a nobel prize economist vs an elected official
Paul Krugman is an award winning economist. He is very learned. He has been making accurate assessments on our economy and making predictions for several years. Ron Johnson, a senator from Wisconsin, did work as an accountant for his father-in-law's manufacturing company, until he was promoted and eventually went into politics. So, I guess they are equals? Any rate, here are some comments from readers of an article concerning a debate of sorts between Krugman and Johnson.
"The social security reform act of 1983 significantly raised the FICA tax, putting it in surplus and making it the highest tax for 80% of Americans. Over the ensuing 30 years its surplus revenues have been borrowed TO OFFSET THE EFFECT OF INCOME TAX CUTS. The total now approaches 3 trillion, which is held as internally issued bonds and counts towards the federal debt. The point however is that it represents INCOME TAXES owed to future social security recipients. In short, the government borrowed from social security to fund tax cuts, transferring the cost of government from progressive income taxes to regressive payroll taxes. When Republicans say they won't raise taxes to fund social security in the future they are once again threatening to default on debt that they incurred. Moreover, with its current income stream social security can pay 75% of benefits forever. It's time to look past the smokescreen. They are fighting tooth and nail to preserve tax preferences and welsh on 3 trillion owed to "those people." The spokesmen have been well prepped with their lies and deceptions, but clearly it ain't broke and doesn't need fixing. The best solution to social security's future funding is to move it towards progressive taxation. Don't just raise the cap; create brackets like income taxes so that the rate for ordinary Americans is far lower than now. Eliminate tax preferences (dividend, capital gains, and carried interest), diverting some of that money to social security and Medicare. The age for social security should stay as it is and the age for Medicare should drop. Means adjusting benefits for the rich would help, but mainly they should repay the payroll taxes borrowed to fund their tax cuts with high top income tax brackets. Fair is fair."
"I don't always agree with Krugman, but he is exactly right about this. Republicans think if they yell loud enough and often enough that the country has to cut "entitlements" that people will believe them. We had an election about this in November and the American people soundly said in the races for the House, the Senate and the WH that we don't want SS to be in accounts on Wall St. and that we don't want Medicare turned into VoucherCare. As of Jan. 1, 2013, Seniors, the Disabled and the elderly received a COLA raise of 1.7%. At the same time, Medicare premiums increased $10 per month so those receiving benefits saw little or nothing from that COLA raise. But Republicans think that the Seniors, the Disabled and the elderly should be forced to give up benefits that they paid into their entire working lives, but the wealthiest among us and corporations shouldn't pay one penny more in taxes"
Both of these comment are well thought. It stymies me why so many middle class citizens think otherwise. Why do so many think that the answer is to further burden the workers in an effort to protect the wealthy? Do they really believe Reagans's philosophy that by sacrificing our future, it will be more secure? Have we as a nation really reached that point of disconnect in our thought process to believe that by giving away you will recieve more? That smacks so much of the money gospel, which so many rail against, and which has shown time after time, to fail the very segment of the population that it is suppose to reach. It stymies me......I wonder when the average citizen will see that the rulers have no clothes on?
"The social security reform act of 1983 significantly raised the FICA tax, putting it in surplus and making it the highest tax for 80% of Americans. Over the ensuing 30 years its surplus revenues have been borrowed TO OFFSET THE EFFECT OF INCOME TAX CUTS. The total now approaches 3 trillion, which is held as internally issued bonds and counts towards the federal debt. The point however is that it represents INCOME TAXES owed to future social security recipients. In short, the government borrowed from social security to fund tax cuts, transferring the cost of government from progressive income taxes to regressive payroll taxes. When Republicans say they won't raise taxes to fund social security in the future they are once again threatening to default on debt that they incurred. Moreover, with its current income stream social security can pay 75% of benefits forever. It's time to look past the smokescreen. They are fighting tooth and nail to preserve tax preferences and welsh on 3 trillion owed to "those people." The spokesmen have been well prepped with their lies and deceptions, but clearly it ain't broke and doesn't need fixing. The best solution to social security's future funding is to move it towards progressive taxation. Don't just raise the cap; create brackets like income taxes so that the rate for ordinary Americans is far lower than now. Eliminate tax preferences (dividend, capital gains, and carried interest), diverting some of that money to social security and Medicare. The age for social security should stay as it is and the age for Medicare should drop. Means adjusting benefits for the rich would help, but mainly they should repay the payroll taxes borrowed to fund their tax cuts with high top income tax brackets. Fair is fair."
"I don't always agree with Krugman, but he is exactly right about this. Republicans think if they yell loud enough and often enough that the country has to cut "entitlements" that people will believe them. We had an election about this in November and the American people soundly said in the races for the House, the Senate and the WH that we don't want SS to be in accounts on Wall St. and that we don't want Medicare turned into VoucherCare. As of Jan. 1, 2013, Seniors, the Disabled and the elderly received a COLA raise of 1.7%. At the same time, Medicare premiums increased $10 per month so those receiving benefits saw little or nothing from that COLA raise. But Republicans think that the Seniors, the Disabled and the elderly should be forced to give up benefits that they paid into their entire working lives, but the wealthiest among us and corporations shouldn't pay one penny more in taxes"
Both of these comment are well thought. It stymies me why so many middle class citizens think otherwise. Why do so many think that the answer is to further burden the workers in an effort to protect the wealthy? Do they really believe Reagans's philosophy that by sacrificing our future, it will be more secure? Have we as a nation really reached that point of disconnect in our thought process to believe that by giving away you will recieve more? That smacks so much of the money gospel, which so many rail against, and which has shown time after time, to fail the very segment of the population that it is suppose to reach. It stymies me......I wonder when the average citizen will see that the rulers have no clothes on?
Replies