Goldman Sachs CEO Bitches About 'Entitlements'

3 min read

Deviation Actions

OccupyDA's avatar
Published:
955 Views
Just when I thought I couldn't hate this motherfucker more he has to open his Mr. Potato Head mouth again.  I find it so offensively absurd that these parasites dare to whine about "entitlements" after the enormous bailouts we gave them despite their criminal activity and massive bonuses for which we are still suffering the effects while they rake in new profits, further expanding the divide between rich and poor.  Remind me again why this clown hasn't been drug screaming from one of his many beds and air dropped naked into the Congo?

Extremely Rich Wall Street CEO Wants Americans To Work Longer thinkprogress.org/economy/2012…

Lloyd Blankfein — evidently taking a break from doing “god’s work” dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/0… as the CEO of Wall Street behemoth Goldman Sachs — told CBS News’ Scott Pelley that he believes the retirement age needs to be raised because “in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained“: www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162…

   BLANKFEIN: You’re going to have to undoubtedly do something to lower people’s expectations — the entitlements and what people think that they’re going to get, because it’s not going to — they’re not going to get it.

   PELLEY: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid?

   BLANKFEIN: You can look at history of these things, and Social Security wasn’t devised to be a system that supported you for a 30-year retirement after a 25-year career. … So there will be things that, you know, the retirement age has to be changed, maybe some of the benefits have to be affected, maybe some of the inflation adjustments have to be revised. But in general, entitlements have to be slowed down and contained.

   PELLEY: Because we can’t afford them going forward?

   BLANKFEIN: Because we can’t afford them.

Maybe working until a later age is fine for a Wall Street CEO whose net worth is $450 million www.celebritynetworth.com/rich… . But it’s simply nonsense to assert that the retirement age needs to go up because Social Security is no longer affordable.

For starters, Social Security can pay full benefits for decades without any changes at all thinkprogress.org/economy/2012… . (Imagine the accolades that would received if any other federal program had guaranteed funding for that stretch of time.) One simple change, raising the cap on the payroll tax, can guarantee that the program will pay nearly full benefits for three-quarters of a century thinkprogress.org/economy/2012… . In the meantime, Social Security is statutorily www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/b… barred  from adding one dime to the federal deficit, so cutting it doesn’t change the nation’s deficit or debt picture.

Raising the retirement age, meanwhile, adversely impacts those workers most in need of a robust social safety net. While a year or two of extra work may not seem like much to a Wall Street CEO with his cushy corner office, for a factory worker or janitor, it can mean real problems. Life expectancy is only increasing for wealthier workers in non-physical jobs voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra… . Poorer workers doing physical labor have not seen the same gains thinkprogress.org/yglesias/201… . Overall, raising the retirement age to 70 would “cut benefits for the average retiree by 19 percent.” thinkprogress.org/economy/2011…
© 2012 - 2024 OccupyDA
Comments5
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
autogestion's avatar
the economy isn t devised to be a system in which 99% of the people spend their time satisfying the whims of the 1%

what plutocrats basically want is for 99% of the people to serve the 1%
if 99% of the labor is producing for the 1%
you get really rich @$$holes living a life of luxury
continuously brainwashed by consumer advertising
while the 99% themselves have barely anything to go around

that s capitalism in a nutshell