Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 4 Share on Facebook 2 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend 2 (8 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   10 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Mr O'Donnell please!

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It Headlined to H4 4/13/13

Become a Fan
  (6 fans)
- Advertisement -

LAST NIGHT on his Program "THE LAST WORD" Mr. O'Donnell offered a spirited defense, of the Presidents' heartless betrayal of Social Security recipients.

Many of us who White House staffers have in the past called "THE PROFESSIONAL LEFT" disagree heartily with Mr. Lawrence (one more rich guy) assessment for why the poor should suffer more.

The argument for cutting the modest $1,230* average monthly benefit to balance the budget neglects more that a few critical facts. Foremost is that Social Security's paltry less than generous payments to seniors has never impacted the National Debt. Instead, we might more productively examine, no bid contracts run like grease through the pentagon's golden goose, three UNFUNDED WARS, and a MULTI-TRILLION dollar investment in CORRUPT BANKERS, the LIBOR RIGGERS and the FREE RANGE Criminals that Run Wild on Wall Street.

Lest we forget these benefits are entirely self-funded payments. NOT ON BORROWED CHINESE DEBT, like the Bush/Obama Wars and Mr. Paulson's GIVEAWAYS. Mr. O'Donnell summoned the Olympian names of Social Security's founders Ms. Frances Perkins and President Roosevelt, only to claim they  would be SHOCKED SHOCKED at the luxurious cost of living increases which had not been anticipated as the program was originally conceived.  Since the average monthly payment would barely break the poverty level** it can hardly be called overgenerous even if it was UNTAXED. (yes Virginia they do TAX Social Security Income). Mr. O'Donnell (I love it when the rich offer their insight on how the poor over-reach) also informed us that President Roosevelt only intended that Social Security protect the poor from destitution. He wanted no able man of 60-70-80 or 90 on the dole. Mr. President hated "the dole", said Colonel Larry.

He also attempted in his "high liberal tone" to dismiss any scurrilous talk of removing the wage cap.
He said, it would mean that those who earned more and paid more, would not get the benefit of their higher pay-in. (I supposed he's forgotten that the reason they could pay in more was because they were earning more that the $113,000 per year where the cap rests so jauntily.) And obviously regardless of the desire to take benefits away from those whose only income is that 1200 per month.
We can't take any more money from the highest earners. Let us not be unfair to the rich. It's so much easier to make the poor suffer.

I cannot summon the crocodile tears for individuals too wealthy to benefit from a sum, that is less than what they pay their maid from the Philippines. (When they remember to pay her.) Sorry, Larry if lifting that ill-fitting cap would increase the funds available to feed, clothe, house and care for seniors who have not benefited from the pillaging of the working class, I'm all for it. Not everybody benefits from their offshore tax haven. Some of us, in Leona Helmsly's apt phrase are the "little people" for whom laws and even tax laws are written. 
- Advertisement -

Finally his argument that this was not intended as a dole, as if somehow helping the needy was not on Mr. Roosevelt's  agenda. Mr. O'Donells high moral purpose of defending the economically irrelevant yet hurtful cuts our beloved Community Activist President would place on Social Security's modest payments to seniors sounds tinny on these working class ears. No generous pension awaits most Americans. No balloon payments or golden parachutes cushion those of us, who have been downsized and outsourced until we are forced as in a former IT Specialist of my acquaintance recently told me - She's taken a job from an Indian Firm who has outsourced an Indian Job, to an under employed American who is forced to under sell Indian high tech labor.

Anyone, who has the temerity to characterize $1,230 per month, as an over generous DOLE, that would allow otherwise able-bodied 60-70-80 and 90 year old men from lounging on the governments dime. Mr. 'Odonnell have you ever tried living on the $1230 per month that the "all too generous " social security payment might allow. I suspect not.

I doff my Social Security Cap to you! Thanks for the tip.

* From the Social Security Administration []
click here

** University of Michigan National Poverty Center []

*** Currently, only wages below $113,700 are subject to the 6.2 percent tax that funds Social Security benefits. That means someone earning $1 million will pay the same amount in Social Security taxes - $7,049 - as someone earning $113,700. [ ]

The Last Word
- Advertisement -

An activist since the Edmund Pettis Bridge March, and the Chicago Police Riot of 1968 when Pigasus was Nominated. Recently a founding member of Miami for Peace, Richard has produced and edited the ( website which has carried (more...)

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The day, Obama joined; OCCUPY WALL STREET

This IRS Story Doesn't Pass the Smell Test.

Florida House - Property Condemned

Where else are you going to go?

What part of Economic Disaster is spelled I-N-F-I-D-E-L-I-T-Y

The Obama I found under my TREE!


The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
4 people are discussing this page, with 10 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Defending the president from the professional left... by Richard Spisak on Saturday, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:51:33 AM
Money is not the objective of slashing Ss and Medi... by Textynn N on Saturday, Apr 13, 2013 at 6:54:46 PM
Money, resources, this wealth extraction process s... by Richard Spisak on Saturday, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:54:59 PM
Lawrence O'Donnell, shill for the 1%... by Richard Spisak on Saturday, Apr 13, 2013 at 8:58:15 PM
It was meant to supplement retirement savings. Sim... by Doc McCoy on Saturday, Apr 13, 2013 at 11:40:07 PM
The three legged stool of retirement has tradition... by Richard Spisak on Sunday, Apr 14, 2013 at 7:53:10 AM
rather than the realistic perspective.  I say... by Doc McCoy on Sunday, Apr 14, 2013 at 10:11:03 AM
I use the old definition, a self governing nation,... by Richard Spisak on Sunday, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:32:54 PM
I'm too depressed about the situation to comment o... by Marta B on Sunday, Apr 14, 2013 at 4:01:37 AM
Marta we must continue to fight the good fight, to... by Richard Spisak on Sunday, Apr 14, 2013 at 8:06:18 AM