Bush's trillion dollar tax increase

[jreeves]

Are you refering to social security?

Means tested welfare, medicare funding that comes directly from the general funds and the interwebbing of welfare throughout almost every department of the federal government. I just believe it's intellectually dishonest to claim the war in Iraq alone is bankrupting this country when we have spent trillions of dollars on social programs.

 

[Chris]

Means tested welfare, medicare funding that comes directly from the general funds and the interwebbing of welfare throughout almost every department of the federal government. I just believe it's intellectually dishonest to claim the war in Iraq alone is bankrupting this country when we have spent trillions of dollars on social programs.

The money spent on social programs is spent helping the old and the sick IN THIS COUNTRY, not in Iraq.

 

[jreeves]

The money spent on social programs is spent helping the old and the sick IN THIS COUNTRY, not in Iraq.

BS....alot of that money is spent on Jannie the house whore who has 7 kids and the government raises Jannie and her 7 children at the taxpayer's expense. The government shouldn't redistribute income....period. There are millions of people on disability drawing Social Security who are healthier than me(thus eliminating money that would be available to people who worked their asses off their whole life). I see social program abuse everyday and it is causing this country to spend itself into bankruptcy.

As far as Iraq goes, we are having success there recently. We should stablize the country then begin to withdraw, as we are in July(30,000 troops).

 

[Manuel]

I just believe it's intellectually dishonest to claim the war in Iraq alone is bankrupting this country when we have spent trillions of dollars on social programs.

That's true - there is a lot of mismanagement in that category too. But we did not borrow money to finance our social investments. The Social Security program has an independent budget that is separate from the rest of the federal government. When the Social Security program collects more in taxes than it spends, it generates surplus money. By law, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with surplus money is to loan it to the U.S. government.
When the Social Security program loans money to the U.S. government, the government is obligated by law to pay this money back to the Social Security program with interest. This money becomes a part of the national debt.

 

[midcan5]

You have to realize that in the republican universe, only welfare recipients, poor people, and women who have made a mistake are responsible and should be punished for their actions. Administration incompetence is forgiven since power confers on the powerful the magical ability to create grand excuses.

 

[editec]

Americans pay for the social spending we do.

That's why our social security and Medicade taxes are about 15% of our salaraies.

What we're borrowing money for is our $1 TRILLION dollar war in Iraq, and our military presensce in 146 nations around the world.

 

[Chris]

You have to realize that in the republican universe, only welfare recipients, poor people, and women who have made a mistake are responsible and should be punished for their actions. Administration incompetence is forgiven since power confers on the powerful the magical ability to create grand excuses.

The worst thing you can do is cut taxes and increase spending. That is what Bush did, and now we are rapidly becoming a third world nation. God help Obama or McCain. The next president will have an incredible mess to clean up. How could anyone have voted for this idiot Bush?

 

[jreeves]

That's true - there is a lot of mismanagement in that category too. But we did not borrow money to finance our social investments. The Social Security program has an independent budget that is separate from the rest of the federal government. When the Social Security program collects more in taxes than it spends, it generates surplus money. By law, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with surplus money is to loan it to the U.S. government.
When the Social Security program loans money to the U.S. government, the government is obligated by law to pay this money back to the Social Security program with interest. This money becomes a part of the national debt.

If you have any doubts that social spending isn't being borrowed from China, Japan,etc....look at this.

This chart shows the trends of total federal spending as a share of the economy (measured by national income) over the past 50 years, with the total broken down into 4 components: Defense, Social (sum social security, Medicare, Medicaid/health, welfare income) and net Debt Interest, and Other (meaning all items not covered in the first 3 components, which is balance of spending, incl. such items as Dept. of Energy, IRS, State Dept., etc.).

The declining black trend line is the defense spending ratio, which is now at 5% of the economy, well below its 1947 level - following a 4-decade downward slope.

AND, the BIG CULPRIT (rising red line) is rapidly rising Social spending, growing 14 times faster than the economy, more than eating up the decline in defense ratios (and has now reached a historic new high). (If it had been growing in dollar terms only at the rate of growth of the total economy, then that red line would have been flat on the chart. The fact the red line rises means said spending was growing much, much faster than the economy.)

Look closely at that red line on social spending. Note 3 points: (1)the acceleration starting mid-1960s, (2) this stopped rising (and declined) in the 1980s for the first time in 4 decades, (3)only to rise again thereafter to a record high in the 1990s.]

This chart almost looks as if increased spending on defense in the mid-1950's was a cover for the beginning of a socialization expansion never seen before in history. At the very least, social spending ratios were expanded 'under cover' of declining defense ratios. Social engineers certainly knew what they were doing - finding a way to camouflage their agenda. Since defense has declined to its post WW II ratios, the 'chickens are coming home to roost' - because defense reductions will no longer camouflage social spending, as occurred during the past 4-decades.

Interest (blue line) takes up an added 2% of the economy. But, it can only decline if the debt principal causing the interest is paid-down. However, debt principal is rising.


Grandfather Federal Government Debt Report - page 1 - by MWHodges

 

[jreeves]

That's true - there is a lot of mismanagement in that category too. But we did not borrow money to finance our social investments. The Social Security program has an independent budget that is separate from the rest of the federal government. When the Social Security program collects more in taxes than it spends, it generates surplus money. By law, the only thing that the Social Security program can do with surplus money is to loan it to the U.S. government.
When the Social Security program loans money to the U.S. government, the government is obligated by law to pay this money back to the Social Security program with interest. This money becomes a part of the national debt.

As far as Social Security goes....

Is it fair that today workers have paid $1.8 trillion more in FICA taxes than required to support current seniors (including $177 billion of that last year alone - - $1.5 trillion in the past 15 years) to supposedly build up a surplus for their future - - but that surplus disappears as fast as it arrives. Instead of investing the surplus arms-length in something marketable, such as in registered 30-year Treasury Bonds as sold to the public, all $1.8 trillion has been siphoned-off by government and spent on non-pension things - - with zero marketable assets remaining in the trust fund. And that siphon-off continues in the future - - meaning their children face $3.5 trillion in additional debt into the future? Unlike private pension funds, the trust fund holds zero marketable assets as a result of past paid-in surpluses by workers, just non-marketable bookkeeping IOUs for which no budget commits their play-back and no cash interest is paid. As an example: in 2002 the trust fund took in $596 billion from workers payroll deductions, and paid out to seniors about $456 billion - - meaning a cash surplus intake of $140 billion - - but every penny of that was siphoned-off and spent on non-pension stuff - - and more meaningless IOUs issued. Adding the $60 billion interest the general government should have paid this year in cash on $1.6 trillion IOUs issued in prior years - - the SS trust fund should have added $200 billion in hard assets for future retirees - - but it did not, since every penny was spent on other stuff and more meaningless IOUs created to paper it over. If this happened to a private company's pension account the officers would go to jail.

As of the end of fiscal year 2007, $1,968 billion ($2 Trillion) of in-coming surpluses from workers had been siphoned-off to-date from the Social Security trust fund - a 600% increase of $1.5 trillion since year-end 1991 - every penny spent on non-pension stuff. ($177 billion of that was extracted last year alone).
Non-marketable IOUs were put in the trust in exchange for the cash taken out - - with zero plan budgeted by either political party to redeem those IOUs and repay the trust fund in cash or marketable assets in exchange for the prior cash surpluses removed for other purposes. Same goes for interest due, it's paid with more IOUs instead of cash.


Grandfather Social Security Report by MWHodges

 

[jreeves]

You have to realize that in the republican universe, only welfare recipients, poor people, and women who have made a mistake are responsible and should be punished for their actions. Administration incompetence is forgiven since power confers on the powerful the magical ability to create grand excuses.

This adminstration doesn't get a free pass from me, I believe Bush has been the most liberal economic conservative since LBJ.....

 

[jreeves]

The worst thing you can do is cut taxes and increase spending. That is what Bush did, and now we are rapidly becoming a third world nation. God help Obama or McCain. The next president will have an incredible mess to clean up. How could anyone have voted for this idiot Bush?

Then you would realize that Obama's plan to cut taxes while increasing governmental spending by 1 trillion dollars is a bad plan, huh?

 

[Manuel]

As of the end of fiscal year 2007, $1,968 billion ($2 Trillion) of in-coming surpluses from workers had been siphoned-off to-date from the Social Security trust fund - a 600% increase of $1.5 trillion since year-end 1991 - every penny spent on non-pension stuff. ($177 billion of that was extracted last year alone).

That is what I said before, the SS funds still have surpluses after deducting all costs. So we did not borrow money from china for SS costs.

 

[jreeves]

That is what I said before, the SS funds still have surpluses after deducting all costs. So we did not borrow money from china for SS costs.

Social Security has trillions of dollars worth of Iou's setting there unpaid. The federal government pays the interest of the IOU's with more IOU's. I believe I stated earlier that my social spending figure excluded Social Security. I was only pointing out the real problems with Social Security and why it is going bankrupt.

 

[Chris]

Then you would realize that Obama's plan to cut taxes while increasing governmental spending by 1 trillion dollars is a bad plan, huh?

I don't know what Obama's plan is. I don't care. McCain is 72 years old and on 6 different medications. I'm not voting for him.

 

[jreeves]

I don't know what Obama's plan is. I don't care. McCain is 72 years old and on 6 different medications. I'm not voting for him.

Lmao, so your support for a candidate has nothing to do with the issues.

 

[Chris]

Lmao, so your support for a candidate has nothing to do with the issues.

No. It has everything to do with the issues. I am against everything the Republicans stand for.

 

[jreeves]

No. It has everything to do with the issues. I am against everything the Republicans stand for.

But you don't even know what the plans each candidate is proposing....Don't tell me you vote strictly by party?

 

[Chris]

But you don't even know what the plans each candidate is proposing....Don't tell me you vote strictly by party?

I voted for John McCain in 2000. I am not voting for him now. He's George Bush's butt boy now. Plus like I said, he is too old. Have you heard him speak lately? He may not make it to November.

 

[jreeves]

I voted for John McCain in 2000. I am not voting for him now. He's George Bush's butt boy now. Plus like I said, he is too old. Have you heard him speak lately? He may not make it to November.

You don't what his plans are but he is Bush's butt boy....that's funny. He is completely healthy have you seen his 90 + year old grandmother. Don't you remember he released his health records? It has been said that he gives his campaign staff a run for their money in keeping up with him. But for someone that seems to have such liberal ideals it's suprising to hear that you support age discrimination.

 

[Chris]

Age discrimination? Absolutely. I want a president who is smart, fit, and on top of his game. I am tired of having a president who wrecked his brain on alcohol and coccaine.