Republicans like China and Financiers More Than American Citizens
The latest plan from the Republicans regarding the debt ceiling is pay back interest on Treasury bonds to China and financial institutions. Here is a money graf from TPM's Brian Beutler:
If passed, Toomey's plan would require the government to cut large checks to foreign countries, and major financial institutions, before paying off its obligations to Social Security beneficiaries and other citizens owed money by the Treasury -- that is, if the U.S. hits its debt ceiling. Republican leaders insist they will raise the country's debt limit before this happens. But first, they're going to try to force Democrats to accept large spending cuts, using their control over the debt limit as leverage. That means gridlock, and the threat that they'll come up short.
What's really disgusting here beyond the fealty to corporate entities and foreign nations is that the US has never defaulted on its bond payments. Toomey is rooting for us to default on bond payments for the first time in our nation's history since the approval of the Constitution--and to dishonor our citizens.
All I can say in addition to the above is that I can't wait to hear from the older white people who belong to the Tea Party Express what they think of their candidate now...Probably nothing. I wonder, can FoxNews really ignore this? My search for this information at FoxNews.com revealed nothing yet on this story. We'll see when it appears and how it is played...
posted by Mitchell J. Freedman @ 7:00 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
Mitch said: "Toomey is rooting for us to default on bond payments for the first time in our nation's history since the approval of the Constitution--and to dishonor our citizens."
Mitch, you have some of the facts wrong, here. Toomey said:
"I intend to introduce legislation that would require the Treasury to make interest payments on our debt its first priority in the event that the debt ceiling is not raised."
Toomey is not encouraging the US to default on its debt obligations; he is rather making them "first priority." This is an interesting solution to the debt ceiling issue. I hope the debt ceiling is not raised (as did Obama when he was Senator). His proposal would ensure that creditors are paid, without having to raise the debt ceiling. It is an interesting way to "force" Congress to get serious about cutting government.
Also, its not simply "the Chinese" and "evil corporations" that will benefit from his proposal. Ordinary citizens own Treasury instruments either directly, or through money market funds, mutual funds, and ETFs.
What is interesting is that, from a pure libertarian perspective, there is an argument FOR the federal government defaulting on its debt obligations. If it did default, the government bond market would crash through the floor. The government would then be unable to borrow money at the "risk free rate" to finance its wars and other preditions. The cost of government borrowing would be so high that it would even perhaps cut off deficit financing altogether.
Murray Rothbard wrote the Classic article on this concept:http://mises.org/daily/1423
It is simply reckless behavior and you are being a good anarchist, I suppose, in supporting this measure.
Rest assured that Toomey wants to simply destroy the part of the government that helps people. He is very much in favor of prisons and torture.
"Rest assured that Toomey wants to simply destroy the part of the government that helps people."
Cannot imagine what part of the government you are referring to.
Social Security, Medicare, FDA, FEMA, TANF, Food Stamps, etc. I can't imagine how you can't imagine that...:-)
Social Security is a Madoff Ponzi Scheme. It's actually worse; Bernie was a fraud, but he did not threaten you with violence if you did not participate in his scheme.
Medicare? I am too young to have an opinion about that.
FEMA - yeah, Great Job, Brownie! (Mitch, I am sure you and I will be among the first to be detained and sent to a FEMA Camp once they are completely up and running).
Food Stamps/TANF? Why does the federal government need to be involved in that? Let the states decide. (Of course, in California, food stamp recipients have used their state-issued debit cards to withdraw cash at Las Vegas casinos. That's an awfully far trip for food!)
Is that your complete list?
Don't you read anything outside of Reason.org rhetoric?
Social Security is fine. Read the Trustee report and see that under its historical scenario, there is no shortfall at all. It's only under the most pessimistic scenario that it pays only 75% of benefits for 10 years thereafter starting in 2037.
Medicare has one tenth the administrative costs of private insurers.
FEMA worked extremely well under Clinton. Bush replaced a very competent administrator with Brownie and cut its funding.
Food stamps are what keep people from starving. Read the Field Study from 1967 before the expansion of Food Stamps and see how people were starving in the US.
It is not my complete list, but really, you need to be better armed with information regarding the above list before we go further...:-)
"Don't you read anything outside of Reason.org rhetoric?"
Don't you read anything outside of Progressive Policy Institute rhetoric.
Re: social security - my complaint is that it is not voluntary. If I were able to invest on my own the money I "contribute," I would be a lot wealthier. Even a simple investment in short term bonds would trump the "returns" of social security. Just check out Chile and Hong Kong.
By the way, your comment that Toomey "is very much in favor of prisons and torture" is a complete red herring to the issues at hand.
In any event, the last time I checked, your buddy Obama has implemented a program authorizing the summary execution of U.S. citizens believed to be involved in terrorism. http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations
You should read more Glenn Greenwald, and get less caught up in all this Left/Right Republican v. Democrat false paradigm debates.
You need to read my blog more. I have been deeply critical of Obama both before and after the election of 2008. And Greenwald is on my blogroll and I've cited him favorably many times, particularly in his ripping into Obama's civil liberties policies.
I read far more widely than most people. Funny, though, the PPI is not a source I have cited much in my life at all. I am fond of the CBPP and EPI, I'll admit.
I really wish you would at least acknowledge my facts about social security's solvency, the need for food stamps, and the like. Telling me your philosophical views about social security is ultimately a dodge.
Factually, in response to your statements outside of the US, the privatized pension plan in Chile is a horror show for most people there. I admit I don't know Hong Kong's plan, but I wouldn't hold Hong Kong as a model I'd want to emulate. It's more like the nightmare Pottersville in "It's a Wonderful Life." I know some folks at Reason.org like that town, I think someone there once wrote in favor of Pottersville, but it's not to my sensibility.
I "read widely," too.
You have no response to my claim regarding the investment returns of social security. You simply justify it based on your devotion to governmental paternalism, i.e., you do not think free people can plan for their own retirement. (One thing is for certain: I certainly don't plan on my family's finance's based on your assumption that social security is going to "be there" when I retire).
And cut out all the Reason.org rhetoric and name-calling. I do not have my opinions assigned to me by anyone, dammit.
By the way, I ordered your novel. It arrived in the mail today. I look forward to reading it. Have a nice weekend.
Okay, okay. I just get frustrated with libertarian thinking because it is strikes me as too utopian, the way Marxists talked in the Thirties.
The stock market is not so great, just ask people who have still not made up their losses in their 401ks. I'd rather take a low rate with social security and know it is there, than take the risk of the stock market. I invest in a 401k, but I have learned that if we just left social security alone, I would make in social security just under half my current take home pay. That's really good. Much better than what I have to show in my 401k...
And one more thing: I'll leave it alone. You may have the last word as I get to keep blogging on various things...:-)
Thanks for ordering my book. We'll continue the argument there!
Why is it "Utopian" to want to opt-out of social security and plan your own retirement?
Anyway, while I question your contention that social security benefits will be around at current levels when I retire (or if at all), I do hope that when YOU retire, you will be earning enough royalties on your book to fund a lavish retirement for yourself.
Post a Comment
<< Home