From Josh Marshall's blog.

[terrya]

Well, I'm one of the baby boomers affected. So, I and millions of others, have some say in this. Now, this is pretty serious. And I think the Kerry campaign will bring this up. Let's hope that it brought up...the substantitve stuff that is coming out (as in the news that more Americans are living below the poverty line). I'm getting really tired of the Bush campaign (with the news media's assistance) flogging, day after day, the story about Kerry's war record. There's some serious issues to talk about.



From the AP: "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday that the country will face 'abrupt and painful' choices if Congress does not move quickly to trim the Social Security and Medicare benefits that have been promised to the baby boom generation."

This could use some elaboration.

To the degree there's urgency here, it is because of the mammoth deficits the president has run up. The president runs up a big deficit and now you've got to pay for it with cuts to your Social Security and Medicare benefits.

Where are the president's priorities?

Shouldn't the Kerry campaign be banging this drum? Especially since it's true (only an added benefit these days, I grant you.)

[Cleita]

1. I just heard that and I'm sure you heard my scream all

across the country. I say we get our money back from the BFEE to make up the defict. Where was Mr. Greenspan when he was creating the deficit with his tax cuts for the rich? I think it's time for him to go.

[xcmt]

4. Um.

Mr. Greenspan was the man that invented the Trust Fund, the supposed fund the Baby Boomers could pay social security into so they'd have something in the future and not wreck the system.

It's not his fault the presidents since then (all of them, really) raided the fund and left it full of IOUs. Say what you want about Greenspan's politics, but in terms of policy, both in the past and more recently, he's been very effective as the FED Chair.

[Julien Sorel]

5. Greenspan cheerled for Bush's tax cuts.

Sorry, I'm holding him partially responsible.

[xcmt]

10. I hate defending Republicans, but..

1) Greenspan's position as chairman of the Federal Reserve gives him no authority over tax policy. His statements and suggestions on the matter stink of partisanship, but he was a paper tiger on the tax cuts.

2) His position on taxes didn't change the fact that the Trust Fund was already empty, that Social Security and Medicare were aready in trouble before the tax cuts, and that nobody expected Bush to (if he didn't cut taxes) start putting money back into the entitlement programs.

The man has done little if not chimed the "Um, you guys need to look at this Social Security thing sometime this year. Seriously." bell repeatedly. He's been far more of an advocate for those programs than almost every other prominent Republican on record. This is because he's an economist and he knows what's coming.

[BeFree]

11. You miss the point

The point being that if Greenspan was to say: "The rich people's tax-breaks, the Iraqi war and the ensuing boosh deficits are gonna destroy America's economy" .. some of us might have a little faith that he gives a shit about somebody other than his elite friends.

Clinton was moving our economy into position to tackle SS and Medicare. Gore would have been the one to make it so. If your buddy Greenspan really cared about us, he would be singing a different tune.

And that's the point.

[xcmt]

14. Lost in Translation

There's a fundamental disconnect between economics and politics, where the latter normally attempts to make conclusions on the former without really understanding how it works.

For instance, America's economy is not destroyed. It's certainly not booming like during the Clinton years, but we're not exactly in a recession. Job growth is slower than we'd like, but otherwise, things aren't the disaster the DNC would want you to believe in an election year. The economy isn't the miracle the RNC would have independent voters believe. It's wandering along, and that's not exactly a bad thing, from a stablization standpoint.

I think maybe what you meant to say was "Clinton was moving our federal budget into position to tackle SS and Medicare", since a president has very little control over the economy, and we needed a budget surplus to allocate future funds into these programs.

The problem here is that Greenspan was double-cuffed by 1) He needed to get us out of a recession, 2) He knew SS and Medicare needed reform, but 3) Parts 1 and 2 don't exactly blend well together in terms of policy. There's pretty sound economic theory that says tax cuts will stimulate the economy (so will government spending, for that matter). Greenspan's major priority as FED chairman was the recession issue, so he recommended the party-line tax cuts.

This doesn't mean he's crapping on SS and other similar programs, so much as he recognized he had a job to perform. Greenspan has been well ahead of his party on SS reform. Don't blame him for having had a recession on his hands.

Blame Bush for cutting taxes for the rich instead of the middle class and poor.

[BeFree]

15. I do blame boosh

And Greenspan in his pocket.

The main point, which you seem to not get, is that Greenspan doesn't give a shit about the mass of people, only the elite class.

Ya got that yet?

Please, no more apologizing for Greenspan, it's beginning to get tiresome.

[xcmt]

17. You realize what you sound like, right?

Complete lack of evidence that isn't anecdotal, borderline name-calling and unfounded accusations, calling people with other points of view "apologists".

[BeFree]

19. You do realize...

That's what you appear to be, an apologist. A very well educated apologist. Maybe even elitist?

Greenspan is bad for the country, bad for the economy and bad for the People. Refute that!

[xcmt]

22. Okay.

Greenspan is bad for the country, bad for the economy and bad for the People. Refute that!

Greenspan was FED chair during all of the Clinton years, possibly the most prosperous and unprecedented economic expansion in the history of our country. He wasn't bad then.

I should say I misspoke earlier. Greenspan didn't "create" the trust fund so much as attempt to sustain its viability, in 1983.

[xcmt]

16. Addendum.

Not that shifting the tax burden would have changed the budget problem. In a normal economic environment:

1) Low taxes.
2) High funding for government programs.
3) Low inflation.

Pick two.

[BeFree]

20. Clinton era proof

When Clinton shifted the tax burden to the well-to-do, America's deficit was whittled away. Now, with boosh's shift away from the rich, the deficit has increased larger than ever.

Them's the facts.

[xcmt]

23. Erm..

"In a normal economic environment"

The Clinton era was anything but.

[cidliz2004]

28. Think about what you just said!

"since a president has very little control over the economy, and we needed a budget surplus to allocate future funds into these programs"

Sorry, but you do not really think that this is true????? The President who put us into a war that is costing HOW MUCH? The President that backed the latest Medicare Bill that cost HOW MUCH? The tax cuts given to WHOM?

The President has much to do with our economy by the programs supported and/or not supported.

Us baby boomers should not have to have our benefits cut! We have been paying in for decades, the benefits are due us when we retire.

The structure has to be changed and Greespan suggesting that we should have our benefits "cut" in some way is irresponsible.

If he can suggest cutting some of our benefits, surely he can suggest rescinding some of the tax cuts.

Greenspan has outlived his usefulness, with Clinton he was in the right scenerio to do the best for us, with Bush he has become ineffective.

[Julien Sorel]

21. He has influence over tax policy, not authority over it.

And he used that influence to help flog Bush's tax cuts through -- both of them, even though he started out howling about the deficit, and championing monetary policy. He could certainly have made more noise about Social Security than he has, and most importantly, he could have withheld his approval of Bush's reckless tax cuts until he saw some evidence that Bush was dealing with the Social Security isue. He didn't, because he's as much a politician as he is an economist.

[xcmt]

24. Capitulation.

Maybe the point I should have made in the beginning is: Greenspan's hardly the greatest of our worries.

I hate defending myself against people I'm sided with. Yes, he's a Republican hack and his defense of the tax cuts without even bothering, as an economist, to discuss the alternatives was reckless and partisan and scummy.

But he has been, if not as vocal as we'd all like, at least paying some attention to SS and Medicare and similar items over the years, and he's been on the correct side of them.

I recently read a Cato Institute paper in defense of privatization, where they spend the first six paragraphs dumping on Greenspan. When the Cato Institute hates you, you're doing something right.

[aquart]

26. Does Krugman completely disagree with you?

Because I do tend to go with Krugman.

[xcmt]

27. Did Krugman say something I contradicted?

If so, I'll certainly bow to superior knowledge. Krugman, in the words of my public finance professor, should win a nobel prize someday.

[calimary]

18. Does anyone remember bush during the 2000 campaign, repeatedly

saying "it's YOUR money." Maybe we need to remind his nearly-nonexistent brain of his own words. Yeah, chucko, IT IS OUR MONEY!!! And we want it BACK!!!! And we want your hands OFF IT!!!!! And we don't want YOU to have ANY authority over how it's being spent!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[enough]

2. See RedEarth's LBN thread on this story.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x780568

[qanda]

3. Ah, this was their plan all along...

They wanted to create the circumstances by which they would have to end social programs. I think most DUer's saw this coming.

[AlCzervik]

6. Starve the beast smirkenomics

Thats been the plan all along, no money for social programs just money for tanks and bombs. * loves the deficits and if God forbid he wins he's going to start slashing everything.

[qanda]

8. I totally agree

So, I guess we should all get prepared for what could happen. I mean even if Kerry is elected (please God hear my prayer), there are going to be some tough choices that he will have to make to get our country back on track financially.

[AlCzervik]

9. Don't forget...Ray-gun wanted to make Ketchup a vegetable in school

lunches. That how much he cut things, the thought of * doing the same and worse is scary.

[peacetalksforall]

7. I feel they've been blatantly stealing from us - I thought it was to

bankroll projects and for payola. I didn't realize until now that there are two purposes - break the benefits bank, plus profit for themselves.

I remember long ago 'knowing' that something was 'wrong' when Republican presidents and Republican politicians took the lead in demanding that communists were our enemy, but creating communication lines and trade with the USSR and China under their presidency. I remember hearing that many political scientists felt that two of the big three powers (USSR, China, U.S.) would end up joining forces against the third.

I now believe that the enemies in all the countries are our leaders. Their intentions are not honorable to human beings.

[BeFree]

12. Indeed, they do hate us for our freedoms

Look at China and the USSR, they oppressed their own people.

They see the US as a threat to their mastery over the people, seeing as how we have, for the first time in human history, been a country of the people.

Seems the pukes have played right into their hands. And we let it happen.

But, Hope is on the way. This is our last chance to dance. Are you ready to DU the dance? We've got to get rid of Reaganism once and for all. Obliterate it completely.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. That's OUR money they stole.

It's not their money. WE paid that money into the fund and they stole it. Greenspan knew that the chimp's tax cuts were wrong (read Paul O'Neill's book...he and Alan are best buds) and should have gone public with his sentiments and didn't. He's partially to blame for this.

I don't think they want to see us older hippies marching on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It wouldn't be pretty. If they thought the Vietnam protests were bad, take our retirement money and shit's gonna fly!:hippie:

[onecitizen]

25. This was his plan all along........

bankrupt the country and stop all Federal Programs legitimately (or so they think). Then the public schools, then the Post Office. So they can privatize them all.