Permanent tax cuts will create jobs. Temporary ones won't. Rolling back regulations that are harmful to business is important too. The best thing they could do for the economy is roll back Obamacare. But that won't happen.
Beyond removing the cap, I would advocate removing the restriction to payroll earnings and apply the social security tax to capital gains distributions and other unearned income. That's the primary source of income for the very rich. Even Billy Bob, the private equity manager will pay serious money into the system. You could probably fund Medicare from that move alone. Won't ever happen, but it's nice to dream. Those private equity folks are some of the most blatant economic parasites in the system. Not only did they bribe Congress to let them treat their income as capital gains (they only pay 15% income tax), but the destruction and looting of some of the once vibrant manufacturing companies in the US has been unprecedented. The story of Simmons is a prime example.
Obama came to office talking about taking on the difficult task of reforming entitlements. He didn't say much during the campaign, but he immediately started talking about it once elected. It seems that he has embraced the corporate Republican theme of dismantling Social Security because it's too expensive, which it isn't. Thus the theme of "shared sacrifice" mentioned by Robert Oak. As a Democratic Party President, Obama is aware that he's in the position to successfully lead the Republican charge to gut Social Security. How you achieve that is secondary, whether it's through the decimation of its funding base or through a Super Committee that is tasked with hollowing out benefits. The Republicans have been trying to do this for decades and now at last they're succeeding. Why Obama is so enamored of their militaristic feudalism is quite beyond me. He says that he's "for jobs" and he's concerned about unemployment and the working people of this country. But his woefully inadequate actions at every step of the way (vetoing essential health regulations on ozone was yet another job destroying decision) make it clear to me that woefully inadequate reflects either a fundamental lack of interest or it's a design feature (or he's a candidate to take the most idiotic Harvard graduate award away from GWB).
Robert Oak noted in his post that the benefits will be minimal in terms of impact on the economy, but what he didn't mention is that the knock-on effects could be significant, not the least of which is increased joblessness and reduced economic growth, the exact opposite of the plan's intent. How so? As people recognize that the money they were counting on for their retirement isn't there or will be greatly reduced, they will try to increase savings for retirement, cut back on spending (decreasing PCE) and stay in the workforce longer. That means fewer jobs and increased competition for jobs, which means increased unemployment. Young people are already having considerable difficulty landing jobs and I can guarantee you it will get worse once the effects of cutting social security benefits become apparent. More savings means increased money for the banks, which will be spent in whatever manner maximizes management bonuses. I can guarantee you that does not include lending into a declining economy. Speculating on commodities and derivatives is more probable/profitable. But that lack of investment means lower growth or declining GDP, leading to fewer jobs, etc.. Social Security was one of the most successful of many programs passed by Roosevelt during the Great Depression to alleviate the effects of that economic calamity. Now we're in the Greater Depression as some have called it or the Great Recession, and the Obama Administration is doing the exact reverse. Wonderful. Is there an exit to this madness?
DISTRUST! Hoozah! for inter-party distrust in Congress!
"White House, Republicans At Odds Over Sequencing Of FTAs, TAA"
(Current insidetrade.com headline)
The latest round of talks between the White House and House Republicans on how Congress will sequence votes on the three pending free trade agreements and a renewal of Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) has made no progress, and has possibly set back efforts to pass all four measures by intensifying the mutual distrust between the participants, sources said.
Let's hear a big Hoozah! for distrust in the Capitol! Do you trust them? Do you trust bought-and-paid-for representatives of foreign devils? Should they "trust" us to support them and the "deals" they have made in secret with the President or anyone else?
It's no surprise that Speaker Boehner at this point trusts nothing but solid gold, and that is upon delivery.
Should we, the people, trust our representatives in Congress to make secret deals or to be bound by anything but their duty to represent us and the best interests of the nation?
The "best deal" we can get is open government!
This whole charade is an effort to resurrect the old WTOers 'argument' of inevitability.
What's inevitable today is increasing opposition to 'free' trade. Protectionism, if suppressed in the major parties, will bring about re-creation and increasing popularity of alternative parties. So-called 'free' trade legislation is more unpopular than ever before -- and politicians who vote for FTAs are more likely than ever before to be replaced in November. If the proverbial yellow dog is the only alternative voters have, we'll vote for the yellow dog.
Robert Oak uses the term "proved not to work" with the meaning that the policies proposed could not improve the unemployment-underemployment situation, even if they could be enacted. But I would broaden the meaning, as follows:
The President's "jobs" proposals will not even make it out of committee in the House, except as "trade adjustment assistance" in connection with enactment of the three pending FTA's, will not be enacted by Congress, except as "trade adjustment assistance" in connection with enactment of the three pending FTA's, and, if the FTAs and the related TAA is enacted, that will be haled by corporate media as a win-win for Republicans/Democrats as well as for workers/business.
"Easy Money Trick. Learn Misdirection Tips. How To Do Magic Tricks With Money."
"Magic School #3 Money Trick Revealed PLUS misdirection lesson. Julian's Magician School has easy magic tricks, funny stuff to make them entertaining plus lots of confidence boosting tips to help you do magic shows. ...
"You can even make money as a magician. The secret is to be likeable and smile.
"Money money money; that's what people like and it's what makes magic with notes and coins very popular."
(Reuters) - The Senate will not vote on three long-delayed trade deals with South Korea, Panama and Colombia until the House passes an expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance program to retrain workers who have lost their jobs, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said on Wednesday.
"Unless (TAA) passes the House, we're not going to take up any of the trade bills over here," [Senate Majority Leader] Reid told reporters.
And here's more citation, which in turn includes detailed citation to recent history of all this (back to origin with last Bush administration) --
A year ago, Obama moved to resolve Democratic concerns with the deals. That accelerated after Republicans won the House of Representatives in November and demanded action on all three deals by July 1. -- Scott Lincicome, in 'It's the Politics, Stupid'
More exactly, I would describe the origins of "concerns" among Democrats as "concerns of progressive-populist Democrats and a few populist Republicans."
"So why then does Obama push policies that are proved not to work?" -- Robert Oak ('First Pass on Obama's Jobs Stimulus Redux')
Why does Obama push any policies?
That's like asking why fish swim, why birds fly, why and animal breathes.
He's a political animal.
If he were underwater, he'd grow gills. Of course, he wouldn't have to. The Secret Service SEAL team would deliver tanked oxygen.
When in Los Angeles, Pittsburgh or Louisville -- do you breathe the air even though there's an Air Quality alert so that, fundamentally, it's been proved not to work?
Yes, exactly. Shady practices. Unethical behavior. Anti-market. Anti-freedom. Anti-people. Basically more steps toward Communist corporatism.
BUT, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is, do not let the thieves, under the guise of "tort reform," eliminate the right of the people under the Constitution to hire attorneys on a contingency basis.
If attorneys are made unavailable by law to the people, only criminals will have attorneys. And the next step will be another "reform" to assure that courts will not entertain pro se motions!
The country needs REAL reform! Start with your local congress-crittur, check out votes in Congress, follow the money. When in doubt, throw them out!
In theory these are easy fixes, but in practice the golden rule applies. He who has the gold makes the rules. As you say these are powerful interest and their interest aren't my or anyone else's interest. Even the President has aligned himself with those who would have me continue to send money down a rat hole. I agree with the ambition. I don't believe the program is too for gone but i do think the fix is against human nature, the people who have it are not going to come off of it.
Thanks for your discussion .
I work for Bank of America. It's all true. A caller once told a collegaue, "The problem is Bank of America hires the same people that work at McDonalds to do modifications on a persons home." My colleague laughed at this and shared it with me. I looked at her with my head slightly tilted and said, "They do."
A third leg on fixing social security is a graduated reduction in benefits. For example, say Mary Sue paid into social security only $200 a year, but Hedge fund manager Billy Bob paid in $20,000. Well, by income, savings, Billy Bob has $40 million, Mary Sue has $9.35. So, the idea here is to reduce payout to Billy Bob when he goes to collect his benefit, age 67 or whatever.
That is a strong progressive style tax and it is basically an additional tax on the rich. Which considering income inequality in this country, sounds like a grand idea.
Unfortunately few know the economic history of the United States, but before social security, older people often died in abject poverty. Today, more than ever, traditional pensions were taken away, replaced with 401ks with massive losses due to stock market crashes and worse, corporations firing people right before they vested into their options. This happened a lot with startups in particular, but the large companies, not only committing age discrimination, but a side bonus means you lose stock options before vesting schedules.
Fixing social security is well known and an easy fix. They need to a. not let the funding be touched, this is Al Gore's infamous "lock box" which he was made fun of in 2000, and then, they need to graduate the scale based on income and make the contribution into the fund progressive. This was the removal of the cap on earnings subject to the 6.2% pay in to social security.
I think they could also look at totalization agreements and cancelling some of these to reduce costs as well.
So, bottom line here is this is a philosophy. Various groups have been out to destroy social security ever since it was enacted and especially for the last 30 years. It's either Wall Street, wanting retirement funds playing the gambling game in the markets, or it's a host of people who want more wealth, don't want social equality, believe America you should be on your own, a return to 1897.
So, it's easily fixed, unlike Medicare and Medicaid, which need massive cost reductions.
If you want to see a massive increase in abject poverty, suffering, despair, destroy social security.
Talk about a hidden stimulus, imagine those 54 million people, many 100% dependent upon this monthly meager amount....having zero income.
You want to watch consumer spending drop like a stone, that also would be it.
Today's 40's and 50's people have zero for retirement. Between getting fired all of the time, the infamous disposable worker syndrome, stock market crashes, housing implosions and shrinking paychecks which don't even cover rent...they have nothing.
No traditional pensions, unlike the current batch of retirees.
That entire "Ponzi scheme" rhetoric is just masking some philosophy, that again, probably never looked at a data table in their lives. It's not a ponzi scheme. In it's current form it's too regressive as a set up and because social security is under attack by powerful interests, they have been raiding it.
Since I think the GDP multiplier for the payroll tax is too small, to me, any multiplier that is less effective than simply using the same amount of money and hiring people to do something for a year just makes no sense, then how I interpret this is to mean they are out to destroy social security.
We've seen this time and time again and Obama from his time as candidate, has kept fairly hidden, but clearly also an agenda to destroy social security from many of his campaign economic advisers.
So, while the claim is they will take money from the general fund to replace the funding lost to social security, I don't think so.
Bush, Obama, Holder, and all of the banksters have broken the Rule of Law and trampled it till it's unrecognizable. In short, the Rule of Law is dead.
No doubt those who have profited most by gang-stomping the American people are counting their cash and laughing joyously. But the whip end will recoil upon them and they will yet feel remorse. In fact, when the mob comes calling, remorse may be the last thing the banksters EVER feel.
Have you ever read something and had that horrible feeling that you know the end result will be loosing your home. We purchased our home in 2000 through Countrywide is was a 30 year Fixed/ARM 6.5% fixed for the first 2 years then it would switch to ARM. 21 months in we refinanced to a 30 year Fixed at 5.75%, In 2004 I got a promotion, and refinanced to a 5% fixed 15 year. Never at any time did I ever miss a payment. in 2010 Due to Medical bills, and my wifes BiPolar disorder we filed Bankruptcy. Somewhere along the way we got 2 months behind on payments, when I discovered it, I began making extra payments, and working a second job. But BOA doesn't put the extra amount directly on the past due, it let's it accumulate untill its a full payment, THEN applies it. I called them and let them know the next month would put the partail payment to a full payment and I would only be 1 month behind. They said ok. 2 weeks later here comes my most recent payment back, Shortly there after a notice of default, I contacted the Iowa mortgage help and started the process. Then I get served papers regarding foreclosure sale. Got help from Iowa Legal Aid filing the necessary paperwork. I am scared to death that even mediation and negotiation is going to cost me my little house.
Do the current revenues collected through the FICA and MediCare taxes cover current outlays? It is my understanding that, previous surpluses in the programs have been replaced with IOU's. Can the generations born after the baby boomers do both, that is, replace the the IOU's and fund their own pensions and healthcare.
I'm 43, 14 years working for the same company my pay raises have not kept up with inflation, no healthcare and no pension I am told these social programs are broke when I would use it. Cutting my loses seems like the thing to do. Opting out should be an option. I have no confidence in the country or the programs. The structure of the programs is a ponzi scheme and there is a population problem, no?
It makes absolutely no sense to hear pundits/politicians/economists... preaching about how Social Security is underfunded, while at the same time CUTTING Social Security tax!
If Social Security is underfunded, obviously the LAST thing we should be doing is cutting taxes. Instead, the $106,800 wage base should be increased.
When it comes time to re-instate the 6.2% rate, Republicans will call this a "tax increase" just as they did with the Bush tax cuts.
Wage earners are getting accustomed to the 4.2% rate and working it into their budgets. It was only meant to be temporary and the longer it stays around the harder it is going to be to put it back to 6.2%.
It is becoming more obvious that the bait and switch is still operating at Bank of America. I'm sorry you have been put through this. Your attorney should read the Nevada complaint if she or he hasn't done so already. Also, talk to your state attorney general's office. Most of these AGs who are participating in the Tom Miller excuse for a settlement with the big banks are doing so passively, because their budgets have been cut and they don't have the resources to investigate fully the many complaints they have received about the banks. If more and more of these AGs can be pried free from the Tom Miller exercise, the whole thing will collapse.
I more and more suspect that the banks at some level, probably below the CEO, have decided that the foreclosure matters above all else. Even if it means deceiving the homeowner to get to the foreclosure, they will do so. Why this is probably has to do with the fact that the home mortgage is the largest percentage portfolio of assets that most banks own. The fundamental characteristic of the mortgage - other than the fact that the US government guaranties most of them - is that it is collateralized with the home. Take away the collateral, and you've got a 30 year loan that is unsecured, and should be priced at least at 30% interest rates, like credit cards. But credit cards are short term and for much smaller amounts, so we are really talking 80% - 100% to fully reflect the risks out that long.
Obviously, it is in all of our interests, banks and consumers, that the product remain collateralized. The problem is the banks have deeply compromised the legal integrity of their legal claim to the property, with MERS and the securitization process, where notes were never conveyed to the Trustee as required by the documentation. But the banks can't admit their culpability here, because their legal liability would overwhelm their capital and destroy them.
So, the game seems to be act as if there is no problem with the legal rights to the collateral. Foreclose at will and damn the consequences. On the origination side, notice that banks no longer securitize their mortgages. It is an admission that investors don't exist anymore who will buy paper filled with bad credit risk and uncertain legal ability to foreclose in default. That means no new mortgages get booked unless the bank is willing to keep them in house for 30 years, which they don't because they haven't the capital to support the loan. Hence the mortgage market has completely collapsed.
If self-dealing lawyers are allowed to both defend against the FHFA lawsuit, as well as to cover their malpractice and criminal conduct, the FHFA lawsuit could be in exercise in futility. What must become immediately terminated is the DECADES of attorney unjust enrichment and extortion via “simulated” foreclosure auctions, illegal “credit bids,” of residential and commercial real estate properties gained via theft! Mortgage fraud is simply not about only INVESTORS becoming harmed!
When foreclosures become filed, mortgage lenders and bankers ARE NOT required to know the laws and procedures requisite for lawful foreclosures and recordation of property titles –lawyers are!!
When title companies refuse to ensure foreclosed properties, it is usually because the foreclosure was not lawfully executed. Moreover, irrespective of borrower default, NO lawyer should be allowed to SELF-DEAL and exploit circumstances and cause homelessness, and tens of thousands of dollars in losses to City Revenues. It would be ludicrous to exclude from the FHFA lawsuit, the Elephant in the Room –hiding in plain sight!
Further, Freddie Mac has (knowingly or unknowing) shelled out $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ toward real estate theft, criminal frauds, and social tyranny! This FHFA lawsuit, or some additional one needs investigation and recovery of those moneys. People who acted in furtherance of those financial frauds ought to be brought to justice! With our nation’s high unemployment, self-dealing and unscrupulous exploiting of people who owe debt is ravishing America.
An irrefutable instance of Freddie Mac’s involvement in foreclosure frauds (An Elephant depiction!): A defunct mortgage lender’s identity was utilized to place a “credit bid” at a sham foreclosure auction of my home (it is impossible for a non-existent lender to bid \ has no“standing”!) From the so-called auction, a deed was recorded into the defunct lender’s name. (void as a recorded Hibernia deed, rather than successor, Capital One.) Six weeks after the so-called auction, Freddie Mac paid an imposter $86,000 for the worthless property deed, which became put back on the market.
Such in-your-face fraud transactions have continued unaddressed for decades. Fraudulent flipping of real estate make the housing market appear thriving; impresses Investors. In our land of rules and laws, identity theft is criminal, and so is Freddie Mac buying stolen property. However, all that has really mattered were the benefits to be gained by defaulted mortgage loans –even jurists and their allies stand to become enriched from foreclosures. Moreover, acceptable practices include crippling property owners who interfere with foreclosure objectives!
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE have experienced some form of abusive, illegal tactics associated with owing debt, and have signed this petition. Their names and pleas can be seen here: http://www.change.org/petitions/request-for-congressional-foreclosure-pa... Equally as important to America as Investors, they are pleading for help –because they too are victims of the Feds’ failure to properly oversee, regulate, and rein in mortgage industries.
I continue speaking out because attention to this aspect of foreclosure crisis is vital, while the monster roams! A monster so brazen, it sets forth its asinine contentions about defaulted borrowers unentitled to know why they’re being forced to abet mortgage frauds, subjected to invaded privacy, Constitutional wrongs, threats, etc. –all directly associated with real estate frauds. These all the more make is essential to tell the facts of how egregious and far reaching is mortgage fraud.
I'll be hunting for other credible economists analyzing this, but so far, I feel this is really about destroying social security. Anywho, any serious economic analysis, by someone who gets GDP multipliers and runs through the numbers, leave a reference link so I can include it in a round up.
This post conclusion was fairly shocking for me as well for Republicans are the ones who pointed out this is a bad idea and I just naturally blow off everything they say due to their "agendas" which usually do not make macro economic sense.
Exactly one year later after leaving Bank of American the exiting president of countrywide and other top executives opened their doors in the same location of the defunct countrywide offices as Penny Mac with a mandate of buying bad mortgages from Bank of America and other banks. Coincidence? I don't think so after all PennyMac went public for a cool 300 million a while back.
Create the problem, Make Money from the Problem then walk away right.
Permanent tax cuts will create jobs. Temporary ones won't. Rolling back regulations that are harmful to business is important too. The best thing they could do for the economy is roll back Obamacare. But that won't happen.
Beyond removing the cap, I would advocate removing the restriction to payroll earnings and apply the social security tax to capital gains distributions and other unearned income. That's the primary source of income for the very rich. Even Billy Bob, the private equity manager will pay serious money into the system. You could probably fund Medicare from that move alone. Won't ever happen, but it's nice to dream. Those private equity folks are some of the most blatant economic parasites in the system. Not only did they bribe Congress to let them treat their income as capital gains (they only pay 15% income tax), but the destruction and looting of some of the once vibrant manufacturing companies in the US has been unprecedented. The story of Simmons is a prime example.
Obama came to office talking about taking on the difficult task of reforming entitlements. He didn't say much during the campaign, but he immediately started talking about it once elected. It seems that he has embraced the corporate Republican theme of dismantling Social Security because it's too expensive, which it isn't. Thus the theme of "shared sacrifice" mentioned by Robert Oak. As a Democratic Party President, Obama is aware that he's in the position to successfully lead the Republican charge to gut Social Security. How you achieve that is secondary, whether it's through the decimation of its funding base or through a Super Committee that is tasked with hollowing out benefits. The Republicans have been trying to do this for decades and now at last they're succeeding. Why Obama is so enamored of their militaristic feudalism is quite beyond me. He says that he's "for jobs" and he's concerned about unemployment and the working people of this country. But his woefully inadequate actions at every step of the way (vetoing essential health regulations on ozone was yet another job destroying decision) make it clear to me that woefully inadequate reflects either a fundamental lack of interest or it's a design feature (or he's a candidate to take the most idiotic Harvard graduate award away from GWB).
Robert Oak noted in his post that the benefits will be minimal in terms of impact on the economy, but what he didn't mention is that the knock-on effects could be significant, not the least of which is increased joblessness and reduced economic growth, the exact opposite of the plan's intent. How so? As people recognize that the money they were counting on for their retirement isn't there or will be greatly reduced, they will try to increase savings for retirement, cut back on spending (decreasing PCE) and stay in the workforce longer. That means fewer jobs and increased competition for jobs, which means increased unemployment. Young people are already having considerable difficulty landing jobs and I can guarantee you it will get worse once the effects of cutting social security benefits become apparent. More savings means increased money for the banks, which will be spent in whatever manner maximizes management bonuses. I can guarantee you that does not include lending into a declining economy. Speculating on commodities and derivatives is more probable/profitable. But that lack of investment means lower growth or declining GDP, leading to fewer jobs, etc.. Social Security was one of the most successful of many programs passed by Roosevelt during the Great Depression to alleviate the effects of that economic calamity. Now we're in the Greater Depression as some have called it or the Great Recession, and the Obama Administration is doing the exact reverse. Wonderful. Is there an exit to this madness?
DISTRUST! Hoozah! for inter-party distrust in Congress!
"White House, Republicans At Odds Over Sequencing Of FTAs, TAA"
(Current insidetrade.com headline)
Cortez meets with Monctezuma
(Image in public domain via Wikipedia's Wikimedia Commons)
Wiki link
Let's hear a big Hoozah! for distrust in the Capitol! Do you trust them? Do you trust bought-and-paid-for representatives of foreign devils? Should they "trust" us to support them and the "deals" they have made in secret with the President or anyone else?
It's no surprise that Speaker Boehner at this point trusts nothing but solid gold, and that is upon delivery.
Should we, the people, trust our representatives in Congress to make secret deals or to be bound by anything but their duty to represent us and the best interests of the nation?
The "best deal" we can get is open government!
This whole charade is an effort to resurrect the old WTOers 'argument' of inevitability.
What's inevitable today is increasing opposition to 'free' trade. Protectionism, if suppressed in the major parties, will bring about re-creation and increasing popularity of alternative parties. So-called 'free' trade legislation is more unpopular than ever before -- and politicians who vote for FTAs are more likely than ever before to be replaced in November. If the proverbial yellow dog is the only alternative voters have, we'll vote for the yellow dog.
Don't short Third Party stock
Robert Oak uses the term "proved not to work" with the meaning that the policies proposed could not improve the unemployment-underemployment situation, even if they could be enacted. But I would broaden the meaning, as follows:
The President's "jobs" proposals will not even make it out of committee in the House, except as "trade adjustment assistance" in connection with enactment of the three pending FTA's, will not be enacted by Congress, except as "trade adjustment assistance" in connection with enactment of the three pending FTA's, and, if the FTAs and the related TAA is enacted, that will be haled by corporate media as a win-win for Republicans/Democrats as well as for workers/business.
"Easy Money Trick. Learn Misdirection Tips. How To Do Magic Tricks With Money."
"You can even make money as a magician. The secret is to be likeable and smile.
"Money money money; that's what people like and it's what makes magic with notes and coins very popular."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFJSSx-hjYs
As usual, I back up my claims with evidence --
Excerpted for review purposes from Reuters article (Wednesday, 7 September 2011)
And here's more citation, which in turn includes detailed citation to recent history of all this (back to origin with last Bush administration) --
Excerpt from Scott Lincicome's The TAA-FTA "Deal," Part 3: It's the Politics, Stupid
More exactly, I would describe the origins of "concerns" among Democrats as "concerns of progressive-populist Democrats and a few populist Republicans."
"So why then does Obama push policies that are proved not to work?" -- Robert Oak ('First Pass on Obama's Jobs Stimulus Redux')
Why does Obama push any policies?
That's like asking why fish swim, why birds fly, why and animal breathes.
He's a political animal.
If he were underwater, he'd grow gills. Of course, he wouldn't have to. The Secret Service SEAL team would deliver tanked oxygen.
When in Los Angeles, Pittsburgh or Louisville -- do you breathe the air even though there's an Air Quality alert so that, fundamentally, it's been proved not to work?
As usual, I cite evidence for my claims --
NYT (2 September 2011, John M. Broder) Obama Administration Abandons Plan to Tighten Air-Quality Rules
Excellent, 'Barbara Ann Jackson'!
Yes, exactly. Shady practices. Unethical behavior. Anti-market. Anti-freedom. Anti-people. Basically more steps toward Communist corporatism.
BUT, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. That is, do not let the thieves, under the guise of "tort reform," eliminate the right of the people under the Constitution to hire attorneys on a contingency basis.
If attorneys are made unavailable by law to the people, only criminals will have attorneys. And the next step will be another "reform" to assure that courts will not entertain pro se motions!
The country needs REAL reform! Start with your local congress-crittur, check out votes in Congress, follow the money. When in doubt, throw them out!
In theory these are easy fixes, but in practice the golden rule applies. He who has the gold makes the rules. As you say these are powerful interest and their interest aren't my or anyone else's interest. Even the President has aligned himself with those who would have me continue to send money down a rat hole. I agree with the ambition. I don't believe the program is too for gone but i do think the fix is against human nature, the people who have it are not going to come off of it.
Thanks for your discussion .
I work for Bank of America. It's all true. A caller once told a collegaue, "The problem is Bank of America hires the same people that work at McDonalds to do modifications on a persons home." My colleague laughed at this and shared it with me. I looked at her with my head slightly tilted and said, "They do."
A third leg on fixing social security is a graduated reduction in benefits. For example, say Mary Sue paid into social security only $200 a year, but Hedge fund manager Billy Bob paid in $20,000. Well, by income, savings, Billy Bob has $40 million, Mary Sue has $9.35. So, the idea here is to reduce payout to Billy Bob when he goes to collect his benefit, age 67 or whatever.
That is a strong progressive style tax and it is basically an additional tax on the rich. Which considering income inequality in this country, sounds like a grand idea.
Unfortunately few know the economic history of the United States, but before social security, older people often died in abject poverty. Today, more than ever, traditional pensions were taken away, replaced with 401ks with massive losses due to stock market crashes and worse, corporations firing people right before they vested into their options. This happened a lot with startups in particular, but the large companies, not only committing age discrimination, but a side bonus means you lose stock options before vesting schedules.
Fixing social security is well known and an easy fix. They need to a. not let the funding be touched, this is Al Gore's infamous "lock box" which he was made fun of in 2000, and then, they need to graduate the scale based on income and make the contribution into the fund progressive. This was the removal of the cap on earnings subject to the 6.2% pay in to social security.
I think they could also look at totalization agreements and cancelling some of these to reduce costs as well.
So, bottom line here is this is a philosophy. Various groups have been out to destroy social security ever since it was enacted and especially for the last 30 years. It's either Wall Street, wanting retirement funds playing the gambling game in the markets, or it's a host of people who want more wealth, don't want social equality, believe America you should be on your own, a return to 1897.
So, it's easily fixed, unlike Medicare and Medicaid, which need massive cost reductions.
If you want to see a massive increase in abject poverty, suffering, despair, destroy social security.
Talk about a hidden stimulus, imagine those 54 million people, many 100% dependent upon this monthly meager amount....having zero income.
You want to watch consumer spending drop like a stone, that also would be it.
Today's 40's and 50's people have zero for retirement. Between getting fired all of the time, the infamous disposable worker syndrome, stock market crashes, housing implosions and shrinking paychecks which don't even cover rent...they have nothing.
No traditional pensions, unlike the current batch of retirees.
That entire "Ponzi scheme" rhetoric is just masking some philosophy, that again, probably never looked at a data table in their lives. It's not a ponzi scheme. In it's current form it's too regressive as a set up and because social security is under attack by powerful interests, they have been raiding it.
Since I think the GDP multiplier for the payroll tax is too small, to me, any multiplier that is less effective than simply using the same amount of money and hiring people to do something for a year just makes no sense, then how I interpret this is to mean they are out to destroy social security.
We've seen this time and time again and Obama from his time as candidate, has kept fairly hidden, but clearly also an agenda to destroy social security from many of his campaign economic advisers.
So, while the claim is they will take money from the general fund to replace the funding lost to social security, I don't think so.
Bush, Obama, Holder, and all of the banksters have broken the Rule of Law and trampled it till it's unrecognizable. In short, the Rule of Law is dead.
No doubt those who have profited most by gang-stomping the American people are counting their cash and laughing joyously. But the whip end will recoil upon them and they will yet feel remorse. In fact, when the mob comes calling, remorse may be the last thing the banksters EVER feel.
Here's hoping it happens soon.
Have you ever read something and had that horrible feeling that you know the end result will be loosing your home. We purchased our home in 2000 through Countrywide is was a 30 year Fixed/ARM 6.5% fixed for the first 2 years then it would switch to ARM. 21 months in we refinanced to a 30 year Fixed at 5.75%, In 2004 I got a promotion, and refinanced to a 5% fixed 15 year. Never at any time did I ever miss a payment. in 2010 Due to Medical bills, and my wifes BiPolar disorder we filed Bankruptcy. Somewhere along the way we got 2 months behind on payments, when I discovered it, I began making extra payments, and working a second job. But BOA doesn't put the extra amount directly on the past due, it let's it accumulate untill its a full payment, THEN applies it. I called them and let them know the next month would put the partail payment to a full payment and I would only be 1 month behind. They said ok. 2 weeks later here comes my most recent payment back, Shortly there after a notice of default, I contacted the Iowa mortgage help and started the process. Then I get served papers regarding foreclosure sale. Got help from Iowa Legal Aid filing the necessary paperwork. I am scared to death that even mediation and negotiation is going to cost me my little house.
Do the current revenues collected through the FICA and MediCare taxes cover current outlays? It is my understanding that, previous surpluses in the programs have been replaced with IOU's. Can the generations born after the baby boomers do both, that is, replace the the IOU's and fund their own pensions and healthcare.
I'm 43, 14 years working for the same company my pay raises have not kept up with inflation, no healthcare and no pension I am told these social programs are broke when I would use it. Cutting my loses seems like the thing to do. Opting out should be an option. I have no confidence in the country or the programs. The structure of the programs is a ponzi scheme and there is a population problem, no?
It makes absolutely no sense to hear pundits/politicians/economists... preaching about how Social Security is underfunded, while at the same time CUTTING Social Security tax!
If Social Security is underfunded, obviously the LAST thing we should be doing is cutting taxes. Instead, the $106,800 wage base should be increased.
When it comes time to re-instate the 6.2% rate, Republicans will call this a "tax increase" just as they did with the Bush tax cuts.
Wage earners are getting accustomed to the 4.2% rate and working it into their budgets. It was only meant to be temporary and the longer it stays around the harder it is going to be to put it back to 6.2%.
Know who you can trust. http://bit.ly/r6Cp8o
It is becoming more obvious that the bait and switch is still operating at Bank of America. I'm sorry you have been put through this. Your attorney should read the Nevada complaint if she or he hasn't done so already. Also, talk to your state attorney general's office. Most of these AGs who are participating in the Tom Miller excuse for a settlement with the big banks are doing so passively, because their budgets have been cut and they don't have the resources to investigate fully the many complaints they have received about the banks. If more and more of these AGs can be pried free from the Tom Miller exercise, the whole thing will collapse.
I more and more suspect that the banks at some level, probably below the CEO, have decided that the foreclosure matters above all else. Even if it means deceiving the homeowner to get to the foreclosure, they will do so. Why this is probably has to do with the fact that the home mortgage is the largest percentage portfolio of assets that most banks own. The fundamental characteristic of the mortgage - other than the fact that the US government guaranties most of them - is that it is collateralized with the home. Take away the collateral, and you've got a 30 year loan that is unsecured, and should be priced at least at 30% interest rates, like credit cards. But credit cards are short term and for much smaller amounts, so we are really talking 80% - 100% to fully reflect the risks out that long.
Obviously, it is in all of our interests, banks and consumers, that the product remain collateralized. The problem is the banks have deeply compromised the legal integrity of their legal claim to the property, with MERS and the securitization process, where notes were never conveyed to the Trustee as required by the documentation. But the banks can't admit their culpability here, because their legal liability would overwhelm their capital and destroy them.
So, the game seems to be act as if there is no problem with the legal rights to the collateral. Foreclose at will and damn the consequences. On the origination side, notice that banks no longer securitize their mortgages. It is an admission that investors don't exist anymore who will buy paper filled with bad credit risk and uncertain legal ability to foreclose in default. That means no new mortgages get booked unless the bank is willing to keep them in house for 30 years, which they don't because they haven't the capital to support the loan. Hence the mortgage market has completely collapsed.
If self-dealing lawyers are allowed to both defend against the FHFA lawsuit, as well as to cover their malpractice and criminal conduct, the FHFA lawsuit could be in exercise in futility. What must become immediately terminated is the DECADES of attorney unjust enrichment and extortion via “simulated” foreclosure auctions, illegal “credit bids,” of residential and commercial real estate properties gained via theft! Mortgage fraud is simply not about only INVESTORS becoming harmed!
When foreclosures become filed, mortgage lenders and bankers ARE NOT required to know the laws and procedures requisite for lawful foreclosures and recordation of property titles –lawyers are!!
When title companies refuse to ensure foreclosed properties, it is usually because the foreclosure was not lawfully executed. Moreover, irrespective of borrower default, NO lawyer should be allowed to SELF-DEAL and exploit circumstances and cause homelessness, and tens of thousands of dollars in losses to City Revenues. It would be ludicrous to exclude from the FHFA lawsuit, the Elephant in the Room –hiding in plain sight!
Further, Freddie Mac has (knowingly or unknowing) shelled out $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ toward real estate theft, criminal frauds, and social tyranny! This FHFA lawsuit, or some additional one needs investigation and recovery of those moneys. People who acted in furtherance of those financial frauds ought to be brought to justice! With our nation’s high unemployment, self-dealing and unscrupulous exploiting of people who owe debt is ravishing America.
An irrefutable instance of Freddie Mac’s involvement in foreclosure frauds (An Elephant depiction!): A defunct mortgage lender’s identity was utilized to place a “credit bid” at a sham foreclosure auction of my home (it is impossible for a non-existent lender to bid \ has no“standing”!) From the so-called auction, a deed was recorded into the defunct lender’s name. (void as a recorded Hibernia deed, rather than successor, Capital One.) Six weeks after the so-called auction, Freddie Mac paid an imposter $86,000 for the worthless property deed, which became put back on the market.
Such in-your-face fraud transactions have continued unaddressed for decades. Fraudulent flipping of real estate make the housing market appear thriving; impresses Investors. In our land of rules and laws, identity theft is criminal, and so is Freddie Mac buying stolen property. However, all that has really mattered were the benefits to be gained by defaulted mortgage loans –even jurists and their allies stand to become enriched from foreclosures. Moreover, acceptable practices include crippling property owners who interfere with foreclosure objectives!
HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE have experienced some form of abusive, illegal tactics associated with owing debt, and have signed this petition. Their names and pleas can be seen here: http://www.change.org/petitions/request-for-congressional-foreclosure-pa... Equally as important to America as Investors, they are pleading for help –because they too are victims of the Feds’ failure to properly oversee, regulate, and rein in mortgage industries.
I continue speaking out because attention to this aspect of foreclosure crisis is vital, while the monster roams! A monster so brazen, it sets forth its asinine contentions about defaulted borrowers unentitled to know why they’re being forced to abet mortgage frauds, subjected to invaded privacy, Constitutional wrongs, threats, etc. –all directly associated with real estate frauds. These all the more make is essential to tell the facts of how egregious and far reaching is mortgage fraud.
I'll be hunting for other credible economists analyzing this, but so far, I feel this is really about destroying social security. Anywho, any serious economic analysis, by someone who gets GDP multipliers and runs through the numbers, leave a reference link so I can include it in a round up.
This post conclusion was fairly shocking for me as well for Republicans are the ones who pointed out this is a bad idea and I just naturally blow off everything they say due to their "agendas" which usually do not make macro economic sense.
Exactly one year later after leaving Bank of American the exiting president of countrywide and other top executives opened their doors in the same location of the defunct countrywide offices as Penny Mac with a mandate of buying bad mortgages from Bank of America and other banks. Coincidence? I don't think so after all PennyMac went public for a cool 300 million a while back.
Create the problem, Make Money from the Problem then walk away right.
Pages