Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (4718)	3/1/2004 8:48:25 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Steve PPPPLLLLLLEEEEAAAASSSEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!! "That's an outrage, truly a scandal. Saying SS is broke to cover for gross fiscal mismanagement from the Republicans is as bad as it gets. They should be ashamed yet somehow i suspect they're proud." Republicans? Yup - Steve it is only Republicans who spent the SS money - is that right? Have missed something in history? Tell, how would you have dealt with the recession and the economic impact of 9/11 - would you have raised taxes? And--- "Yes i think that payroll taxes are too high, obscenely so. Something like 75% of workers pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. The tax burden has been shifting from the top to the bottom and middle. That needs to be reversed." That would be the end of any pay as you go SS fantasy! Let's see how many Dems want to vote against the farm bill, and the highway bill. What we have is collective pillage of the treasury.

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (4718)	3/1/2004 10:59:53 PM
From: CalculatedRisk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

Steve, very good post on Social Security. Let me add that SS is expected to run a surplus of approximately $170 Billion this year. Here are the current stats for Social Security (Billions): Income Outlays Surplus 2002 $539 $393 $146 2003 553 405 148 2004 585 419 166 2005 626 436 190 2006 667 456 211 2007 713 480 233 2008 759 508 251 2009 807 538 269 2010 857 572 285 2011 910 609 301 2012 964 650 314 SOURCE: ssa.gov The annual surplus will continue to grow until around 2017 (at about $350 Billion), and then start shrinking. As you pointed out, the problem is that we are spending on other items. The way SS is being abused, it is essentially a flat tax, that falls heaviest on low and middle income families, that is being used (as you so aptly stated) to shift the tax burden from the wealthy to the low and middle class. Nice post!

To: Steve Dietrich who wrote (4718)	3/2/2004 12:14:29 AM
From: CalculatedRisk	Respond to of 81568

Maestro of Chutzpah By PAUL KRUGMAN nytimes.com Published: March 2, 2004 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