Re: Bush - Bad for Social Security
From: SimMike- (simmike_at_attbi.com)
Date: 08/16/04
- Next message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Future of Man"
- Previous message: ralph: "Re: Future of Man"
- Maybe in reply to: SimMike-: "Bush - Bad for Social Security"
- Next in thread: bpvh: "Re: Bush - Bad for Social Security"
- Reply: bpvh: "Re: Bush - Bad for Social Security"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 22:11:48 GMT
This year the budget deficit is 440 billion dollars. Of this, 270 billion of
this is specifically Bush tax cuts. So how do you think he is financing his tax
cuts? The answer is simple, he is either putting it on a credit card for your
children to pay, or just as likely, he is raiding the social security fund.
Since the social security tax is paid for predominantly by low and middle class
workers, Bush is in essence robbing from the poor to pay the rich. Bush is your
basic reverse-Robin Hood.
"SimMike-" <simmike@attbi.com> wrote in message news:...
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001867864_lockbox29.html
>
> By David Cay Johnston
> The New York Times
>
> A historical element was forgotten in the rush of news surrounding Federal
> Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan's opinion voiced last week that Social
Security
> benefits are going to have to be cut.
>
> It dates back 21 years to events that catapulted Greenspan into national
> prominence and led to his becoming Fed chairman.
>
> Since 1983, American workers have been paying more into Social Security than
it
> has paid out in benefits, about $1.8 trillion more, so far. This year
Americans
> will pay about 50 percent more in Social Security taxes than the government
will
> pay out in benefits.
>
> Those higher taxes were imposed at the urging of Greenspan, who was chairman
of
> a bipartisan commission that in 1983 said that one way to make sure Social
> Security remains solvent once the baby boomers reached retirement age was to
tax
> them in advance.
>
> On Greenspan's recommendation, Social Security was converted from a
> pay-as-you-go system to one in which taxes are collected in advance. After
> Congress adopted the plan, Greenspan rose to become chairman of the Fed.
>
> So what has happened to that $1.8 trillion? The advance payments have all been
> spent.
>
> Congress did not lock away the Social Security surplus, as many Americans
> believe. Instead, it borrowed the surplus, replacing the cash with Treasury
> notes, and spent the loan proceeds paying the ordinary expenses of running the
> federal government.
>
> Only twice, in 1999 and 2000, has Congress balanced the federal budget without
> borrowing from the surplus.
>
>
>
- Next message: Robert J. Kolker: "Re: Future of Man"
- Previous message: ralph: "Re: Future of Man"
- Maybe in reply to: SimMike-: "Bush - Bad for Social Security"
- Next in thread: bpvh: "Re: Bush - Bad for Social Security"
- Reply: bpvh: "Re: Bush - Bad for Social Security"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|