One ‘Entitlement’ Really Does Need Trimming

America’s corporate CEOs feel entitled to pensions that pay out $86,000 monthly. To protect their entitlement, they’re attacking ours: Social Security

www.commondreams.org...

originally published here:

www.commondreams.org...

Deck the halls, this holiday season, with scenes of hunger.
A new report neatly exposes the monumental hypocrisy of America’s most politically active corporate leaders.

Struggling families all across America now have less food on their tables. Budget cuts that kicked into effect November 1 have lowered the nation’s average federal food stamp benefit to less than $1.40 per person per meal.

Average Americans, of course, don’t want Social Security cut. Over three-quarters of Americans, polling shows, oppose any Social Security cutbacks.

If anything, average Americans have become even more committed to keeping Social Security whole — and for good reason. Social Security currently stands as America’s only retirement bedrock.

Not too long ago, pensions also used to deliver real retirement security. But the nation’s biggest corporations have cut back on traditional pensions. In 1980, 89 percent of Fortune 100 companies guaranteed workers a “defined benefit” at retirement. By last year, only 12 percent offered that level of security.

These are verifible facts being presented.

Why are we angry with the poor and elderly and not the liars and thieves that are stealing food and shelter from those who most need it?

Why do we unlease our anger a those below us on the power/wealth ladder rather then those higher up?

Why do we take from those with little and cheer giving those with much?

Why?

Yeah, I read that somewhere else in my surfing of the net. I think these CEOs need their attitude adjusted. The funny thing is that they derive a lot of their earnings off the elderly and yet they still try to cut their money. S&F....it appears to be somewhat true...I looked at some of the evidence.

If the Seniors lost income, this countries economy would go down the tubes for sure.

Take your communist/marxist propaganda elsewhere, these CEO's deserve their 90,000 monthly pensions. They worked hard for them, all those retired people that are complaining about these CEO's taking away their social security are just spoiled by our entitlement society

ooops wrong thread

muse7
Take your communist/marxist propaganda elsewhere, these CEO's deserve their 90,000 monthly pensions. They worked hard for them, all those retired people that are complaining about these CEO's taking away their social security are just spoiled by our entitlement society

Star for making me LOL.

reply to post by FyreByrd


The only person I ever met that refused the Social Security Retirement was my Grandma. She said that she had enough $$$ and felt that to take it would be hoarding. I respect that even though 40+ years ago when she made that decision the program was well funded.

How people can live in their own skin while stealing from the the needy is beyond me.

Whatever happened to the saying: "Live simply so others can simply live" ?

Greed is what happens when money is your God.

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

They train themselves to believe the needy as a whole are incapable and worthy of contempt.

reply to post by FyreByrd

The first thing which needs reform is the monetary system.

We have a "Federal Reserve" central bank which is constantly inflating the money supply and devaluing our currency.

Until we deal with this 800lb gorilla in the room, everything else we do is a smoke screen, band-aid, BS fix.

Take for example, raising the minimum wage. Instead of strengthening our currency so we can buy more with less, they present the illusion that they are trying to help the poor by putting the burden on small business owners who hire workers to perform menial tasks.

One man tried to take on the Federal Reserve monetary system and he was attacked non-stop from start to finish.

CEOs work for private firms. Their pay or retirement packages are not "entitlements", they are mutually agreed upon contracts, both parties are willing.

An example of an entitlement is a government employee who thinks he or she is entitled to a retirement package which someone else (the tax payer) is FORCED to fund.

Contrary to popular opinion, no one else is entitled to my earnings, not the government, not some retired Congressman, no one.

My question is, why dont the share holders exert more control over the Board? Answer, because we as shareholders dont have any real say. Its yet another illusion.

Social security, like every other government program is a terrible failure. More money is now coming out than is going in and thanks to the Federal Reserve, the value of those future dollars will be worth less and less.

The youngest people who are now forced to pay in should not expect to see that money when they retire, thats how bad things have gotten.

That having been said, government with its infinite stupidity has created a dependency on these social programs and its not morally proper to then deny this drug. Not all at once anyway.

Yes, there have to be budget cuts but these cuts have to begin with the overseas empire. However, you'll notice that this is rarely discussed or suggested.

The command structure is led by the Federal Reserve and the Big Banks followed closely by the Military Industrial Complex then foreign lobbyists.

Yes the government has been empowered to provide our national defense (one of its very few powers actually enumerated in the Constitution) but to what extent?

The have made plenty of arguments as to why we (as tax payers and expendable soldiers) "need" to be occupying 120 different nations and attacking countries on the other side of the globe.

To all who choose to see, its quite clear that WAR is a trillion dollar a year industry having nothing to do with "national defense".

The cuts need to begin overseas but the main focus has to be on stopping the destruction of our dollar, I'm sorry, I mean "Federal Reserve notes".

reply to post by FyreByrd


Gee, with a $30 TRILLION shortfall in Social Security in current dollars, you really think a few "pensions" would make a meaningful dent? BTW: the CEOs I know don't get a pension. They do have 401k's and can defer some compensation. Deferred compensation means they get paid years later and also pay tax on it then, not when it was earned. Under the current tax laws, those taxes will not be lower than they are now.

This is just more political bashing of companies which actually provide jobs and real income to the economy. The "progressive" government we currently have in contrast only steals money (mostly from the middle class). Worse, totally immorally, these same "progressives" actively lure people into poverty by promising income and benefits the "progressives" know can't be delivered. Then, these same bigots blame a group which couldn't cover 1% of the false promises even at a 100% tax rate. Holding power through creating dependency is their real goal. Claiming to alleviate suffering and poverty is their lie.

rickymouse
Yeah, I read that somewhere else in my surfing of the net. I think these CEOs need their attitude adjusted. The funny thing is that they derive a lot of their earnings off the elderly and yet they still try to cut their money. S&F....it appears to be somewhat true...I looked at some of the evidence.

If the Seniors lost income, this countries economy would go down the tubes for sure.

America needs an A-team. a real one that visits these CEO's while they are sleeping. Like Santa does, and leave them presents underneath their beds..

HanzHenry

rickymouse
Yeah, I read that somewhere else in my surfing of the net. I think these CEOs need their attitude adjusted. The funny thing is that they derive a lot of their earnings off the elderly and yet they still try to cut their money. S&F....it appears to be somewhat true...I looked at some of the evidence.

If the Seniors lost income, this countries economy would go down the tubes for sure.

America needs an A-team. a real one that visits these CEO's while they are sleeping. Like Santa does, and leave them presents underneath their beds..

yeah like bombs...

reply to post by gladtobehere


Over 50 years before Ron Paul another stalwart American challenged the power of the Federal Reserve. His name was Louis McFadden. After 2 failed attempts to kill him they finally got him by poisoning.
Notice how Wiki tries to smear McFadden as anti-semtic - en.wikipedia.org...
One could rightly call him one of the grandfathers of modern conspiracy theory. Congress snubbed him the same way they did Paul, even in the 1930's they knew which side of their bread was buttered. His death was also very close in time to the plot to assassinate FDR.

From the OP's article:

CEOs also have a personal tax-time reason to want to see Social Security cut. Americans this year pay Social Security payroll tax on only the first $113,700 of paycheck income. This tax ceiling rises each year with inflation.

But if we eliminated the ceiling entirely — and taxed CEO paychecks at the same rate as the paychecks of average workers — 95 percent of the expected Social Security budget shortfall over the next 75 years would disappear

Gee, if these greedy bastards would have to pay 13% of what they "earn" ::cough, cough:: from their overloaded retirement funds 95% of the expected Social Security budget shortfall would be met for the next 75 years but they would prefer everyone else who is struggling make do with less and less.

So, instead of living on $100,000 a month pension they would limited to a paltry $87,000 a month. This would mean they could only afford 4 vacation homes instead of 5 and their personal yachts might be 10 feet shorter. Intolerable!

If a revolution happens in the US I pray none of them are able to fly out of the country or get away by boat. Since it was primarily their greed that caused it they deserve a ring side seat and possibly a chance to answer for their financial crimes.