If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   The promises that governments are making to their electorates are not just misleading: they are unforgivably dishonest. It will not be possible to go on as we are, or to return to the expectations that we once had   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 81
    More: Interesting, high taxes, average wage, false premise  
•       •       •

2351 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Dec 2012 at 3:04 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-23 10:12:36 AM  
"obvious" tag is already on Christmas vacation apparently
 
2012-12-23 11:20:04 AM  
What? No newsflash tag? My grandparents were all dead by 2001, and even the most ardent Roosevelt fans knew that my generation wouldn't have Social Security. If anybody is surprised by this news, I'd like to share what they've been smoking.
 
2012-12-23 11:23:15 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: What? No newsflash tag? My grandparents were all dead by 2001, and even the most ardent Roosevelt fans knew that my generation wouldn't have Social Security. If anybody is surprised by this news, I'd like to share what they've been smoking.


The only problem with Social Security is the FICA cap needs to be raised. $100,000 is absurdly low. That's literally all that needs to happen to fix FICA.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-23 11:51:01 AM  
Then isn't it odd that countries like Sweden have better and more entitlements than the UK and the US and a balanced budget too? Somehow it doesn't take 100% of their GDP.

The most unforgivably dishonest claim I know of is the one that the author is making. I am sure that politicians would like to divert money from the public to their backers, but I don't think it's going to work out.
 
2012-12-23 11:51:17 AM  
No kidding.
 
2012-12-23 12:33:16 PM  
Yes, I always listen to arguments about economics that offer zero numbers.

Let's sum up the article for you:

Old cranky b*tch does not want to pay higher taxes.

This is the real gem: "Of course, the moral logic of this principle is absurd. The amount of wealth in an economy is not fixed so that one person having more means that somebody else must have less. "

OK, old crazy lady. Move along now.
 
2012-12-23 12:34:50 PM  
Using the US election as proof that people won't vote for the man who tells the truth? Have an article calling all politicians liars?

So.... conflicted....
 
2012-12-23 01:08:37 PM  
Nothing to worry about. There is plenty of money in the Cayman Islands.
 
2012-12-23 01:09:51 PM  
That op-ed was all emotion and no data.
 
2012-12-23 02:02:43 PM  
"Austerity measures will lead to stability"
 
2012-12-23 02:04:03 PM  

unlikely: "Austerity measures will lead to stability"


(Said the rest of the world to Germany in 1918)
 
2012-12-23 02:05:52 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: What? No newsflash tag? My grandparents were all dead by 2001, and even the most ardent Roosevelt fans knew that my generation wouldn't have Social Security. If anybody is surprised by this news, I'd like to share what they've been smoking.


That's because Roosevelt thought a pay-as-you-go system was crazy and untenable.  The intent was to save people's contributions and give it back to them upon retirement.  Now it's little more than a ponzi scheme.
 
2012-12-23 02:13:54 PM  
You're just now getting clued in to this?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-12-23 02:22:09 PM  

slayer199: ecmoRandomNumbers: What? No newsflash tag? My grandparents were all dead by 2001, and even the most ardent Roosevelt fans knew that my generation wouldn't have Social Security. If anybody is surprised by this news, I'd like to share what they've been smoking.

That's because Roosevelt thought a pay-as-you-go system was crazy and untenable.  The intent was to save people's contributions and give it back to them upon retirement.  Now it's little more than a ponzi scheme.


No it wasn't, it's a pay as you go system.  Current payments went to cover payouts to retirees.  It was never a savings plan.
 
2012-12-23 03:15:08 PM  
In case you're not familiar with Janet Daley, just go ahead and click through to her previous "articles."

So no, it isn't just arcane number-crunching that leads me to the conclusion that hardly dares to speak its name. It is something far more indefinable: something which those of us who have been engaged with politics for half a century or so are inclined to trust. As that brilliantly perceptive commentator Peggy Noonan has said, Obama's campaign does not look or feel like it is winning - and Mitt Romney's does.

When Romney lost she took a week to collect herself and then wrote an article bemoaning the fall of America to "Old World" status with a permanent welfare class and a public past the tipping point on the dole, etc.
 
2012-12-23 03:16:19 PM  

make me some tea: That op-ed was all emotion and no data.


It was from the author of such prescient op-eds as:
- Romney's message is good - it just needs restating
- Mitt Romney teaches the Tories a lesson in conviction
- Romney can still win - and he deserves to
- Mitt Romney can still win (03 Nov 2012)
- America has become an Old World country (10 Nov 2012)
 
2012-12-23 03:25:53 PM  
If you're over the age of 12 and still believing in McDonald's cheeseburgers in the cafeteria when you vote for president, then dude, you totally deserve what you get. That means you, anyone who is excoriating Obama for "reneging" on his promises to close Gitmo or whatever, as much as anyone else.

People make all kinds of promises to get elected. Sometimes they are lies, sometimes they are genuine, just made with a lack of understanding as to the realities of the office, sometimes made without knowledge that won't be available unless or until the individual actually becomes President. You pretty much have to disregard anything that comes out of the candidate's mouth if it's preceded with "When I am President."

Now if speaking without full knowledge is to be the new definition of a "lie" then we're all going to have to sit around a lot and not talk, since nobody has perfect knowledge of anything. Except evidently our resident trolls, who apparently know more than the Oracle of Delphi and don't mind telling us all that they know it.
 
2012-12-23 03:26:27 PM  
Damned straight.

Let's start by cutting US Navy operations. We keep the navy, but in port. Let the Job Creators figure out how to ship their product in from Communist China.

Farkers,
 
2012-12-23 03:29:26 PM  

BuckTurgidson: make me some tea: That op-ed was all emotion and no data.

It was from the author of such prescient op-eds as:
- Romney's message is good - it just needs restating
- Mitt Romney teaches the Tories a lesson in conviction
- Romney can still win - and he deserves to
- Mitt Romney can still win (03 Nov 2012)
- America has become an Old World country (10 Nov 2012)


LOL
 
2012-12-23 03:30:25 PM  
First of all, the financial state of the Social Security system is not nearly as dire as Conservatives want you to believe. Their agenda is to convince enough people that the system is irredeemably broken. Then, they can dismantle it and give everyone's retirement money to their buddies on Wall Street.

The Social Security funding problems stem primarily from income inequality. As other posters have said, Social security taxes are progressive and the income cap is just over $100,000. Thus, the more aggregate income earned by those making less than $100,000, the better funded the Social Security system would be.

There are two ways to fix Social Security:
1) Raise (or eliminate) the income cap
2) Pay the middle class more
 
2012-12-23 03:31:09 PM  
Blah blah blah. Same old tired and tried argument I've heard so many times. You people who built this great nation and are it's citizens should do with less. A refrain I've heard so many times its lost all meaning to me.

Why do people who have worked their entire life have to "do with less" but single payer is an all out attack on "our system". Bleh old and contradictory propaganda is old and contradictory propaganda.
 
2012-12-23 03:31:37 PM  
The moderates (aka liberals) offered reasonable solutions and they worked. The reactionaries (aka conservatives) said, "No, that won't work, here let us prove it to you" and proceeded to demonstrate that if you recklessly lower taxes, run two unnecessary wars off the books, and give the plutocrats carte blanche to rape the economy, there will indeed be a disaster. Now responsible grown-ups are back in power. Obama may have spent, perhaps wasted his initial political capital on health care reform, but the 2012 election demonstrated that the American people is on to the lies and subterfuges of the repubs. The one thing the "conservatives" can't allow to happen is for the economy to recover and for people to regain trust in government intentions. The lesson of the past twelve years must be made clear: government is not a business. The purpose of government is not to run at a profit. It is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. The purpose of this woman's editorial is to draw attention away from the fact that politicians can do their job, do it well, within the context of a perhaps inefficient but ultimately perfectible bureaucratic process, and ultimately provide all those services and benefits the reactionaries are terrified the American people will come to expect. Why an effective defense program is acceptable to the right but an effective health program is not is beyond me, but it now behooves the Obama administration to demonstrate that honest and well-regulated governance is available at a reasonable cost to the tax payer; and, as this article demonstrates, it behooves the right wing to demonstrate that there is no such thing.
 
2012-12-23 03:43:38 PM  

clambam: The reactionaries (aka conservatives)


I have news for you: because the status quo is being challenged and your side is opposing its reform, you're the reactionaries now.
 
2012-12-23 03:44:54 PM  

clambam: The moderates (aka liberals) offered reasonable solutions and they worked. The reactionaries (aka conservatives) said, "No, that won't work, here let us prove it to you" and proceeded to demonstrate that if you recklessly lower taxes, run two unnecessary wars off the books, and give the plutocrats carte blanche to rape the economy, there will indeed be a disaster. Now responsible grown-ups are back in power. Obama may have spent, perhaps wasted his initial political capital on health care reform, but the 2012 election demonstrated that the American people is on to the lies and subterfuges of the repubs. The one thing the "conservatives" can't allow to happen is for the economy to recover and for people to regain trust in government intentions. The lesson of the past twelve years must be made clear: government is not a business. The purpose of government is not to run at a profit. It is to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. The purpose of this woman's editorial is to draw attention away from the fact that politicians can do their job, do it well, within the context of a perhaps inefficient but ultimately perfectible bureaucratic process, and ultimately provide all those services and benefits the reactionaries are terrified the American people will come to expect. Why an effective defense program is acceptable to the right but an effective health program is not is beyond me, but it now behooves the Obama administration to demonstrate that honest and well-regulated governance is available at a reasonable cost to the tax payer; and, as this article demonstrates, it behooves the right wing to demonstrate that there is no such thing.


Well said, but I have to nit pick.

The term "well-regulated" is fully meaningless in US law. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the current jurisprudence related to the 2nd amendment?
 
2012-12-23 03:45:09 PM  

jjorsett: clambam: The reactionaries (aka conservatives)

I have news for you: because the status quo is being challenged and your side is opposing its reform, you're the reactionaries now.


ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
 
2012-12-23 03:53:16 PM  
Actually I have to refine that comment a little. As a conservative, you are entitiled to feel nostalgia for your childhood. A reactionary is someone who pines for the way things were before he was born. I miss the good ol' days of 15 years ago (and I assure you, that was not before I was born), when Bill Clinton was president, the country was well-run and at peace, taxes were acceptable within the context of an expanding economy, and the government's finances were in the black. Does that make me a reactionary? If so, I'm a reactionary.
 
2012-12-23 04:05:45 PM  

RagingHamster: In case you're not familiar with Janet Daley, just go ahead and click through to her previous "articles."


Especially, google janet daley Iraq to find her views about how spending billions of dollars on Iraq was simply unsustainable. Ooops, my bad, invading Iraq was an absolutely necessary expense, not like health care and pensions.
(PS: A serious question: Why are the cheerleaders for the war in Iraq still employed to give their opinion on things like the deficit? Actually, why were they not dumped _in_ Iraq to face the consequences of their writings?)
 
2012-12-23 04:07:52 PM  
The only thing unsustainable is the free ride for rich people/corporations.

You enjoy the most benefits from our society, you should pay the most for it.
 
Esn
2012-12-23 04:14:29 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Yes, I always listen to arguments about economics that offer zero numbers.

Let's sum up the article for you:

Old cranky b*tch does not want to pay higher taxes.

This is the real gem: "Of course, the moral logic of this principle is absurd. The amount of wealth in an economy is not fixed so that one person having more means that somebody else must have less. "

OK, old crazy lady. Move along now.


Pretty much. The amount of wealth in an economy IS fixed unless you have room for expansion, either geographical or technological (getting more out of what you already have).

The trouble is that the Earth is an island, and we seem to be getting closer to its maximum capacity. Current economic models are modeled on an assumption of perpetual growth.
 
2012-12-23 04:18:28 PM  
The torygraph has a hell of a farking cheek.

Basically 'you peons need to accept that you wont be allowed a decent standard of living ever again.. but do NOT look over there at your boss and your banker taking bigger bonuses than ever'
 
2012-12-23 04:19:54 PM  
Yet another 'both sides are bad so vote Republican' article.

Really, what policies did the two candidates/parties run on in the last election? Both ran on the merit of saving/protecting entitlements; while one was working intractably to reduce them. One party actually ran on the premise that the most successful would have to pay slightly more in taxes to balance the budget; the other wanted to cut taxes and promised that not only would that not increase the deficit but that it would reduce it.

Just keep repeating the lie that both sides are just as bad and I'm sure they'll sink in sooner or later.
 
2012-12-23 04:23:41 PM  

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: First of all, the financial state of the Social Security system is not nearly as dire as Conservatives want you to believe. Their agenda is to convince enough people that the system is irredeemably broken. Then, they can dismantle it and give everyone's retirement money to their buddies on Wall Street.

The Social Security funding problems stem primarily from income inequality. As other posters have said, Social security taxes are progressive and the income cap is just over $100,000. Thus, the more aggregate income earned by those making less than $100,000, the better funded the Social Security system would be.

There are two ways to fix Social Security:
1) Raise (or eliminate) the income cap
2) Pay the middle class more
3) Means test payments


Social Security was always meant to be a welfare program. They just had to disguise it as a social insurance/pension program because it wasn't considered okay to give welfare to men (who were the large majority of the workforce in the 1930s). Let's just treat the program as it really is: a welfare program. There's no reason for Joe Biden or John McCain to be receiving Social Security. Eliminate the income cap and means test recipients and you'd be able to raise payouts to the rest while also remaining fiscally solvent.
 
2012-12-23 04:24:21 PM  
Teh Krug-ster said everything was cool, so go sell fear-monger-mania somewhere else Subby.
 
2012-12-23 04:30:02 PM  

gaspode: The torygraph has a hell of a farking cheek.

Basically 'you peons need to accept that you wont be allowed a decent standard of living ever again.. but do NOT look over there at your boss and your banker taking bigger bonuses than ever'


All of their blocs and columns sound the same.
 
2012-12-23 04:41:59 PM  
The most fascinating thing to me about the whole imaginary "Social Security is insolvent" problem is the substantial number of twenty somethings who have both accepted the lie that the program cant be saved and that there is no way they will get any and also oppose cuts in the present(that might diminish their bill). It implies a degree of generosity we are typically taught not to expect in people. A willingness to pay into the system to make sure those already in its hands get what they were promised even if they "know" that it will never be there for them. Maybe people aren't really the selfish pricks common wisdom will imply.

Of course, Obama is gonna feed your grandma catfood anyway. But that generous impulse is interesting.
 
2012-12-23 04:45:34 PM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: What? No newsflash tag? My grandparents were all dead by 2001, and even the most ardent Roosevelt fans knew that my generation wouldn't have Social Security. If anybody is surprised by this news, I'd like to share what they've been smoking.


Except that, if nothing at all is done, you'll still get 75% of your benefits. Which equals none at all, right?
 
2012-12-23 04:45:55 PM  
Lets just raise taxes and return defense spending to the level we had in the 90s and see where that puts us, ok?

If things are still deeply in the red we can talk about what else to do.
 
2012-12-23 04:48:56 PM  

rugman11: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: First of all, the financial state of the Social Security system is not nearly as dire as Conservatives want you to believe. Their agenda is to convince enough people that the system is irredeemably broken. Then, they can dismantle it and give everyone's retirement money to their buddies on Wall Street.

The Social Security funding problems stem primarily from income inequality. As other posters have said, Social security taxes are progressive and the income cap is just over $100,000. Thus, the more aggregate income earned by those making less than $100,000, the better funded the Social Security system would be.

There are two ways to fix Social Security:
1) Raise (or eliminate) the income cap
2) Pay the middle class more
3) Means test payments

Social Security was always meant to be a welfare program. They just had to disguise it as a social insurance/pension program because it wasn't considered okay to give welfare to men (who were the large majority of the workforce in the 1930s). Let's just treat the program as it really is: a welfare program. There's no reason for Joe Biden or John McCain to be receiving Social Security. Eliminate the income cap and means test recipients and you'd be able to raise payouts to the rest while also remaining fiscally solvent.


All the money 'saved' by means testing will need to be spent hiring additional employees to judge who is eligible and who isn't.
 
2012-12-23 04:50:02 PM  
Nowadays, Americans simply vote for the politician that they find to be the least scary.
 
2012-12-23 04:52:15 PM  
Oh, Peggy Noonan is giving her opinion? Oh boy, I'm sure she makes a great point and backs up her argument with lots of evidence. No, she didn't? That's a shame.
 
2012-12-23 04:53:05 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: The most fascinating thing to me about the whole imaginary "Social Security is insolvent" problem is the substantial number of twenty somethings who have both accepted the lie that the program cant be saved and that there is no way they will get any and also oppose cuts in the present(that might diminish their bill). It implies a degree of generosity we are typically taught not to expect in people. A willingness to pay into the system to make sure those already in its hands get what they were promised even if they "know" that it will never be there for them. Maybe people aren't really the selfish pricks common wisdom will imply.

Of course, Obama is gonna feed your grandma catfood anyway. But that generous impulse is interesting.


Who's talking about cutting the SS bill? Every proposal I've seen involves cutting SS benefits in order to use SS revenues to balance the budget. Can't do that and cut FICA, can you.
 
2012-12-23 05:04:27 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ecmoRandomNumbers: What? No newsflash tag? My grandparents were all dead by 2001, and even the most ardent Roosevelt fans knew that my generation wouldn't have Social Security. If anybody is surprised by this news, I'd like to share what they've been smoking.

The only problem with Social Security is the FICA cap needs to be raised. $100,000 is absurdly low. That's literally all that needs to happen to fix FICA.


That and the eligibility age wasn't indexed to life expectancy.
 
2012-12-23 05:04:33 PM  

Shvetz: Oh, Peggy Noonan is giving her opinion? Oh boy, I'm sure she makes a great point and backs up her argument with lots of evidence. No, she didn't? That's a shame.


25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-23 05:10:36 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: ecmoRandomNumbers: What? No newsflash tag? My grandparents were all dead by 2001, and even the most ardent Roosevelt fans knew that my generation wouldn't have Social Security. If anybody is surprised by this news, I'd like to share what they've been smoking.

The only problem with Social Security is the FICA cap needs to be raised. $100,000 is absurdly low. That's literally all that needs to happen to fix FICA.


The cap affects input and output. How many times does this have to pointed out to you? It is a do nothing proposal unless you are suggesting leaving the cap on payout, but then it is a welfare transfer. But that is what you want.
 
2012-12-23 05:13:13 PM  

vpb: Then isn't it odd that countries like Sweden have better and more entitlements than the UK and the US and a balanced budget too? Somehow it doesn't take 100% of their GDP.

The most unforgivably dishonest claim I know of is the one that the author is making. I am sure that politicians would like to divert money from the public to their backers, but I don't think it's going to work out.


Sweden has a higher labor participation rate. It also has a broader tax base. If you are truly for Sweden's style of government you will propose to raise taxes on everyone, not just the rich. The Swedish base is much larger, and tax receipts much less progressive than the US.
 
2012-12-23 05:13:58 PM  

NewportBarGuy: Yes, I always listen to arguments about economics that offer zero numbers.

Let's sum up the article for you:

Old cranky b*tch does not want to pay higher taxes.

This is the real gem: "Of course, the moral logic of this principle is absurd. The amount of wealth in an economy is not fixed so that one person having more means that somebody else must have less. "

OK, old crazy lady. Move along now.


Ironic... your argument contained no numbers, but was just an old cranky biatch responding to an argument.
 
2012-12-23 05:26:24 PM  

Slaxl: Using the US election as proof that people won't vote for the man who tells the truth? Have an article calling all politicians liars?

So.... conflicted....


Mitt Romney ran the most honest and open campaign in the history of man, and he lost. I challenge you to find a single instance of him saying something that wasn't completely true. He was just crucified by the liberal media for telling us the hard truths that we don't want to accept.
 
2012-12-23 05:29:23 PM  
mod3072:

You're a bad man and you should feel bad.
 
2012-12-23 05:32:20 PM  

mod3072: Slaxl: Using the US election as proof that people won't vote for the man who tells the truth? Have an article calling all politicians liars?

So.... conflicted....

Mitt Romney ran the most honest and open campaign in the history of man, and he lost. I challenge you to find a single instance of him saying something that wasn't completely true. He was just crucified by the liberal media for telling us the hard truths that we don't want to accept.


Well, technically, "I'll tell you my plans after I'm elected" isn't a lie.
 
2012-12-23 05:34:35 PM  

mod3072: Slaxl: Using the US election as proof that people won't vote for the man who tells the truth? Have an article calling all politicians liars?

So.... conflicted....

Mitt Romney ran the most honest and open campaign in the history of man, and he lost. I challenge you to find a single instance of him saying something that wasn't completely true. He was just crucified by the liberal media for telling us the hard truths that we don't want to accept.


Wow. I'm impressed. I never would have been able to type that out. I would have kept falling out my char laughing before I was even halfway finished.
 
Displayed 50 of 81 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report