With even mainstream Democrats coming to embrace the idea of expanding Social Security to help address our looming retirement crisis, it couldn't be long before the pushback emerged from conservatives and Republicans.
Bloomberg's libertarian economics columnist Megan McArdle was quick out of the box, with a column published Tuesday titled, "The Left Gets it Wrong About Social Security." You should read it, because it's rare to find so much sophistry, misunderstanding and misinformation about Social Security packed into one article. You can count McArdle's disdain for retired people, seldom expressed so openly, as a dividend.Hiltzik goes on to point out her errors and deceptions; read it all so I don't have to pick apart yet another Social-Security-Is-Doomed post. The best part, as always, is when McArdle pretends that top marginal tax rate on the rich can never be raised above 50%.
McArdle's target is a budget amendment that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) recently persuaded almost all Senate Democrats to vote for, aimed at increasing Social Security benefits.
The 1970s called, Megan. They wanted to remind you that the top tax rate was over 70%.
9 comments:
This is bound to re-launch the age-old argument of "Is she extremely stupid or extremely dishonest?". With fodder like this, how can we tell?
Ignorance pays. Blaming the poor, elderly, single mothers,immigrants, etc always finds kind ears and eyes in this "exceptional nation". Beholding the ardent fealty of her claque(commentariat) prompts a catharsis of laughter and pity.
"You should read it, because it's rare to find so much sophistry, misunderstanding and misinformation about [every subject Megan has ever written about] packed into one article."
Edited for accuracy.
Don't forget laziness. It's the third leg of the stool.
~
Her comment section makes me depressed. Greedy, stupid and mean.
Ah, laziness, the Shemp of McArdle's Three Stooges/Stages of Horrible. I keep forgetting she's not called the world's laziness econoblogger for nothing.
laziest!
She doubled down on stupid - http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-04-09/social-security-trust-funds-and-promises
Of course she did, because the government could just decide that it wasn't going to pay out SS and that would be that. Too bad suckers!
Concerning Downpuppy's link to Megan's further stupidity.
I've been over this ground with RW friends and relatives.
As concisely as possible I ask them how on one hand they reject my criticisms of America with talk of exceptionalism and shining City on the Hill bullshit and then turn around and tell me that the country is not good for its debts. A country that has always paid off its debts.
Furthermore, the argument that the money is not set aside for say, various welfare payments in 2030, demonstrate that the gov't is bankrupt ignore that neither is the funding for the various security apparatus (DoD, NSA, CIA, FBI) put aside today. Yet they don't fear that those agencies will not be funded nor do they think that this lack of cash in the bank today for the DoD indicates the feds are bankrupt.
These are people who are unable to think critically. It is that simple.
Post a Comment