Greenspan Urges Action on Social Security

[Career Prole]

WASHINGTON - Federal Reserve (news - web sites) Chairman Alan Greenspan (news - web sites) urged Congress Wednesday to move quickly to fix the financing problems in Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare, arguing that delay will only make the country's budgetary problems more severe.

<snip>

Greenspan reiterated that he supports President Bush's push for setting up personal retirement accounts by diverting up to 4 percentage points of payroll taxes into the new accounts.


Diverting the payroll taxes into the Social Security trust fund, he said, had merely allowed the government to run larger budget deficits. Greenspan said that switching to the private accounts would be a way to bolster the nation's low savings rate.

<snip>

The Fed chief said that unless growth in the huge benefit programs is restrained, these programs will require more and more government resources, rising from about 8 percent of the total economy currently to 13 percent by 2030.


"In the end, the consequences for the U.S. economy of doing nothing could be severe," he said.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1203&e=1&u=/ap/20050302/ap_on_bi_ge/greenspan&sid=95609868

Okay, Greenspan...time to retire. Get the hell out of government.
As for "these programs will require more and more government resources", you've got it backwards. SS is getting robbed by the government, NOT vice versa.
:grr:

[aquart]

1. Is Greenspan keeping alive on illegal drugs?

And BushCo is blackmailing him? Or are his arteries just too hard for rational thought anymore?

[Career Prole]

3. That's a thought...get the carotids checked, Al...

You've got symptoms of brainpan starvation.

[cthrumatrix]

12. and ....he says IF you raise taxes we are in deep crap....so how do you

get the $$$$trillions if you don't raise txes for privatization?

[Career Prole]

16. It must be one of those faith-based rigs.

"Dear Lord,

Having a wonderful time.

Love,
Gee-dubya

P.S. Send money!!"

[lyonn]

63. Best response yet!

Too funny Career P.

[GHOSTDANCER]

70. whahahahaha

[Rainscents]

41. Greenspan wants to bankrupt this country... He is in-bed with rethugs!

You ever notice, when we had democrat President, Greenspan increase interest rates so fast to bring down the deficits that rethugs created when they were in the office? Well, he doesn't give a shit about deficits... he only give a shit about bankrupting this country.

[mike_c]

2. Greenspan's alliegence is ultimately with Big Finance....

The very folks who stand to benefit the most by diverting trillions into the investment banking market. This is no surprise.

[Karenina]

65. Calling the 4th Estate!

Report for duty!!! Inform the serfs that their interests lie in "*Ownership!" Don't tell them that means *WE OWN THEM and they survive at our behest!!!

I CANNOT BELIEVE WHAT I SEE IN AMERICA THROUGH DU. I thought the Enron scam would do it... :silly: NOT. *Corporate media is DESTROYING every high ideal we were given. TAKE BACK THE AIRWAVES OR DIE IN POVERTY!!!

[priller]

4. What a whoring little hypocrite he's become

Greenscum was the one who "saved" Social Security back in '83 by greatly increasing payroll taxes to build up the Trust Fund, the very same Fund that Bush is now claiming is "all spent and gone". That buildup allowed St. Ronnie and the Pukes to cut back income taxes because they now had easy access to Social Security surplus funds to "borrow".

Now the Pukes don't want to pay it back, and he's doing his best to support them. To all the workers who built up the trust fund? Suckers!

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

11. Exactly...

It was a con job that is breath-taking in its scope. Twenty years ago, the Republicans urged higher payroll taxes on working Americans to build up a massive Social Security Trust Fund. Then they enact enormous tax cuts for the wealthy to drain the surplus. Their plan is to steal literally trillions of dollars from working people to enrich themselves.

In a just world, Mr. Greenspan would be covered in pig's blood and locked in a small room with a half dozen rabid badgers.

[Corgigal]

5. We taxpayers are getting tired

of providing Greenspan his lifestyle when all he can do is spout lies. Time to move on and we might get lucky to find one Bush can't purchase.

[priller]

9. Anyone Bush gets to replace Greenspan will be worse

Count on it!

[Sparky McGruff]

39. A greenspan replacement would be worse...

but Greenspan has an (unearned) air of respectability. He's been around long enough, people assume he knows what he's talking about. The Fed chair doesn't do all that much, as far as I can tell, except make pronouncements and set interest rates. He doesn't write laws, he just recommends them. If they bring in one of Bush's cronies, they won't be listened to nearly as closely as Greenspan.

[redqueen]

6. Why not up the limit? Why stop taking SS after $90K?

Does anyone else wonder why this option is never brought up?

:wtf:

[Horse with no Name]

10. Because it affects Bush's base

and would make them be taxed along with the commoners.
It is also considered a tax increase to the base which Bush promised he would not do.
It seems it would be an easy fix.
Personally--I feel that if they don't want to lift the cap, that is fine, but why not stop the benefits based on $90,000?
It's hardly fair to receive benefits based on money you didn't claim.
But perhaps I am just simple and do not understand the nuances of such.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

34. That's how the system already works.

Personally--I feel that if they don't want to lift the cap, that is fine, but why not stop the benefits based on $90,000?

The benefits received by a person whose income exceeded the cap during his or her working years are based on that capped amount.

[Horse with no Name]

47. I may be wrong

and its entirely possible--but I believe they receive benefits on anything over $90,000, they just aren't taxed.
Anyone else know for sure? I may just have understood this incorrectly.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

57. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you are saying . . .

. . . but the simplest way I can express it is that, in the eyes of the Social Security system, a person making, say, $250,000 in the current year will be deemed to have made $90,000 this year. That is, he or she will pay a total of $5,580 in Social Security payroll taxes that year (i.e., $90,000 x .062). His or her employer will pay an equal amount. A person making $2,500,000 in the current year will also pay a total of $5,580 in Social Security payroll taxes.

Meanwhile, both the person making $250,000 and the person making $2,500,000 will, upon retirement, receive benefits based on a formula that, among other things, assumes that the both persons made (and paid payroll taxes on) $90,000 in 2005.

[many a good man]

68. Progressivity is built into the SS benefits scale

We are taxed up to a cap of $90K, but the benefits cap is based on a max income of $75K. There is a benefits formula that you can see for yourself on the SSA web site. They try to give back between 31-41% of your average income in retirement.

For example if you made $75K every year you'd get about $36K / yr in SS. Right now that $36K is the max anyone can get, even millionaires. So some people are paying payroll taxes on incomes between $76-90K and not receiving an extra dime on the additional $$$ they're kicking in.

On the other end of the scale, life long low income earners get back a much higher proportion of what they've contributed.

FDR's "socialist" program had to be based on earnings in order to pass Congress the '30s. Do we want to change the nature of the program?

[TheFarseer]

19. it has been brought up

bush has even said it's on the table. I would be surprised if he would go for that when the chips are down.

[redqueen]

21. Thanks... didn't notice it was mentioned.

I hope he does go for this solution... it seems to be the most logical by far, IMO.

[dweller]

27. find last weekend's radio address by *

from what i heard on radio news reports, it is OFF the table.

at least that's what i heard reported. Either i heard wrong or they reported it wrong, or he said that option is off the table.

dp

[TheFarseer]

31. Maybe he changed his mind

I was citeing something I heard on the news about two weeks ago flip-flop?

[sadiesworld]

30. Raising the cap is a lousy idea.

Read Krugman's latest column. Raising the cap to $140K would mean an additional $6K in taxes for a person making that amount. It would also mean a double whammy b/c of the AMT. We should be discussing a rollback of the * tax cuts for the wealthy, not punishing big city dems.

JK wanted to raise taxes on those making over $200K, why do dems want to raise taxes on those making less than $200K? We have a DEBT problem, not a SS problem.

[redqueen]

33. I might agree, if I understood the reason for the cap in the first place.

Can anyone explain why it's even there?

[ZR2]

36. Because of a corresponding cap

on much much is paid back by SS.

[redqueen]

43. That makes sense.

But is there a cap on disability benefits and the like, or just the general retirement benefits?

[ZR2]

46. There is a cap on all benefits

retirement, disability, survivor's.....

[redqueen]

50. Thanks.

I had thought it was unlimited, based on the way some people characterize it.

[sadiesworld]

38. SS is supposed to provide a safety net for the working

class, i.e., enough to get by on in retirement or in the event of disability or a spouse/parent's death. I don't think it was meant to provide a luxurious retirement lifestyle for the wealthy, nor is it intended to be an "entitlement" program whereby the benefits are not pegged to the contributions.

[redqueen]

48. Well if that was so,

why didn't they put in som form of means testing from the beginning?

[sadiesworld]

53. Because it was not intended to be an "entitlement" program.

You pay in, you take out.

[teakee]

75. I'm proof of that and it could happen to you......

I have been a divorced mom of 3 for a long time, around $23 grand a year, then I became disabled from an illness at 41, (3 years ago). You don't have savings being single with 3 kids, but I had worked since I was 14. After fighting like hell for SSDI, I finally got around $1520 a month total from SSDI. I'm sure there are alot of people like me, and millions of people that are at the poverty level not disabled who make minimum wage.

I also wonder where are the news stories from a few years ago that talked of middle aged people taking care of their elderly parents along with their kids, or the kids that came back home with families of their own in tow because they couldn't make it? Wonder how old these middle age people would be? UNDER 55?? Are these the ones Bush wants to cut SS from while they help the generations above them and below them? Wonder what their savings looks like?

[ZR2]

35. Right now there are two caps

one one the income level that is taxed by SS, and one on how much is paid out by SS. If you are going to raise the cap on how much is taxable, then you also have to raise the cap on how much is paid out.

[redqueen]

55. Gotcha.

Isn't this problem being faced by many countries whose social security type systems are experiencing the same change in ratio of the payers to the recipients (i.e. less people working and paying in than those drawing benefits)?

If that's the case, isn't changing the amount of how much is taken in as it relates to how much is paid out common sense?

...just thinking out loud here...

[StuckinBFE]

7. Didn't Greenspan disagree with Bush's SS plan earlier?

I swore I thought Greenspan a couple of years ago told bush his idea was stupid and that we shouldn't go along with it. Am I completely wrong or just smoking crack????

[ladjf]

8. Who cares what that old pimp has to say? He's obviously

looking out for his own interests.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

13. The Next Democratic President

ought to have Greenspand prosecuted for perjury. God knows he's appeared before congress often enough, given sworn testimony that he knows to be false.

I don't give two shits if he is an old man by then. I don't give two shits if he's in a wheelchair toting an oxygen canister. I want him to spend the rest of his natural life in an 8 x 8 cell doing somebody else's laundry. And if some outlaw biker decides to make him his "bitch," well, then that's really just a bonus, isn't it?

[cthrumatrix]

14. exactly .... NOBODY holds him accountable for "double speak = lies"

[TheFarseer]

15. The next time I want his opinion

I'll beat it out of him. What a suck up ass-hat. I can't stand that guy anymore. Total bush enabler.

[takumi]

17. Bush's Lackey Speaks

so what else is new?

[Tempest]

18. If Greenspan was so wrong in the past, why should we listen to him now?

The Maestro Changes his Tune

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS

http://www.321gold.com/editorials/paul/paul022205.html

Nearly 40 years ago, Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan wrote persuasively in favor of a gold monetary standard in an essay entitled Gold and Economic Freedom. In that essay he neatly summarized the fundamental problem with fiat currency in a few short sentences: "The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the 'hidden' confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

Today, however, Mr. Greenspan has become one of those central planners he once denounced, and his views on fiat currency have changed accordingly. As the ultimate insider, he cannot or will not challenge the status quo, no matter what the consequences to the American economy. To renounce the fiat system now would mean renouncing the Fed itself, and his entire public career with it. The only question is whether history will properly reflect the destructive nature of Mr. Greenspan's tenure.

<more>

[swag]

20. He is, of course, another DISCIPLE OF AYN RAND!

[Guckert]

22. Because he wants his stocks to rise on the backs of the poor stupid RIGHT.

[Tempest]

23. Greenspan: Bush Plan Will Not Save SS

Alan Greenspan Explains it All

(reprinted in full with rights from AmericanProgress.org)

Yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan appeared before the Senate Banking Committee and - buried beneath an avalanche of cryptic econo-speak - was forced to concede some fundamental truths about President Bush's Social Security privatization scheme. The mainstream media keyed in on Greenspan's tepid support for private accounts if they can be implemented in a fiscally responsible way. (They can't.) But there was a lot more there. The Progress Report wades through the transcript so you don't have to:

PRIVATIZATION WON'T INCREASE NATIONAL SAVINGS: During his testimony, Greenspan said, "the problem essentially is that we have an unprecedented potential increase in the number of people leaving the workforce and going into retirement over the next 25 years" and argued that the key to fulfilling our commitments to future retirees is to increase national savings. Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) asked Greenspan, "Would you also agree...that the private accounts will basically leave national savings unchanged since the government is borrowing money to give to individual citizens to invest in the market?" Greenspan replied, "Yes, I do."

PRIVATIZATION WON'T MAKE SOCIAL SECURITY MORE FINANCIALLY SECURE: Greenspan expressed concern about Social Security's long-term financial stability. Sen. Chuck Shumer (D-NY) asked if "setting up a private account under current conditions, not starting from scratch...does anything to alleviate the problem." Greenspan replied that setting up private accounts "surely doesn't alleviate the current problem."

EXPANDING 401(K) ACCOUNTS ARE A BETTER IDEA: Greenspan also conceded that expanding 401(k) accounts would do more to increase national savings than carving out private accounts from Social Security. Sen.
Shumer said expanding "401(k)... will more to increase net savings than simply shifting some money from the present system to a so-called private account." Greenspan said, "I'm not disagreeing with you."

BUSH'S RECKLESS FISCAL POLICY WEAKENED SOCIAL SECURITY: Because of the Bush administration's reckless fiscal policies - especially tax cuts for the wealthy - the federal government will rack up another record deficit, expected to exceed $400 billion. Those irresponsible policies make it harder to improve Social Security. Sen. Schumer asked Greenspan if "we'd have a(n) easier time fixing Social Security if our debt went down." Greenspan said, "I think that's fair to say."
TRANSITION COSTS ARE A HUGE CONCERN: Greenspan said yesterday that, in the context of changing Social Security, "I would be very careful about very large increases in debt." Greenspan said, "small increases are not something that would concern me...I would say over a trillion is large." The administration's Social Security privatization scheme is expected to add $2 trillion over the first 10 years.

[cthrumatrix]

25. SO why in the HELL would you rprivatize..?

this is NUTS

[Tempest]

42. One reason

More money for the Repug supporters working on Wall Street.

[isit2008yet]

66. Privatize=trashing

They want to do away with all programs that are supported by taxes. Killing SS leads into doing away with medicade/care. Its the neo-con platform.

[rooboy]

24. One can only assume Greenspan's bangin' kids & someone's got photos. n/t

[Career Prole]

29. "It was one of those May-December romances..."

...and if this is eight and a half inches uncut then the deficit can be cut in half by making the tax cuts permanent!"

[trudyco]

26. Wow, somebody needs to get ahold of Paul O'Neil

In his book he talks about how he and Greenspan wanted to do the privatized accounts when there was a trillion dollar surplus. It was because of the surplus that they thought the time was ripe. O'Neil raised this was BUsh but he just looked at him blank. Then told him he wanted tax cuts.

I had read the Meastro a long time ago and thought Greenspan was pretty decent. But now I don't trust Woodward, so I don't know what in the book was exaggeration. Mr. Greenspan now advocating privatized accounts when he knows it doesn't solve the social security insolvency, and he knows it was Republicans who caused the insolvency by giving tax cuts and spending sprees at the same time, is just too much to swallow.

I'd be real curious what O'Neil thinks of privatizing social security without figuring out how to pay for it first. Does he agree with his buddy? Are ALL republicans sell outs?

[cthrumatrix]

32. O'Neil was quite clear ...he wanted to take the SURPLUS at the time

an pay down Soc Sec....shrubby wanted tax cuts for the wealthy and O'Neil was fired.

[Career Prole]

79. Bingo! O'Neill's no saint but he would've kept shrub from crashing

the economy. Greenspan was in agreement with O'Neill but then backed down and left O'Neill standing alone against shrub and crashcart, which cost O'Neill his job and cost the treasury a couple of trillion.
O'Neill and Greenspan were friends, and Greenspan left him (and us) dangling in the wind.

[Career Prole]

80. I read that book too.

Eye-opener, wasn't it?

[indepat]

28. Greenspan, a partisan's name that will forevermore live in infamy IMHO

[stevebreeze]

37. Greenspan is a lying piece of shit! He serves only the bankers & the rich

His statements contradict his not only his own words but his own policy.
Greenspan is relying on Americans short memory span and the lack of a free press that should be pointing out his lies. Greenspan set up the current rules with help of conservative icon and crook, Ronnie Reagan. Greenspan is responsible for working people OVERPAYING TAXES FOR 22 YEARS!!!! Now he wants to cut benefits for the people who have overpaid to keep in place the taxes cuts for the very rich(upper 1/4/ of 1%).
Yes I know that the top 5-20% also receive some of Bush's pork for the upper crust, but that is just a political accident. Most of those in the top 20% are eager to mistake a larger helping of table scraps for a seat at the table.

We need a return to progressive taxation and we need it NOW.

[cthrumatrix]

40. the issue is --- OUR elected leader spent our $$$$$$$ -- get the jails

ready...there are a ton of people that used our money on projects other than soc sec...

If you ran a 401k this way...you would be in jail

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

45. You bought into a myth . . .

There was nothing unlawful in what Congress did in spending the surplus money collected by Social Security payroll taxes. That is how the system was designed, by law, to operate.

Of course, Congress wrote the law to begin with, so that may be the problem.

[sadiesworld]

49. Perhaps not illegal, but certainly unethical.

And you can see how proud they are of the diversion of SS funds by how they clearly explain it to the people. :eyes:

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

52. You are exactly right about that.

The amount of (intentional) obfuscation, misdirection and outright lying that surrounds the debate over Social Security is staggering.

[TexasLawyer]

44. I liked it better back in the day

when Fed Chairmen said things that no one could understand.

[bluedog]

51. the ol boy

needs to be put out to pasture....................hes ideas minic the * administration....ands hes doing everything in his power to stay on the "right" side .............his ideas are old and stale.........

[Skidmore]

54. I posted this on the Politics forum and then realized everyone was over

here.

Basically, my point is that Congress and their consultants just doesn't get that WE DON'T TRUST THEM--NONE OF THEM. WE DON'T TRUST CORPORATE CEOs AND BOARDS either. Why should we? I don't care if Weed and his buddies brought a plan out on a gold platter and tied with pretty bows. I have no reason to believe, based on their previous performance in other arenas, to trust their motives or their plan. They lie.

Greenspan lies too. He is a flack for Wall Street. I'm sick to death of people telling him what a "national treasure" he is.

[cthrumatrix]

59. they have deserved, earned our MISTRUST ...becuase of them

we are in this MESS..pure & simple

[dray178355]

56. Here's an e-mail form for the fed

Maybe if enough of us contact them we can make him feel something.

[Megahurtz]

58. So "Mister Money Know-It-All"

was appointed by Busheister to con the public on this scheme. Greenspan is a jerk. I wonder how much under-the-table payola he's getting for his con job?

[seafan]

60. Because the GOP has 6 weeks 'til this robbery attempt hits a brick wall.

Remember this from 2 days ago in the Washington Post?

White House officials are telling Republican lawmakers and allies on K Street that they must begin to overcome opposition to President Bush's proposal for changing Social Security within six weeks, GOP strategists said yesterday.

The GOP strategists stressed that the six-week goal is not a hard deadline for a political breakthrough, but they said the public's tepid view of Social Security change cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely.

<snip>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61437-2005Feb28?language=printer


They are deadly serious about this 6-week pressure tactic timetable against Social Security, aimed at Americans. Now they will call in the big gun Greenspan to do the heavy lifting.

If we ever needed indisputable proof that Greenspan is a tool for the Bush Administration, this is it.

[shantipriya]

61. Greenspan

He needs to be locked up in mental asylum!

[zann725]

62. Maybe he should talk to Frist first, who said today that SS Reform

maybe should wait until 2006, since they weren't getting much support presently.

My feeling is, Greenspan is really the one who's talking the "Party line." Frist wants to fake us into believing the Right are growing wearing, and will be giving up soon.

[isit2008yet]

64. He also said the *'s tax cuts had outlived their purpose

he said the economy was growing well and the deficit needed the income worse. He also told congress it would take a combination of new income and reduced outlay to get the deficit under control. But he said the economy was not strong enough to grow ourselves out of debt. Just the opposite of what our fearless dumbass leader has been lying about. He does favor private accounts only because congress can't restrain their spending of SS funds. When questioned about private accounts, Greenspan, said privatizing SS would not fix it.

But I disagree on this too. Treasure Snow has already dipped into the treasury portion of the TSP. For those of you who don't know what that is, it's the government's version of privatizing federal employees retirement. It contains five ways to invest your savings and matching funds. The safest of those funds is the G fund or government treasury fund. Snow, on at least two occasions, has raided this fund to make ends meet when waiting on the next budget to pass. So you see, regardless of what they cook up for "private" accounts, if the government has a hand in it, it will never truly be "safe".

One congressman asked Greenspan if his bill were to pass, putting all SS funds into a separate account that couldn't be touched to balance a budget, if that would fix SS. Greenspan said this would be better for SS than the current system.

As I sit here writing this, Kudlow(CNBC) just lied about what Greenspan said today. Kudlow said the Gspan did not want tax increases but wanted to curb spending. Gspan said it would take both...I hate that guy!:puke: lol

[BlueInRed]

67. Gee, Greenspan basically admits his last fix DIDN'T work

"Diverting the payroll taxes into the Social Security trust fund, he said, had merely allowed the government to run larger budget deficits. Greenspan said that switching to the private accounts would be a way to bolster the nation's low savings rate."

Greenspan essentially admits his last fix (in 1983) didn't work. So, why should we listen to you this time Mr. Greenspan. After all, it was YOU who advocated doubling the SS tax in 83 and putting it in the trust fund in govt securities. That fact alone should disqualify him from commenting on this.

[coreystone]

69. A bit different twist on the economic side of the CATO think tank..

on Social Security. Obviously, it is a very complicated issue; there are other perspectives of the "commitment" (sarcasm) to the American people!

Snip<

Privatizers Plan To
Eliminate Social Security

Feb. 10, 2005 (EIRNS)—EIR investigators filed this report on the Feb. 8-9 Cato Institute Conference on Social Security in Washington, D.C.



The Mont Pelerin Society's Cato Institute, which is Wall Street's command center for Social Security privatization, held a two-day event Feb. 8-9, attended by 200 people, which featured Bush Administration spokesmen, bankers, and leading privatizers, to map out the latest plans for privatization.

Serving as an old home week get-together, some people made statements within the friendly confines of Cato's Friedrich Von Hayek auditorium that they would not make elsewhere. (Interestingly, José Piñera, the Cato Fellow who has been the prime spokesman for Social Security privatization, from Chile to the United States, was not present.)

Thomas Saving, one of the seven members of the board of Trustees of the U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA), led off the panel on the "Social Security crisis." Michael Tanner, the executive director of Cato's Social Security Privatization Project (which Project is co-chaired by Piñera), introduced Saving as "the real hero of the revolution, who has spoken at Cato several times." Saving, who as a Trustee is sworn to protect the SSA, savaged it instead, indicating the extent to which SSA has been dangerously eroded. Savage said that the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), "provides no benefits, it is an authorization to pay benefits. Well, I authorize all of you in the audience to go to Paris—if you can find the money. If you can't find the money, then it's not much use." Saving said, " people believe they have a moral and legal rights to Social Security. They don't." He lied that the Trust Fund is without funds, and suggested that Social Security's bankruptcy would occur in 2018.

EIR asked Saving, after he had spoken: "The Social Security Trust Fund holds $1.5 trillion of U.S. Treasury bonds. Are you saying the government should default on the bonds?" Saving said, "We will honor the bonds." EIR: "Then the Trust Fund can use the interest from the bonds." Saving said, "The interest on the bond is a fiction, it's not real." EIR pursued the point. "The Treasury pays interest on Treasury bonds held by the Chinese and Japanese. That is real. Why isn't the interest owed to American bond-holders real?" Saving snapped, "We have to pay interest to the Chinese and Japanese. We can decide to break the rules. 535 people can rule that the bonds don't have to pay interest" to the Trust Fund.”

>Snip

LINK: http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2005/050210cato_conf.html

[w4rma]

71. The fix: Eliminate the parts of Bush's tax cuts that pay the ultra-wealthy

Then raise taxes on the ultra-wealthy some more so that we are running a surplus again. Then use that surplus to eliminate America's debt.

Easy. Simple. Effective. And probably the only method that will definitely work. President Roosevelt did it after President Hoover allowed the Great Depression to occur through his "trickle down" economic policies. America will have to do it again after Bush's depression.

[pinkpops]

72. whore whore

whore
whore
whore
..
whore
w h o r e
w
h
o
r
e
w h o r e

[tinfoilinfor2005]

73. Well, he helped Bush to get us in the soup

so of course it makes sense that he thinks we should continue to listen to his IDIOTIC ADVICE

[screembloodymurder]

74. Off with his head!

We may not appoint him, but we sure as hell can make him squirm. I suggest we all pull our retirement funds out of the stock market..tomorrow. 100,000,000 of us ought to have a few bucks saved. We may be poor but there's power in our numbers.

[dray178355]

76. So sorry...

Evidently I screwed up and didn't get the contact page URL for the "Fed" into may earlier post. Here it is:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/feedback.cfm

[ignatius 2]

77. This man lost all credibility when he pushed for balanced budgets

constantly while Clinton was president and then when Chimpy had him at the White House, patted him on the b ack and called him a "good" man, he suddenly decided that tax cuts were the way to go to spend the surplus. Keep in mind this was before 9-11 had trashed the economy and before the GDP numbers had been revised (read cooked) to show the recession actually started in March of 01.

When Greenspan did his 360, there was no recession, there was no 9-11..there was only fucking republican greed.

The man disgusts me.

[Samantha]

78. Greenspan and Paul O'Neill are the best of friends

In 2001, each privately worked on the reform of social security and the incorporation of privatization into the reform. In a series of meetings, there was one thing upon which each agreed. There had to be a certain age over which it would not be fair to alter the benefits of a social security participant. What exactly would be that age. They agreed to go off in separate directions, do those computations independently, meet again and share their respective numbers.

Following that agreement, they arrived at the next meeting with the number each had computed written on a piece of paper. When the time came to "show their numbers" both had arrived at the same one: 37. All participants over the age of 37 would have future benefits untouched by the privatization plan. This would only be fair.

When their overall plan was discussed with Bush*, his response was merely: this was not what I campaigned on.

I have no link to this post; I read this in The Price of Loyalty.

I only bring it up at this time because it appears Greenspan omitted a few of the details supplied by O'Neill.

[peasant]

81. Change the rules of SocSec

I'm new to this site and this is my first post.

I plugged in some figures on Senator Maria Cantwell's Social Security Calculator that is a new feature on her website, viewed at:

http://cantwell.senate.gov/services/socseccalc.html#

Try this calculation out:
(a) $200,000 average income, birth year 1975 (my daughter’s age)
(b) $50,000 average income, birth year 1975

Reference (a) gets an annual reduction in benefits under the Bush plan of $8904; reference (b) a reduction of $6809. Both income levels get a reduction of 27%. Wow!

However, from another viewpoint, consider that the $8904 reduction of (a) is 4.45% of the annual income the person is used to getting, while the $6809 reduction of (b) is 13.62% (306% higher!) of the annual income that person is used to getting. So, if one’s income is such that one is likely to have significantly higher assets and more security as a $200,000/year earner at retirement age, one has to sacrifice less than a person averaging one fourth of the income level.

If I understand the newly-proposed system correctly, the $200,000-earners pay less into the system as an overall percentage of earnings than the $50,000-earners (under the old and new systems) and then the $200,000-earners sacrifice less in reduced benefits under the new system. Hmmm. More double-dipping for the rich.

I don’t advocate penalizing the rich, but why can’t they pay in the same percentage as lower-income earners? If the rich get the same percentage reduction in benefits, 27% in the above scenario, then why don’t they pay in the same percentage as the rest of us? Or, if the rich are going to continue to pay in a lower percentage, then make their reductions in benefits larger; stop the double-dipping. POOF! No more shortfall in available revenue for Social Security in 2042!

[ignatius 2]

82. Welcome to Du and thanks for the link, I will check

it out. It seems from the responses the GOP is getting at town hall meetings and from Frist's comments today that this may not come to the Senate floor this year, Americans are not liking what they are hearing.However, watch for the big propoganda push now.

[CindyDale]

83. Greenspan explaining basic arithmetic and the Baby Boom to Congress

Duh.

How much longer do we have to listen to this garbage?

What we need is someone to explain how to get the surplus back, which he won't.