Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts

McGentrix,
The above quote discourages me from participating.

Why don't you and others just stop at saying, something like-- ' I disagree with your opinion.'

Sarcasm--- especially that of the derisive kind, is such a BIG turn-off.

Thanks Greenscam
The Dems have just been handed another reason that they should be elected. America needs complete overhaul of the Economic System. The SS, Medicare and other programs are in peril because the Right Wing wants them gone and the Left Wing won't stand up to the Right Wing to have fair redistribution of Amercan Tax Money.

Fair redistribution of American tax money?

I got ALL the tax money I paid to the federal government back this year. Seems fair to me.

Maybe I am wrong, but didn't Clinton have a surplus when left office? If Bush had not had given that huge tax giveaway then when we were attacked and then when we had a recession we would have had the money stored away to help with those crisis. Now we are in trouble and yes it is Bush's fault. However, that was probably their plan because they don't want to pay for any social programs including education which is just a front for terrorist apparently. All they want tax money for is the military and things like that. Anything else is considered communist socialism.

These budget numbers and projections are all smokescreens (b.s.) You can blame this party or that one, but that really is missing the point. The point is that the U.S. debt is out of control to the fault of EVERY politician and yes, we taxpayers- the ones that expect government to give them handouts and do something for us that we don't really deserve.
People have been talking about this eventually happening with SS for over 20 years - first they will up the age when you will be able to recieve SS benefits and now your 'principal' *cough* might even be cut. You can only tax the populous so much and they will rebell, so basically the politicians will have to just keep borrowing to keep this charade of our solvency as a nation going.
Face the facts: Our debt will NEVER be repaid. ONE day our dollar will be worthless (ala. German Reichstag) and our economy ruined. The only question that has to be answered in my mind is WHEN.

As an aside, when interest rates go up, the debt is going to skyrocket and I think the only reason the economy is stagnant instead of down is because of the spending due to this war on terrorism.

McGentrix
Either you a great many deductions or you don't have much of an income. I am retired and pay taxes. In fact I would gladly pay more if it meant my income was greater.

MDguy
Mdguy, welcome to Able2Know, glad to have you here. Your opinions are very important to add to the discussions.


BBB

Starve the Beast
Then get rid of ALL Social Programs. That's the plan of the Right Wing.

SS money is there. The government just wants to divert it to their pet projects. They will have it all if we let 'em take it.

Re: Fedral


It's the world's longest-running Ponzi scheme...no more and no less. Eventually, it WILL collapse like the house of cards it is.

Re: Starve the Beast


I'm far from right wing as you can get, but it works for me.

If the Constitution doesn't authorize it, then ditch it.

If the voters allow the last vestiges of our safety net to be taken they have no right to complain later on. Trouble is, they don't understand the power they have or they would not now be faced with a loss of SS.

March 2, 2004 - New York Times
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Maestro of Chutzpah
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The 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.

Haven't seen it mentioned here, but all the TV news shows I watch have said this whole problem of reduced SS payments to those now approaching 65 could be solved by allowing them to continue working -- retirement at 65, receiving gold watch, etc., could just fizzle. What if the younger workers resent the older workers hogging the work force?

Anyone under 40 who expects to collect from social security is simply delusional. I won't get a penny from that Ponzi scheme...which is why I have a 401(k).

I'll suck my shotgun before I go on welfare of any kind.

SS is not welfare, except to the deluded. We payed money into the system all our lives. We have a right - and the numbers - to see we get what we have worked for. The only real problem SS has ever had is the meddling of the polititians - and the people who think people helping people is wrong.

Re: Starve the Beast


Yes Pistoff, it's true. Every word of it is true.

Every summer we evil Republicans gather in a secret State Park in Alaska. There we do the following.

Have several Redwoods chopped down and flown in to fuel our whale oil and redwood powered barbeque.

We then cook up some endangered spotted owls on the grill while we club a few baby seals and figure out which National Park lands we can sell to developers for our new mansions and which Park lands we will dump our toxic waste on.

A little later, while smoking our Cuban cigars, we figure out which third world nations we plan to invade in the coming year and then we all celebrate by calculating how we how many social programs we can cut so we can give tax cuts to millionaires.

You caught us.

Social security is nothing more or less than the world's longest-running Ponzi scheme. It will eventually collapse like the house of cards it is.

I have no problem with people helping people...just with people helping people with MY money.

Does anyone have the actual numbers? I fail to see how SS is in trouble.

Guess what, jar; it ain't your money. The money that's due to me ain't. I've paid into the system more than fifty years. SS has taken in plenty of money to keep itself solvent forever. It's the govt.'s plundering of the money that creates a sense of looming disaster. The payoff is a piddly check compared to what a person needs. I will fight every way I know how to ensure the checks keep coming. If the government were to apply sound business practices to overseeing SS there would be no crisis at all.