You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are Wall Street liars like Peter Orszag born or made? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-03-10 09:53 PM
Original message
Are Wall Street liars like Peter Orszag born or made?
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Wed Nov-03-10 09:58 PM by brentspeak
From this global elite suck-up's piece in the New York Times:



The left, though, seems adamantly opposed to restoring actuarial balance to Social Security now. I have trouble understanding this reluctance for several reasons: the key issue progressives had been concerned about — individual accounts within Social Security — has been definitively won in their favor (for now); they have a president from their party in office, which will not always be the case; acting now would allow changes to take effect more gradually, cushioning the blow; and establishing some credibility on out-year fiscal problems by enacting Social Security reform could open up (admittedly limited) running room to pass necessary additional stimulus legislation in the short run.

Given the left’s strident opposition to any serious discussion of Social Security reform, the issue will provide a key early indicator of the administration’s response to the election results.


Are people like Orszag groomed by their parents at the dinner table to become liars on behalf of the Very Important People? "Remember that your prospects will be determined by how well you can lie and be disingenuous on behalf of the Mr. Goldman Sachs' executive families that we meet down at the country club. Always remember that."

Orszag's B.S. perfectly answered by one of the reader comments:



The fight is not between those who want to do something to increase Social Security solvency and those who don't. It is between those who want to increase solvency through cutting benefits by increasing the retirement age and those who want to increase solvency through increasing revenues by raising the cap on income that is taxed for Social Security--now set at the first $106,000.

Removing the income cap entirely (as is the case with Medicare) and to taxing the non wage property income that provides most of the income for the rich as well, would increase Social Security revenues by over 25 percent--enough not only to insure solvency but also increase benefits. This last advantage of increasing Social Security benefite is all the more necessary given the miserable performance of 401(k) plans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC