So NOW we begin the payment of the Bush Tax Cuts...

[Junkdrawer]

The first thing Bush did when he entered office, even before 9/11, was to cut taxes on the wealthy...a lot...a whole lot. Said it was necessary to stimulate the economy out of the Clinton recession.

Now Alan Greenspan agreed:

Greenspan eyes tax cuts

Fed chairman modifies stance, says cut could help U.S. economy
Greenspan eyes tax cuts
January 25, 2001: 2:09 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (CNNfn) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan gave his broadest endorsement of tax cuts to date Thursday, while also indicating that the U.S. economy has slowed dramatically, raising investors' hopes that further interest rate reductions are on the horizon.

In testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, Greenspan declined to comment on President Bush's $1.6 trillion, 10-year tax cut plan, saying a decision on the size of a cut was best left up to Congress and the political process. But the Fed chairman's backing of tax cuts as economically sound likely will provide a boost to the new administration's proposals.

....

Most economists predict Fed policy makers will cut interest rates again at the Jan. 30-31 meeting. But analysts said it was impossible to tell by how much – and that Greenspan isn't giving many clues.
....

http://money.cnn.com/2001/01/25/economy/greenspan/

So, seems to me that Alan was simply trying to cover the make-believe stimulus effect of the tax cuts with the very real effects of an interest rate cut. And Alan went on cutting interest rates:



So, did this lead to massive reinvestment in American manufacturing? Nah...it was still much cheaper to ship the jobs to China. But what did happen was a Housing Boom. People went out and bought way more house than they could really afford.

But interest rates couldn't stay that low that long and when they did rise, well, bye bye housing boom.

So I guess this Housing Credit Crash is, in a way, just the first casualty of the Bush tax cuts. What is the next casualty? Well, remember that Social Security Trust Fund?

[indepat]

1. I remember that mythical lock box that will have been raided of trillions of dollars for sprinkling

on the most wealthy. It's the 'pukes' way of letting some of it trickle down to the little people.

[Junkdrawer]

3. Can't spend the same money twice...The "lockbox' alway had IOUs...

and IOUs are only as good as the lender's ability to repay. And if you send The Deficit to astronomical levels BEFORE you redeem the Baby Boom Social Security Trust Fund IOUs....

[PSPS]

6. Those "IOU's" date back to Saint Reagan.

It was Reagan who eliminated the graduated income tax and, in its place, doubled the payroll tax. Then his deficit spending (and that of all other GOP presidents since) was being financed by stealing from the Social Security Trust Fund (where the payroll tax goes.)

This effectively placed the majority of taxes on working people while letting the obscenely wealthy get a free ride as parasites.

[JHB]

31. Those aren't the only thing that date back to St. Ronnie of Gipper...

Reagan's main selling point for his tax cuts -- the one that divided the opposition and let them pass -- was that the money freed up would be used to update and renew our industrial plant.

In '79 and '80 there was no talk about a "new economy" that relegated hard manufacturing in the US to the dustbin of the "old economy". The talking point of our losing competition with Europe and Japan was that they had to rebuild all their industries from the damage done in WW2, whereas our factories -- untouched by the war and decades older than comparable facilities overseas-- were increasingly inadequate and obsolete. By not weighing them down with taxes (the argument went), our companies could rebuild their basic plant to make full use of modern technologies and techniques, allowing us to keep all those jobs while becoming competitive again.

In reality, once the money was "freed up", those same corporations embarked on the first wave of "Merger-maina", and most new facilities were built in Mexico or overseas, and the jobs transferred there.

Just the first of a long line of Bait-and-Switch economic policies which have gutted the middle class.

[Lasher]

7. All forms of legal tender are IOUs

If you must put it that way, that is.

And now that we have bankrupted the treasury mostly with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts we will have to 'save' Social Security and other 'entitlement' programs by sharply reducing what they do. We'll 'save' so much money the Treasury bonds in the trust fund will just sit there forever because we'll never have to redeem them.

And that is how the trust fund will be stolen. Now gimme your first 2 years of SS entitlement and forget about COLAs. We need it to pay for the tax cuts we gave the Walton family.

[antigop]

10. Don't forget the Iraq War that drained the treasury, too. n/t

[Junkdrawer]

13. I put it that way because most people believe that their SS taxes...

are, after payments are made to current beneficiaries, literally locked away.

They are not. They are spent as general revenue, with a T-Bond standing in their place. Now, I understand that's probably the best way to handle the money, but the responsible thing to do would be to use the money to pay down the debt so that when the T-Bonds came due, we could redeem them without bankrupting the treasury.

But, as you just said, the pre-Boomer-retirement windfall was used as an excuse for a tax cut for the wealthy.

[indepat]

15. And effing Greenspan was a major architect of the SS refunding in the early Gipper years and was the

effing sob who supported junior's tax cuts for the most wealthy. Most Americans who will ever need promised SS benefits have no idea how the effing sob Greenspan engineered the draining of a mythical lock-box for generous sprinkling on the most wealthy. You can't be a 'puke at heart unless you sincerely believe it's much better for the wealthiest to have gotten trillions of dollars of unneeded tax breaks than for those same dollars to be paid out in promised future benefits to the boomers. The good news: never has there been a more deserving bunch to get fuc*ed than 'puke baby boomers who will need their promised benefits, but are going to get fu*ked out of most of them. I have nary a thread of remorse for this bunch, but a ton for all the others who are going to be f*cked.

[Lasher]

20. Calling the trust fund Treasury bonds IOUs is a right wing talking point

That's why I bristled just a tad. They call them 'worthless' IOUs and 'worthless' pieces of paper (you didn't say worthless), hoping to perpetuate a myth that there is nothing of value in the trust fund. In this they hope to create a mindset of no expectation for the bonds to be redeemed.

I went to West Virginia the other day to look at the filing cabinets, to make sure the IOUs were there — paper. And it's there. ... not a very encouraging sight. –Bush, April 18, 2005

Now, about $1.7 trillion of that is in the so-called trust fund; that is, money -- that's money that's been collected that's not there as cash at this point. –Cheney, March 22, 2005

There is nothing unique about the way trust fund money is being used to buy these Treasury securities from the general fund. When money is borrowed it is spent. That is the point of it.

What about the Federal Pension Trust Fund? It's just the same—all $800 billion of it. You mean there are no military pensions?

What about the $280 billion in Medicare Trusts—are those fake?

And, the highway trust and all other government trusts? $3.1 trillion all told.

And what's their problem with "paper"? A thousand dollar bill is paper, the check I write, my stock certificate, my government bond—all paper. Did they expect the trust would be made of diamonds?

What of the millions of Americans who own Treasury bonds, all paper? Seven trillion dollars of national debt has been spent on government programs, and there is "nothing left." Has the US of A defrauded the world of $7 trillion?

When you put money in the bank you get paper, and they lend your money to someone who spends it. Your cash does not stay in the bank. Does Cheney really think the SSA should have a storeroom of cash? They're just trying to frighten the people.

http://zfacts.com/p/336.html

The general fund can and should pay these obligations to the Social Security trust fund. And Social Security's projected shortfall can easily be rectified by just eliminating the regressive Social Security tax cap on earnings.

http://www.actuary.org/socialsecurity/game.html

[Junkdrawer]

22. We agree that they're debt, right? My POINT is that debt has to be repaided...

and repayment depends on the debtor's ability to repay. Sending the Deficit to astronomical levels BEFORE the SS is repaid is bad.

Can we agree on this?

[Junkdrawer]

25. LOL..."repaided"...(note to self, coffee first, THEN post)...

:rofl:

[Lasher]

27. Heh heh. Maded a mistake.

One of many. I keep forgetting spell check is my friend. x(

I think I'm awake now.

[Lasher]

26. All that you have said is true

Long ago Grover Norquist famously said, "My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub." Clearly he was talking about our social programs that are hated by the extreme right. The Bush junta intentionally drove us further into debt, planning to use our fiscal woes as an excuse to do exactly what Norquist wants - 'reform' (gut) Social Security and other programs.



http://zfacts.com/p/318.html

I only objected to your use of the term, 'IOU' and this was because of the propaganda war being waged by those who are not as fond of our social programs as you and I. I wish you would consider using 'Treasury bonds' or 'securities' in the future. Semantics do matter.

But either way I bear you no malice and apprecieate your participation in this thread.

Lasher

[Junkdrawer]

28. I agree completely. Even America's ability to borrow runs into...

the "interest payments larger than revenues" limit.

That's what worries me. Social Security's solvency is related to the size of the National Debt. But you have a good point too: How can we talk about this without playing in to the hands of those that will excuse "defense" spending and blame Social Security.

[Usrename]

30. That chart cannot be correct, can it?

Didn't the debt ceiling double in the last six years?

I keep thinking that Bush borrowed four trillion in order to give three trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy.

[Lasher]

33. You are correct but so is the chart.

Please note that the chart reflects debt as a percentage of GDP. This is a common convention that is used to negate distorting factors such as economic growth.

Unadjusted debt was $5.7 trillion at the end of FY2000. In March 2006 the ceiling was adjusted upward to $9 trillion and that's where our debt stood at the end of that fiscal year. Looks like Junior's on track to double the national debt by the end of his eight long years in office.

But since you raised the question I want to add that Junior's debt as a percentage of GDP is certainly worse than it is depicted in the chart. This is because it has been recently revealed that our government has been using flawed methodology for GDP calculation. One problem that comes quickly to mind is the convention of treating foreign subsidiaries of US based corporations. I don't think a shoe factory in China should be included in US GDP calculation, regardless of who owns the operation. On account of the discovery of this flaw, GDP figures will eventually be adjusted downward, particularly for Junior's time in office when offshoring has accelerated so much.

[Usrename]

36. Thanks.

It's like Enron accounting. It's infuriating. :grr:

[Lasher]

2. Yep, drown it in a bathtub before Democrats get more control

All according to plan. Ever notice that programs like Social Security are the only type of things we can't afford? How about that Maginot Line in the sky? You never Republicans talking about how expensive that is, do you?

[Junkdrawer]

5. Bush will be the next Hoover...Hell, they'll encourage us to blame...

Bush for the coming crash rather than looking behind the curtain to see who REALLY calls the shots...

[Javaman]

34. Next Hoover? Hoover is thankful he wasn't moron*. LOL nt

[screembloodymurder]

4. There's only one way to get our money back.

Just remember "they" don't give a fuck about you or your family.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KReZyAZLI0&mode=related&search

[Skidmore]

8. Alan Greenspan should be stripped naked and tarred and feathered

and have his sorry but paraded in every town in this nation which has suffered damage from his toadying for the wealthy.

[antigop]

9. I am waiting for a push to privatize Social Security any day now..

See? We just can't afford Social Security anymore, now can we?

PRIVATIZE! PRIVATIZE! PRIVATIZE!!

[Lasher]

11. Yep, a talking head was on tee vee blabbing about Social Security 'reform'.

Junior will try to pull some sleight of hand bullshit like the intelligence gathering 'reform' bill he got passed by Democrats who hold their month long vacation more precious than the welfare of the nation.

[antigop]

12. Lasher, a legitimate question here....

How many of the Dem Presidential candidates have specifically said the following:

"I will NOT privatize Social Security."

[RC]

14. I'll hazard a guess -

None! :banghead:
Why? They've got theirs, prepaid for by us, U.S.

[Lasher]

18. None that I know of

Kucinnich maybe but I don't know that for a fact.

[Lasher]

21. Here is an answer, antigop

Hillary Clinton: The risky scheme to privatize would cost between $1 and $2 trillion. That would undermine the promise of Social Security. (Oct 2006)

Chris Dodd: No privatization; but raise earning cap over $97,000. (Jul 2007)

John Edwards: Don't divert payroll taxes to private accounts. (Mar 2004)
Keep stock market out of Social Security. (Sep 2003)

Al Gore: Use stock market for private investment, not Social Security. (May 2000)
Privatization is “stock market roulette”. (Apr 2000)

Dennis Kucinich: Privatization is off the table-I'll block it. (Sep 2003)
Stop privatization and return retirement age to 65. (May 2003)

Barak Obama: No privatization; but consider earning cap over $97,500. (Jul 2007)
Stock market risk is ok, but not for Social Security. (Oct 2006)

Bill Richardson: Stop talking about privatization; stop raiding trust fund. (Jul 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Social_Security.htm#Dennis_Kucinich

[slipslidingaway]

16. Kick for this important topic. Three more R's needed.

Social Security Trust Fund Data
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html


http://www.allenwsmith.com/id5.html

Have not read the book, just the material at his site.

"From the Publisher

Every cent generated by the 1983 Social Security tax increase-money ostensibly earmarked and saved for the retirement of the baby-boom generation-is gone, spent by our government. But most Americans are ignorant of the crime. The emptying of the Social Security Trust Fund is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on the American public, and acclaimed author and economist Allen W. Smith reveals how George W. Bush and Congress are pulling it off. While George W. Bush has repeatedly condemned "corporate wrongdoers," he is guilty of fiscal mismanagement and outright deception that makes Enron and WorldCom pale in comparison. Smith explains the history of Social Security from its inception in 1935 to the present, including the enactment of the 1983 Social Security tax increase. Then, step by appalling step, he details how the government's promise to the American people-a pledge to never spend the Social Security funds-was broken by every succeeding administration. Sadly, The Looting of Social Security quite simply reveals how George W. Bush and his predecessors have stolen approximately $1.5 trillion of Social Security money. President Bush has used the surplus money mostly to fund tax cuts for wealthy Americans while robbing many of their hard earned money and their rights."

another snip

"The points that I am making are not newly recognized facts. The government has known what it was doing from the very beginning. We know this because the Congressional Record records the efforts of a few honest members of Congress who repeatedly battled against the fraudulent practices of their colleagues. Below are excerpts from a speech made on the Senate floor by South Carolina Senator Ernest “Fritz”Hollings on October 13, 1989:


“We arrive at that fanciful…projection only by indulging in enough fraud and larceny and malfeasance to land an ordinary citizen in the penitentiary. Of course, the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund in order to mask the true size of the deficit. As we all know, the Social Security payroll tax has become a money machine for the U.S. Treasury, generating fantastic revenue surpluses in excess of the costs of the Social Security program. Excess Social Security tax revenues will be $65 billion in 1990 alone—boosted by yet another rise in the Social Security tax rate, slated to kick in January 1. By 1993, the annual Social Security surplus will soar to $99 billion.

The public fully supported enactment of hefty new Social Security taxes in 1983 to ensure the retirement program’s long-term solvency and credibility. The promise was that today’s huge surpluses would be set safely aside in a trust fund to provide for baby-boomer retirees in the next century.

Well, look again. The Treasury is siphoning off every dollar of the Social Security surplus to meet current operating expenses of the Government."

[fed-up]

17. 2 more k/r's needed nt

[slipslidingaway]

19. Kick, SS Trust Fund increased by almost 1 Trillion under Bush

Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust Funds



Assets at end of year

2000 1,049,445
2001 1,212,533
2002 1,377,965
2003 1,530,764
2004 1,686,839
2005 1,858,660
2006 2,048,112

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html

alternate link
OASI and DI Trust Funds, combined, 1957 and later
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

[annabanana]

23. "the Clinton recession"??

exsqueeze me.. . I don't recall a "Clinton recession". . Who here recalls a "Clinton recession"?

[Junkdrawer]

24. I don't, but that didn't stop Bush and Greenspan from inventing one...

to help justify the tax cuts....

[Lasher]

32. And his tax cuts worked only to make rich people richer

Junior promised his $2.1 trillion 2001 & 2003 tax cuts would produce 2.2 million jobs by the end of 2004. To put that in context, about 2.1 million jobs were added to the economy annually over the previous two decades, including intervals of recession.

But during Bush's first four years, just a tenth of that number of jobs were created each year. Between January 2001 and the end of 2004 the economy added a total of about 0.8 million jobs.

Just like you said the recession was used as an excuse to cut taxes for the rich. And even by Junior's extremely low standard he set for himself, the tax cuts didn't work.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/06/01/BUGDLD17TI1.DTL&type=business

[Johonny]

29. don't forget

But interest rates couldn't stay that low that long and when they did rise, well, bye bye housing boom.

Low rates helped drive down the dollar

[coco77]

35. Some more bushit....