Attention, Mr. Erskine Bowles

Monday, July 12th, 2010 · 11 Comments »

I’ve prepared this brief Q&A for your edification:

How is the federal government’s “debt” like ordinary debt?

It’s not.

How is the federal deficit like a cancer?

It’s not.

Now shut the fuck up you goddamn lying moron twit.

Filed under: Various and Sundry · Tags:

11 Responses to “Attention, Mr. Erskine Bowles”

  1. Fredster says:

    Why-oh-why do they never mention lifting the cap on earnings for soc. sec and include an increase in the withholding %? I’d love to see it at least considered before any thoughts of cuts.

  2. bluelyon says:

    We’re just ever so screwed.

    @ Fredster – Because making rich people pay their fair share is class warfare. Come on. Get with the program!

  3. Briar says:

    Securing social justice is class warfare. It’s time we stopped letting the right write the definitions and took back the moral initiative. Redistribution of wealth from the rich minority to the rest of us is right and proper. Making tax-war on the rich is a *good* thing to do. This may be in fundamental opposition to the core principle of Americanism (it is *good* to be selfish and greedy and rich) but that just means Americanism is wrong.

  4. Fredster says:

    bluelyon@2: Oops! I forgot..I lost my printed program for the program! ;-)

  5. Three Wickets says:

    Hey Fredster. Because social security is meant to be insurance and not a tax. If we lift the cap on earnings, it begins to look like a progressive tax which would then potentially also argue for means testing the payouts. Means testing would make social security look like welfare, and it would be the first step towards its demise. So goes the argument from some on the left. Others would argue there is no real solvency issue with social security…that the national debt scare is a strawman for the wealth distribution debate on deficit spending and taxes.

  6. Fredster says:

    TW-5-Okay, let’s say raise the ceiling on income subject to the tax. The ceiling wasn’t always where it is now (whatever that is) was it? When they “rescued” social security in the 80s did they fiddle with any of the ceilings or whatever then?

    Others would argue there is no real solvency issue with social security…

    Indeed I have read that.

  7. Toonces says:

    Sort of off-topic, but Elizabeth Warren should be appointed head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:

    http://www.credoaction.com/campaign/pick_warren/

  8. lambert strether says:

    Speaking of morons

  9. Fredster says:

    lambert-8: Luv the dept. you put it in! ;-)

  10. Topper Harley says:

    @6 The ceiling for Social Security taxes is indexed to inflation.

    According to this link (with reasonable looking data), the limit in ’96 (earliest year) was $62.7K, and it’s now $106.8K

    http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?name=415&firstyear=1996&lastyear=2010

  11. Fredster says:

    Topper Harley-10: on your link I saw the column which had Social Security Tax for employees and employers which was at 6.2% and then saw the income limit. Thanks. That being the case they should just raise the income subject to the tax.