Why listen to Alan Greenspan?

[Eric J in MN]

The 2001 tax cuts for the rich harmed the economy.
Why do we have bigger deficits today than in 2001? Why do we have fewer jobs?

It's largely because of Bush's tax cuts for the rich starting in 2001, which were passed with the help of Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan.

Less revenue means bigger deficits.

Cutting the dividends tax means fewer jobs, because after the dividends tax is cut, shareholders demand companies pay out those profits in dividends instead of using the profits to hire people.

Greenspan says he would do it all over again, with the same data.

"If confronted with the same evidence we had back then, I would recommend exactly what I recommended then," Greenspan said ("Greenspan, Clinton Clash on Forecasts" by Jeannie Aversa, AP via Minneapolis Star Tribune, Mar. 15, 2005):

"It turns out that we were all wrong," Greenspan conceded at a Senate hearing.

"Just for the record, we were not all wrong, but many people were wrong," (Hillary) Clinton, D-N.Y., quickly shot back.

Greenspan lent critical support for Bush's first-term tax cuts, saying they would stimulate the then-ailing economy. Clinton and many Democrats voted against the tax cuts, arguing that they would mainly benefit the wealthy and that federal deficits would balloon.

Imagine, if you recommended a plan to your company four years ago which took it from profits to losses. Also, the company now has fewer employees then when you made your recommendation. And you don't even tell your boss that you learned from your mistakes, but instead that you would do it all over. How do you think your company would treat you then?



Continued at http://moveleft.com

[Old Deuteronomy]

1. Because he is old....

and knows...er...well.. I dunno.. why listen to him? LOL

[AuntiBush]

2. Basically, We've been HAD!

The 2001 tax cuts made for the rich "harmed" American people and the economy.

Why do we have bigger deficits today than in 2001? Our country's been hijacked by extremists worse then the mob, stealing everything they can, like the I.O.U.'s out of our Social Security surplus!

Why do we have fewer jobs? Greedy BIG CORPS have more companies in 3rd world countries paid a buck or whatever a day. These same HUGE Corps file Bankruptcy (when we can no longer do so as easily as they, now), and their $$ investments are funneled from other countries, tax-free!

Welcome to the New America!

Basically, we've been had BIG-TIME!

[spanone]

3. I don't. As Harry Reid said, He's a political shill.

[Eric J in MN]

7. Yes, "one of the biggest political hacks" said Senator Reid

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05063/466070.stm

"I'm not a big Greenspan fan," Reid said when asked about the Fed chairman's testimony this week urging Congress to deal quickly with the financial problems facing both Social Security and Medicare. "I voted against him the last two times. I think he's one of the biggest political hacks we have in Washington."

[whistle]

4. Greenspan wants Social Security abolished, he has admitted....

...this consistently and makes no attempt to disguise this fact. The public however, thinks he is actually trying to solve the problem, but at his last testimony he said to the congressional committee, "...you have a set of alternatives that are all bad, your choice is to select the best of the worst", or words to that effect.

We as a society have allowed bankers and financial institutions to have virtually unlimited power to set the agenda for solving our social issues in this country and guess what, their solution is to have government subsidize the bankers and let individuals fend for themselves as best they can. How many DUers with private pension accounts that had built up sizable equity through 2000 (end of Clinton's term) who lost equity once Bush began his term, still have the same equity in their plans today, that they did back in 2000? Be honest. My finds all took a major hit following 9-11 and are still 20% below the level they were at when Clinton finished his term Throughout the eight years that Clinton was president, those funds grew by nearly 40%. Privatization of pension plans is very risky and also costly to have managed.

Why can't the Social Security administration be allowed to invest the Social Security trust into high yield interest funds without bankers sticking their fingers into the pot, that's what I would like to know? Why must social security be limited to low yield lending of Government notes when that money could be used to pay down national debt which would pay twice the interest? I don't get why privatization is allowed greater latitude on investing than the trustees of SS would be. They are the same group of folks!

[Eric J in MN]

5. Even if the Social Security trustees just invested some

of the money, there would be a huge potential for insider trading, and/or propping up companies as a reward.

The same can be said of a lot of govt. investing, and so I'm not saying the idea should be ruled out, just that the potential for malfeasance would need to addressed.

[whistle]

6. That would happen with any private management interests....

...that would be entrusted with $10 trillion in future social security funds, would it not? Regulations and oversight would be mandatory and insider knowledge would be rampant. Look at all of the private pension plans that are being turned over to the government now. This is total bullshit.

The fix is simple. Raise the cap on who pays into social security to $250,000 or remove it altogether. Open up maximum limits for IRA Roth investing to the younger investors and get on with putting people back to work and making the U.S. more productive by investing in education and socializing medical care in this country.