Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/02/18/bloomberg-still-wants-cut-social-security
Given how Bloomberg stole his fortune (think Honore de Balzac), he knows well that the vagaries of the market will strip the poorest of their savings (that should be safeguarded by SS) the fastest as AI algorithms acting at blinding speeds will effortlessly take some here and there while the real People perform the real Labor of this nation. Evil and cynical Bastard, begone.
In some respects, I welcome Bloomberg’s candidacy as an illuminating spotlight of sunshine. Here’s why:
The fact that the DNC, d-party establishment, and for-profit media are for sale to the highest bidder is no longer even remotely disputable.
The fact that a huge portion of average d-party voters are much more influenced by tribal motivations than actual policies and positions is now on full display.
The fact that allegiances to “flavor of the day” options like Mayo Pete, Liz, and Uncle Joe are utterly temporary and convenient has been laid bare.
In the final analysis, the d-party is soulless, incoherent, and corrupt. Even party leadership is making it clear that they simply cannot stuff lefties and centrists into their big tent without it splitting at the seams.
Bloomberg says he wants to strengthen and preserve Soc Sec for the long term? How by breaking something that works now? Soc Sec is our money first off and secondly and most importantly it works. What Bloomberg doesn’t want to do is have those with the most pay even a little. The percentage of earnings taken from paychecks/earnings has a cut off point where the wealthy won’t have to contribute the same percentage as do the working class/middle class. Why is that? If you are poor you must contribute a certain percentage but if you are rich you don’t. Why exactly is that the case? If the wealthy or well off contributed more then they would get more later but SocSec would automatically remain solvent even as more people entered the system and more was paid out in the future.
What needs to be explained is on what basis is the limit on contributions set where it is as it is unfair to other Soc Sec beneficiaries that are in fact forced to pay more into SocSec than are wealthier people even though wealthier earners get the same upper limit benefit.
Why is the the cut off cap on earnings? What is the rationale for it and why does it even exist?
They who buy all the politicians, hold all the cards, and the deck is stacked in their favor.
Unless money in politics is made a felony, and politicians are jailed for these crimes, the inequality will prevail.
You are speaking in absolutes a lot these days. You sure want a lot to happen but the how of achieving it you leave that part out. Of course we all agree that Citizens United should be done away with but politics is money and so at best we need more equitable limits set. Politicians are put in jail and always have been for taking money illegally. The problem is that they have made it legal to do so now. Get rid of Citizens United and restrict the influence of big money.
Among the 1% “options, choice, and reform” are indeed code words for CUT, no matter which “domestic” program you are addressing.
Why can’t we ALL agree to not “reform” SS and Medicare by cutting benefits or raising the qualifying age? If anything raise the “cap” on income taxed for the programs, and it’s “reformed”. The god damn Republicans have wanted to do away with SS since 1935 and Medicare since 1965, and the Dems jumped on the “reform” when the DLC (the Clintons and Wall st millionaires) took over the party in 1992.
Don’t FUCK with SS and Medicare!!!
Exactly. Wall Street has been dying to get their hands on that enormous pot of gold (same goes for education money and the charter movement). Bush tried it and failed. Obama handed it off to his catfood commission but could never craft a tenable policy that would fly with the public. Now it’s Bloomey’s turn to short-circuit the third rail.
Here’s a snippet from Bloomberg’s site:
Raise Americans out of poverty
Mike will introduce a new minimum benefit in Social Security.
Yeah, just like the GAU plan, we’ll toss a few hundred to the dirt poor every month. As the article stated, notice how Bloomers avoids any specifics.
Create a retirement-savings plan that works for all
“Mike will help people prepare for retirement by providing a government-backed savings plan that cuts out expensive fees, grows money safely and provides a match for low-income workers.”
So there you have the one-sentence tell of Mikey’s goal: privatization. The weasel words in this case are ‘government-backed’, not government RUN. And how about ‘cuts out expensive fees’, not fees altogether. Fees that will go to investment houses. In other words, this entire scheme is nothing more than a glorified 401K plan - run by Wall Street - whose only difference than the type used in the private sector now, is that it is somehow ‘backed’ by the government. No mention of your company’s contribution, obligations, etc. And that’s if you work your entire adult life! Any down years from unemployment, illness, family crises and no money goes into the pot. Our current SS guarantees the same payout once the plan’s threshold is met. But most of all, why do we need to change to this system?
If Bernie can’t shred this comically transparent theft by the ruling class, then he deserves to lose. Everyone but those dumbasses at Trump’s rallies will oppose privatizing SS. But, like MFA, it must be properly and continuously explained to them.
The “how” of achieving any goal in politics has always been readily available.
The will to carry it out, and “who” is going to profit the most from it, is what has kept anything meaningfully universal from becoming law.
Social security is an issue that touches each citizen born in this country. The govt gives you a social security number to welcome you to the world…to track you and to record your wages as you enter the workforce. We are taxed without regard to whether we want to be part of the program but I think it is safe to say that we are all on board for our earned income when we retire. This is the ONE issue that unites! I can’t think of anyone I’ve ever talked to who wants their benefits cut, reduced, or privatized. It really is a social contract and it’s solid. It works. I’m of the belief that instead of annually raising the budget for defense, NASA, dpt of Energy, homeland security, our congress people should be increasing benefits and increasing social security tax and Medicare tax. Those taxes aren’t that big overall. Since trump has already put out a budget that lies about social security cuts, there’s the thing to run on: the truth on the subject versus the lies.
But, when both parties lie to the people, who can the people trust?
When 95% of the voting electorate blindly trust liars for their entire lifetimes, is there any sense for us 5% to beat our heads against the wall in a senseless attempt to save them from themselves?
I say, turn on, tune in, and drop out.
Well put Skeptic Tank!
Great article. Thank you.
“Bloomberg hasn’t changed his position on Social Security, he has gotten better at hiding them”
Hey Come On lets give the guy a break.
I am absolutely certain that his plan for Social Security will be just as effective as his Stop & Frisk policy.
Over the past 3 years we have learned to quickly discern Bullshit when we hear it.
After all Mr. Bloomberg made all those Billions so he should know better then the rest of us, how to run a Country and how to Implement Policy.
He is Super Rich, which means he is Super Smarter then the majority of the American People.
Let’s look at his Track record:
He vehemently supported the Iraq War and sending our young men and women overseas to be killed and mutilated.
Of course everyone of us peasants with a tiny Brain knew that we had no right to invade a Sovereign Nation that had nothing whatsoever to do with 911.
Nevertheless, Mr Money Bags obviously knows better than the rest of us that even though we found no WMD’s that getting into a War with Iraq was somehow Justified?
Then of course Mr. Republican Bloomberg, simply adored the War Criminal George W. Bush and openly endorsed him at the Republican Convention over John Kerry.
Let us not forget that Mr. Bloomberg, like Mr. Trump despises Black & Brown people and like Trump he thinks they are born with a Criminal mentality.
Therefore, as Mayor of the Great City of NY, he instruct his Police Force to treat every Black or Latino that they see on the street as a potential Criminal.
They should be Stopped and Frisked and arrested if they have any trace of Marijuana on their possession, his Bull Connor Police Force avoided using this practice on White Folks, especially in the Wall Street district where Stockbrokers might be carrying vials of Cocaine.
Hey this guy is Super Rich so he must be much smarter then the rest of the population.
We should listen to him when he speaks, even though he is Lying and fabricating excuses to justify his “Mistakes”, even though Billionaires never make mistakes.
The Telltale sign that he is Lying and covering up his Racial Bigotry and obscene policy of Discrimination is when he is moving his Lips.
You might be able to get me to vote for this Far Right Wing Fascist if you put a gun to my head and accompanied me to the Voting Booth and forced me to pull the lever for this Vile Plutocrat.
Otherwise there is only 1 Candidate that I know of who will represent We The People and not give us deceptive flimflam double talk about how he is going to save Social Security by destroying it.
BERNIE SANDERS - 2020
War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
Plutocracy is Democracy
I’ve just heard an argument for Bloomberg that epitomizes these Orwellian times. The contention is that Bloomberg’s candidacy is democratic because, ‘the market is the most democratic of all human institutions’ and, since Bloomberg has made billions, his wealth represents a ‘democratic’ vote of approval.
Classic case of projection.
These are the worst of the worst people.
From On The Ropes, Neil J. Smith
No citizen should be richer than the government and no citizen should be poorer than the government.”
While Bloomberg will be throwing money around trying to ensure he wins the nomination I think the role of the DNC more important here than the money spent. If Bloomberg wins it will have as much to do with them as the money he spends.
I would point out that in Clinton Vs Trump The Clinton campaign for President outspent Trumps 2 to 1 and in some battleground states they assumed they would win (where Trump in fact came out on top) Trump was outspent 9 to 1. It true that Clinton won the plurality of votes but she still lost in the Electoral.
My gut feel is that Bloomberg can outspend Sanders 5 to 1 and more and still lose UNLESS the DNC involves itself in determining the winner via various shenanigans.
What he really needs to do is make billionaires like himself pay more into it. He must think he and other billionaires are special somehow.