Chomsky is a great linguistics guy, but linguistics and being a socialist doesn't make him an econ guy.
Polemics aren't facts.
Social Security's BIGGEST problem, funny enough, is that it doesn't have Al Gore's 'lock box'. Your SS tax pays for bombs to be dropped on Iraq currently. So the U.S. Gov is borrowing from S.S. to pay for current expenses, and then will have to borrow AGAIN to pay it back, you'll be taxed twice for your Social Security. That is a fact. Chomsky is a nice guy, but point that out to him, and see what he has to say. I'd like to know.
Social Security might not be in as much trouble as Bush says, but it isn't in as little trouble as Chomsky seems to think. Chomsky as a socialist wouldn't mind if the overall tax rate was 60%.
"borrow AGAIN" from whom? How will it be "taxed twice"?
Please explain that. I don't understand.
As for attacking Chomsky, he's one of the brightest guys in the entire world. Just because he doesn't hold a formal degree in economics doesn't mean he can't get the facts and assess them. I trust his opinion. I am not saying he does not have an agenda as well, but it seems that his agenda is more geared toward helping out mankind in general. I trust him more than I trust the president, but I wouldn't take either of them at face value.
As for the bloated embellishment that he "wouldn't mind if taxes were 60%" simply because he is a socialist? I don't even know what to say to something like that except... Polemics aren't facts.
a good portion of our spending every year is borrowed. When social security starts paying out more than it takes in, its a safe bet that the money will be borrowed, that is deficit spending. Which is paid for by loans (bonds/securities), and the interest on those loans are paid by tax dollars, as is the repayment of the bonds/securities... therefore you'll be taxed AGAIN for your social security. Because we aren't setting aside the money we currently take in
( ... )
The GAO is a good place to start. Even the back of your taxes tells you all you need to know about how we spend our tax dollars.
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm this is a good break down. Like they mention, you never see this pie chart anymore, because since the 60's the federal government COMBINED all their spending. The SS funds DO NOT get set aside, they get spent every year. So instead of all the boomers building up a huge surplus they could later draw off of when they retire and there are less workers to support them... we friviously spend it every year.
Anyway, I'm not trying to insult your hero, just saying being brilliant doesn't make him right.
I missed a part of what you said about his facts... That they did not specifically provide for the scenario you are talking about. You are right about that. I'm sorry I requoted the article to show something you were not challenging.
But in that scenario... Uh, wouldn't it just make more sense to balance the budget and stop spending obscene amounts of money on shit that doesn't matter so that SS would not run at a deficit? I think that is covered by Chomsky's, "Anything that comes is just a matter of one or another kind of adjustment."
My new questions are...
What year will it start running at a deficit? At that time, will we start utilizing all the payroll taxes collected to pay for it? How much excess is being generated now? How much are we diverting to other sources besides Social Security? And why?
I'm going to post some info...and I know it doesn't mean much of anything because you can still argue that it came from the government and about the bias of where it came from...but these are from my most recent social security statement
( ... )
No that's the line of thinking I agree with, except they label it 'trust fund'... there is no fund at all... and that too is a very large problem. We (the SSA) basically lives paycheck to paycheck, and once there are too many retirees and not enough workers, then instead of contributing to the general budget every year, FICA will be overwhelmed and the general budget will start paying into SS.
Yeah absolutely, I think we should only do deficit spending in the WORST of times. In my personal finances, I never EVER carry any debt, under any circumstance--maybe for a home purchase I'd consider it. I've been in debt a handful of weeks in my life. I think this administration's spending, and most of spending in general is a total joke. We should elect responsible politicians that don't want to flush the country down the toilet
( ... )
I have been been doing some research and there is nothing wrong with Social Security. It's all a lie.
Peep this.
Reply
Polemics aren't facts.
Social Security's BIGGEST problem, funny enough, is that it doesn't have Al Gore's 'lock box'. Your SS tax pays for bombs to be dropped on Iraq currently. So the U.S. Gov is borrowing from S.S. to pay for current expenses, and then will have to borrow AGAIN to pay it back, you'll be taxed twice for your Social Security. That is a fact. Chomsky is a nice guy, but point that out to him, and see what he has to say. I'd like to know.
Social Security might not be in as much trouble as Bush says, but it isn't in as little trouble as Chomsky seems to think. Chomsky as a socialist wouldn't mind if the overall tax rate was 60%.
Reply
Please explain that. I don't understand.
As for attacking Chomsky, he's one of the brightest guys in the entire world. Just because he doesn't hold a formal degree in economics doesn't mean he can't get the facts and assess them. I trust his opinion. I am not saying he does not have an agenda as well, but it seems that his agenda is more geared toward helping out mankind in general. I trust him more than I trust the president, but I wouldn't take either of them at face value.
As for the bloated embellishment that he "wouldn't mind if taxes were 60%" simply because he is a socialist? I don't even know what to say to something like that except... Polemics aren't facts.
Reply
Reply
Reply
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm this is a good break down. Like they mention, you never see this pie chart anymore, because since the 60's the federal government COMBINED all their spending. The SS funds DO NOT get set aside, they get spent every year. So instead of all the boomers building up a huge surplus they could later draw off of when they retire and there are less workers to support them... we friviously spend it every year.
Anyway, I'm not trying to insult your hero, just saying being brilliant doesn't make him right.
Reply
But in that scenario... Uh, wouldn't it just make more sense to balance the budget and stop spending obscene amounts of money on shit that doesn't matter so that SS would not run at a deficit? I think that is covered by Chomsky's, "Anything that comes is just a matter of one or another kind of adjustment."
My new questions are...
What year will it start running at a deficit? At that time, will we start utilizing all the payroll taxes collected to pay for it? How much excess is being generated now? How much are we diverting to other sources besides Social Security? And why?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment