Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Looting to Come

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Looting to Come

    Wall Street Targets the Elderly

    By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
    Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

    Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to pound them deeper into the ground.

    As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.


    Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

    Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

    Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

    We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

    Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

    Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

    Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

    Years ago with stagflation defeated and a rising stock market, I favored privatizing Social Security as a way of creating a funded retirement system and producing greater savings and larger incomes for retirees. At that time Wall Street was interested, not for my reasons, but in order to collect the fees from managing the funds.

    Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.

    After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Street’s dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyone’s old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.

    Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

    Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables--a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror--are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

    Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02192010.html

  • #2
    when a Reaganite sounds

    like a Brezhnev era apparatchik
    ...
    and his critique's mostly on-target, AFAICT ...
    what has the world come to ?
    Last edited by Spartacus; February 20, 2010, 03:17 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: when a Reaganite sounds

      One might well quibble with details, but Roberts isn't wrong. The bait and switch he describes--use payroll taxes as general federal revenue, then tell beneficiaries "sorry, we can't afford your benefits"--is a common talking point. Most irritating is how the mainstream media treats such rhetoric is "fiscal responsibility".

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: when a Reaganite sounds

        hehehe

        I wasn't claiming he's wrong, thanks ... I edited my post

        Originally posted by DaveHanson View Post
        One might well quibble with details, but Roberts isn't wrong. The bait and switch he describes--use payroll taxes as general federal revenue, then tell beneficiaries "sorry, we can't afford your benefits"--is a common talking point. Most irritating is how the mainstream media treats such rhetoric is "fiscal responsibility".

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: The Looting to Come

          In the first paragraph of the article the author certainly credits Paulson with a lot of damage given the fact he was the Secretary of the Treasury for a mere 18 months and he was busy bailing water for a good portion of that time.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: The Looting to Come

            Originally posted by BigBagel View Post
            In the first paragraph of the article the author certainly credits Paulson with a lot of damage given the fact he was the Secretary of the Treasury for a mere 18 months and he was busy bailing water for a good portion of that time.
            I believe he was attributing to Paulson considerable influence over financial regulatory policy in the Goldman years before he became Treasury Secretary.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: The Looting to Come

              Social Security was a Ponzi scheme from the get go. It's absurd to blame its crash on Paulson or Wall Street.
              Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: The Looting to Come

                Originally posted by Master Shake View Post
                Social Security was a Ponzi scheme from the get go...
                It may have been politically mismanaged to end up that way, but the concept is sound.

                The whole social contract is that younger, working age people pay the highest taxes which go to either end of the age demographic - some to those too young to work but presumably future taxpayers [public education funding] and some to those who are well past the point where they earn enough income to support themselves solely [public pensions].

                The whole argument is that all of us pass through these phases in our lives, and gain the benefit when we are very young and very old, and make the contribution in the middle years.

                If you folks in the USA break that contract instead of fixing it, you will end up with an unstable society...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: The Looting to Come

                  Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                  It may have been politically mismanaged to end up that way, but the concept is sound.

                  The whole social contract is that younger, working age people pay the highest taxes which go to either end of the age demographic - some to those too young to work but presumably future taxpayers [public education funding] and some to those who are well past the point where they earn enough income to support themselves solely [public pensions].
                  That doesn't work so well on a large scale.

                  On a small scale, with one's family and neighbors, in hard times the young and old share in the reduced fortunes of the working adults. In good times, spare tools, extra rooms, additional clothes and other durables are accumulated, to be shared by all in harder times.

                  On a large scale, (1) we lack a sound means to store wealth across decades (any financial or monetary instrument is too liquid, losing value just when it is most needed and too easily siphoned off before it's needed by those seeking to enrich themselves unfairly) and (2) we lack a fair and generally trusted mechanism to adjust the terms of this "social contract" when times get harder.

                  In my view (speaking as someone now living on Social Security payments) the "fair' resolution would be for me to live less well and for my son to pay more in taxes to Social Security. That would suck for both of us to some fair and equal degree.

                  My son and I could negotiate these trade-offs fairly easily as individuals. Such negotiations at the level of national politics are won by whomever is most powerful and psychopathic, not by fair trade-offs.
                  Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: The Looting to Come

                    Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                    It may have been politically mismanaged to end up that way, but the concept is sound.

                    The whole social contract is that younger, working age people pay the highest taxes which go to either end of the age demographic - some to those too young to work but presumably future taxpayers [public education funding] and some to those who are well past the point where they earn enough income to support themselves solely [public pensions].

                    The whole argument is that all of us pass through these phases in our lives, and gain the benefit when we are very young and very old, and make the contribution in the middle years.

                    If you folks in the USA break that contract instead of fixing it, you will end up with an unstable society...
                    I disagree; the concept is not sound at all. It is, by design, no different from a Ponzi scheme.

                    If you are going to have government-coerced savings, then those savings should at least be actually invested in something, not paid out to previous contributors.
                    Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. -Groucho

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: The Looting to Come

                      Originally posted by Master Shake View Post
                      If you are going to have government-coerced savings, then those savings should at least be actually invested in something,...
                      But no investment vehicle exists that is suitable for large scale retirement funding.

                      "Investing" in stored durable goods that have sufficiently long shelf life and will be useful in the future can work, though that is insufficient to pay the future rent, taxes, food and other cash flow and perishable needs of the retired. "Investing" in infrastructure that will enhance future productive capacity can also be useful.

                      "Investing" in financial products fails. Nothing (not cash, not Treasuries, not corporate debt, not mortgages, not stocks, not even gold) can hold value across a several decade period that is front loaded by massive purchases and back loaded with massive drawdowns. Such "investing" eventually ends up behaving just like a Ponzi scheme in one form or another.

                      Ultimately our consumption, especially of perishables (for example food), is substantially limited to our productive capacity of the -same- time period. One cannot "invest" one's way out of that constraint.
                      Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: The Looting to Come

                        Originally posted by ThePythonicCow View Post
                        But no investment vehicle exists that is suitable for large scale retirement funding.

                        "Investing" in stored durable goods that have sufficiently long shelf life and will be useful in the future can work, though that is insufficient to pay the future rent, taxes, food and other cash flow and perishable needs of the retired. "Investing" in infrastructure that will enhance future productive capacity can also be useful.

                        "Investing" in financial products fails. Nothing (not cash, not Treasuries, not corporate debt, not mortgages, not stocks, not even gold) can hold value across a several decade period that is front loaded by massive purchases and back loaded with massive drawdowns. Such "investing" eventually ends up behaving just like a Ponzi scheme in one form or another.

                        Ultimately our consumption, especially of perishables (for example food), is substantially limited to our productive capacity of the -same- time period. One cannot "invest" one's way out of that constraint.
                        I think you miss the point of investing. Investing is forgoing use of stored surplus now, to get more later.

                        Invest in new companies, new inventions, real estate, projects that when successful begin to provide a return of your capital and more besides. Could be the stock market. Could be your own business. Could be a farm.

                        The real key is to eliminate taxes so people can keep what they earn and save for their own retirement.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: The Looting to Come

                          Originally posted by grapejelly View Post
                          I think you miss the point of investing. Investing is forgoing use of stored surplus now, to get more later.
                          I don't see why you think I miss the point of investing. I agree that's the point, and my point was that there are limits to such investing. One cannot store for-ever and for-free the actual goods and services (food, medical care, ...) that we will actually seek in later years.

                          At no point in time can the consumption exceed sum of the contemporaneous production and the expenditure of previously saved goods which have not exceeded their shelf life. Most food can only be stored for a few months or years. Fresh water can be stored, but not sufficiently economically that it's worth doing for most purposes. Services, such as to repair our bodies, our pets, our cars, our homes and our toys cannot be stored, though their immediate use can usually be delayed a few days, weeks or months. An individual (or any small investor in a big pond) can often circumvent these problems if there are ongoing markets in which the value of constantly rolled over contracts synthetically provides long term value. For example in an economy of sufficiently low inflation one can put aside cash now and spend it years later, --if-- the economy can still produce what you determine to purchase at that time.

                          But the retirement and social security funds of a major nation cannot ignore either of
                          • this problem (the storage constraints on essential goods and services), or
                          • the problem that no sufficiently large government will remain reliably uncorrupted by holding a vast pool of wealth which is to be saved for future (anything past the next election) use.

                          In short, I will likely only live a free and prosperous life in my old age if the world in which I live typically provides sufficient opportunity for freedom and prosperity for someone of my standing, during the years of my old age.

                          Sufficient saving and hard work in one's youth can allow one to upgrade one's standing in one's later years. Live poorer than ones means while younger in order to live richer than ones means later on. This can counteract a decline in the general prosperity of the economy during the same period. But we cannot all do that.
                          Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: The Looting to Come

                            IMHO it's as valid a social construct as a standing army.

                            Or a sewage authority. Like any social construct linked to a government, it has a tendency to change over time. Mostly it doesn't seem to change for the better.

                            It could have been kept manageable - if it was structured such that they said "the oldest 1% of the population"

                            But it looks like it's becoming un-manageable now, which is WHY I also agree there's no "real" investment that can take that amount of money.

                            It's LOOKING un-manageable but there have been some really good responses to the Gokale-Smetters study (taking the sigma of all future outflows and comparing it against current summation/sigma of all assets is NOT valid - I find myself agreeing with Dean Baker's claim that to be fair G/S should have taken the sigma of all assets OVER THE IDENTICAL TIME PERIOD as the sigma of outflows)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: The Looting to Come

                              Originally posted by GRG55 View Post
                              It may have been politically mismanaged to end up that way, but the concept is sound.
                              Except for a few details:

                              1. The first generation to receive benefits never paid into the program, or only paid a small fraction of what they received
                              2. The people being taxed have no choice about it; money is stolen from them and given to others. This makes the program immoral, in spite of how "sound" the concept might be.
                              3. The people receiving the benefits have been able to get politicians to agree to adjust the amount they receive to the point where it has no correlation to what they paid in
                              4. With demographic shifts (fewer younger people, people living longer, etc), the math no longer works out
                              5. Social Security taxes aren't kept within the Social Security system; they are simply dumped into the General Fund, and spent in the same way as all other taxes (the Social Security "Trust Fund" is just an illusion; a cruel joke).
                              6. Unlike a real insurance plan, people who pay into the program their whole lives and then die before they draw benefits have nothing of value to leave their heirs as a result; their estate forfeits everything they paid.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X