|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 22, 2006 12:38:05 GMT -6
I'm not ready to concede that we're going to default on the treasury bonds that are held by the Social Security trust fund. If this debt is paid as it should be, Social Security will be able to continue is it is without benefit reductions until 2048 or so - and essentially forever with relatively minor adjustments. Lasher, According to the Social Security "game" program that you provided, the shortfalls can be almost completely eliminated by removing the income cap for payroll tax contributions. Even some very small adjustments added to that completely eliminate the shortfall. Below is a link to that program. www.actuary.org/socialsecurity/game.htmlI don't know with certainty if that program is accurate or not. But a number of economists and financial analysts have made similar statements, i.e., that the future Social Security shortfall can be fixed with some minor relatively minor adjustments, the biggest being raising or eliminating the cap. I would remind readers, however, that the biggest factor affecting the future "funding" shortfall is the aggregate income that is covered by the payroll withholding tax. The higher the incomes are of those being taxed, and the more people earning higher income subject to the tax, is the biggest factor affecting future solvency. In other words, low employment growth and stagnating wages are the biggest drags on future solvency. If a Bush-type economy persists, with poor job growth and stagnating wages, insolvency will occur much sooner. The best way to prevent insolvency is for wages and employment to rise, so that there are more people paying more money into the system. However, the constant upward transfer of wealth under the Bush dictatorship is worsening the situation.
|
|
|
Post by lc on Oct 22, 2006 13:02:00 GMT -6
n
|
|
|
Post by lasher on Oct 23, 2006 3:20:16 GMT -6
The Social Security trust fund and the shortfall of 2048 or so are two different issues. The Social Security Game addresses only the shortfall and assumes the trust fund will not be stolen.
The shortfall can and should be easily rectified by eliminating the cap on income that is subject to payroll taxes. One reason I say this is the best solution is because it would discourage mischief that is afoot. The wealthy elite want to see payroll taxes used to support general fund liabilities because they pay almost no payroll taxes in relation to their income.
And concerning the trust fund: I am aware that there are schemes to steal it. This is one reason why The Decider has run up so much debt. He's maxed out our credit cards in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy.
Now the thing is, we're in debt and can't afford to pay what we owe to the trust fund. No talk of we can't afford to redeem the treasury bonds China is holding, or that we can't afford to keep spending 10 times as much on defense as the next closest nation, it's just that we can't afford to honor our debt to the Social Security trust fund. It is by design that the only debt or future expenditure that seems to be on the table is the Social Security trust fund.
This is why Junior and his enablers are so frantic to "reform" Social Security right now. They want to cut benefits so that payroll taxes will sustain the program so that we never get to the point where the trust fund starts calling in its markers from the general fund. It is true that this could also be accomplished by raising payroll taxes but I've noticed a lot of people in the Bush administration suggesting this. If this comes about, a combination of both tactics could be expected.
And presto! The trust fund shall have been stolen. Who took it? They already have, it's the rich people who benefited from the tax cuts.
By elimination of the general fund's future liability, namely what it owes the trust fund, the debt could be dramatically reduced - getting rid of that pesky debt that has been generated by tax cuts for the wealthy and favors for the military-industrial complex. And get this: An enormous retroactive tax holiday for the wealthy would be achieved because general fund expenditures that have been supported with payroll taxes wouldn't have to be repaid with revenues that come from other forms of taxes.
This is 100% wrong and I'm not going to concede defeat. Eliminate the ceiling on payroll taxes but don't otherwise raise them. And don't cut benefits. It will be a challenge coming up with the money we need to redeem the trust fund's treasury bonds but the same is true to say of all the rest of our debt. Blame it on the Bush administration and lapdog Congress, but don't take it out on the aged and disadvantaged.
|
|
|
Post by lasher on Oct 23, 2006 8:07:31 GMT -6
Like I said upthread, the DOW was at 10,578 when Bush took office on January 22, 2001. It closed on Friday October 20 at 12,011.73. I think that's an annualized growth of 2% but I'm not sure of the calculation. Can one of you tell me if this is right or not? And guess what, it was 15.9% under Clinton, 9.8% under Poppy, and 11.3% under Reagan. The index also did better under Presidents Ford, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Calvin Coolidge. Much better. Since World War I, the only presidents with a worse Dow Jones Industrials record than the incumbent were Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. How about gas prices? They're down now but they were $1.46 in January 2001. Today they're $2.26, an increase of 55%. How about jobs? Unemployment was 4.2% in January and February 2001. It has not ever been that low since and is at 4.6% today. Over that period, non-farm payrolls have added an average of 46,200 jobs a month. That's good, right? Clinton: 237,000 a month. Reagan: 168,000. Carter: 215,000. Bush's dad presided over a recession so bad it cost him his job. His record must be worse, right? His average: 54,000 a month. That's 17 percent higher than junior's. www.blackenterprise.com/yb/ybopen.asp?section=ybem&story_id=99048945&ID=blackenterprise
|
|