster shots who are dying.
I recall Obama creating a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and I was aghast that he appointed the enemy of Social Secuity, Alan simpson, a Republican, to the commission as Co-Chair, the Simpson Bowles Commission.
It was public knowledge that Alan Simpson wanted to privatize Social Security, yet Obama appointed him (Wall Street donor influence?)
Not only was Social Security on the line, but also Veteran retirement and benefits.
Reagan stuck it to vets (and most still loved him) by changing computation of retirement, from a percentage of the last years pay (I benefited from that) to averaging of last three. Then he changed computation of COLA from tying it to active duty raises, to tying to the Federal COLA, and unrealistic basket of products, that don't reflect the real cost of living,like food, gas and medicine.
Saved by the bell when the commission fell short of the supermajority of 14 of 18 votes needed to approve the report.[1][15] The eleven voting for it were five Democrats (Bowles, Conrad, Durbin, Rivlin, Spratt) and five Republicans (Coburn, Cote, Crapo, Gregg, Simpson) and one Independent (Fudge); the seven voting against it were four Democrats (Baucus, Becerra, Schakowsky, Stern) and three Republicans (Camp, Hensarling,
AMEN. And privatization is a subject for the full Robert Reich examination. As we face the Project 2025 selling of America it is essential to be informed voters.
Yes the contribution of a share of regular income into the Social Security account is not a tax. But according to what I find when I look it up, many who receive a Social Security benefit every month DO PAY A TAX on that amount. That levy, I think, is the tax that is being bandied about.
Looking it up, it’s reported that people in 2024 living on a measly income of $25,000 for a single person, or $34,000, do pay income tax on some of their Social Security benefit {many, many, many retirees — myself included— don’t have enough added money in a retirement cache to live on Social Security alone, so they continue earning money that is subject to taxes}. And apparently, if you earn too large an added pittance, you tax a portion of your SS benefit as “income,” too.
William, thanks for reminding us that the SS deduction is not a tax and was not meant to be. It is insurance and should be treated that way and when anyone refers to it as a tax, they should be called out and corrected. The media could do a lot to fix this and to let folks know why Musk and his crazies want to bring down SS, and it is not for the good of anyone but themselves because their billions are just not enough for them to live.
Exactly. And they do so without a single thought as to the impact on the lives of Americans who just thought they were doing their patriotic duty to work, to contribute to the greatness of their community but also of America. The likes of Jamie Diamond have no soul, no god but greed. Their time will come when their life choices are under the microscope.
Laurie, I believe everyone is ready for ideas that can improve the lives of millions! She needs to tell everyone what her plans are so voters can see a vision of a great future voting for her! Vote Blue, America!
Laurie, that "I want what I want when I want it" attitude of Republicans is what makes me call them the Toddler Party. Toddlers can't think past this moment and what they want. That is not an insult to toddlers, but what 3-year-olds should be doing and thinking as they learn to function in the world. When grown men and women hold onto that attitude and think their money and power should let them remain toddlers, and lets them tantrum when they don't get it, then it is a problem and is ugly.
And by the way, that tack turns off youth & people on the left, who think it not worth it to vote for watered down versions of Republican plutocrats. I think Democrats lose more votes & support by tacking to the center or right
Every. Single. Time., Jaime. And they just don't seem to get it. They've effectively muzzled Bernie and The Squad, and now they're in the fight of their lives, when it could have been different.
I get tired of all the the left versus center talk. I want someone who will recognize the problems our country faces and take effective action to solve them. What Bernie talks about is very popular with a majority of Americans. When a candidate calls himself/herself a centrist, I envision someone with no principles who just blows with the wind. If Kamala Harris does not come out strongly in favor of policies that will improve the lives of ordinary people, she will lose. Voters do not want a mealy-mouthed "moderate."
The problem is disinformation and who controls the mouthpieces, almost none of which understand the issues and/or are acting out of greed. Why soneone who already has more money than they know what to do with would shudder at the thought of paying their fair share is mind-boggling. It likely says something about how they made the money in the first place.
As others have said, Kamala/Tim should continue to be bold and progressive and run on addressing these issues of wealth inequality. They can/should borrow words from FDR's speeches "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I've made". Biden has taken the same stance, they should continue this tact.
That attitude gets nothing done and is no different than the Rs refusing to cooperate with Dems on everything for years. The majority of Americans want compromise between Rs and D’s where each side gets a few elements they want. We can’t continue in the current stubborn and self-crippling way. It is the main reason over a million Americans died unnecessarily from Covid by refusing to cooperate together to beat the scourge. And here we are facing another wave that is expected to make millions more Americans sick in the next couple months. Once again, one side will refuse to follow guidelines while the elderly and immunocompromised suffer the most.
One sure way to get nothing you want done is to lose the election. I live in Indiana. Over the years I have lived here, it has become overwhelmingly Republican. I attribute that in part to many Democrats running as mealy-mouthed moderates who don't believe in anything. They don't inspire anyone other than hard-core Democrats to vote for them, and they keep losing elections. As a result, we have some terrible policies.
In contrast, my Democratic former state senator [former due to redistricting] flipped a seat in 2018 running on policies that can be considered "liberal." He was not shy about advocating for those policies in the legislature. In the 2021 redistricting, the Republican supermajority in the Indiana General Assembly lopped my neighborhood off his district as "too Democratic" and replaced it with heavily Republican neighborhoods. The intent was clearly to flip it back to Republican. Even though the Republican's campaign made false, defamatory allegations about him, he won again, "liberal" policies and all. He has continued to advocate for those policies.
I think we agree. Look, Bernie Sanders is no socialist, he wants a socioeconomic system similar to that of Denmark (where they actually have billionaires who pay their taxes).
70% of Americans want tighter gun control, universal affordable healthcare of high quality, lower tuition, paid family leave, and above all, they want billionaires and corporations to pay their f****** taxes.
I was a Bernie fan back in the day and thought that the DNC screwed his WH run in favor of Hilary for obvious reasons, none of which are printable. I have been absent from the scene since, since I cannot stand either Trump or whomever the Dems field.
The DNC has been progressively corrupted by corporate money over the 4 decades since Reagan. Bill and Hillary Clinton, and, yes, Obama, are emblematic of that corruption.
Joe Biden, at least, partially, finally, saw it for what it had become.
I think it’s less that each gets a little of what they want, and more that people truly put their heads together, talk about their mutual goals for a livable society, and decide how best to get us there. Discuss, cooperate and compromise on ideas, but not basic principles. The basic principles of decency and equality under the law are not one-side-or-the-other. They’re bedrock.
The Right and the Left need to find ways that both sides can live with, and have a plan to create the society we all hope to achieve.
I do NOT think people on the Right and the Left disagree on clean air, clean water, and a fair economy that allows a reasonable accrual of wealth but does NOT create a permanent underclass of inadequately-compensated labor. We want a society that takes good care of our infrastructure {roads, bridges, water, fire and safety services, etc.} for the good of ALL of us, not just people who can buy those things for themselves {you know, there WAS a proposal around in the past twenty or thirty years to put ALL OUR HIGHWAYS into private hands to maintain them, and we’d all pay private companies tolls to drive on every one of them —no, really, look it up! That’s not a Right or Left idea — it’s an Oligarchy Rules type of thing … Egad!}.
I don’t particularly want Kamala and Walz to claim to be Progressive Left or Moderate or Centrist, none of that.
Let them tell us what they propose, and that they are on the side of ALL of us, on all “sides,” and we should vote for them. Because the Heritage Soc guys are on the side of getting us back to the Gilded Age when those oligarchs ruled.
The problem with 'compromise' is that Democrats believe the definition of that word is to give a little, and take a little. Republicans, on the other hand, have defined the term this way: Democrats admit that the Republicans are right, and the Democrats are wrong, on policies and legislation. If memory serves me correctly, I believe that Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham spoke similar words.
The question: Which definition of 'compromise' do you accept?
Not to mention the new version of M-Pox now emerging in Africa, and fast. One new case has already been found in Sweden this week. It has had up to a 10% death rate, though slightly lower recently. Covid 19 by comparison was .33% %. If this goes world wide and our new president and new congress don't get their act together, and fast, Covid 19 will look like a walk in the park. Considering how DT acted on Covid 19 I wouldn't trust him to help fix an ingrown toenail. Let's hope Kamala and a totally DEM congress will move fast on this potential disaster. The health official who was on NPR yesterday said that 10-15 million shot are needed in Congo, Africa now to help get this under control. The company that makes the vaccine, in Europe, has about 250,000 shots in storage and could make up to 1 million by more by the end of the year. Time to get started.
Michael, I didn’t know she was being asked to do that. But the fact that she picked Walz tells me she knows exactly which direction she wants to pull. Going centrist is exactly why Democrats turn off so many in their base. It’s an old ineffective idea.
Trump is already calling her a communist and a socialist, and a Marxist and goodness only knows what else (and only because Donnie knows "communism et al." are "trigger" words for the spittle-spewing MAGAs) although I very much doubt Donnie really knows the difference in meaning of any of those words
I don't get it with the "communists " There aren't any, not in "Communist" China or Korea or Russia. There aren't any Communists any more than there's a furry monster under the bed or a boogeyman in the closet. When my grandma fled the Pale there were Communists. 40 years later when HUAC tried to find them in the government all they could come up with were campus debating clubs. Even the IWW was defunct except as folklore. Read my lips: There are no Communists. But there are rich guys who want to take your money.
no there aren't any real communists in government nor are there any actual socialists in government. They are words used to scare people who have been conditioned to think Communist=left=BAD (same with those other two words--the Righties don't really think there are any; they use them to scare the uninformed into voting against their own best interests).
Ignorance is not bliss, unless you are a billionaire who gets a "break" that is not needed, because the taxpayers are not pushing back against being robbed.
T L, I think of the MAGAs and other orange man loving republicans like the poor German rubes who listened to Hitler back then and believed what he said. Friends and neighbors overnight were turning each other in, I suppose, to gain favor with the Fuhrer! They are the crowds that cheered while Hitler and his brown shirts rounded up Jews and disabled. What they didn't realize was they would be tarred with the same brush when the war ended. Globally, they were treated as enemies. I don't think a lot of these cult followers and republicans realize the orange stain they are yelling for is no better than Hitler was. It is a shame really. As far as being labeled a communist and a socialist, I believe most Democrats let that slide off their backs like water off a duck's back! They've been calling us that for years. If those are the only words to describe wanting equality for all, rights and freedoms for all and the government to stay out of our bedrooms and doctor's offices then that is okay. Let them call us whatever assuages their feelings of discomfort knowing they are backing a complete do-lolly! Vote blue, America!
We Dems have never minded the silly name-calling of the right wingers...but right wing pols regularly use those words to scare their voters. It's an unfortunate legacy from the 50's when McCarthy's Red scare was used to terrorize ordinary people.
That's true, T L, but it isn't the 50s anymore. When I talk to people about voting I do ask if they are tired of being scared, possibly threatened, intimidated. Many say yes, some say they are not, but for me, it is important to stress our government and our country should not be terrorized into voting for someone. It is our right to vote for who we choose to vote for and once those curtains close, vote your conscience. Vote Blue, America!
Our “war on terror” and the creation of Guantanamo, with NO due process, allowed that same bit to happen again — in the Middle Eastern countries where we conducted our sweeps, people turned in neighbors to settle grudges, or they got rid of economic rivals to get their hands on property, or whatever — and many who were jailed had no evidence against them other than some jamoke’s statement.
Donnie’s very best Oligarch Friends in the world are three top so-called communists … Xi, Kim, and Vladimir. Though we all know they are no different from Donnie’s other heroes, Hitler and Mussolini, who were fascists. Demagogues are demagogues are demogogues, and dictators are dictators are dictators.
Trumpy doesn't really know much at all, intellectually, he about as smart as a box of rocks. (I know, I'm being insulting to rocks) His fount of "knowledge"--such as it is--is slowly dwindling as he loses more and more brain cells to whatever sort of dementia is creeping up behind him.
I'm going to take a contrary position, and probably a lot of heat for it. I'm a firm believer that in order to be a "President of ALL Americans," it requires a president to give the minority what it wants in some reasonable proportion. Majority is defined as >=50% plus one; Minority is defined as <=50% minus one. A "President of ALL Americans" cannot ignore the needs or desires of up to half of their constituents, and none of us can presume that just because we may be in the majority, we know what's best for everyone.
I also firmly believe that compromise is not a four letter word. The greater good, indeed the common good, depends on compromise to make progress. We need ultra-liberals, ultra-conservatives, liberals, conservatives, and yes, centrists, in legislative positions. But I believe that the president needs to be where the average American is, which as I understand it, is slightly left of center.
In a piece I wrote on the subject (https://open.substack.com/pub/bobmorgan/p/everything-in-moderation), I've likened this to the swing of a pendulum, where the swings of the party in control of the Executive branch over the past several decades have resulted in wild swings to the left and right (culminating in Felonious Trump's wrecking ball). We can't make progress if each successive party change at the top undoes all the good of the prior presidency. President Biden damped the pendulum swing considerably. I'm not suggesting that a President Harris needs to damp it much further, but swinging far to the left will only serve to energize the right, making it more likely that they'll stick to their guns and rename Project 2025 "Project 2029." And it will alienate independent voters, who tend to be moderates.
All that being said, if we are to be successful in the next presidential term, we need a resounding defeat of the Republican Party in November, up and down the ballot. Only then, will Republicans realize that they cannot force their minority will on the rest of us, and they'll try to meet us in the middle.
"Swinging far to the left will only serve to energize the right, making it more likely that they'll stick to their guns and rename Project 2025 Project 2029. And it will alienate independent voters, who tend to be moderates.
All that being said, if we are to be successful in the next presidential term, we need a resounding defeat of the Republican Party."
A few points here.
1) "Swinging to the left" is not what Harris is doing. She's swinging to the center of gravity of American opinion (the 70%). This IS the actual middle that you speak of.
2) Therefore it will not alienate the "independent" voters , rather it will energize them, as she has already shown.
3) Yes, the Republicans will come out swinging. Let 'em come.
4) If we are to defeat the Republican Party, once and for all, there is no better time to do it, and it will be done when Harris continues through November to advocate liberal policies.
Why, she just might take West Virginia (Sanders was very popular down there).
This is where the rubber meets the road. We who agree with your point want Liz Warren to chair the Senate Finance committee, Katie Porter to be on the COEA or in the cabinet, retain Lina Khan, and for a Democratic administration to do the opposite of what Obama (arguably of necessity) did in advancing Wall Street over Main St. But the reality that big donors wield outsized influence on both parties remains. If Democrats can legislate like their rhetoric suggests, by dealing with voter suppression, partisan gerrymandering, and actually put a dent in wealth inequality, we may see a sustained period of Democratic electoral dominance.
BRAVO, Michael! Correct, a thousand times! This whole idea that progressivism = communism = bad for the country is nonsense, but even many "centrist" Dems buy into it. Meanwhile, progressive concepts here are mainstream in much of the rest of the world, especially Europe.
I agree with you, GrrlScientist. All that the MAGA and orange man bring is fear and a vision for the future that is a dystopian nightmare! That is why I am so glad Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are our Democratic candidates! They are showing the American people they can have joy, happiness, security and a government that actually operates! I love their optimism and enthusiastic campaign! It gives new hope to all of us that we don't have to face an authoritarian regime and dictator in this country. Vote blue, America!!!
I collect social security and it has pissed me off that I need to pay taxes on it. It isn’t till I read deep into the Professor’s newsletter that I am convinced I need to accept it, though to be honest I am not completely convinced that the answer isn’t me paying taxes on my very small amount and not the wealthy paying for everyone.
But the main point of my writing is to ask that the Professor not begin by first putting out Donald’s tempting message and then explaining why it is a sneaky trick. If I hadn’t read the whole piece, as I often don’t, I’d miss the lesson and have on top of mind that Donald wants to save me taxes, something I didn’t know he was proposing.
So I suggest a headline like “the fox in the hen house’s trick to destroy Social Security” without repeating the falsehood. The trick with lies is that they work if repeated often enough.
If I remember correctly the government, under republicans, took, stole trillions from the Social Security Trust Fund to fund wars like the Iraq war and never paid it back.
I do not pay taxes on mine. I have what I need, and I probably will need to pay taxes on overall income when distributions start from my retirement savings next year at age 73. I retired with a decent salary as an IT professional, but years ago I was briefly on welfare as a divorced single mom (early 70s). I was able to earn a degree during that time and support myself and children later (needed a better education in choosing a spouse!). I am okay with paying taxes later, because to me it's not only paying back, but it's also paying to the greater good. So far, federal income tax rates seem to start at a relatively high income, and Illinois, the state I live in, does not tax Social Security at all. If yours does, shame on them!
Me too, GrrlScientist. The chaotic issues swirling around us now are making me dizzy and nauseous. Republicans are toxic. Period. They must be defeated in November and I mean in every state. With all the $$$ they’ve raised, they must take out consecutive full page ads in the media and online with bullet point lists of all the ways the Republican Party is trying to destroy us and our country. If it were legal to do, so, I would love to see every Trumper Indicted for treason and locked up While undergoing forced de-programming. Trumpism to me is a kind of prion disease that is eating American minds relentlessly.
Marjory trailer queen! 🤣😂 Superb and apropos. I once saw her trip a journalist walking ahead of her. Such a juvenile slut hellion.
But more importantly, I hope it is a democratic sweep. Even so, do you really think it’s possible for us little people to be treated fairly? It would be such a better life for us if the broligarchs paid their share.
Our system is rigged by corporate constitutional rights and money as speech corruption. Your fears are justifiable. The thugs and bullies and puppets posing as political leaders will only get worse if we fail to unrig our system.
Thankfully we have the right constitutional amendment that will restore our Constitution back to us, and require that money in politics be regulated. HJR54, the We the People Amendment is exactly what the times demand!
It is being advanced by the UC postdoctoral union academics, UAW 5810, the Alameda Labor Council,AFL-CIO, Teamster70, the California Democratic Party, and over 1000 organizations that are working for social and environmental justice, democracy and a better world.
And demand that your favorite candidates for public office have signed on before you donate a penny to their campaigns. Have them sign on at movetoamend.org/pledge
This is the only long term fix, and it is the movement of We the People. Please help grow it, before it’s too late. Let’s see this happen in our lifetimes so that we will know that children can have a future.
In my former career as a postsecondary education executive, around mid-year, I would notice a significant bump in the net on my paycheck. In the moment, I would think, “Wow, did I get a surprise bonus or raise?” Then, I would remember that I had maxed out my social security contributions. Although, I enjoyed the higher net paycheck over the rest of the year, it irritated me that most of the faculty and staff paid full Social Security taxes right through their December 31st paycheck. Only in America do we have insane economic policy that favor only 20% of voters. Why don’t the 80% being screwed vote for candidates who would repeal the SS income cap? I just don’t get why so many Americans vote in favor of the wealthy before themselves.
As a family doc I remember the same phenomenon. Now, retired with comfortable savings, I can delay claiming my social security to maximize benefits. I certainly can afford to pay taxes on those benefits when I claim them, unlike my former patients who often couldn't afford their meds. (kudos to the Biden administration for negotiating med prices) Perhaps no taxes on SS for incomes below some reasonable amount.
That depends on whether the Rs have tanked the economy three or four times or more over your work life and your 401k takes a $50k+ hit each time as a result. And, if your spouse worked, one of you will take a big hit on their SS accordingly because there is a cap on how much couples can receive. If one of you receives the full amount possible, the other will get a big cut. You both can’t each get the full amount possible. It’s a big shock when you suddenly realize that. Meanwhile, your retirement still takes a hit when Rs tank the economy. Good luck with that.
People are so confused about Social Security and many literally terrified that the check won’t come, especially older women who have nothing else. They long ago lost spouses and age and infirmity prevent work. Yet these fools like Musk and Trump and Vance would steal the food, meds, and utility services away from even their mawmas! My grandmother was one of these. She was forced to move to our big city where my mother and the grandkids cared for her. My grandfather’s steel mill pension ended when he passed. Women were always expected back then, just like JD Vance’s dream, to work only at home. She did this. Then because if the mill closings, the paltry residual pension for spouses was ended. This is not fairness. This is greed…even worse love of money by the few.
We have to right this American battleship and SCRAP THE (red) CAP. Vote blue 🌊 🧢 🌊!
I saw that bump in April or so. It was nice, but I felt bad about it. I knew those not so lucky or gifted were still paying the SS tax while I, who was frugal and careful, no longer did. I could afford to. And the rethugs were always rejoicing it would run out of money.
Voters voting against their interests? Nothing new there. Why? Big money in order to protect their interest have the means to appeal to the masses' lowest instincts, i.e. fear and hatred, which works like a charm. That is why the majority do not get what the polls indicate that the majority are in favor of. We have a political system that is completely corrupted by money.
Because in their mind, they will one day benefit from that policy. Dreaming, reaching for the stars and working hard to climb the ladder are all good things, but there’s been a shift to get rich quick career planning and many “kids” (including the 20- and 30-somethings) today are floundering, faltering and failing in these unrealistic goals. Soaring rates of depression, dissatisfaction, violence, drug abuse, poor relationships, etc. are the evidence.
You know in Australia everyone pays 10% of their income into an investment account that is just for their retirement. I would go for that if my money went into an index fund that included the total stock market. My family survived on SSA survivor benefits when I was a child. It was slim pickens. Our SSA did not provide medicare for any of us. We were as poor as church mice on SSA but it did keep us from starving....barely.
This is not Norway so that will never happen. I say that sadly. The public should get ready to be *******. If able you must save and invest on your own.
Maybe the US cannot only dramatically extend the life of the social security trust, but model Australia and drop the tax from its current 15.3%, which is split between the employer and employee (meaning self-employed pay the entire 15.3%). Actually the way American lobbying-driven politics work, if we convinced corporations that their 7.65% contribution per employee would be lowered in exchange for removing the wealth cap, they might just buy-in and support it. Maybe.
They've been well trained. The Republicans have cornered the pulpit as well as the support of the majority of the top 20%. So they're taught to follow blindly and vote against their own best iterests.
Elon Musk pays into Social Security only one day on January 1st. I paid into Social Security everyday of the year my entire working career as I’m sure most average working Americans have! Like you said Professor Reich, our government has to “scrap the cap”.
Same here. Every few years the cap was raised but my income was always lower than the cap for all of my 55 years of working. I was also raising my 2 sons with no financial help from their father.
Keith, I’d love to see it start at $30k then all the way up. But everyone will be eligible. And then, for anyone hitting $1M per year, a 95% tax for anything over that up to $5M/yr. After that tax rate = 99.9%
Years ago, I took a class in political science from a professor who held a doctorate degree in the discipline. The name I knew belonged to a man known to many as Dr. Spanhour. This guy had evidence concerning various nefarious activities our government had been involved in. One interesting tid bit involved President Reagan and President Bush. These two Republican leaders had budgets they personally knew would never be passed by congress. So, they submitted budgets they knew would be passed, and any monies needed past what was supplied by congress were taken from the coffers of the Social Security System. These two Republican Presidents were responsible for over 3 trillion dollars in unlawful deductions from the future of a system intended to help our retirees. I had trouble believing this, but the good Doctor had copies obtained through the "Freedom of information act" which showed in black and white each and every deduction these men made. Our Society System was crippled by their criminal actions. If what I was shown was real.
Donald, I have heard that as well. I did a little research and according to some of the things I read, your professor was spot on. They claimed to have "borrowed" it; however, I have not found anything to suggest the monies they "borrowed" was ever returned to the Social Security coffers! Totally disgusting!
I remember hearing that during and after the Reagan years. He and Nixon did serious damage to our country and still they are revered by some. I also heard, that after Stalin there were Russians who lamented his leaving. Go figure?
Propaganda works. Stalin, Hitler, Mao controlled people's minds by means of propaganda and censorship. Some churches act as propaganda machines, and Fox News is another one.
It's a two way street. Propaganda works because many are susceptible and participate either consciously or unconsciously with the message. We seem good at producing people who don't think well, who are afraid, and who seem to seek out a "parent" figure to take care of them. We are good at ensuring that people don't develop the ability of thinking critically. It's an interaction, so it would behoove us to put more effort into improving the educational system to help people learn to think. And it would also be important to focus on improving parenting, since authoritarian parenting styles can create adults who can't think for themselves.
Unbelievable, right? How do we create so many humans who seemingly have no compassion for anyone who is different, especially those in the groups that are often scapegoated. Too many primitive people who don't think, but just react from fear.
Perhaps, but why can some of us, even if we feel fear and anger, step back from those initial reactions and process more fully before reacting. These skills a lot of us can learn, but we seem to insist on not teaching them, so that people remain more vulnerable to manipulation. It's a two way street. I hold those who allow themselves to be led, somewhat responsible as well. We can't just blame the system, or the propaganda machine for it all. Just as after WWII, when many of those who stood by or benefitted from Jewish people being taken from their homes, when asked they clearly knew they'd been in the wrong at the time. So there is some awareness in some of us, that we are agreeing to be led.
Sorry but you would be wrong as usual. The Dems have had a “Christian Problem” for decades. Even before the left made this the new boogeyman to scare the little leftist.
Wrong as usual huh? The right wingers are always so CaRiNg and DiPlOmAtIc. Just like Jesus. He would always speak to poor folks like that, right? Not. Enjoy your fake Christian face as it is clearly not in your soul.
Yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote about Frances Perkins. Her letter described what she went through to get Social Security off the desk and into the lives of millions. Those who think that the program can be done away with need to be done away with (not literally) just getting them pay a fair share to keep the program going. If two-hundred fifty thousand and subjecting investment income can keep it going for seventy-five years, then that is what needs to be done. I got my first SS check two years ago when I retired. The amount is less than one thousand a month, but I consider that the best use of my SS-taxed income for the years I did pay in. Anyone not supporting paying into social security, damaging it, or destroying it is essentially un-American and should be subject to fines and criminal tax offences. The thought of twenty-six million people being stripped of SS and thrown into a poverty abyss will lead to millions of people getting angry and desperate. Desperate people sometimes do desperate things, unfortunately, because they are hopeless. Vote Harris/Gatz in November and vote for every Democrat on the ballot for your state. Shame on any politician or person who does not support Social Security. It’s absurd. Nice weekend to all.
This is so obvious it is no wonder that Republicans and the wealthy are opposed. Why should the federal government be allowed to do something good? After all, government is the problem right? If you want to destroy the economy, don't fix Social Security, then blame the government for poverty. I listened to a wise podcast yesterday that would probably turn off a lot of readers even of this Substack, yet his central point was simple and elegant in relation to politics: eliminate all corporate financing of political campaigns, directly and indirectly through PACs. The reason we have not solved the Social Security problem starts with wealthy and corporate campaign donors. Eliminate that source of funding, the Social Security fix Robert Reich proposes would pass immediately.
I agree. And I would add to straightforward cash limit campaign spending (as other countries do) and shorten the election campaigning to a maximum of, say, 9 months to reduce the funding required.
(If 9months is enough to make a baby, then surely it is enough time for a competent politician to tell people what she or he stands for!)
Agreed on time limit for campaigns. I would say 6 months is enough for president, and 3 months for congress and senate. Without continuous campaigning, maybe they could actually work to get things done.
Really as soon as they are elected the first thing they do is set up a re-election committee … the time spent on campaigning is our time ..we pay them to work for us ..not to perpetually be running for re-election . Is it any friggen wonder why nothing is ever accomplished in politics ? No one’s doing the job we elected them to do ! If I worked at my carpentry trade at the pace the politicians work at their phony baloney jobs…all of my customers would be living in tents ⛺️! 😴😡🤬
Elections and campaigning has become an industry and goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Cable TV, ad agencies, PACs, lobbyists, etc. don’t want to let it go. As soon as a person is elected speculations starts about reelection plans. Other civilized countries put a limit on length of campaigning. If Kamala Harris can win in 3 months, that should be a good limit on campaigning.
It seems to me that American politicians think they need to pander to everyone else's whims. The news channels are fickle and untrustworthy simply because they are just corporations whose sole raison d'être is profit. If Trump's antics mean more profit, they support Trump. If Harris/Walz is stirring things up, they're on the news channels 24/7.
Many people have expressed anger that the news channels are still reporting Trump, and still see that in conspiracy terms. I have no doubt there is some truth in that because their owners are all right wing Republicans, but ultimately they will report and reflect what is actually happening.
I think the Dems have worked that out, which is why Kamala is not giving interviews. She knows that all they want to do is create controversy and anger, and that isn't needed because ultimately they have to report what she's up to, not least because they have no other news from her! And she and Walz are way past the point that they can be ignored!
Personally I'd suggest they become more controversial. I think they should make speeches defending socialism, and quote some of the benefits that ordinary people in more socialist countries enjoy. Even those countries that are supposed to be poorer than America!
It would be hard for the mainstream press to ignore such a controversial subject (it would obviously be reported negatively) but it would also be impossible to ignore the groundswell of approval from most ordinary families who would LOVE to enjoy more social protections and benefits.
Neo Serfdom Wayne Teel. We are a human resource. A resource is something (like coal,oil and iron ore) that is consumed in production that will bring a profit to investors.
Consumed,used up and when we are no longer productive, we lose our utility, and are to be disposed of, which they would,if they could, but they can hasten our demise by reducing our life span, and thus eliminate the "drain on the system".
As former rep Grayson said, The Republican health care plan is "Don't get sick, but if you do, hurry up and die."
My wife and I are retired, and live comfortably, but in their eyes we are useless eaters and a drain on the system.
What you say is, to me, indicative of the most fundamental question of modern society, which is this:
Does society exist to serve corporations? Or do corporation exist to serve society?
Here in France the answer is clear - corporations exist to serve society. All of it. So corporations are regulated, monitored, controlled, taxed and directed to policies and actions that benefit society. The most essential corporations, such as national energy, or national transportation, may be wholly or partly government owned, or in direct government control, or have their profits capped, but they also benefit from massive government investment. The profits from taxes on these corporations fund a comprehensive social protection system from cradle to grave, so comprehensive and effective that many Americans wouldn't be able to believe it all. And yet those corporations, taxed and regulated, still seem to do as well here in Europe as they do in America - isn't that strange?
America seems to have the opposite policy - people exist to serve private corporations. So people may have roles for those corporations as employees or management, or customers, or investors. But if they are none of those things, then those people are useless to the corporations and so considered (such as by Republicans) useless to society. That includes retired people, children, poor people, unemployed or low-skilled people, sick people, etc, etc..... They are a 'cost', or worse, parasitic. It is a very dangerous viewpoint.
In my view the Democratic Party needs to be much more clear about explaining this fundamental difference, and put themselves forward as 'The People's Party', representing ALL the people against exploitation by the corporations and their rich owners and investors, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians. It is, after all, the fundamental difference, the clear blue water, between Dems and Reps.
In a majority democratic voting system, I believe if the Democratic Party could make that difference more mainstream, then the majority of voters would vote for more socialist policies and against the blind protection of corporation's interests.
In short, vote Democratic Party and against the Republican Party.
The difference betweenAmerica and France is that in 1776 the ruling elite of America (Northern Merchants and souhern planters) banded together, to establish self governance, not to overthrow the existing order. We weren't Americans we were British, the British government and Royalty continued to exist.
The ruling elite were victorious. In France the ruling elite lost their heads, literally.
As a result the French government is hyper vigilant about the mood of the people.
They got a reminder in the wake of WWII, and the reconquest of France, when the people exacted vengeance on those who collaborated with the enemy.
America has always been ruled by the elite, the wealthy merchants, the southern planters
The American government was designed to serve the ruling class, which today are billionaires which own and control (and hide behind) corporations as majority individual shareholders.
The political system of France consists of an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. Executive power is exercised by the president of the republic and the Government. The Government consists of the prime minister and ministers. The prime minister is appointed by the president, and is responsible to Parliament. The government, including the prime minister, can be revoked by the National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament, through a motion of no-confidence; this ensures that the prime minister is practically always supported by a majority in the lower house (which, on most topics, has prominence over the upper house).
In France the lower house, the people, have real power, in America the real power is in the executive. The House of Representatives, puts together laws and a budget, which has to be approved by the ruling class, (Senate) and signed then executed b the President.
The President can only be removed by a convoluted process, initiated by the House of Representatives, then approved by the ruling class, the Senate
In France the government is answerable to the people, in America it is answerable to the ruling class (financial elite).
Please resist from reading anything into my comment.
I merely stated the facts, the case, as I would to a jury. The reader can make of it what they wish.
Personal opinion, it is an uphill battle, a Sisyphusian struggle.
We do live in a top down society, and led to believe because we have a say in who we think is at the top, that it is a bottom up society.
Such a society (top down) only remediates itself, fails, when those at the top bring about their own demise.
A microcosm, an example of a top down society, are corporations. The seem to exist in perpetuity, little Empires like Standard oil, which has gone through permuations and name changes like SOHIO, Esso, Exxon., in time Exxon will implode.
A better example of top down corporations which have failed is ENRON.
Self destructed, it was.
Corporations are nothing more than a collective of humans, who have banded together to achieve a goal, in their case wealth by maximizing profits.via any means.
People have a tendency to repeat that which is successful. Fiction writers have a script, and change the names, places. times and events. There is always an arc.
Some singers and song writers follow a successful pattern, like Barry Manilow, it gets to the point where when you can recognize a song's composer by it's style.
Such people don't change, they can't change and over time their style, their behavior, become obsolete, dysfuncional and down right inimical and contrary to their own best interests and they become the author of their own destruction.
Hitler for instance, was successful in building an empire, until he wasn't, you see examples in the world of sports.
B F Skinner conducted experiments on rats, he found that when the discovered that if they pressed a lever they got a reward, so continued to press the lever to gt the reward, but after three tries and no reward, they gave up and stopped the behavior.
Humans are more stupid than rats. Walk into any casino and you will see proof.,
In the21st Century, we have skinner rats, pulling levers,that provide a reward at one tend, but dump life threatening pollutants and policies at the other end.
They are in effect committing slow suicide, killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but also making the environment which sustains their life, inhospitable to mammalian life. And they know it, but they can't stop,because the only thing that matters is today.
They are sharks. Sharks cannot breathe, they oxygenate by swimming which forces water through their gills. If they stop swimming they suffocate.
The US Supreme Court 2010 Citizens United opened the floodgates of corruption in politics and continuous exponentially increased dark money from undisclosed donors. It has been a longtime pattern of practice of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of wealthy powerful corporations furthering disadvantages of individuals (we the People). We have to end the crisis and damage to the lives of the American people. Impeach and remove blatant corrupt SCOTUS unethical untrustworthy justices and, the recent most outrageous and dangerous rulings directly due to corrupt justices unfit to serve should be reversed to protect our democracy. I agree with the comments about how Democrats should demonstrate the bold, clear positive policies and Vote Blue to elect President Harris and Vice President Walz of the United States of America and for our future that includes all people.
Consider this Bob, Trump recently stated that he wants to repeal Reagan's tax on social security (This was pointed out to me by an adamant female Trumpbaglican). My reply to her was that was only because he actually intends to defund, discontinue, and then END the Social Security program. He intends to steal that money, and funnel it to himself and his fellow billionaires, leaving a hundred million elderly retirees to die in the street. If he regains the presidency, my life, and the life of my wife, is forfeit...
Funny how you leftist say “can’t put cat ears on and claim to be a cat”, but a man can wack of his penis and claim to be a woman. I come into leftist site to bring light to the darkened minds. Most of the time it never works but I feel it is my mission.
Also I understand as you are old that your mind is going and that is why your vocabulary is slipping. Vulgar language is a sign of a weak mind. But as a leftist it is hard to know if it is age or just being a leftist
You just love being swatted around don't you, Into S&M much, you are too much of a masochist you phuckwit., hard headed too, you are a fucking neanderthal stuck in some past where you think that leftist is a slur, you really are a dumbshit.
Not very many. Every time I call them a leftist they go nuts. So I guess just the ones who are insane like you are proud of it. But you’re old and as Biden had taught us your age makes you stupid.
Also you have not made one constructive comment in the last 52. I won’t hold my breath that you will have one soon
I could care less what THEY do or don't do, I and the people I know aren't they.
I could care less making any constructive comments to you, you are a fucking waste of time and sperm.
I am however having fun swatting your around, if you were a serious conversant it would be different but your only purpose here is to get a cheap orgams, by baiting leftists.
Take your tube of KY jelly and your superman cape and go play with yourself in the bathroom,
You are not welcome here. Nor are any right wing trolls. Until Robert asks me to stop I will make your presence on this substack miserable.
Again grab your KY jelly and get your jollies elsewheres.
I agree, William. That same thought crosses my mind a lot. I would have thought he would succumb to a heart related end at any time. I had a brother-in-law that dropped stone cold dead from eating that garbage in his early 50's. He was born in the same year as i was.
I don't wonder about Trump being on drugs, he is way to animated, I just want to know which drugs, Ritalin for sure. Remember that bag of Cocaine they found in the West Wing, probably Trump and Meadows stash.
Same here, Jacko. The entire planet Earth would be so much better off if that bloated, bellowing piece of crap DJT was gone for good. He is like the most virulent fast growing cancer in medical history.
Do not despair, James! Democrats are hard at work getting independents, republicans and unregistered voters to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Once they are elected and we have a blue House and Senate, they will make sure our Social Security and Medicare are protected from thieves like the orange man! Vote blue, America!!
Any Republican and Independent that voted for Harris are as stupid as she is and deserves the destruction of the country she would bring. But unfortunately the rest of us would have to endure it as well.
Victor... if you think the GOP "privatization" plan isn't stealing then wait until the GOP gives the entire trust fund to the con-men on Wall Street for "investment". We can be sure those dudes already have a plan in place to promise us how much more money they can make for the fund while they "invest" the $$$ in bogus stocks and bonds of their invention. Within a couple of years ALL of the trust fund money will be in their bank accounts. They will say "Sorry we just made some bad investments" or "misread the markets". It will happen so fast no one or no government agency will be able to stop it because it will all be "legal"! I don't know about you but I paid into SS for 50 years and still do for any part time after retirement work I do. By the way, once you start to draw your SS any new work you do has SS withdrawn and it will not increase YOUR benefits. That's fine with me. At least now that money will go into the trust fund for someone else, not the pockets Wall Street thieves. Everyone can bad mouth, bitch and complain about the DEMs all you want, but I'm pretty sure we can count on them to NEVER give one dime of our SS Trust Fund to the con-men and grifters (someone who swindles people out of money through fraud) on Wall Street.
Gary, your concerns are valid, but I give the benefit of the doubt to at least some of those advocating privatizing SS. They may be sincere but over-optimistic. Stocks did very well over the past four decades, and, according to some, over the past century. So, what could possibly go wrong? A lot, of course.
Privatizing SS is the best thing for it. But the left would never allow that as it takes it out of the government’s control and puts it into the people’s hands.
One of the main features of any true democracy is that the majority view controls what policies the government will implement on their behalf. As an European it seems odd that the vast majority on Americans want better social care, including proper healthcare, pensions, childcare unemployment benefits, etc., and yet the Democratic Party seems scared to come out and properly discuss these obviously popular policies, seemingly for fear of being labelled 'socialist'!
Isn't it time the Dems came out and 'owned' the labels like socialist and democratic, and defused the knee-jerk name-calling by Republicans?
If the Dems do this, (and surely Harris and Walz are exactly the people who can do this!) then they can openly talk about all the benefits that can happen for everyone else if all the rich people are made to pay their fair share into the social security system. The Dems can quote real numbers; how much tax is 'missing' from a fair system, and exactly what extra benefits that would buy for ordinary families. I think it would be a very powerful argument.
November 5th is the one moment in the election cycle when the demands of the majority can exceed and overcome the influence of the rich minority. The Dems can ignore the Republican bleats of indignation because the forthcoming election will be decided by a majority vote, and the numbers of those wanting more social security vastly exceed those votes of rich tax-dodgers.
Now is surely the moment for the, '10%? Pay Your Fair Share!' movement!
The Dems labor under the same threat imposed by the NIH Roberts Extreme Coirt since Citizens United . Money influences advertising ability, and advertising influences the ignorant. Or maybe gets out new info to those receptive.
They have to mollify the billionaires, who shouldn't exist.
Like I keep saying, do you want to live in a country run for the benefit of the people? All the people?
Or do you want to live in a country that is run for the corporations and their rich owners and investors? Because then your 'value' to that country and government is only as an employee, a company director, an investor or a customer. If you aren't one of those things, like retired, or poor, or ill, or unemployed, or children, then you have no value to corporate America and you are classed as an expensive social and economic parasite.
But I'll let you into a secret - American healthcare is up to TEN TIMES the cost per patient that in countries with comprehensive healthcare systems.
That American education is up to hundreds of times more expensive than many countries in Europe - here in semi-socialist France a university degree course fees are $500 a year!
That American property taxes are a hundred times taxes in Europe - my previous 4,000sq ft medieval townhouse in Provence cost under $200 A YEAR, including the water supply!
Etc, etc, etc......
Of course if you think 'socialist' is the cursed work of the devil, then keep hold of your fears and reject all those examples. I don't care, I'm in a socialist country, enjoying all the services I can tap into for free.
We pay taxes. You pay taxes. Our seemingly higher taxes with our free or cheap social benefits, are actually cheaper than your taxes plus the jacked-up cost of your private healthcare system, let alone all the other jacked up costs you have to pay private companies for, that we get for free.
if you do a comparison, accountancy websites will tell you that once all the costs are added up, the average middle income family will have more disposable income living in France than in America, and even more so with kids.
A big difference is our system also taxes rich people and corporations, so that income supports all the things you guys say you can't afford.
The strange thing is how many very rich people, who could choose to live anywhere in the World, still live in France and seem content to pay their fair share of taxes, just because this is considered one of the best places in the world to live.
After all, money isn't an end in itself, is it. It's just one way of making some aspects of your life better.
Looking at all these "common sense fixes" that are consistently being thwarted by Republican politicians, one has to wonder why common sense doesn't negate their existence.
If someone makes 10,000 the pay a percentage into SS. If someone make 160k they make a proportional payment. At 170k their payment is capped...why? It doesn't make financial, mathematical, or proportional sense. Why not 200k or 2MMM?
Lets get back to common sense legislation. Own up to our individual responsibility to support the country and its needs. It is in our own best interest, rich or poor.
Robert, thank you for your advice, but I don't see why Social Security benefits must be taxed. Salaries must be taxed to help pay for Social Security; but we shouldn't get lower benefits because of the taxes on the benefits themselves.
It's evil. They are awful people. Baiting fellow Americans with a promise of no taxes on SS when really it's a poison pill, that will kill Americans, is just evil. It screams contempt and zero concern for their fellow Americans and serious sociopathy in anyone involved in baiting their fellow Americans.
Thank you for explaining everything so well, Robert Sir. Onward we go to expose their promise of no tax as deadly poison bait.
You're right, M Tree. This is another talking point for me when I am out trying to encourage voters. The orange man may fool his MAGA cult into believing his idea is the best in the world and history, but sane people know better and need to spread the word!
Peggy Freeman, right, we feel morally obligated to save America and one another. Crazily, our opponents feel the opposite. We need to expose the contrast that our opponents are trying to cover up.
M Tree... very true. It is time to put the Congressional Retirement Plan into the SS system with the same rules for contributions and retirement age. No more of this bullshit of getting to retire from the Senate or House after 12 years at full salary retirement and full health care starting the day after you leave, no matter your age. They can wait until 67 like the rest of us.
People live longer than they estimated / not really a good model to start but the fix is easy as Robert suggests Apply social security taxes on all income given as the income increases so to the ability to pay does in kind . It is hardly a burden and creates lasting benefits . I’m collecting but continuing to work hard because I can and it is in me to be productive as long as possible because it is in part my identity that I love . I happen to enjoy the services I can provide and all the people I get to meet . I happened to break my femur 18 months ago but it was a minor interruption in my desire to beautify our environment . So we should not encourage retirement but rather modifications to an otherwise sucessful model of productive as each is able
There are people like myself who aren't able to work. I have heart failure and it's a struggle for me to even do yard work which i love to do. There are elderly people who can't even take care of themselves. How are we supposed to be productive?????????? Huh?
I see people who should be enjoying old age with their grandchildren, working as cashiers, greeters and "bagboys" in supermarkets and stocking shelves or working the aisles in Home Depot. It is a tragedy.
Yes, we all see elders working either because it’s the only way to make ends meet, or because they want to. What goes undocumented and underreported however, is the vast volunteer economy that exists, primarily supported by elders as most young families now require 2 income earning adults and have little time to dedicate to community volunteer endeavors. Without the many retired volunteers in our little town, there would be not be much evidence of the rich community and cultural spirit that makes it a wonderful place to live.
I did not imply everyone should work- I’m sorry- those who can might think doing that for their personal benefit. I’m lucky and can and do . It’s well documented being active at older ages helps keep people healthy and in better spirits . Social security is not a complete plan of support for many . Main point was to apply the taxes on incomes up to the sky to help pay for the system. I’m now preparing to take care of my sister 69 years old in the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s. My apologies that I may have suggested you and others in similar states to continue working . I’m very lucky and can do so
My mom, the wisest woman I know, told me that I would be okay when I got old because I would have Social Security and retirement from teaching. Bless her heart, she's gone now and in many ways I am glad she is not alive to see what has happened in our country. She passed before the orange man made his stupid appearance. Had she lived, I can hear her now, " Where on earth did that idiot come from?" As far as her advice about social security and retirement, I just manage to squeak by every month. That's okay because I really don't have a pressing need for a whole lot of money. There are so many other things I enjoy. What does bother me is that there are many seniors who are struggling to eat! That should never be allowed in as great a country as ours! I am voting blue up and down the ballot and will continue to do that until we have eliminated every single MAGA idiot from positions in the government! They have no place there. If everyone would just step back and take a look, you will see that what President Biden started when he entered the White House is beginning to show. Our economy is great, pharmaceutical companies are making deals to lower a lot of prescription prices for drugs that seniors need, repair on roads and bridges are happening all across this country, Lena Kahn is working to bust up monopolistic corporations and Democratic Senators and Representatives are bringing more legislation for votes that will help every single American. Democrats are getting the job done! Vote blue, America!!!
Yes, but I think the biggest proposed change is to subject "investment income over $ 200,000" to FICA tax! Up to now, only "wage income below $ 160K" was taxed. Making the rich pay FICA tax on dividends, capital gains, etc. will save the system more than "scrap the cap" which I support.
Professor Reich: it appears that the consensus that all the pundits are demanding is that the cap on social security is scrapped -- and this can only happen if the november elections are a democratic sweep. are we voters capable of making such big decisions? sometimes, when i look into the screaming face of marjorie trailer queen, lauren boebert and others in the spit-spewing gang of rabid idiots, i despair for americans, for our collective intellect and for our future.
THIS is why Harris shouldn't heed the Democrats urging her to tack to the center. She is already riding high, and will ride even higher if she continues to promulgate ideas that Bernie Sanders would approve of.
That is why we never see the republicans tack out to the left, even a little. they want what they want ; what their donors want. Democrats, in the past have always fallen for the "bipartisan" mirage, which has never panned out well for the voters. any "Democrats " urging Kamala to "Tack to the center" are asking her to water down or weaken the ideas that can improve the lives of millions. They are not working for the Common Good, but maybe for their donors.
You're right. And whenever it doesn't make sense, it's always about the money
Rpbert I take exception to calling the Federal Insurance Contribution Act deduction a tax. FICA is what the name says, Federal insurance, our retirement insurance payment..
The employer makes a matching contribution and the likes of Jamie Dimond and Pete Peterson call that a payroll tax.
These greedy bastards look at the social security trust fund with lust, as they want to privatize it, so they can rake off commissions, and use our FICA contributions to churn the stock market and make themselves even richer, as we tumble down from middle class to serfs.
@ William.
What wage earners who are fully and currently insured have is "social insurance," retirement plus disability for the wage earner and the family, worth on average more than $1M.
After 2033, birth rates of later generations flatten and the funds can be solvent. When the boomers reach peak in 2033, the slope of reductions from the funds (there are 2) will begin to decline as subsequent generation populations are smaller so future outlays beyond that date should be smaller.
I've been writing about this for 35 years. Here's an old ABA article for estate lawyers on how to flatten the curve.
December 01, 2011 FINANCIAL PLANNING
Social Security—Maybe Charity Should Begin at Home
By Daniel F. Solomon
For most of its history, Social Security was a terrific bargain: our parents and grandparents most probably received significantly more benefits than they paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. The trust fund comprises the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds (OASDI, collectively).
In most cases, because our family units could rely on these benefits, they were able to enjoy enough financial independence to send people like us to school so that we could become lawyers—productive and, in some cases, wealthy, members of society. For 75 years, the Social Security Trust Fund has helped enable American soci- ety to achieve far beyond the aspirations of its founders, ultimately providing more than subsistence to retirees by also protecting widows, orphans, and disabled people. The dignity provided to needy beneficiaries surely far outweighs the economic value of the funds.
However, financial experts have long predicted a future insolvency of the funds. A majority of Americans have invested in the funds, recognize their social utility, and do not want to burden their heirs. Although there have been legislative attempts to “fix” the system, there is no consensus how to do it. The Congressional Research Service reported:
For example, for workers who earned average wages and retired in 1980 at age 65, it took 2.8 years to recover the value of the retirement portion of the combined employee and employer shares of their Social Security taxes plus interest. For their counterparts who retired at age 65 in 2002, it will take 16.9 years. For those retiring in 2020, it will take 20.9 years.
Geoffrey Kollmann and Dawn Nuschler, “Social Security Reform” (October 2002).
The National Commission on Social Security Reform (informally known as the “Greenspan Commission” after its chairman) was appointed by the Congress and President Ronald Reagan in 1981 in response to a short-term financing crisis that Social Security faced at that time. Estimates were that the OASI Trust Fund would run out of money possibly as early as August 1983. Congress rendered a compromise that extended the retirement age from 65 to 67, through a deal that raised payroll taxes and trimmed benefits enough to keep Social Security solvent. See Jackie Calmes, “Political Memo: The Bipartisan Panel: Did It Really Work?” New York Times, January 18, 2010. However, the legislation addressed only the immediate problem and did not address the long-term viability of the fund. See also Rudolph G. Penner, “The Greenspan Commission and the Social Security Reforms of 1983,” in Triumphs and Tragedies of the Modern Presidency, David Abshire, Editor. Washington: Center for the Study of the Presidency, pp. 129–31.
The George W. Bush administration commission deliberated on the issue and then called for a transition to a combination of a government-funded program and personal accounts (“individual” or “private accounts”) through partial privatization of the system.
President Barack Obama reportedly strongly opposes privatization or raising the retirement age but supports raising the cap on the payroll tax ($106,800 in 2009) to help fund the program. He has appointed a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which is to report and offer another fix.
Current estimates predict that payroll taxes will only cover 78% of the scheduled payout amounts after 2037. This declines to 75% by 2084. 2010 OASDI Trust- ees Report, Figure II.D2, www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/ trTOC.html.
Although the congressional plan was to ensure solvency through Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) tax, there is a private means to help: to also consider the humanitarian and charitable nature of the Social Security Administration (SSA), which has been possible since a legislative fix in 1972. Before then, bequests naming Social Security or a trust fund as a beneficiary could not be accepted, which caused problems in administration of some estates. Money gifts or bequests may be accepted for deposit by the managing trustee of the OASI and DI funds. Section 170(c)(l) of the Internal Revenue Code lists the U.S. government among the educational or charitable organizations to which donations are acceptable. Gifts must be unconditional, except that the donor may designate to which fund the gift should be donated. If no fund is designated, the gift is credited to the OASI Trust Fund.
However, SSA has not publicized its charitable persona. Although the agency has received some gifts and bequests, they have been insignificant and not given consideration in a possible fix. The concept has been so unimportant to the experts that the Annual Statistical Supplement to the Social Security Bulletin does not specify how much the administration has received in gifts and bequests. Total revenue from gifts to the trust funds has been quite small. From 1974 to 1979 the most received in any one year was $91,949.88. During that period, the average annual amount was only $39,847. In 1980, almost two-thirds of the gifts were less than $100. The median gift size was $50. One person, for example, donated $13.11. She arrived at that amount by applying 5.85% (the employee tax rate then in effect) to her benefit amount and donated it to help “‘shore up’ the sagging, dwindling Social Security fund.” However, the 2010 Social Security Trustees Report lists them as about $98,000 (www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/III_ cyoper.html#2). Compared to many other charities, this is a paltry amount.
Apparently, SSA has never done a feasibility study nor marketing research to determine how an aggressive campaign could raise funds to support Social Security, or how gifts and bequests could reduce the current estimates of impending doom. According to some estimates total deductions taken for all charities next year would be $413.5 billion. Estimates for fiscal year 2011 are that SSA will spend $730 billion. That amount is already covered through “contributions” (taxes), but it is reasonable that charitable contributions to the trust fund could significantly lessen taxpayer exposure for impending doom, if not return the fund to solvency.
As lawyers, we have the capacity to remind our families, our clients, and the public at large that there is a way to contribute to help endow future generations in the pursuit of the same kind of social stability that Social Security provided to our parents and grandparents.
Daniel F. Solomon is an administrative law judge at the U.S. Department of Labor, member of the ABA House of Delegates, past chair of the National Conference of Administrative Judiciary, Judicial Division, president of the Federal Administrative Law Judges Conference, and author of Breaking Up with Cuba (McFarland, 2011). All opinions expressed are those of the author and not any organization or group.
Daniel, thank you for this informative entry. Here is a thought: the offshoring of jobs over the past four decades depressed wages in the US. Stagnant wages led to stagnant contributions to the SS trust. Didn't they? Billionaires were the main beneficiaries of the offshoring. If so, perhaps we should talk about their moral and patriotic responsibility to meliorate the problem they created. We certainly must remind voters that the billionaires in no way deserved the tax cuts they received from Bush and Trump. Your thoughts?
https://www.ssa.gov/agency/donations.html#:~:text=How%20can%20I%20make%20a,you%20are%20giving%20is%20unconditional.
Well, Trump and Republicans killed off about 1.2 million with Covid and saved SS a huge pile of money in the process. Now we are in another surge and it’s probably the elderly who weren’t given booster shots who are dying.
Nice history. And the solution?
I recall Obama creating a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, and I was aghast that he appointed the enemy of Social Secuity, Alan simpson, a Republican, to the commission as Co-Chair, the Simpson Bowles Commission.
It was public knowledge that Alan Simpson wanted to privatize Social Security, yet Obama appointed him (Wall Street donor influence?)
A report was released on December 1,[1] recommending a combination of spending cuts (including an increase in the Social Security retirement age and cuts to military, benefit, and domestic spending) and tax increases (including restricting or eliminating certain tax credits and deductions and increasing the federal gasoline tax).[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Commission_on_Fiscal_Responsibility_and_Reform#:~:text=A%20report%20was%20released%20on,deductions%20and%20increasing%20the%20federal
Not only was Social Security on the line, but also Veteran retirement and benefits.
Reagan stuck it to vets (and most still loved him) by changing computation of retirement, from a percentage of the last years pay (I benefited from that) to averaging of last three. Then he changed computation of COLA from tying it to active duty raises, to tying to the Federal COLA, and unrealistic basket of products, that don't reflect the real cost of living,like food, gas and medicine.
Saved by the bell when the commission fell short of the supermajority of 14 of 18 votes needed to approve the report.[1][15] The eleven voting for it were five Democrats (Bowles, Conrad, Durbin, Rivlin, Spratt) and five Republicans (Coburn, Cote, Crapo, Gregg, Simpson) and one Independent (Fudge); the seven voting against it were four Democrats (Baucus, Becerra, Schakowsky, Stern) and three Republicans (Camp, Hensarling,
AMEN. And privatization is a subject for the full Robert Reich examination. As we face the Project 2025 selling of America it is essential to be informed voters.
Yes the contribution of a share of regular income into the Social Security account is not a tax. But according to what I find when I look it up, many who receive a Social Security benefit every month DO PAY A TAX on that amount. That levy, I think, is the tax that is being bandied about.
Looking it up, it’s reported that people in 2024 living on a measly income of $25,000 for a single person, or $34,000, do pay income tax on some of their Social Security benefit {many, many, many retirees — myself included— don’t have enough added money in a retirement cache to live on Social Security alone, so they continue earning money that is subject to taxes}. And apparently, if you earn too large an added pittance, you tax a portion of your SS benefit as “income,” too.
You're correct, Pat, on all counts, as I can testify.
William, thanks for reminding us that the SS deduction is not a tax and was not meant to be. It is insurance and should be treated that way and when anyone refers to it as a tax, they should be called out and corrected. The media could do a lot to fix this and to let folks know why Musk and his crazies want to bring down SS, and it is not for the good of anyone but themselves because their billions are just not enough for them to live.
Even worse is when it's called an, "entitlement." That REALLY irks me.
The Federalist Sociiety was created to privatize SS and Medicare, among other things (think worker protections).
Exactly. And they do so without a single thought as to the impact on the lives of Americans who just thought they were doing their patriotic duty to work, to contribute to the greatness of their community but also of America. The likes of Jamie Diamond have no soul, no god but greed. Their time will come when their life choices are under the microscope.
Excellent point!!
Laurie, I believe everyone is ready for ideas that can improve the lives of millions! She needs to tell everyone what her plans are so voters can see a vision of a great future voting for her! Vote Blue, America!
Laurie, that "I want what I want when I want it" attitude of Republicans is what makes me call them the Toddler Party. Toddlers can't think past this moment and what they want. That is not an insult to toddlers, but what 3-year-olds should be doing and thinking as they learn to function in the world. When grown men and women hold onto that attitude and think their money and power should let them remain toddlers, and lets them tantrum when they don't get it, then it is a problem and is ugly.
And by the way, that tack turns off youth & people on the left, who think it not worth it to vote for watered down versions of Republican plutocrats. I think Democrats lose more votes & support by tacking to the center or right
It takes a lot of money to win elections--and that is the plain, sad truth why the poor end at the losing end.
But it's also why that hope prevails and when hope prevails anything is possible. Never give up!
Every. Single. Time., Jaime. And they just don't seem to get it. They've effectively muzzled Bernie and The Squad, and now they're in the fight of their lives, when it could have been different.
Jaime : As they Should lose votes and support.
Reagan started taxing SS income.
I know I pay taxes on my SS.
Pretty tacky.
I get tired of all the the left versus center talk. I want someone who will recognize the problems our country faces and take effective action to solve them. What Bernie talks about is very popular with a majority of Americans. When a candidate calls himself/herself a centrist, I envision someone with no principles who just blows with the wind. If Kamala Harris does not come out strongly in favor of policies that will improve the lives of ordinary people, she will lose. Voters do not want a mealy-mouthed "moderate."
The problem is disinformation and who controls the mouthpieces, almost none of which understand the issues and/or are acting out of greed. Why soneone who already has more money than they know what to do with would shudder at the thought of paying their fair share is mind-boggling. It likely says something about how they made the money in the first place.
As others have said, Kamala/Tim should continue to be bold and progressive and run on addressing these issues of wealth inequality. They can/should borrow words from FDR's speeches "I ask you to judge me by the enemies I've made". Biden has taken the same stance, they should continue this tact.
That attitude gets nothing done and is no different than the Rs refusing to cooperate with Dems on everything for years. The majority of Americans want compromise between Rs and D’s where each side gets a few elements they want. We can’t continue in the current stubborn and self-crippling way. It is the main reason over a million Americans died unnecessarily from Covid by refusing to cooperate together to beat the scourge. And here we are facing another wave that is expected to make millions more Americans sick in the next couple months. Once again, one side will refuse to follow guidelines while the elderly and immunocompromised suffer the most.
One sure way to get nothing you want done is to lose the election. I live in Indiana. Over the years I have lived here, it has become overwhelmingly Republican. I attribute that in part to many Democrats running as mealy-mouthed moderates who don't believe in anything. They don't inspire anyone other than hard-core Democrats to vote for them, and they keep losing elections. As a result, we have some terrible policies.
In contrast, my Democratic former state senator [former due to redistricting] flipped a seat in 2018 running on policies that can be considered "liberal." He was not shy about advocating for those policies in the legislature. In the 2021 redistricting, the Republican supermajority in the Indiana General Assembly lopped my neighborhood off his district as "too Democratic" and replaced it with heavily Republican neighborhoods. The intent was clearly to flip it back to Republican. Even though the Republican's campaign made false, defamatory allegations about him, he won again, "liberal" policies and all. He has continued to advocate for those policies.
I think we agree. Look, Bernie Sanders is no socialist, he wants a socioeconomic system similar to that of Denmark (where they actually have billionaires who pay their taxes).
70% of Americans want tighter gun control, universal affordable healthcare of high quality, lower tuition, paid family leave, and above all, they want billionaires and corporations to pay their f****** taxes.
I was a Bernie fan back in the day and thought that the DNC screwed his WH run in favor of Hilary for obvious reasons, none of which are printable. I have been absent from the scene since, since I cannot stand either Trump or whomever the Dems field.
The DNC has been progressively corrupted by corporate money over the 4 decades since Reagan. Bill and Hillary Clinton, and, yes, Obama, are emblematic of that corruption.
Joe Biden, at least, partially, finally, saw it for what it had become.
GOOD to hear, Carolyn Herz. GOOD!
I think it’s less that each gets a little of what they want, and more that people truly put their heads together, talk about their mutual goals for a livable society, and decide how best to get us there. Discuss, cooperate and compromise on ideas, but not basic principles. The basic principles of decency and equality under the law are not one-side-or-the-other. They’re bedrock.
The Right and the Left need to find ways that both sides can live with, and have a plan to create the society we all hope to achieve.
I do NOT think people on the Right and the Left disagree on clean air, clean water, and a fair economy that allows a reasonable accrual of wealth but does NOT create a permanent underclass of inadequately-compensated labor. We want a society that takes good care of our infrastructure {roads, bridges, water, fire and safety services, etc.} for the good of ALL of us, not just people who can buy those things for themselves {you know, there WAS a proposal around in the past twenty or thirty years to put ALL OUR HIGHWAYS into private hands to maintain them, and we’d all pay private companies tolls to drive on every one of them —no, really, look it up! That’s not a Right or Left idea — it’s an Oligarchy Rules type of thing … Egad!}.
I don’t particularly want Kamala and Walz to claim to be Progressive Left or Moderate or Centrist, none of that.
Let them tell us what they propose, and that they are on the side of ALL of us, on all “sides,” and we should vote for them. Because the Heritage Soc guys are on the side of getting us back to the Gilded Age when those oligarchs ruled.
The problem with 'compromise' is that Democrats believe the definition of that word is to give a little, and take a little. Republicans, on the other hand, have defined the term this way: Democrats admit that the Republicans are right, and the Democrats are wrong, on policies and legislation. If memory serves me correctly, I believe that Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham spoke similar words.
The question: Which definition of 'compromise' do you accept?
Ponder on this for a time.
Correct Susie...
Not to mention the new version of M-Pox now emerging in Africa, and fast. One new case has already been found in Sweden this week. It has had up to a 10% death rate, though slightly lower recently. Covid 19 by comparison was .33% %. If this goes world wide and our new president and new congress don't get their act together, and fast, Covid 19 will look like a walk in the park. Considering how DT acted on Covid 19 I wouldn't trust him to help fix an ingrown toenail. Let's hope Kamala and a totally DEM congress will move fast on this potential disaster. The health official who was on NPR yesterday said that 10-15 million shot are needed in Congo, Africa now to help get this under control. The company that makes the vaccine, in Europe, has about 250,000 shots in storage and could make up to 1 million by more by the end of the year. Time to get started.
Go Kamala. Vote Blue. Cheers... GH
Being against dictatorship is pretty solid, if you ask me
Kamala Harris certainly does not sound like a "mealy mouthed 'Moderate'"Nor does her running mate Tim Walz.
You get what you pay for. Pool resources!
Michael, I didn’t know she was being asked to do that. But the fact that she picked Walz tells me she knows exactly which direction she wants to pull. Going centrist is exactly why Democrats turn off so many in their base. It’s an old ineffective idea.
she can't be to obvious about it, lest she become Bernie ridiculed as being a flaming socialist.
Trump is already calling her a communist and a socialist, and a Marxist and goodness only knows what else (and only because Donnie knows "communism et al." are "trigger" words for the spittle-spewing MAGAs) although I very much doubt Donnie really knows the difference in meaning of any of those words
I don't get it with the "communists " There aren't any, not in "Communist" China or Korea or Russia. There aren't any Communists any more than there's a furry monster under the bed or a boogeyman in the closet. When my grandma fled the Pale there were Communists. 40 years later when HUAC tried to find them in the government all they could come up with were campus debating clubs. Even the IWW was defunct except as folklore. Read my lips: There are no Communists. But there are rich guys who want to take your money.
no there aren't any real communists in government nor are there any actual socialists in government. They are words used to scare people who have been conditioned to think Communist=left=BAD (same with those other two words--the Righties don't really think there are any; they use them to scare the uninformed into voting against their own best interests).
Ignorance is not bliss, unless you are a billionaire who gets a "break" that is not needed, because the taxpayers are not pushing back against being robbed.
EXACTLY, Miriam Rodin
T L, I think of the MAGAs and other orange man loving republicans like the poor German rubes who listened to Hitler back then and believed what he said. Friends and neighbors overnight were turning each other in, I suppose, to gain favor with the Fuhrer! They are the crowds that cheered while Hitler and his brown shirts rounded up Jews and disabled. What they didn't realize was they would be tarred with the same brush when the war ended. Globally, they were treated as enemies. I don't think a lot of these cult followers and republicans realize the orange stain they are yelling for is no better than Hitler was. It is a shame really. As far as being labeled a communist and a socialist, I believe most Democrats let that slide off their backs like water off a duck's back! They've been calling us that for years. If those are the only words to describe wanting equality for all, rights and freedoms for all and the government to stay out of our bedrooms and doctor's offices then that is okay. Let them call us whatever assuages their feelings of discomfort knowing they are backing a complete do-lolly! Vote blue, America!
We Dems have never minded the silly name-calling of the right wingers...but right wing pols regularly use those words to scare their voters. It's an unfortunate legacy from the 50's when McCarthy's Red scare was used to terrorize ordinary people.
That's true, T L, but it isn't the 50s anymore. When I talk to people about voting I do ask if they are tired of being scared, possibly threatened, intimidated. Many say yes, some say they are not, but for me, it is important to stress our government and our country should not be terrorized into voting for someone. It is our right to vote for who we choose to vote for and once those curtains close, vote your conscience. Vote Blue, America!
Our “war on terror” and the creation of Guantanamo, with NO due process, allowed that same bit to happen again — in the Middle Eastern countries where we conducted our sweeps, people turned in neighbors to settle grudges, or they got rid of economic rivals to get their hands on property, or whatever — and many who were jailed had no evidence against them other than some jamoke’s statement.
Guantanamo was a version of presidential immunity. We have a new version now.
Donnie’s very best Oligarch Friends in the world are three top so-called communists … Xi, Kim, and Vladimir. Though we all know they are no different from Donnie’s other heroes, Hitler and Mussolini, who were fascists. Demagogues are demagogues are demogogues, and dictators are dictators are dictators.
TMURP has called Harris both a communist and a fascist, T L, proving that he doesn't know the meaning of the terms.
Trumpy doesn't really know much at all, intellectually, he about as smart as a box of rocks. (I know, I'm being insulting to rocks) His fount of "knowledge"--such as it is--is slowly dwindling as he loses more and more brain cells to whatever sort of dementia is creeping up behind him.
tRUMP advocates socialism for the wealthy with the generous tax cuts he plans to lavish on them.
Agree.
Kamala Harris will be labeled a flaming socialist by the Right no matter what she does or says. That terrifies them and fear is their rallying cry.
Scariest of all to them is that she is a prosecutor.
I'm going to take a contrary position, and probably a lot of heat for it. I'm a firm believer that in order to be a "President of ALL Americans," it requires a president to give the minority what it wants in some reasonable proportion. Majority is defined as >=50% plus one; Minority is defined as <=50% minus one. A "President of ALL Americans" cannot ignore the needs or desires of up to half of their constituents, and none of us can presume that just because we may be in the majority, we know what's best for everyone.
I also firmly believe that compromise is not a four letter word. The greater good, indeed the common good, depends on compromise to make progress. We need ultra-liberals, ultra-conservatives, liberals, conservatives, and yes, centrists, in legislative positions. But I believe that the president needs to be where the average American is, which as I understand it, is slightly left of center.
In a piece I wrote on the subject (https://open.substack.com/pub/bobmorgan/p/everything-in-moderation), I've likened this to the swing of a pendulum, where the swings of the party in control of the Executive branch over the past several decades have resulted in wild swings to the left and right (culminating in Felonious Trump's wrecking ball). We can't make progress if each successive party change at the top undoes all the good of the prior presidency. President Biden damped the pendulum swing considerably. I'm not suggesting that a President Harris needs to damp it much further, but swinging far to the left will only serve to energize the right, making it more likely that they'll stick to their guns and rename Project 2025 "Project 2029." And it will alienate independent voters, who tend to be moderates.
All that being said, if we are to be successful in the next presidential term, we need a resounding defeat of the Republican Party in November, up and down the ballot. Only then, will Republicans realize that they cannot force their minority will on the rest of us, and they'll try to meet us in the middle.
"Swinging far to the left will only serve to energize the right, making it more likely that they'll stick to their guns and rename Project 2025 Project 2029. And it will alienate independent voters, who tend to be moderates.
All that being said, if we are to be successful in the next presidential term, we need a resounding defeat of the Republican Party."
A few points here.
1) "Swinging to the left" is not what Harris is doing. She's swinging to the center of gravity of American opinion (the 70%). This IS the actual middle that you speak of.
2) Therefore it will not alienate the "independent" voters , rather it will energize them, as she has already shown.
3) Yes, the Republicans will come out swinging. Let 'em come.
4) If we are to defeat the Republican Party, once and for all, there is no better time to do it, and it will be done when Harris continues through November to advocate liberal policies.
Why, she just might take West Virginia (Sanders was very popular down there).
Yes, but Sanders is white. Consider what a disaster the ACA turned out to be for Democrats.
The republicans are going to have that plan regardless of what we do. Theres no compromise possible with the Trumpers.
You are rational, voters aren't, hence Trump.
Tim Walz can do that for her (a variant of bad cop-good cop).
I would not tell her NOT to appeal to the center! But I would tell her we are not all IN the center, so she’d better be aware of us, TOO!
This is where the rubber meets the road. We who agree with your point want Liz Warren to chair the Senate Finance committee, Katie Porter to be on the COEA or in the cabinet, retain Lina Khan, and for a Democratic administration to do the opposite of what Obama (arguably of necessity) did in advancing Wall Street over Main St. But the reality that big donors wield outsized influence on both parties remains. If Democrats can legislate like their rhetoric suggests, by dealing with voter suppression, partisan gerrymandering, and actually put a dent in wealth inequality, we may see a sustained period of Democratic electoral dominance.
BRAVO, Michael! Correct, a thousand times! This whole idea that progressivism = communism = bad for the country is nonsense, but even many "centrist" Dems buy into it. Meanwhile, progressive concepts here are mainstream in much of the rest of the world, especially Europe.
Republicans paint progressives as pro-minority at the expense of "hard working" whites. "Obama care" did not help Democrats.
Michael i agree completely She must follow the lead of Bernie Sanders . Great comment
I agree with you, GrrlScientist. All that the MAGA and orange man bring is fear and a vision for the future that is a dystopian nightmare! That is why I am so glad Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are our Democratic candidates! They are showing the American people they can have joy, happiness, security and a government that actually operates! I love their optimism and enthusiastic campaign! It gives new hope to all of us that we don't have to face an authoritarian regime and dictator in this country. Vote blue, America!!!
The first night that I slept well lately was the day Harris announced Walz. Many good candidates but he was the one.
I collect social security and it has pissed me off that I need to pay taxes on it. It isn’t till I read deep into the Professor’s newsletter that I am convinced I need to accept it, though to be honest I am not completely convinced that the answer isn’t me paying taxes on my very small amount and not the wealthy paying for everyone.
But the main point of my writing is to ask that the Professor not begin by first putting out Donald’s tempting message and then explaining why it is a sneaky trick. If I hadn’t read the whole piece, as I often don’t, I’d miss the lesson and have on top of mind that Donald wants to save me taxes, something I didn’t know he was proposing.
So I suggest a headline like “the fox in the hen house’s trick to destroy Social Security” without repeating the falsehood. The trick with lies is that they work if repeated often enough.
If I remember correctly the government, under republicans, took, stole trillions from the Social Security Trust Fund to fund wars like the Iraq war and never paid it back.
I do not pay taxes on mine. I have what I need, and I probably will need to pay taxes on overall income when distributions start from my retirement savings next year at age 73. I retired with a decent salary as an IT professional, but years ago I was briefly on welfare as a divorced single mom (early 70s). I was able to earn a degree during that time and support myself and children later (needed a better education in choosing a spouse!). I am okay with paying taxes later, because to me it's not only paying back, but it's also paying to the greater good. So far, federal income tax rates seem to start at a relatively high income, and Illinois, the state I live in, does not tax Social Security at all. If yours does, shame on them!
GrrlScientist : The marjorie traitor queens are outnumbered by the fully awake!
Yes they are!! When I wake, I am glad I'm woke!!
Peggy: and I do hope to remain stoked! 'Cuz it ain't no joke to not be woke.
Hahahahahaha! I love it, Laurie!
Great line!
That’s as bad as “Lotus for POTUS”. These lines are horrible. Where did you get them, from some middle schooler running class secretary?
Two great names for MJT but I vote for trailer
Timothy Avery: not all who live in trailers are traitors. Marjorie traitor queen lives in a new, expensive home and is a millionaire.
I certainly hope so.
Me too, GrrlScientist. The chaotic issues swirling around us now are making me dizzy and nauseous. Republicans are toxic. Period. They must be defeated in November and I mean in every state. With all the $$$ they’ve raised, they must take out consecutive full page ads in the media and online with bullet point lists of all the ways the Republican Party is trying to destroy us and our country. If it were legal to do, so, I would love to see every Trumper Indicted for treason and locked up While undergoing forced de-programming. Trumpism to me is a kind of prion disease that is eating American minds relentlessly.
Marjory trailer queen! 🤣😂 Superb and apropos. I once saw her trip a journalist walking ahead of her. Such a juvenile slut hellion.
But more importantly, I hope it is a democratic sweep. Even so, do you really think it’s possible for us little people to be treated fairly? It would be such a better life for us if the broligarchs paid their share.
Excellent
Our system is rigged by corporate constitutional rights and money as speech corruption. Your fears are justifiable. The thugs and bullies and puppets posing as political leaders will only get worse if we fail to unrig our system.
Thankfully we have the right constitutional amendment that will restore our Constitution back to us, and require that money in politics be regulated. HJR54, the We the People Amendment is exactly what the times demand!
It is being advanced by the UC postdoctoral union academics, UAW 5810, the Alameda Labor Council,AFL-CIO, Teamster70, the California Democratic Party, and over 1000 organizations that are working for social and environmental justice, democracy and a better world.
Sign on @movetoamend movetoamend.org/motion
Demand that your organization also support it at movetoamend.org/organizations
And demand that your favorite candidates for public office have signed on before you donate a penny to their campaigns. Have them sign on at movetoamend.org/pledge
This is the only long term fix, and it is the movement of We the People. Please help grow it, before it’s too late. Let’s see this happen in our lifetimes so that we will know that children can have a future.
Isn't Move to Amend a Republican Trojan horse?
In my former career as a postsecondary education executive, around mid-year, I would notice a significant bump in the net on my paycheck. In the moment, I would think, “Wow, did I get a surprise bonus or raise?” Then, I would remember that I had maxed out my social security contributions. Although, I enjoyed the higher net paycheck over the rest of the year, it irritated me that most of the faculty and staff paid full Social Security taxes right through their December 31st paycheck. Only in America do we have insane economic policy that favor only 20% of voters. Why don’t the 80% being screwed vote for candidates who would repeal the SS income cap? I just don’t get why so many Americans vote in favor of the wealthy before themselves.
As a family doc I remember the same phenomenon. Now, retired with comfortable savings, I can delay claiming my social security to maximize benefits. I certainly can afford to pay taxes on those benefits when I claim them, unlike my former patients who often couldn't afford their meds. (kudos to the Biden administration for negotiating med prices) Perhaps no taxes on SS for incomes below some reasonable amount.
That depends on whether the Rs have tanked the economy three or four times or more over your work life and your 401k takes a $50k+ hit each time as a result. And, if your spouse worked, one of you will take a big hit on their SS accordingly because there is a cap on how much couples can receive. If one of you receives the full amount possible, the other will get a big cut. You both can’t each get the full amount possible. It’s a big shock when you suddenly realize that. Meanwhile, your retirement still takes a hit when Rs tank the economy. Good luck with that.
That’s a good idea.
People are so confused about Social Security and many literally terrified that the check won’t come, especially older women who have nothing else. They long ago lost spouses and age and infirmity prevent work. Yet these fools like Musk and Trump and Vance would steal the food, meds, and utility services away from even their mawmas! My grandmother was one of these. She was forced to move to our big city where my mother and the grandkids cared for her. My grandfather’s steel mill pension ended when he passed. Women were always expected back then, just like JD Vance’s dream, to work only at home. She did this. Then because if the mill closings, the paltry residual pension for spouses was ended. This is not fairness. This is greed…even worse love of money by the few.
We have to right this American battleship and SCRAP THE (red) CAP. Vote blue 🌊 🧢 🌊!
David J. Waldron ; It must be that they are uninformed.
Fox "News"
I saw that bump in April or so. It was nice, but I felt bad about it. I knew those not so lucky or gifted were still paying the SS tax while I, who was frugal and careful, no longer did. I could afford to. And the rethugs were always rejoicing it would run out of money.
Raise the cap.
Tax capital gains exactly as we do wages.
Voters voting against their interests? Nothing new there. Why? Big money in order to protect their interest have the means to appeal to the masses' lowest instincts, i.e. fear and hatred, which works like a charm. That is why the majority do not get what the polls indicate that the majority are in favor of. We have a political system that is completely corrupted by money.
Because in their mind, they will one day benefit from that policy. Dreaming, reaching for the stars and working hard to climb the ladder are all good things, but there’s been a shift to get rich quick career planning and many “kids” (including the 20- and 30-somethings) today are floundering, faltering and failing in these unrealistic goals. Soaring rates of depression, dissatisfaction, violence, drug abuse, poor relationships, etc. are the evidence.
🎯
You know in Australia everyone pays 10% of their income into an investment account that is just for their retirement. I would go for that if my money went into an index fund that included the total stock market. My family survived on SSA survivor benefits when I was a child. It was slim pickens. Our SSA did not provide medicare for any of us. We were as poor as church mice on SSA but it did keep us from starving....barely.
The stock market is volatile, hence we need a government-guaranteed safety net. It can be supplemented, provided wages cover all essential costs.
This is not Norway so that will never happen. I say that sadly. The public should get ready to be *******. If able you must save and invest on your own.
Maybe the US cannot only dramatically extend the life of the social security trust, but model Australia and drop the tax from its current 15.3%, which is split between the employer and employee (meaning self-employed pay the entire 15.3%). Actually the way American lobbying-driven politics work, if we convinced corporations that their 7.65% contribution per employee would be lowered in exchange for removing the wealth cap, they might just buy-in and support it. Maybe.
They've been well trained. The Republicans have cornered the pulpit as well as the support of the majority of the top 20%. So they're taught to follow blindly and vote against their own best iterests.
They do not pay attention to the facts..
Totally agree, David!
Elon Musk pays into Social Security only one day on January 1st. I paid into Social Security everyday of the year my entire working career as I’m sure most average working Americans have! Like you said Professor Reich, our government has to “scrap the cap”.
Same here. Every few years the cap was raised but my income was always lower than the cap for all of my 55 years of working. I was also raising my 2 sons with no financial help from their father.
Keith, I’d love to see it start at $30k then all the way up. But everyone will be eligible. And then, for anyone hitting $1M per year, a 95% tax for anything over that up to $5M/yr. After that tax rate = 99.9%
100% agree!
Years ago, I took a class in political science from a professor who held a doctorate degree in the discipline. The name I knew belonged to a man known to many as Dr. Spanhour. This guy had evidence concerning various nefarious activities our government had been involved in. One interesting tid bit involved President Reagan and President Bush. These two Republican leaders had budgets they personally knew would never be passed by congress. So, they submitted budgets they knew would be passed, and any monies needed past what was supplied by congress were taken from the coffers of the Social Security System. These two Republican Presidents were responsible for over 3 trillion dollars in unlawful deductions from the future of a system intended to help our retirees. I had trouble believing this, but the good Doctor had copies obtained through the "Freedom of information act" which showed in black and white each and every deduction these men made. Our Society System was crippled by their criminal actions. If what I was shown was real.
Donald, I have heard that as well. I did a little research and according to some of the things I read, your professor was spot on. They claimed to have "borrowed" it; however, I have not found anything to suggest the monies they "borrowed" was ever returned to the Social Security coffers! Totally disgusting!
I remember hearing that during and after the Reagan years. He and Nixon did serious damage to our country and still they are revered by some. I also heard, that after Stalin there were Russians who lamented his leaving. Go figure?
Propaganda works. Stalin, Hitler, Mao controlled people's minds by means of propaganda and censorship. Some churches act as propaganda machines, and Fox News is another one.
It's a two way street. Propaganda works because many are susceptible and participate either consciously or unconsciously with the message. We seem good at producing people who don't think well, who are afraid, and who seem to seek out a "parent" figure to take care of them. We are good at ensuring that people don't develop the ability of thinking critically. It's an interaction, so it would behoove us to put more effort into improving the educational system to help people learn to think. And it would also be important to focus on improving parenting, since authoritarian parenting styles can create adults who can't think for themselves.
the science of propaganda is so effective now and the means of dispersal so far reaching, Goebbels would be jealous.
Hitler too. There are still folks in Germany who believe Hitler had to do “something” about the “problems with the Jews.”
Unbelievable, right? How do we create so many humans who seemingly have no compassion for anyone who is different, especially those in the groups that are often scapegoated. Too many primitive people who don't think, but just react from fear.
Fear and anger cloud the mind, and make it vulnerable to falsehoods.
Perhaps, but why can some of us, even if we feel fear and anger, step back from those initial reactions and process more fully before reacting. These skills a lot of us can learn, but we seem to insist on not teaching them, so that people remain more vulnerable to manipulation. It's a two way street. I hold those who allow themselves to be led, somewhat responsible as well. We can't just blame the system, or the propaganda machine for it all. Just as after WWII, when many of those who stood by or benefitted from Jewish people being taken from their homes, when asked they clearly knew they'd been in the wrong at the time. So there is some awareness in some of us, that we are agreeing to be led.
Dems believe the same about the Christian “Problem”
Maybe Christian Nationalism.
If Christians actually acted like Christ, only the rich would be bothered by the Christians.
Sorry but you would be wrong as usual. The Dems have had a “Christian Problem” for decades. Even before the left made this the new boogeyman to scare the little leftist.
Wrong as usual huh? The right wingers are always so CaRiNg and DiPlOmAtIc. Just like Jesus. He would always speak to poor folks like that, right? Not. Enjoy your fake Christian face as it is clearly not in your soul.
Republicans are the ones who create our treasury deficits, even the libertarian Alan Greenspan admitted this.
Taxing of SS began under Reagan/Bush.
Yesterday, Heather Cox Richardson wrote about Frances Perkins. Her letter described what she went through to get Social Security off the desk and into the lives of millions. Those who think that the program can be done away with need to be done away with (not literally) just getting them pay a fair share to keep the program going. If two-hundred fifty thousand and subjecting investment income can keep it going for seventy-five years, then that is what needs to be done. I got my first SS check two years ago when I retired. The amount is less than one thousand a month, but I consider that the best use of my SS-taxed income for the years I did pay in. Anyone not supporting paying into social security, damaging it, or destroying it is essentially un-American and should be subject to fines and criminal tax offences. The thought of twenty-six million people being stripped of SS and thrown into a poverty abyss will lead to millions of people getting angry and desperate. Desperate people sometimes do desperate things, unfortunately, because they are hopeless. Vote Harris/Gatz in November and vote for every Democrat on the ballot for your state. Shame on any politician or person who does not support Social Security. It’s absurd. Nice weekend to all.
That's Harris/Walz, Henry. Who is "Gatz"?
Great Gatz-by?
Well said, Henry!
This is so obvious it is no wonder that Republicans and the wealthy are opposed. Why should the federal government be allowed to do something good? After all, government is the problem right? If you want to destroy the economy, don't fix Social Security, then blame the government for poverty. I listened to a wise podcast yesterday that would probably turn off a lot of readers even of this Substack, yet his central point was simple and elegant in relation to politics: eliminate all corporate financing of political campaigns, directly and indirectly through PACs. The reason we have not solved the Social Security problem starts with wealthy and corporate campaign donors. Eliminate that source of funding, the Social Security fix Robert Reich proposes would pass immediately.
I agree. And I would add to straightforward cash limit campaign spending (as other countries do) and shorten the election campaigning to a maximum of, say, 9 months to reduce the funding required.
(If 9months is enough to make a baby, then surely it is enough time for a competent politician to tell people what she or he stands for!)
Agreed on time limit for campaigns. I would say 6 months is enough for president, and 3 months for congress and senate. Without continuous campaigning, maybe they could actually work to get things done.
Really as soon as they are elected the first thing they do is set up a re-election committee … the time spent on campaigning is our time ..we pay them to work for us ..not to perpetually be running for re-election . Is it any friggen wonder why nothing is ever accomplished in politics ? No one’s doing the job we elected them to do ! If I worked at my carpentry trade at the pace the politicians work at their phony baloney jobs…all of my customers would be living in tents ⛺️! 😴😡🤬
Elections and campaigning has become an industry and goes on 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Cable TV, ad agencies, PACs, lobbyists, etc. don’t want to let it go. As soon as a person is elected speculations starts about reelection plans. Other civilized countries put a limit on length of campaigning. If Kamala Harris can win in 3 months, that should be a good limit on campaigning.
It seems to me that American politicians think they need to pander to everyone else's whims. The news channels are fickle and untrustworthy simply because they are just corporations whose sole raison d'être is profit. If Trump's antics mean more profit, they support Trump. If Harris/Walz is stirring things up, they're on the news channels 24/7.
Many people have expressed anger that the news channels are still reporting Trump, and still see that in conspiracy terms. I have no doubt there is some truth in that because their owners are all right wing Republicans, but ultimately they will report and reflect what is actually happening.
I think the Dems have worked that out, which is why Kamala is not giving interviews. She knows that all they want to do is create controversy and anger, and that isn't needed because ultimately they have to report what she's up to, not least because they have no other news from her! And she and Walz are way past the point that they can be ignored!
Personally I'd suggest they become more controversial. I think they should make speeches defending socialism, and quote some of the benefits that ordinary people in more socialist countries enjoy. Even those countries that are supposed to be poorer than America!
It would be hard for the mainstream press to ignore such a controversial subject (it would obviously be reported negatively) but it would also be impossible to ignore the groundswell of approval from most ordinary families who would LOVE to enjoy more social protections and benefits.
3 weeks is good enough.
The people of the USA are victims of a propaganda campaign started in the 1970s.
Neo Serfdom Wayne Teel. We are a human resource. A resource is something (like coal,oil and iron ore) that is consumed in production that will bring a profit to investors.
Consumed,used up and when we are no longer productive, we lose our utility, and are to be disposed of, which they would,if they could, but they can hasten our demise by reducing our life span, and thus eliminate the "drain on the system".
As former rep Grayson said, The Republican health care plan is "Don't get sick, but if you do, hurry up and die."
My wife and I are retired, and live comfortably, but in their eyes we are useless eaters and a drain on the system.
What you say is, to me, indicative of the most fundamental question of modern society, which is this:
Does society exist to serve corporations? Or do corporation exist to serve society?
Here in France the answer is clear - corporations exist to serve society. All of it. So corporations are regulated, monitored, controlled, taxed and directed to policies and actions that benefit society. The most essential corporations, such as national energy, or national transportation, may be wholly or partly government owned, or in direct government control, or have their profits capped, but they also benefit from massive government investment. The profits from taxes on these corporations fund a comprehensive social protection system from cradle to grave, so comprehensive and effective that many Americans wouldn't be able to believe it all. And yet those corporations, taxed and regulated, still seem to do as well here in Europe as they do in America - isn't that strange?
America seems to have the opposite policy - people exist to serve private corporations. So people may have roles for those corporations as employees or management, or customers, or investors. But if they are none of those things, then those people are useless to the corporations and so considered (such as by Republicans) useless to society. That includes retired people, children, poor people, unemployed or low-skilled people, sick people, etc, etc..... They are a 'cost', or worse, parasitic. It is a very dangerous viewpoint.
In my view the Democratic Party needs to be much more clear about explaining this fundamental difference, and put themselves forward as 'The People's Party', representing ALL the people against exploitation by the corporations and their rich owners and investors, and their bought-and-paid-for politicians. It is, after all, the fundamental difference, the clear blue water, between Dems and Reps.
In a majority democratic voting system, I believe if the Democratic Party could make that difference more mainstream, then the majority of voters would vote for more socialist policies and against the blind protection of corporation's interests.
In short, vote Democratic Party and against the Republican Party.
The difference betweenAmerica and France is that in 1776 the ruling elite of America (Northern Merchants and souhern planters) banded together, to establish self governance, not to overthrow the existing order. We weren't Americans we were British, the British government and Royalty continued to exist.
The ruling elite were victorious. In France the ruling elite lost their heads, literally.
As a result the French government is hyper vigilant about the mood of the people.
They got a reminder in the wake of WWII, and the reconquest of France, when the people exacted vengeance on those who collaborated with the enemy.
America has always been ruled by the elite, the wealthy merchants, the southern planters
The American government was designed to serve the ruling class, which today are billionaires which own and control (and hide behind) corporations as majority individual shareholders.
The political system of France consists of an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. Executive power is exercised by the president of the republic and the Government. The Government consists of the prime minister and ministers. The prime minister is appointed by the president, and is responsible to Parliament. The government, including the prime minister, can be revoked by the National Assembly, the lower house of Parliament, through a motion of no-confidence; this ensures that the prime minister is practically always supported by a majority in the lower house (which, on most topics, has prominence over the upper house).
In France the lower house, the people, have real power, in America the real power is in the executive. The House of Representatives, puts together laws and a budget, which has to be approved by the ruling class, (Senate) and signed then executed b the President.
The President can only be removed by a convoluted process, initiated by the House of Representatives, then approved by the ruling class, the Senate
In France the government is answerable to the people, in America it is answerable to the ruling class (financial elite).
.
Maybe we would become "woke" if the USA were to be invaded by another country a couple of times, as France was.
Please resist from reading anything into my comment.
I merely stated the facts, the case, as I would to a jury. The reader can make of it what they wish.
Personal opinion, it is an uphill battle, a Sisyphusian struggle.
We do live in a top down society, and led to believe because we have a say in who we think is at the top, that it is a bottom up society.
Such a society (top down) only remediates itself, fails, when those at the top bring about their own demise.
A microcosm, an example of a top down society, are corporations. The seem to exist in perpetuity, little Empires like Standard oil, which has gone through permuations and name changes like SOHIO, Esso, Exxon., in time Exxon will implode.
A better example of top down corporations which have failed is ENRON.
Self destructed, it was.
Corporations are nothing more than a collective of humans, who have banded together to achieve a goal, in their case wealth by maximizing profits.via any means.
People have a tendency to repeat that which is successful. Fiction writers have a script, and change the names, places. times and events. There is always an arc.
Some singers and song writers follow a successful pattern, like Barry Manilow, it gets to the point where when you can recognize a song's composer by it's style.
Such people don't change, they can't change and over time their style, their behavior, become obsolete, dysfuncional and down right inimical and contrary to their own best interests and they become the author of their own destruction.
Hitler for instance, was successful in building an empire, until he wasn't, you see examples in the world of sports.
B F Skinner conducted experiments on rats, he found that when the discovered that if they pressed a lever they got a reward, so continued to press the lever to gt the reward, but after three tries and no reward, they gave up and stopped the behavior.
Humans are more stupid than rats. Walk into any casino and you will see proof.,
In the21st Century, we have skinner rats, pulling levers,that provide a reward at one tend, but dump life threatening pollutants and policies at the other end.
They are in effect committing slow suicide, killing the goose that laid the golden egg, but also making the environment which sustains their life, inhospitable to mammalian life. And they know it, but they can't stop,because the only thing that matters is today.
They are sharks. Sharks cannot breathe, they oxygenate by swimming which forces water through their gills. If they stop swimming they suffocate.
The US Supreme Court 2010 Citizens United opened the floodgates of corruption in politics and continuous exponentially increased dark money from undisclosed donors. It has been a longtime pattern of practice of the Supreme Court ruling in favor of wealthy powerful corporations furthering disadvantages of individuals (we the People). We have to end the crisis and damage to the lives of the American people. Impeach and remove blatant corrupt SCOTUS unethical untrustworthy justices and, the recent most outrageous and dangerous rulings directly due to corrupt justices unfit to serve should be reversed to protect our democracy. I agree with the comments about how Democrats should demonstrate the bold, clear positive policies and Vote Blue to elect President Harris and Vice President Walz of the United States of America and for our future that includes all people.
What you say is sad but is true.
Yes!
Consider this Bob, Trump recently stated that he wants to repeal Reagan's tax on social security (This was pointed out to me by an adamant female Trumpbaglican). My reply to her was that was only because he actually intends to defund, discontinue, and then END the Social Security program. He intends to steal that money, and funnel it to himself and his fellow billionaires, leaving a hundred million elderly retirees to die in the street. If he regains the presidency, my life, and the life of my wife, is forfeit...
Same here, James. I hope to live to see the day when Donald TUMP is finally dead!
With a diet of KFC, Cheeseburgers and Diet Coke, I don't understand why he is still alive
Preservatives? 🤔
Preservatives…
Wealth can buy you the best in healthcare.
I can get the best of health care by simply walking into any hospital without insurance.
Funny how you leftist say “can’t put cat ears on and claim to be a cat”, but a man can wack of his penis and claim to be a woman. I come into leftist site to bring light to the darkened minds. Most of the time it never works but I feel it is my mission.
Also I understand as you are old that your mind is going and that is why your vocabulary is slipping. Vulgar language is a sign of a weak mind. But as a leftist it is hard to know if it is age or just being a leftist
You just love being swatted around don't you, Into S&M much, you are too much of a masochist you phuckwit., hard headed too, you are a fucking neanderthal stuck in some past where you think that leftist is a slur, you really are a dumbshit.
Lefitst wear the label with pride, dumbass.
Not very many. Every time I call them a leftist they go nuts. So I guess just the ones who are insane like you are proud of it. But you’re old and as Biden had taught us your age makes you stupid.
Also you have not made one constructive comment in the last 52. I won’t hold my breath that you will have one soon
I could care less what THEY do or don't do, I and the people I know aren't they.
I could care less making any constructive comments to you, you are a fucking waste of time and sperm.
I am however having fun swatting your around, if you were a serious conversant it would be different but your only purpose here is to get a cheap orgams, by baiting leftists.
Take your tube of KY jelly and your superman cape and go play with yourself in the bathroom,
You are not welcome here. Nor are any right wing trolls. Until Robert asks me to stop I will make your presence on this substack miserable.
Again grab your KY jelly and get your jollies elsewheres.
I agree, William. That same thought crosses my mind a lot. I would have thought he would succumb to a heart related end at any time. I had a brother-in-law that dropped stone cold dead from eating that garbage in his early 50's. He was born in the same year as i was.
Best I can figure is that Trump's money enables him to buy the best health care there is.
I agree, William. It was said that Adolf Hiter took over 70 drugs everyday and was hyped up on Amphetamines. I wonder if DJT does the same thing?
I don't wonder about Trump being on drugs, he is way to animated, I just want to know which drugs, Ritalin for sure. Remember that bag of Cocaine they found in the West Wing, probably Trump and Meadows stash.
That is of course how Obama set it up
Ah the right wing troll Brad rears his head again., give it up you are wasting your time.
I hope he dies like his pal jeffery Epstein, alone in a prison cell!
Assisted suicide?
Same here, Jacko. The entire planet Earth would be so much better off if that bloated, bellowing piece of crap DJT was gone for good. He is like the most virulent fast growing cancer in medical history.
JD Vance already is in line.
..and his minions!
Do not despair, James! Democrats are hard at work getting independents, republicans and unregistered voters to vote for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Once they are elected and we have a blue House and Senate, they will make sure our Social Security and Medicare are protected from thieves like the orange man! Vote blue, America!!
Any Republican and Independent that voted for Harris are as stupid as she is and deserves the destruction of the country she would bring. But unfortunately the rest of us would have to endure it as well.
Trump wants to privatize SS and Medicare, even though he now denies it. However, privatization is not stealing.
Victor... if you think the GOP "privatization" plan isn't stealing then wait until the GOP gives the entire trust fund to the con-men on Wall Street for "investment". We can be sure those dudes already have a plan in place to promise us how much more money they can make for the fund while they "invest" the $$$ in bogus stocks and bonds of their invention. Within a couple of years ALL of the trust fund money will be in their bank accounts. They will say "Sorry we just made some bad investments" or "misread the markets". It will happen so fast no one or no government agency will be able to stop it because it will all be "legal"! I don't know about you but I paid into SS for 50 years and still do for any part time after retirement work I do. By the way, once you start to draw your SS any new work you do has SS withdrawn and it will not increase YOUR benefits. That's fine with me. At least now that money will go into the trust fund for someone else, not the pockets Wall Street thieves. Everyone can bad mouth, bitch and complain about the DEMs all you want, but I'm pretty sure we can count on them to NEVER give one dime of our SS Trust Fund to the con-men and grifters (someone who swindles people out of money through fraud) on Wall Street.
Go K & T. Donate and vote Blue. Cheers... GH
Gary, your concerns are valid, but I give the benefit of the doubt to at least some of those advocating privatizing SS. They may be sincere but over-optimistic. Stocks did very well over the past four decades, and, according to some, over the past century. So, what could possibly go wrong? A lot, of course.
Privatizing SS is the best thing for it. But the left would never allow that as it takes it out of the government’s control and puts it into the people’s hands.
Brad, I like your euphemism "the people's hands," i.e. the stock brokers.
The ignorance of this post is staggering
Thanks. It seems so obvious but the big money will oppose it - seems people earning plenty never feel they have enough.
One of the main features of any true democracy is that the majority view controls what policies the government will implement on their behalf. As an European it seems odd that the vast majority on Americans want better social care, including proper healthcare, pensions, childcare unemployment benefits, etc., and yet the Democratic Party seems scared to come out and properly discuss these obviously popular policies, seemingly for fear of being labelled 'socialist'!
Isn't it time the Dems came out and 'owned' the labels like socialist and democratic, and defused the knee-jerk name-calling by Republicans?
If the Dems do this, (and surely Harris and Walz are exactly the people who can do this!) then they can openly talk about all the benefits that can happen for everyone else if all the rich people are made to pay their fair share into the social security system. The Dems can quote real numbers; how much tax is 'missing' from a fair system, and exactly what extra benefits that would buy for ordinary families. I think it would be a very powerful argument.
November 5th is the one moment in the election cycle when the demands of the majority can exceed and overcome the influence of the rich minority. The Dems can ignore the Republican bleats of indignation because the forthcoming election will be decided by a majority vote, and the numbers of those wanting more social security vastly exceed those votes of rich tax-dodgers.
Now is surely the moment for the, '10%? Pay Your Fair Share!' movement!
The Dems labor under the same threat imposed by the NIH Roberts Extreme Coirt since Citizens United . Money influences advertising ability, and advertising influences the ignorant. Or maybe gets out new info to those receptive.
They have to mollify the billionaires, who shouldn't exist.
Yes like the billionaire that donated $52 million to Harris
Really? So what you’re saying is that she has no principles?
Every civilized nation has an equivalent program to Social Security. No, we won't go back!
The others also include healthcare.
We need to eliminate billionaires.
What a socialist mindset you have
Absolutely!
Like I keep saying, do you want to live in a country run for the benefit of the people? All the people?
Or do you want to live in a country that is run for the corporations and their rich owners and investors? Because then your 'value' to that country and government is only as an employee, a company director, an investor or a customer. If you aren't one of those things, like retired, or poor, or ill, or unemployed, or children, then you have no value to corporate America and you are classed as an expensive social and economic parasite.
But I'll let you into a secret - American healthcare is up to TEN TIMES the cost per patient that in countries with comprehensive healthcare systems.
That American education is up to hundreds of times more expensive than many countries in Europe - here in semi-socialist France a university degree course fees are $500 a year!
That American property taxes are a hundred times taxes in Europe - my previous 4,000sq ft medieval townhouse in Provence cost under $200 A YEAR, including the water supply!
Etc, etc, etc......
Of course if you think 'socialist' is the cursed work of the devil, then keep hold of your fears and reject all those examples. I don't care, I'm in a socialist country, enjoying all the services I can tap into for free.
How do you think all those “free” benefits are paid for? Or do you believe that they just miraculously appear?
We pay taxes. You pay taxes. Our seemingly higher taxes with our free or cheap social benefits, are actually cheaper than your taxes plus the jacked-up cost of your private healthcare system, let alone all the other jacked up costs you have to pay private companies for, that we get for free.
if you do a comparison, accountancy websites will tell you that once all the costs are added up, the average middle income family will have more disposable income living in France than in America, and even more so with kids.
A big difference is our system also taxes rich people and corporations, so that income supports all the things you guys say you can't afford.
The strange thing is how many very rich people, who could choose to live anywhere in the World, still live in France and seem content to pay their fair share of taxes, just because this is considered one of the best places in the world to live.
After all, money isn't an end in itself, is it. It's just one way of making some aspects of your life better.
Looking at all these "common sense fixes" that are consistently being thwarted by Republican politicians, one has to wonder why common sense doesn't negate their existence.
If someone makes 10,000 the pay a percentage into SS. If someone make 160k they make a proportional payment. At 170k their payment is capped...why? It doesn't make financial, mathematical, or proportional sense. Why not 200k or 2MMM?
Lets get back to common sense legislation. Own up to our individual responsibility to support the country and its needs. It is in our own best interest, rich or poor.
Individual responsibility is in the mind of the beholder, according to the Federalist Society.
Robert, thank you for your advice, but I don't see why Social Security benefits must be taxed. Salaries must be taxed to help pay for Social Security; but we shouldn't get lower benefits because of the taxes on the benefits themselves.
It's evil. They are awful people. Baiting fellow Americans with a promise of no taxes on SS when really it's a poison pill, that will kill Americans, is just evil. It screams contempt and zero concern for their fellow Americans and serious sociopathy in anyone involved in baiting their fellow Americans.
Thank you for explaining everything so well, Robert Sir. Onward we go to expose their promise of no tax as deadly poison bait.
You're right, M Tree. This is another talking point for me when I am out trying to encourage voters. The orange man may fool his MAGA cult into believing his idea is the best in the world and history, but sane people know better and need to spread the word!
Peggy Freeman, right, we feel morally obligated to save America and one another. Crazily, our opponents feel the opposite. We need to expose the contrast that our opponents are trying to cover up.
Yes, we do!! Vote blue, America!
Yes people want blue policies so much that they are fleeing blue states to red states.
Interesting but the other side is saying the same thing
M Tree... very true. It is time to put the Congressional Retirement Plan into the SS system with the same rules for contributions and retirement age. No more of this bullshit of getting to retire from the Senate or House after 12 years at full salary retirement and full health care starting the day after you leave, no matter your age. They can wait until 67 like the rest of us.
Go K & T. Donate & vote Blue. Cheers... GH
Gary harmon, I didn't know that was the case. We should strive for fairness and those policies don't seem very fair.
People live longer than they estimated / not really a good model to start but the fix is easy as Robert suggests Apply social security taxes on all income given as the income increases so to the ability to pay does in kind . It is hardly a burden and creates lasting benefits . I’m collecting but continuing to work hard because I can and it is in me to be productive as long as possible because it is in part my identity that I love . I happen to enjoy the services I can provide and all the people I get to meet . I happened to break my femur 18 months ago but it was a minor interruption in my desire to beautify our environment . So we should not encourage retirement but rather modifications to an otherwise sucessful model of productive as each is able
There are people like myself who aren't able to work. I have heart failure and it's a struggle for me to even do yard work which i love to do. There are elderly people who can't even take care of themselves. How are we supposed to be productive?????????? Huh?
I see people who should be enjoying old age with their grandchildren, working as cashiers, greeters and "bagboys" in supermarkets and stocking shelves or working the aisles in Home Depot. It is a tragedy.
Yes, we all see elders working either because it’s the only way to make ends meet, or because they want to. What goes undocumented and underreported however, is the vast volunteer economy that exists, primarily supported by elders as most young families now require 2 income earning adults and have little time to dedicate to community volunteer endeavors. Without the many retired volunteers in our little town, there would be not be much evidence of the rich community and cultural spirit that makes it a wonderful place to live.
What you say is true, But the subject is not retired folks who work, but retired folks who have to work to live. There is a difference.
What for one is an expenditure of time and energy in pursuit of self gratification (fun, entertainment) is for others a means to feed themselves.
I play the banjo as a hobby. Others play the banjo to put food on the table.
In the service I humped rucksacks over deserts, mountains, snow and ice, because it was my job. There are millions of people who do the same for fun.
I got paid to jump out of airplanes, but people pay to do the same.
Millions of people spend money to fly a plane, and hundreds of thousands more get paid money to fly a plane.
The activity is the same, but the motivations are different, Let us focus on the motivations, the reasons and not the activity.
I did not imply everyone should work- I’m sorry- those who can might think doing that for their personal benefit. I’m lucky and can and do . It’s well documented being active at older ages helps keep people healthy and in better spirits . Social security is not a complete plan of support for many . Main point was to apply the taxes on incomes up to the sky to help pay for the system. I’m now preparing to take care of my sister 69 years old in the beginning stages of Alzheimer’s. My apologies that I may have suggested you and others in similar states to continue working . I’m very lucky and can do so
That’s just an excuse to be lazy. Just go get a job John
We can be proud of the ADA.
My mom, the wisest woman I know, told me that I would be okay when I got old because I would have Social Security and retirement from teaching. Bless her heart, she's gone now and in many ways I am glad she is not alive to see what has happened in our country. She passed before the orange man made his stupid appearance. Had she lived, I can hear her now, " Where on earth did that idiot come from?" As far as her advice about social security and retirement, I just manage to squeak by every month. That's okay because I really don't have a pressing need for a whole lot of money. There are so many other things I enjoy. What does bother me is that there are many seniors who are struggling to eat! That should never be allowed in as great a country as ours! I am voting blue up and down the ballot and will continue to do that until we have eliminated every single MAGA idiot from positions in the government! They have no place there. If everyone would just step back and take a look, you will see that what President Biden started when he entered the White House is beginning to show. Our economy is great, pharmaceutical companies are making deals to lower a lot of prescription prices for drugs that seniors need, repair on roads and bridges are happening all across this country, Lena Kahn is working to bust up monopolistic corporations and Democratic Senators and Representatives are bringing more legislation for votes that will help every single American. Democrats are getting the job done! Vote blue, America!!!
"Scrap the Cap!"
Yes, but I think the biggest proposed change is to subject "investment income over $ 200,000" to FICA tax! Up to now, only "wage income below $ 160K" was taxed. Making the rich pay FICA tax on dividends, capital gains, etc. will save the system more than "scrap the cap" which I support.