And It Begins

[Amphictyonis]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575607691377554472.html?m od=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_3

I normally don't post stories from the Wall St Journal but...they want to raise the retirement age to 68, cut medicare and social security and lower the corporate income tax. They also want to cut the government work force by 10%. Shit. Read it.

[WeAreReborn]

If this passes a lot of the middle class would be wiped out. This is a step backwards what are they thinking? Don't they realize this will probably help out the possible revolution? We can only hope people get mad as hell.

[RadioRaheem84]

If this passes a lot of the middle class would be wiped out. This is a step backwards what are they thinking? Don't they realize this will probably help out the possible revolution? We can only hope people get mad as hell.

I have no hope for Americans.

BUT

I hope that I am totally wrong and would gladly eat those words.

[Amphictyonis]

Obama's pathetic private health care plan already cuts medicare by billions. If people can't see the obvious shiftiness of this system by now they need a slap in the face and some smelling salts.

Privatize profit and socialize losses. Give trillions to banks and corporations while cutting social programs. It's all so obviously obvious I don't even know what to say to make it more obvious.

The left in the USA is pathetic. This is obvious as well.

I'm obviously fed up with the obvious ineffectiveness of what is obviously a bunch of (Obama) sycophants on the left. Word of the day- obvious.

[graymouser]

As a preliminary - there is nothing wrong with linking to the Wall Street Journal. The bourgeoisie is more honest with itself than it is with the working class.

There are a few interesting things here. One is the question of eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction - this is basically one of the biggest social programs of the last century, as it effectively makes it easier in many ways to have a mortgage on a home than to rent one. It was obvious during the pre-2007 housing boom that this policy had basically gone so far that it was no longer sustainable, and homes (and therefore mortgages) were being sold to people who had no capacity to actually pay them off. Home ownership will drop as a result of this "reform."

One I'm curious about would be the aggregate effect of the changes in the corporate tax code. Paying taxes for most corporations is pretty much nominal; I have no illusions that the bourgeoisie is about to make a progressive tax code but I'm curious whether the combination of a cut and a closure of loopholes would actually mean a net increase of corporate taxes that the corporations would be unable to protest.

Social Security should be able to cause fucking riots. The Social Security system is solvent, and if it were segregated from the rest of income it would be solvent for decades to come. But the government raids the funds for other purposes. The idea that it needs to be fixed in any way other than stopping the raids is a filthy lie and should not be presented as anything else.

The idea that defense spending can be cut is intriguing, because the amount of largesse thrown at defense contractors has been fairly extreme. This is probably just an adjustment to the pre-Bush levels of profit, which will nonetheless be met with kicking and screaming.

As for resistance...we'll see. It damn well should draw something comparable to what we've seen in France, but somehow I doubt it.

[RadioRaheem84]

The best way to get people to realize what is going is quote the fucking business press.

I am always in awe at how openly brazen they are with their agenda in the pages of the Wall St. Journal, the Financial Times, Businessweek, Forbes, etc.

Chomsky was right, if you want to know what the hell is going on, read the business press.

They have to be honest with each other so as not to impede on investments, i.e. they need the right information.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capitalists seem to have emerged in the last 6-12 months with new found confidence. I'm thinking of raising the retirement age ideas across several countries and brazenly cutting social programs.

In many ways, this is the most vicious cuts programme we've ever seen, since the idea of the welfare state first came about. It is literally being dismantled. I don't think it's a great tactic on the part of the Capitalists. Maybe there won't be revolution now, or in 10 years or even in 20, but they are furthering the demise of Capitalism by raising, almost on purpose, the consciousness of workers. We can do, and then hope.

[Amphictyonis]

As a preliminary - there is nothing wrong with linking to the Wall Street Journal. The bourgeoisie is more honest with itself than it is with the working class.

There are a few interesting things here. One is the question of eliminating the mortgage interest tax deduction - this is basically one of the biggest social programs of the last century, as it effectively makes it easier in many ways to have a mortgage on a home than to rent one. It was obvious during the pre-2007 housing boom that this policy had basically gone so far that it was no longer sustainable, and homes (and therefore mortgages) were being sold to people who had no capacity to actually pay them off. Home ownership will drop as a result of this "reform."

One I'm curious about would be the aggregate effect of the changes in the corporate tax code. Paying taxes for most corporations is pretty much nominal; I have no illusions that the bourgeoisie is about to make a progressive tax code but I'm curious whether the combination of a cut and a closure of loopholes would actually mean a net increase of corporate taxes that the corporations would be unable to protest.

Social Security should be able to cause fucking riots. The Social Security system is solvent, and if it were segregated from the rest of income it would be solvent for decades to come. But the government raids the funds for other purposes. The idea that it needs to be fixed in any way other than stopping the raids is a filthy lie and should not be presented as anything else.

The idea that defense spending can be cut is intriguing, because the amount of largesse thrown at defense contractors has been fairly extreme. This is probably just an adjustment to the pre-Bush levels of profit, which will nonetheless be met with kicking and screaming.

As for resistance...we'll see. It damn well should draw something comparable to what we've seen in France, but somehow I doubt it.

You know as well as I Pentagon funding will not be cut nor will corporate taxes be raised. If that happens I'll cut off my pinkie toe and change my name to Bob.

[~Spectre]

They're starting to forget what happens when people can no longer afford bread.

[RadioRaheem84]

Something needs to be done here. This is getting ridiculous.

Corporate America is giving the green light to the global bourgeois to literally unravel what is left of the social welfare state.

Can we even count on the working class in the States? I mean they looked at the French strikes with disgust here in the States.

The left is too busy licking Obama's feet and taking Jon Stewart advice on using an indoor voice.

[Amphictyonis]

If I truly believe (as I do) declining material conditions will set the stage for us to spread class awareness then the stage is surely being set for us. We need ,as always, to find a way to reach the multiple millions of non union service sector workers who are living paycheck to paycheck. One of my fears is material conditions will decline without class consciousness rising. If that happens I'm going primo and moving to the woods.

[Red Commissar]

I was wandering around in the store and they had a TV set to fox. They had a segment on this about one of the plans on federal employment. They were clearly playing the expected angle- exaggerations of average federal worker income, which they said was growing more than the private worker, and that there were at least 80,000 federal employees earning more than $150,000.

I think with people getting angry about bureaucracy and what ever bad experiences they've had at the DMV or other governmental agencies, they'll welcome this. Of course they seem oblivious to those whose employment comes through these channels. I don't think it means much to them either that when they do "cut" them, the figures they're citing with higher incomes will probably be kept on while the others will be thrown out.

[graymouser]

You know as well as I Pentagon funding will not be cut nor will corporate taxes be raised. If that happens I'll cut off my pinkie toe and change my name to Bob.
There has to be some nod toward "shared suffering" for it to have the illusion of being shared. I wouldn't be surprised if there actually were some trimming of defense spending, mostly to firms that no longer have the political connections they did in the Bush era. The corporate tax changes may also mean that the burden is being shifted around somewhere, although I don't know enough to say what it would really mean.

The bourgeoisie may be forced to make a few sacrifices to get its pound of flesh, although given their nature they will make those sacrifices as meaningless as possible before anything is ever passed. Fucking with the Social Security age and the mortgage exemption is powerful stuff, and they need some mitigating factors for it.

[KC]

The Deficit Panel proposal is a "slash as much as possible" put forward by a non-political body and not to be considered as an actual proposal, as it is far too unrealistic and would never get passed. As many politicians have said since it came out (and Bowles), this is just supposed to be a starting point for discussion on where to actually cut spending. This report lists pretty much the "worst case scenario".

The interesting question will be what they actually decide on cutting, if they can even ever get to a consensus (which I doubt will happen any time soon).

Austerity measures have already been rolled out by many state governments and municipalities. It's obvious that we should expect some on the federal level.

I think, though, that the trade issue is much more interesting and important at this point.


I was wandering around in the store and they had a TV set to fox. They had a segment on this about one of the plans on federal employment. They were clearly playing the expected angle- exaggerations of average federal worker income, which they said was growing more than the private worker, and that there were at least 80,000 federal employees earning more than $150,000.I don't know about average income but I do know that government employees in general have much better benefits.


Corporate America is giving the green light to the global bourgeois to literally unravel what is left of the social welfare state.

The welfare state was built on the expansion of the capitalist system, which was due to speculation and debt. Now that the party is over so are most of the benefits that came with it.

Anyways, I think this is a lesson for people who thought that hard fought gains are victories that can be looked upon as ultimate. The fruit of struggle always withers and dies, as long as it remains within a capitalist system.

[Amphictyonis]

KC- I wouldn't preemptively minimize the bourgeoisie's intentions. The USA is indeed in line for massive structural adjustments. Obama has already overseen many. The bourgeoisie are going to get as much as they can out of their representative Obama and the "budget crisis" (as much as they can from the working class).

[Amphictyonis]

There has to be some nod toward "shared suffering" for it to have the illusion of being shared. I wouldn't be surprised if there actually were some trimming of defense spending, mostly to firms that no longer have the political connections they did in the Bush era. The corporate tax changes may also mean that the burden is being shifted around somewhere, although I don't know enough to say what it would really mean.

The bourgeoisie may be forced to make a few sacrifices to get its pound of flesh, although given their nature they will make those sacrifices as meaningless as possible before anything is ever passed. Fucking with the Social Security age and the mortgage exemption is powerful stuff, and they need some mitigating factors for it.

Most taxes go to military and the military is the private fighting force for the bourgeoisie - Obama just announced his intention of keeping troops in Afghanistan till 2014. Anyhow, the military budget, how else do you think foreign labor markets are opened up for exploitation? :) Cut that and they cut profits.

Everything about this system is set up to maintain a triangular structure with concentrated wealth atop. This is only possible by extracting wealth from the base structure not from the parasites atop of it. When the bourgeoisie complain about taxes they should be shot in the knee caps.

[KC]

KC- I wouldn't preemptively minimize the bourgeoisie's intentions. The USA is indeed in line for massive structural adjustments. Obama has already overseen many. The bourgeoisie are going to get as much as they can out of their representative Obama and the "budget crisis" (as much as they can from the working class).
__________________

Yes but my point was that these have to be filtered through a political process that makes the proposal referred to in the OP unfeasible.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I honestly can't see major medicare/social security cuts coming. Even minor changes would have huge political ramifications. Not saying it can't be done, with both parties supporting and lots of willpower on their part, but the elderly in this country vote en masse and many representatives will know they'll be done with if they do this, especially in places like FLA or even conservative areas like AZ.

Personally, I think it would be easier, and take way less political capital for the reward, to make major cuts in schools, medicaid, airline safety inspectors, spending on bridges which are approaching an age where brittle fracture is a concern, that kind of thing.

That's just my opinion, I'm not saying it's impossible.

**That being said, perhaps the retirement age should be raised, or at least people should perhaps work longer. If, in the next 50 years, life expectancy raises by say 25%, would raising retirement age 10% over that period be a major regression? By making people retire (as many do to receive full benefits later in life), experienced workers retire when they could continue to work. Not saying I agree with any of the proposed cuts, but it does make sense that people work longer as life gets longer and longer. Just a thought.

[Amphictyonis]

Yes but my point was that these have to be filtered through a political process that makes the proposal referred to in the OP unfeasible.

Is there a democratic political process in the USA? Who controls Washington, the people or concentrated wealth? They're going to push for as much as they think they can get away with. The "political process" will have nothing to do with it. The peoples in teh streets will. If there is no opposition in the community they will go for the hail Mary.

We have a plutocracy in the US-the only thing they want is to maintain order so profits can be made. I don't see them doing anything that will cause millions to take to the streets. They've always attacked the working class slow, so people don't much notice.

It will be an interesting few years, this is for sure. We should all step up our commitment :) Now's the time.

[~Spectre]

but it does make sense that people work longer as life gets longer and longer. Just a thought.


No it doesn't. There's nothing about society's increasing wealth and life expectancy, that implies that people should have to work longer as a result. I'd say it's the exact opposite.

Weisbrot said it perfectly when discussing the French protests:

The situation is similar going forward: the growth in national income over the next 30 or 40 years will be much more than sufficient to pay for the increases in pension costs due to demographic changes, while still allowing future generations to enjoy considerably higher living standards than people today. It is simply a social choice as to how many years people want to live in retirement and how they want to pay for it.

[~Spectre]

Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower, Republican President of the United States, and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII.