quote:

As he puts it, Greenspan urges cutting benefits "to pay for President Bush's massive tax breaks for millionaires -- which have turned record budget surpluses into deficits."

http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/26/com...s/hays/?cnn=yes

quote:

Geritol rage Greenspan's advice about cutting Social Security benefits has many boiling mad. February 26, 2004: 12:24 PM EST NEW YORK (CNN) - Get out the Grecian formula and change the battery in your hearing aid! Retirement may be a lot further off if Alan Greenspan's advice rules the day when it comes to Social Security reform. Yesterday he repeated a warning he's made to Congress in the past: Millions of baby boomers are going to be retiring en masse in the not-too-distant future and the cost of paying their social security and medicare benefits could turn the already swelling federal budget deficit into a financial nightmare. But it's his solution that had people up in arms -- from Washington to Wall Street to Main Street: work longer, folks, and accept lower monthly government checks. In his testimony to a House panel, Greenspan urged lawmakers to move quickly to fix the nation's swollen budget deficit -- including measures that could cut some future Social Security payments -- to avoid even bigger problems for the nation's economy down the road. (To read more about Greenspan's comments, click here). The anger came quickly. Roger Hickey of the Campaign for America's Future stated an oft-heard refrain. As he puts it, Greenspan urges cutting benefits "to pay for President Bush's massive tax breaks for millionaires -- which have turned record budget surpluses into deficits." Okay, a very Democratic kind of response in this election year. But trust me, I heard Republican-sympathizing economists making similar remarks. Hickey claims voters will reject this line of thinking -- tax breaks for millionaires, less benefits for older people -- in November: "Americans are starting to ask - why not just stop shoving cash into the pockets of millionaires? Greenspan and the Bush administration are asking average Americans to trim their Social Security checks so that Dick Cheney can keep getting his $90,00 per year in tax breaks."

Let's not forget that 1/3 of Arizona consists of elderly folks, and a significant percentage of Florida also.

I should call my grandparents and see what they think about this ehehe.

Oh and Dean wanting to fire Greenie? What a meanie.

I can't wait until we get to send a man to Mars.

I think we should send a test monkey first if you get my drift.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Feb-27-2004 at 21:29

I just realized how brilliant a move this is on Greenspan's part.

Greenspan wants Bush to lose the election so a Dem can help get the deficits under control, and that's why he gave them this ammunition with the SS issue.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Wow. Even some Repubs. are beginning to see that Bush's tax cuts are a detriment to the deficit:

quote:

Posted on Tue, Mar. 02, 2004 Growing deficit changes attitudes about tax cuts By JONATHAN WEISMAN The Washington Post “We're looking at $500 billion deficits, and people are saying that's totally not acceptable. We have to get it down.” — Sen. Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee WASHINGTON — Confronted with ever-widening deficit forecasts, some key congressional Republicans worried about long-term budgetary effects of President Bush's tax cuts are preparing legislation to scale back the cuts. Sen. Don Nickles, an Oklahoma Republican and chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said he will try this year to pass legislation to cut — but not eliminate — the tax on inherited estates. The House and Senate budget committees will begin drafting tax and spending blueprints this week that decline to extend Bush's tax cuts beyond 2011, as the president had requested. And former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici, a New Mexico Republican, is preparing amendments to the budget plan to demand that tax cut extensions be offset by spending cuts or tax increases. “Everything is on the table, ranging from changes in how we do business around here to the tax cuts themselves, particularly as it regards higher-income Americans,” said Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican. Although not endorsed by the Senate or House Republican leadership, the discussions mark a growing shift in GOP and conservative attitudes about taxes and spending as Congress begins to grapple with projections of record deficits. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office told Congress last Friday that Bush's 2005 budget proposal would generate $2.75 trillion of additional federal debt over the next decade, while failing to cut the deficit in half by 2009, as the president had promised. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's statement last week that Congress should begin cutting promised Social Security benefits has elevated concern over the deficit. “I think it's getting through to people,” said Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee. “There seems to be an uncomfortability about where all this is heading.” Until now, Republicans have confined their deficit-reduction talk to the spending side of the ledger. Leaders of both the House and Senate budget committees intend to draft plans that would order cuts in mandatory social spending programs, and that would include legislative language to ensure such cuts could not be filibustered in the Senate. Nickles and House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, an Iowa Republican, have also said their budgets will include cuts in spending at Congress' discretion that go deeper than those proposed by Bush. But now, some Republicans say they are willing to re-examine the tax cuts, as well. “We're looking at $500 billion deficits, and people are saying that's totally not acceptable,” said Nickles, who will unveil his budget blueprint Wednesday. “We have to get it down.” Nickles, who came to the Senate in 1981 vowing to fight the estate tax, said he is ready to settle for a reduction in the inheritance tax rather than a repeal — a position considered blasphemous among many of the business groups, farm interests and wealthy families who oppose the tax. The tax cut that passed in 2001 slowly raises the value of an estate exempt from taxation to $3.5 million by 2009, while lowering the estate tax rate from 55 percent to 45 percent. In 2010, the tax law repeals the estate tax, but in 2011, the estate tax would reappear with exemption levels and rates back to 2001 levels. With the budget office projecting a record $478 billion deficit this year and the baby boom beginning to retire by decade's end, Nickles said a full repeal might no longer be realistic. Instead, he said he will draft legislation to immediately raise the exemption to $3.5 million and lower the tax rate on estates by 2 percent a year until the rate reaches about 20 percent. The proposal is similar to legislation drafted by Sen. Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican and another fervent estate tax opponent. “I think if we could pull off an exemption that's permanent and a rate close to 20 percent, people would take it in a heartbeat,” Nickles said. Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican and vice chairman of the House Budget Committee, said similar sentiments may be growing in the House. “I have no interest now in eliminating the estate tax,” he said. Domenici plans action that would similarly scale back tax cuts, Senate GOP aides said Monday. Under his “amendments for our children's and grandchildren's future,” tax cuts set to expire over the course of the decade could be extended only if their costs were offset by spending cuts or revenue increases. “We would be foolish to extend all the tax cuts now,” Shays said. Both budget panels are drafting budgets that cover five years, stopping well short of 2011, when the bulk of Bush's tax cuts expire. The budget blueprints will extend some popular tax cuts that expire in 2005, such as the “marriage penalty” repeal, the $1,000-per-child tax credit and the expanded 10 percent income tax bracket.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Good ol' Krugman, putting things into perspective. Puts an interesting view on why Greenspan is going after Social Security, even though SS has plenty of money in it (which I didn't know until now):

quote:

March 2, 2004 OP-ED COLUMNIST Maestro of Chutzpah By PAUL KRUGMAN he traditional definition of chutzpah says it's when you murder your parents, then plead for clemency because you're an orphan. Alan Greenspan has chutzpah. Last week Mr. Greenspan warned of the dangers posed by budget deficits. But even though the main cause of deficits is plunging revenue — the federal government's tax take is now at its lowest level as a share of the economy since 1950 — he opposes any effort to restore recent revenue losses. Instead, he supports the Bush administration's plan to make its tax cuts permanent, and calls for cuts in Social Security benefits. Yet three years ago Mr. Greenspan urged Congress to cut taxes, warning that otherwise the federal government would run excessive surpluses. He assured Congress that those tax cuts would not endanger future Social Security benefits. And last year he declined to stand in the way of another round of deficit-creating tax cuts. But wait — it gets worse. You see, although the rest of the government is running huge deficits — and never did run much of a surplus — the Social Security system is currently taking in much more money than it spends. Thanks to those surpluses, the program is fully financed at least through 2042. The cost of securing the program's future for many decades after that would be modest — a small fraction of the revenue that will be lost if the Bush tax cuts are made permanent. And the reason Social Security is in fairly good shape is that during the 1980's the Greenspan commission persuaded Congress to increase the payroll tax, which supports the program. The payroll tax is regressive: it falls much more heavily on middle- and lower-income families than it does on the rich. In fact, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates, families near the middle of the income distribution pay almost twice as much in payroll taxes as in income taxes. Yet people were willing to accept a regressive tax increase to sustain Social Security. Now the joke's on them. Mr. Greenspan pushed through an increase in taxes on working Americans, generating a Social Security surplus. Then he used that surplus to argue for tax cuts that deliver very little relief to most people, but are worth a lot to those making more than $300,000 a year. And now that those tax cuts have contributed to a soaring deficit, he wants to cut Social Security benefits. The point, of course, is that if anyone had tried to sell this package honestly — "Let's raise taxes and cut benefits for working families so we can give big tax cuts to the rich!" — voters would have been outraged. So the class warriors of the right engaged in bait-and-switch. There are three lessons in this tale. First, "starving the beast" is no longer a hypothetical scenario — it's happening as we speak. For decades, conservatives have sought tax cuts, not because they're affordable, but because they aren't. Tax cuts lead to budget deficits, and deficits offer an excuse to squeeze government spending. Second, squeezing spending doesn't mean cutting back on wasteful programs nobody wants. Social Security and Medicare are the targets because that's where the money is. We might add that ideologues on the right have never given up on their hope of doing away with Social Security altogether. If Mr. Bush wins in November, we can be sure that they will move forward on privatization — the creation of personal retirement accounts. These will be sold as a way to "save" Social Security (from a nonexistent crisis), but will, in fact, undermine its finances. And that, of course, is the point. Finally, the right-wing corruption of our government system — the partisan takeover of institutions that are supposed to be nonpolitical — continues, and even extends to the Federal Reserve. The Bush White House has made it clear that it will destroy the careers of scientists, budget experts, intelligence operatives and even military officers who don't toe the line. But Mr. Greenspan should have been immune to such pressures, and he should have understood that the peculiarity of his position — as an unelected official who wields immense power — carries with it an obligation to stand above the fray. By using his office to promote a partisan agenda, he has betrayed his institution, and the nation. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

Alterior motives for the GOP? Naw, couldn't be.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Waaa??? I don't understand this guy's reasoning. Is he trying to tell us that we shouldn't worry about social security and make significant reforms simply because the trust fund is still running a surplus??? Yes the surplus will continue until the year 2018. After which there will NOT be any more surplus GUARANTEED. The current dependancy ratio is 3.3 workers for each retiree which will continue to decline ... by year 2030 the ratio will be less than 2 to 1. Furthermore, what the author does not mention is that the trust fund's "surplus" is not a surplus at all since the surplus is LENT to the government in exchange for issued government bonds which allows the government to spend the money! Woohoo free money!!! Of the trust fund, half is in these bonds, and the other half is attributed interest to the bonds. There is NO trust fund since in 2018, when the surplus runs out, the fund will begin to cash in the government bonds in order to pay out benefits. And low and behold, ever-wise big government has no money set aside to pay off the bonds or the interest. Therefore where is the money coming from??? Ding ding ding ding!!! That's right, from US in higher taxes! Then while you get hit with those taxes ... gear up for tax hit number 2 when the "fund" runs out of money!!! But the social security situation is so financilly bleak perhaps we SHOULD just ignore it for a few more years. How much is it going to cost to merely pay for the depletion of the trust fund alone? In 2018, the first year that Social Security faces a shortfall, the cash deficit will exceed $17 billion. That's as large as the budgets for Head Start and the WIC nutrition programs combined. By 2022, the annual Social Security deficit will have grown to roughly $100 billion, as large as the combined budgets for the Departments of Education, Interior, Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. By 2027, with the annual deficit approaching $200 billion, you can add in the NASA and the Department of Veterans Affairs. And so it goes. Overall, Social Security now faces unfunded liabilities in excess of $6.4 trillion.

Teehee and you don't even WANT me to mention medicare's unfunded liabilities ... ok I'll say it anyway: $36 trillion

Reform is needed and the SOONER it comes the better.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Mar-02-2004 at 23:38

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Reform is needed and the SOONER it comes the better.

No later! Later! I need all the time I can get to evade taxes enough to buy.. err invade, my own island nation.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Waaa??? I don't understand this guy's reasoning. Is he trying to tell us that we shouldn't worry about social security and make significant reforms simply because the trust fund is still running a surplus??? Yes the surplus will continue until the year 2018. After which there will NOT be any more surplus GUARANTEED. The current dependancy ratio is 3.3 workers for each retiree which will continue to decline ... by year 2030 the ratio will be less than 2 to 1. Furthermore, what the author does not mention is that the trust fund's "surplus" is not a surplus at all since the surplus is LENT to the government in exchange for issued government bonds which allows the government to spend the money! Woohoo free money!!! Of the trust fund, half is in these bonds, and the other half is attributed interest to the bonds. There is NO trust fund since in 2018, when the surplus runs out, the fund will begin to cash in the government bonds in order to pay out benefits. And low and behold, ever-wise big government has no money set aside to pay off the bonds or the interest. Therefore where is the money coming from??? Ding ding ding ding!!! That's right, from US in higher taxes! Then while you get hit with those taxes ... gear up for tax hit number 2 when the "fund" runs out of money!!! But the social security situation is so financilly bleak perhaps we SHOULD just ignore it for a few more years. How much is it going to cost to merely pay for the depletion of the trust fund alone? In 2018, the first year that Social Security faces a shortfall, the cash deficit will exceed $17 billion. That's as large as the budgets for Head Start and the WIC nutrition programs combined. By 2022, the annual Social Security deficit will have grown to roughly $100 billion, as large as the combined budgets for the Departments of Education, Interior, Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. By 2027, with the annual deficit approaching $200 billion, you can add in the NASA and the Department of Veterans Affairs. And so it goes. Overall, Social Security now faces unfunded liabilities in excess of $6.4 trillion. Teehee and you don't even WANT me to mention medicare's unfunded liabilities ... ok I'll say it anyway: $36 trillion Reform is needed and the SOONER it comes the better.

I hate you. Always have to piss on my economics parade, don't ya?

Don't you have a fight somewhere else, like in the religious threads or somethin'? Shoo, damnit!

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Don't you have a fight somewhere else, like in the religious threads or somethin'? Shoo, damnit!

Done and done

___________________
Retro ...

It seems that it has to happen sooner or later:

http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/08/new...dex.htm?cnn=yes

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

I agree with that assessment. As I stated in my other post, I kind of look at the economy as more or less "healthy". Additional business growth will not magically increase jobs as the joblessness is structural in nature. A continued delay in raising interest rates will only encourage inflation. This is ESPECIALLY true due to Bush's reckless fiscal policies which are devaluing the dollar. I'm surprised that prices haven't rised and I can only blame the Asians for that. The minute the Japs and the Chinese start loosening their fixed currency rate, you can bet all those wonderfully cheap goods from wal-mart to Japanese cars are going to rise in price ... which will kind of be a good thing in that it will balance out the grotesque trade deficit, force Americans to purchase more domestic products, and perhaps boost demand for american goods.

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Mar-08-2004 at 21:05

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Are we really getting less taxes?

NO, we aren't. When the federal government cuts taxes & spending, the states and counties have to make up the slack. Our government is slacking off by bribing people with tax cuts.

II : Tax Cuts DO NOT increase revenue to the treasury. I sorry to offend anyone, but I do not SMOKE CRACK.

III : The GDP is tied to revenues, and tax cuts DO NOT spur economic growth.

IV : Every major recession in since Carter has been tied to gasoline prices, PERIOD. During recessions our government fails to compensate by RAISING TAXES & CUTTING SPENDING, which is what WILL balance the budget during recessions. I didn't say the people have to LIKE IT, it's about what is RESPONCIBLE, and a RESPONCIBLE government pays it's bills.

Besides, that is what the rich are for. The wealthy nobility are a cash cow in America. Read Machiavelli when he talks about the balance of power between the state & nobility. The rich elite in this country are far too powerful, they are ACTUALLY a bigger threat to America than the terrorists. Taxing them would serve to balance that power AND pay for the deficits/debt. A DOUBLE whammy. If the rich complain and sabotage this country economically, they can be delt with as traitors to the Republic. Ah, I love Machiavelli, amoung others.

V : Shit will hit the fan soon, many countries will hit peak oil production in the next 5-10 years, after that ALL countries oil output will be on the decline. This will cause unpresidented economic repercussions, far worse than any social security scandal.

___________________
Current fav albums

DNA, kick me up
Protoculture, Circadians