Tea Party Induced Stock Market Crash A Paul Ryan Downgrade

Tweet

Give "Capper" at Cognitive Dissidence the credit through all the other distractions for noticing the troubling relationship between the recent Tea Party/S&P driven stock market dive and Paul Ryan's scheme to shift SS payroll taxes to the highly volatile investment markets. That the markets have proven to be susceptible to congressional brinksmanship and political posturing makes it even less the infallible pillar of trust that is crucial to its existence.

Cognitive Dissidence Excerpt:

You will remember that Ryan, the Republicans' shining star, has, as a key part of his budget from hell, privatizing Social Security and allowing people to invest it in the stock market themselves [...]Even the bullheaded Ryan has to realize that only the extreme lunatic fringe would want to invest their retirement into the market right now. Read more here.

Or invest even a year or two ago. That's twice in the past three years and three times over the past ten years that stock market volatility has eaten away at modest gains. These are precisely the economic times Social Security was meant to protect vulnerable seniors from.

If I recall accurately here, Ryan's Social Security proposal guarantees recipients a return equivalent to a minimum standard SS benefit which means that during times like these, not only would participants lose hard-earned dollars to the profit-takers on Wall Street but government will also have to go into more debt and borrow to restore minimum guaranteed benefits. Under this scenario, Ryan's proposal transforms Social Security into a generous subsidy for private investment firms. But with losses like these, its participants would find themselves enrolled in little more than a welfare program.

The Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy Are Offset

Tweet

The Ed Shultz Show had a clip from 2002 showing Sen. Kent Conrad (D-Deluded) saying the Bush Administration's budget plans called for raiding $2 trillion dollars from Social Security to pay for his tax cuts.

"The (Bush) Administration told us that we can have a massive tax cut... and protect Social Security. Now what we're seeing is they got the massive tax cut, but now instead of maximum pay down of the debt, they're asking for the second biggest increase in the debt in our nation's history. And on protecting Social Security instead of protecting it, the president's budget plan over the next decade will be taking almost $2 trillion dollars out of Social Security to pay for other things, to pay for his tax cuts and to pay for other spending." -- Sen. Kent Conrad, Meet the Press - June 9, 2002

Fast forward to Nov. 10, 2010 and Conrad, as arrogant and sycophantic as Rep. Paul Ryan, practically delivers Ryan's toxic roadmap in an interview with George Stephanopoulos saying, "the Bush tax cuts must be extended until we can reform the tax system." And ... "the idea that you don't have to touch Social Security or Medicare - that's not going to do it. Hey, Social Security and Medicare are both headed for insolvency...it is not affordable."

The guest on the Ed Show wondered, "where is the Kent Conrad from 2002?"

When they say Social Security is headed for insolvency, what they really mean is because Social Security surpluses are no longer enough to offset the tax cuts for the wealthy - it's time to scrap Social Security and reform the tax system. It's an "affordability" issue. Watch for it in the video below.



Why do you think it's a terrible idea to bail-out millionaires? That's Why!!

PolitiFact's Nose: As Long As A Telephone Wire

Tweet

"I've been outspent by my opponents every time I've run for U.S. Senate." -- Sen. Russ Feingold

That's a truth.

However, after the Journal Sentinel Politifact editorial wrongly gave Feingold’s statement a "Pants on Fire" rating on their Truth-o-meter, several Wisconsin blogs scoffed at PolitiFact's cherry-picking the numbers including this fact-based posting by Corey Liebmann of Eye On Wisconsin. Liebmann lays out the numbers and Feingold's opponents and adds them up to support the undeniable truth. Feingold has been outspent by all of his opponents in each election cycle and overall, Feingold's opponents have outspent him by almost $10 million. Numbers don't lie.

The objective folks at Politifact also implied that Feingold is disingenuously positioning himself as an underdog so as to gain sympathetic campaign donors, when according to some recent polls - he is the underdog! The idea that that statement was published in a so-called fact-based analysis just about destroys any little integrity Politifact might have had without it.

But on the surface, I tend to agree with Mike McCabe's view that, "the average voter would think of the opponent as the head-to-head matchup." That's what the average voter would think providing they zoned out the plural context of Feingold's statement or believe the garbage thrown out by PolitiFact. Yet, that is precisely why we need to keep hammering and shine a light on PolitiFact's opinion and any other self-described "facts" Wiki or Web-based org.

Kudos to Corey Liebmann.

But it doesn't end there. Politifact posted ideologically skewed interpretations defending republicans modern narrative on "renewing" Social Security.

"Somehow we have to establish a phase-out of the current Social Security system to a new system. And that will have to happen over time. It could happen in a single generation." -- Reid Ribble (8th District candidate)

Spoken like a true politician.

After that remark, an ad by Rep. Steve Kagen messaged that his opponent, Ribble, wants to phase out Social Security and that seniors should tell Ribble to keep his hands off. PolitiFact again came out swinging and ironically gave Kagen's statement, not Ribble's distorted Social Security bankruptcy narrative, a "Pants on fire" rating.

Blogger Folkbum took that one to task and ramped it up explaining how Rep. Paul "numbles" Ryan's Roadmap double-counts the same dollar everyone pays into Social Security would eventually double-up deficits and guarantee insolvency twice as fast than any other worst case scenario, since he promises current and near-future retirees no change in their benefits while younger participants risk their futures in "guaranteed personal accounts."

Clearly, the Ribbles and the Duffys' along with Republican Senate candidate Ron Johnson have been parroting Ryan's erroneous talking-points on Social Security and need to be called to account.

With six weeks to go, the mainstream media now appears to be on a mission to soft pedal republicans on their destroy Social Security rhetoric.

Make no mistake, Republicans comparing Social Security to Bernie Madoff, a Ponzi scheme or "the money isn't there" terminology are not repeating those fear-based distortions to strengthen the program. These people hate it, they literally hate the idea that government could possibly provide some level of economic security for people when they've reached their senior years. Road mapping republicans, Ayn Rand republicans and conservatives want to destroy the current format of Social Security. That is a fact.

My other point about Politifact is I believe they are entitled to their opinion just like the rest of us. But tackling broad political statements with even more ambiguity or outright lies while running under a fact check banner should be considered downright fraudulent.

That is my opinion.

Johnson Lies To Fabricate Negative Campaign Against Himself

Tweet

Where have I heard that before? There's a pattern developing here, that's for sure.

If you’re familiar with my blog, you’ll know I rarely if ever refer to anybody as a liar. That’s a pretty strong word. I mean, everybody is entitled to their opinion and stand by it, even when their opinion is based on false statements and half-truths.

But when a person claims another person “is gonna” tell you something which they never did say and then proceed to use the fabricated statement in an argument against that person – I’d say that person is a liar. In this case, I’d say he’s a hallucinating double-talking backbiting liar. Such is the scenario around Ron Johnson’s latest campaign ad to create a negative ad against himself, and then claiming Sen. Russ Feingold did it.

Johnson begins his ad ...

"Guess what’s coming in Russ Feingold’s negative campaign. He’s gonna tell you that I said Washington treats Social Security like a Ponzi scheme.

You know what? I did say that...because it's true."

But you know what? Johnson lied. Johnson never said “Washington treats it like a Ponzi Scheme” until today - and he lied again by saying that Feingold's "gonna" say Johnson said “Washington treats it like a Ponzi Scheme.” Got that?

This is Johnson’s actual quote on Social Security…

Wispolitics Excerpt:
"Is it too strong a statement to say that we’ve been lied to? How is Social Security different from a giant Ponzi scheme? Our money has been spent, and the lockbox is nothing more than a future claim against our children’s income." [Johnson’s speech at the Winnebago County Republicans’ Lincoln Day Dinner, March 21, 2010]

In my world, there is a difference between treating a person like a dog and stating that a person IS a dog. I'm not splitting hairs here, the difference is like night and day. It's basic comprehension.

So the reality is, if elected, Ron Johnson will go to Washington and treat Social Security like a Ponzi Scheme - because he, not Russ Feingold, believes it to be no different than one.

The other truth is, Feingold doesn’t need to run negative ads against Johnson. This fella Ron Johnson is doing it all for him.

Additional Note: So far, most of Johnson's campaign ads are meant to reconstruct his extremist views into a more moderate populist message. That’s why his latest ads and his campaign staff are constantly contradicting or marginalizing what he said previously. When they can’t pull it off cleanly, they’ll put words in Feingold’s mouth. I think Johnson’s campaign is in permanent damage-control mode. Most of Johnson’s campaign staff's repositioning statements actually coincide more closely with Feingold’s position. They have nothing left to offer but name-calling.

Hometown Newspaper Runs Away From Ryan's Roadmap?

Tweet

Last week, the Janesville Gazette republished an editorial from the Miami Herald about saving Social Security under its original intentions and format for future generations. The Herald's editorial, inserted into the area normally reserved for the newspaper's endorsing editorials, contained some of the obviously moderate "tweaks" most bandied about through the msm and cable news talking heads.

But, what was surprisingly absent in this editorial was any allusion or allegiance to Congressman Paul Ryan's extreme roadmap plot to kill Social Security. Considering low-wage conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception and combined with the Gazette's favored-son publishing contributions to Ryan's campaign over the years, this appears to be a very unusual development, at least on the surface.

Ryan’s “roadmap” you might recall, is a budget scheme to get out from debt by privatizing Social Security and Medicare at the same time repealing the estate and corporate taxes. Ryan has actually gone on record hoping to strip Social Security "certainty" away from workers and seniors because "it ends up draining them of their incentive and will to make the most of their lives." Fiscal-wise, his roadmap would lose $2 trillion over a decade, while requiring 90 percent of taxpayers to pay more, according to an analysis by the Citizens for Tax Justice.
So, over the course of several months, more and more voters have gotten wise to Ryan's marketing scheme to destroy Social Security, nudging republicans to quietly withdraw, at least publicly, their support for his roadmap.

Daily Caller Excerpt:
They’re talking to their pollsters and their pollsters are saying, ‘Stay away from this. We’re going to win an election,’ Ryan said, speaking at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

The pollster's advice offers a whole new dimension as to why Ryan's hometown newspaper would publish a Social Security editorial containing no reference to the most heavily publicized dismantlement plan out there on the wildly popular federal program. They're taking that advice and doing their part to desensitize Ryan's relationship with their readership on the Social Security issue.

There's an election coming up.

How To Save Social Security

Tweet

Consider this. My idea to genuinely save Social Security for future generations would give all current and future beneficiaries 65-and-up a "choice" at retirement time to take a onetime cash buyout to invest in the capital markets for themselves or to receive the monthly pay-outs. This would actually work both morally and economically because by retirement age most folks know whether they need the guaranteed payments SS promised. I can imagine some of the wealthier folks (and all of Ryan's supporters) taking it. This way the trust fund won't be drained as quickly and the next generations could enjoy the same opportunity of monthly endowment benefits as beneficiaries receive now, and because they will continue to pay into it.

The key feature to this idea is it preserves the current entitlement system for everyone under the age of 55.

INSTEAD, Rep. Paul Ryan proposed the exact opposite!! He proposed to leave the current recipient's schedule unchanged and without that choice, while throwing the next generations of SS participants under a bus by offering a poisoned T-bone savings account to invest in the capital markets long before they will know what their future will look like. Folks can invest and save in the markets right now without government intervention or control, so why bring in even more intrusive government control? Of course, Ryan's plan is designed to intentionally starve Social Security.

I don't believe this "buy-out" tool is the single and ultimate fix-all for SS, but it should be considered along with other serious solutions such as a higher income ceiling to keep it permanently solvent.

SS offers a promise to keep the average worker out of absolute poverty. It doesn't come cheap.

Rather Snooze than Lose With Ryan's SS Reform

Tweet

Tuesday’s Janesville Gazette contained yet another Paul Ryan election campaign article, this time masquerading as an editorial. The newspaper however chose Social Security as the subject to promote their guy and defended his past positions by stating obviously vague terms and forgiving generalizations. They could have picked nearly anyone else in Congress if they were really serious about promoting reforms to guarantee Social Security's future. Make no mistake, this editorial is designed to promote their hometown hero - again.

A few years ago, I attended the Ryan/Dean Baker SS debate held at Parker High in Janesville, and just to make it short, I learned Ryan is no friend of Social Security. Back then, Ryan was serious about privatizing most of the revenue being paid into the system from payroll taxes. Back then like today, Ryan and his Gazette campaign staff shared the same urgency to “reform” Social Security.

JG Gazette Editorial Excerpt:
Critics will point out that, a few years ago, Ryan joined President Bush in pushing for privatizing Social Security.

That’s putting it mildly. Ryan was hand-picked by Bush to lead the White House charge against Social Security.

In a nutshell, Ryan wants to privatize the security in Social Security the very same way the care in Medicare is. Today, our problems in Medicare are far more urgent because the high costs necessary to produce dividends for the few far outweigh the health needs of the many. Government isn’t crushing Medicare – privatization is. Just a few days before, largely due to fall-out from Wall Street, the editors of the Gazette posted a cartoon poking fun at the absurdity of privatizing Social Security.Sure, we can laugh now and dismiss the idea but back then, to Ryan, this was no laughing matter. This was HIS idea. Big joke now.

JG Gazette Editorial Excerpt:
Congressman Ryan has been a staunch advocate of protecting Social Security and understands the problem.

Is that so? Then why did he vote NO on strenghtening the Social Security Lockbox. This bill required that any budget surplus CANNOT be spent until the solvency of Social Security is guaranteed. Ryan’s “NO” accelerates the speed to insolvency. Ryan’s “NO” says yes to spending the budget surplus. In my opinion, Ryan is not an advocate of Social Security. Not even close.

JG Gazette Editorial Excerpt:
As Ryan says: "Hitting the snooze button, yet again, is not the right choice.

In light of current events, I wouldn't be too sure about that. Had we accepted the Bush/Ryan Social Security Reform of the not too distant past, it turns out, snoozing was better than losing. Thank goodness we can laugh about it.

Ryan is rated 10% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.

Tammy Baldwin, the representative for Wisconsin’s 2nd District which covers the western half of Rock County, is rated 100% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record.