Leave the Tax Rates Alone

[Google]

What a bunch of shit. Imagine that... the Wall Street Journal says.. don't raise taxes.

That would be like "Welfare Recipients Daily" saying don't cut our benefits.

Charts? CHARTS? I've seen Progressives put up chart after chart showing how the Debt has INCREASED MORE under Republican Administrations and you turn your heads... I've seen Progressives show article after article that you guys turn your heads.

So... I guess what your saying is that only media YOU Agree with is accurate. Bullshit.

We are waiting for you to say something intelligent.

This is the mentality of the left, given information they disagree with they rely on insults and shallow remarks.

Let me ask you this. With unemployment hovering around 9%--the real number around 15%--economic growth stagnant at 1%, national debt at $14,000,000,000,000, how is raising taxes going to solve any of this?

Now continue with me, if you will, what did the Stimulus Act achieve? Let's see if you know the answer to this question. Which top Obama corporate contributor received billions of dollars of stimulus money at .01% interest. Now I'm getting this information from the NY Times is that ok?

First off.... POT? Meet Kettle. You guys slam anyone who posts articles YOU don't agree with.

Raising taxes means more revenue to work with, add to that the $1T in cuts already proposed(and more to be negotiated), that means we can pay down this debt.

To continue with you... the Stimulus Act achieved the prevention of an economic collapse.

Yep... you're probably right on the Corporate Contributer thing... that's why I want Publicly funded Elections... BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS TO DO THESE THINGS TO GET ELECTED!!!! Not just Obama, Not just Dems... But EVERYONE! in 2010, the GOP took over the house of Representatives and won many Governorships with the new "unlimited anonymous" donation ruling. But you don't want to talk about that, do you?

Once again.. POT... Meet Kettle.

Finally, I love how you idiots come across with the "Obama is a Marxist" bullshit.. then the truth comes out... he's a politician.. just like everyone before him. But he's still the Devil to you.

Raising taxes would, and again this is being extremely generous, raise at most $3 trillion annually. This number is based on raising taxes while the economy is growing, which is counter-intuitive.

The $1 trillion in cuts that has been 'proposed' and the higher taxes isn't going to solve a $14,000,000,000,000--and growing--deficit. Just isn't.

To continue with you the Stimulus Act did not prevent economic collapse. How do we know this? Because, by order from the Supreme Court, we know where the majority of that money went. Obama employed fear artistically leading up to the Stimulus Act telling anyone that would listen that if we didn't grant the Federal Reserve the unfettered power to spend hundreds of billions with ZERO oversight the sky would fall.

Now you can try to prove a negative, but that is a waste of time. Instead let's look at the promises Obama made about the Stimulus Act. Shovel ready jobs. BS Investing in infrastructure BS. Keeping unemployment down BS. Everything this president said was a lie, and he's joking about it.

The Stimulus Act didn't prevent economic collapse, unless you believe giving Goldman Sacs tens of billions at .01% interest rate achieved that.

Also, your president is ensuring that the unprecedented billion dollar campaign is going to be a norm now. The unlimited super pact organizations are being well exploited by the Democratic Party. Pot and kettle right?

 

[blastoff]

Also from the article:

"After the Bush investment tax cuts of 2003, tax revenues were $786 billion HIGHER (my emphasis) in 2007($2.568 trillion) than they were in 2003 ($1.782 trillion), the biggest four-year increase in U.S. history."

But, as always, if we spend more than we're taking in we're fucked.

 

[Urkie]

No, he should read the article and if he has something he disagrees with do so without attacking the ownership and the readers of the Wallstreet Journal.

You wouldn't understand this, obviously, because you aren't doing it.

Raising taxes is not going to solve the budget deficits we have. Nor is it going to do a damn thing to turn this economy around.

"the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. "

Focus. Take just those facts and tell me how eliminating the Bush taxes is going to do anything about a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit.

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts or, and thank god you and other leftists are being more honest, raising taxes would only add somewhere around $3 trillion annually to a budget deficit that is growing at a much faster rate than that. That $3 trillion number is very generous too, given that historically when taxes are raised corporations and higher income earners generally employ sophisticated tactics to dodge taxes. Tax revenues would increase at first, and then die down. This is history.

I don't think raising taxes on the top tax bracket alone will deal with the deficit. There should also be budget cuts somewhere.

I believe that the top tax rate should be raised or the tax system should be changed to be more fair across the board. Warren Buffett explains it in this article if you want to know a bit more about what's really going on.

Billionaires Buffett and Gates: Tax Us More! - ABC News

You're buying into the ponzi scheme that the rich have created to accumulate more wealth. They want to keep it going at the expense of you and me.

 

[DiamondDave]

No, he should read the article and if he has something he disagrees with do so without attacking the ownership and the readers of the Wallstreet Journal.

You wouldn't understand this, obviously, because you aren't doing it.

Raising taxes is not going to solve the budget deficits we have. Nor is it going to do a damn thing to turn this economy around.

"the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. "

Focus. Take just those facts and tell me how eliminating the Bush taxes is going to do anything about a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit.

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts or, and thank god you and other leftists are being more honest, raising taxes would only add somewhere around $3 trillion annually to a budget deficit that is growing at a much faster rate than that. That $3 trillion number is very generous too, given that historically when taxes are raised corporations and higher income earners generally employ sophisticated tactics to dodge taxes. Tax revenues would increase at first, and then die down. This is history.

I don't think raising taxes on the top tax bracket alone will deal with the deficit. There should also be budget cuts somewhere.

I believe that the top tax rate should be raised or the tax system should be changed to be more fair across the board. Warren Buffett explains it in this article if you want to know a bit more about what's really going on.

Billionaires Buffett and Gates: Tax Us More! - ABC News

You're buying into the ponzi scheme that the rich have created to accumulate more wealth. They want to keep it going at the expense of you and me.

Fair is SUBJECTIVE... and of course those who earn less would readily take payment of their services from someone else, or even direct handouts at the expense of someone else... they think it is FAIR... while others will not think it is FAIR (namely the ones doing the paying)...

The key is EQUAL treatment... not only equal treatment when it benefits you... also not the acceptance of unequal treatment when it benefits you...

Oh... and nothing is stopping Gates nor Buffet nor anyone else from VOLUNTARILY giving the govt more...

 

[Google]

No, he should read the article and if he has something he disagrees with do so without attacking the ownership and the readers of the Wallstreet Journal.

You wouldn't understand this, obviously, because you aren't doing it.

Raising taxes is not going to solve the budget deficits we have. Nor is it going to do a damn thing to turn this economy around.

"the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. "

Focus. Take just those facts and tell me how eliminating the Bush taxes is going to do anything about a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit.

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts or, and thank god you and other leftists are being more honest, raising taxes would only add somewhere around $3 trillion annually to a budget deficit that is growing at a much faster rate than that. That $3 trillion number is very generous too, given that historically when taxes are raised corporations and higher income earners generally employ sophisticated tactics to dodge taxes. Tax revenues would increase at first, and then die down. This is history.

I don't think raising taxes on the top tax bracket alone will deal with the deficit. There should also be budget cuts somewhere.

I believe that the top tax rate should be raised or the tax system should be changed to be more fair across the board. Warren Buffett explains it in this article if you want to know a bit more about what's really going on.

Billionaires Buffett and Gates: Tax Us More! - ABC News

You're buying into the ponzi scheme that the rich have created to accumulate more wealth. They want to keep it going at the expense of you and me.

No, I'm not buying into anything because I don't believe someone else's money has anything to do with my prosperity or success. Someone 'keeping' or not being penalized by the government isn't at my expense because I'm on ZERO government assistance. Perhaps it is at your expense.

This is so simple, it is a testament to how dedicated the left is to hatred of wealth and class envy. The economy is miserable. Consumers aren't spending that much. Unemployment is high. Raising taxes in a poor economy is going to hinder, not help the economic recovery.

The solution to this problem is a thriving economy. It isn't a coincidence that all states that are showing positive economic growth are red states.

 

[WillowTree]

Yeah... the Wall Street Journal has no self interest in taxes, does it? Look at their audience, look at who they are trying to sell papers to. Furthermore... look who owns the newspaper.

How about looking at the article, reading it and making an intelligent statement about it. You don't have a intelligent retort.

The audience of the Wallstreet Journal is middle to upper-income Americans. You obviously have a very negative opinion of them.

So he should just agree with it because the article says so? Yeah, that's brilliant. I assume you're going to agree with an article that says taxes should be raised on the top 1% if it makes a strong argument?

On to the point. Not raising taxes on the top tax bracket will mean that more programs need to be cut to balance the budget which in turn will hurt the middle class even more. Because we all know that the Repubs want to cut things like Social Security, Medicare and Education. Why is it that the middle class is going to receive the brunt of it when it was mostly people in the top tax bracket who got us in this mess? Also, if the middle class shrinks then the rich can say goodbye to their demand.

Oh lookeee. Another moron present and accounted for. I believe "he" was asked to read the article before commenting.

 

[WillowTree]

No, he should read the article and if he has something he disagrees with do so without attacking the ownership and the readers of the Wallstreet Journal.

You wouldn't understand this, obviously, because you aren't doing it.

Raising taxes is not going to solve the budget deficits we have. Nor is it going to do a damn thing to turn this economy around.

"the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. "

Focus. Take just those facts and tell me how eliminating the Bush taxes is going to do anything about a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit.

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts or, and thank god you and other leftists are being more honest, raising taxes would only add somewhere around $3 trillion annually to a budget deficit that is growing at a much faster rate than that. That $3 trillion number is very generous too, given that historically when taxes are raised corporations and higher income earners generally employ sophisticated tactics to dodge taxes. Tax revenues would increase at first, and then die down. This is history.

I don't think raising taxes on the top tax bracket alone will deal with the deficit. There should also be budget cuts somewhere.

I believe that the top tax rate should be raised or the tax system should be changed to be more fair across the board. Warren Buffett explains it in this article if you want to know a bit more about what's really going on.

Billionaires Buffett and Gates: Tax Us More! - ABC News

You're buying into the ponzi scheme that the rich have created to accumulate more wealth. They want to keep it going at the expense of you and me.

Spoken like a true communist.

 

[Google]

No, he should read the article and if he has something he disagrees with do so without attacking the ownership and the readers of the Wallstreet Journal.

You wouldn't understand this, obviously, because you aren't doing it.

Raising taxes is not going to solve the budget deficits we have. Nor is it going to do a damn thing to turn this economy around.

"the direct revenue loss from the combination of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts contributed roughly $216 billion, or only about 9.5% of the $2.29 trillion. "

Focus. Take just those facts and tell me how eliminating the Bush taxes is going to do anything about a $14,000,000,000,000 deficit.

Eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts or, and thank god you and other leftists are being more honest, raising taxes would only add somewhere around $3 trillion annually to a budget deficit that is growing at a much faster rate than that. That $3 trillion number is very generous too, given that historically when taxes are raised corporations and higher income earners generally employ sophisticated tactics to dodge taxes. Tax revenues would increase at first, and then die down. This is history.

I don't think raising taxes on the top tax bracket alone will deal with the deficit. There should also be budget cuts somewhere.

I believe that the top tax rate should be raised or the tax system should be changed to be more fair across the board. Warren Buffett explains it in this article if you want to know a bit more about what's really going on.

Billionaires Buffett and Gates: Tax Us More! - ABC News

You're buying into the ponzi scheme that the rich have created to accumulate more wealth. They want to keep it going at the expense of you and me.

I love how leftists will insult and denigrate the rich, but find one that thinks raising taxes is good and all of a sudden these people are geniuses.

 

[Urkie]

Fair is SUBJECTIVE... and of course those who earn less would readily take payment of their services from someone else, or even direct handouts at the expense of someone else... they think it is FAIR... while others will not think it is FAIR (namely the ones doing the paying)...

The key is EQUAL treatment... not only equal treatment when it benefits you... also not the acceptance of unequal treatment when it benefits you...

Oh... and nothing is stopping Gates nor Buffet nor anyone else from VOLUNTARILY giving the govt more...

Just say it then. You want to see the end of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment benefits because you view them as unfair. The bottom line is that there are good people out there who use these programs and they are going to get screwed over if they get cut.

Nothing is stopping those 2 from giving the govt more but even if they did then it really wouldn't make a huge difference. Everybody who makes that much should be paying more and then it would make a difference.

 

[Claudette]

If they are so gung ho to raise taxes on the top earners then by gum we should raise everyones taxes.

Rich, middle and poor.

Yup fair is fair. Of course we wouldn't get to much out of the poor but anyone drawing from the public largesse should have some skin in the game.

Then lets just sit back and watch the eonomy boom.

Hint. Don't hold your breath.

Yeah... fuck it if the poor can't eat, right? Fuck it if the Middle Class can't afford to buy the things that keep the economy rolling... But heaven forbid if some extremely rich person has to modify his investment portfolio.

Oh but fair is fair there boyo and aren't all you Dems and Liberals all about fair?? Whats fair about taxing one group more than another simply because they can afford it?? Whats fair about one class supporting another??

If you don't have skin in the game then you could care less what someone else pays as long as you don't.

If you do have skin in the game then your definetly paying attention to who's running the show and what they are doing.

After all, aren't you all about fairness???

 

[WillowTree]

Let those who pay nothing pay more than nothing. That will help. Or at the very least let's stop giving REBATES to those who pay NOTHING.

 

[Urkie]

No, I'm not buying into anything because I don't believe someone else's money has anything to do with my prosperity or success. Someone 'keeping' or not being penalized by the government isn't at my expense because I'm on ZERO government assistance. Perhaps it is at your expense.

This is so simple, it is a testament to how dedicated the left is to hatred of wealth and class envy. The economy is miserable. Consumers aren't spending that much. Unemployment is high. Raising taxes in a poor economy is going to hinder, not help the economic recovery.

The solution to this problem is a thriving economy. It isn't a coincidence that all states that are showing positive economic growth are red states.

I don't believe other peoples money have anything to do with my properity or success either. I went to college, got a degree and got a job recently. I don't expect things to just be given to me either but I expect EVERYONE to contribute to getting out of this debt and doing so by cutting programs people rely on is not the way to go.

Hatred of wealthy people? Envy? NO I don't hate rich people. I just want them to pay their fair share. Not pay the lowest rates they've ever had to pay. Why do you think the progressive tax system was implemented in the first place?

Raising taxes ONLY on the top income earners will not hinder the economy. Maybe it will allow the little guy to come in and actually compete with some of these huge businesses.

 

[8537]

We are waiting for you to say something intelligent.

This is the mentality of the left, given information they disagree with they rely on insults and shallow remarks.

Let me ask you this. With unemployment hovering around 9%--the real number around 15%--economic growth stagnant at 1%, national debt at $14,000,000,000,000, how is raising taxes going to solve any of this?

Now continue with me, if you will, what did the Stimulus Act achieve? Let's see if you know the answer to this question. Which top Obama corporate contributor received billions of dollars of stimulus money at .01% interest. Now I'm getting this information from the NY Times is that ok?

First off.... POT? Meet Kettle. You guys slam anyone who posts articles YOU don't agree with.

Raising taxes means more revenue to work with, add to that the $1T in cuts already proposed(and more to be negotiated), that means we can pay down this debt.

To continue with you... the Stimulus Act achieved the prevention of an economic collapse.

Yep... you're probably right on the Corporate Contributer thing... that's why I want Publicly funded Elections... BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS TO DO THESE THINGS TO GET ELECTED!!!! Not just Obama, Not just Dems... But EVERYONE! in 2010, the GOP took over the house of Representatives and won many Governorships with the new "unlimited anonymous" donation ruling. But you don't want to talk about that, do you?

Once again.. POT... Meet Kettle.

Finally, I love how you idiots come across with the "Obama is a Marxist" bullshit.. then the truth comes out... he's a politician.. just like everyone before him. But he's still the Devil to you.

Raising taxes would, and again this is being extremely generous, raise at most $3 trillion annually. This number is based on raising taxes while the economy is growing, which is counter-intuitive.

The $1 trillion in cuts that has been 'proposed' and the higher taxes isn't going to solve a $14,000,000,000,000--and growing--deficit. Just isn't.

To continue with you the Stimulus Act did not prevent economic collapse. How do we know this? Because, by order from the Supreme Court, we know where the majority of that money went. Obama employed fear artistically leading up to the Stimulus Act telling anyone that would listen that if we didn't grant the Federal Reserve the unfettered power to spend hundreds of billions with ZERO oversight the sky would fall.

Now you can try to prove a negative, but that is a waste of time. Instead let's look at the promises Obama made about the Stimulus Act. Shovel ready jobs. BS Investing in infrastructure BS. Keeping unemployment down BS. Everything this president said was a lie, and he's joking about it.

The Stimulus Act didn't prevent economic collapse, unless you believe giving Goldman Sacs tens of billions at .01% interest rate achieved that.

Also, your president is ensuring that the unprecedented billion dollar campaign is going to be a norm now. The unlimited super pact organizations are being well exploited by the Democratic Party. Pot and kettle right?

You are mixing TARP and ARRA. TARP was Bush-era monetary policy. ARRA was Obama-era fiscal policy.

 

[kiwiman127]

I see where Ben Stein is calling for raising taxes on the uber wealthy, I never knew Stein was a leftist.
He is one of a group of conservative economists calling for raising taxes on the wealthy.

Ben Stein: We Must Raise Taxes on Rich

Read more: Ben Stein: We Must Raise Taxes on Rich - Interviews - The O' Reilly Factor - FoxNews.com

 

[8537]

The solution to this problem is a thriving economy. It isn't a coincidence that all states that are showing positive economic growth are red states.

I live in the bluest state in the nation - one of our Senators is an avowed socialist, for Gods sake, and he won by a landslide.

our unemployment rates is 5%.

 

[Urkie]

Spoken like a true communist.

Spoken like a Corporatist....

What you support is not capitalism if you don't want the tax system to be more fair.

 

[Google]

Fair is SUBJECTIVE... and of course those who earn less would readily take payment of their services from someone else, or even direct handouts at the expense of someone else... they think it is FAIR... while others will not think it is FAIR (namely the ones doing the paying)...

The key is EQUAL treatment... not only equal treatment when it benefits you... also not the acceptance of unequal treatment when it benefits you...

Oh... and nothing is stopping Gates nor Buffet nor anyone else from VOLUNTARILY giving the govt more...

Just say it then. You want to see the end of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment benefits because you view them as unfair. The bottom line is that there are good people out there who use these programs and they are going to get screwed over if they get cut.

Nothing is stopping those 2 from giving the govt more but even if they did then it really wouldn't make a huge difference. Everybody who makes that much should be paying more and then it would make a difference.

Oh yes. We all want to see grandma homeless. This is the argument of the left and has been for decades.

The bottom line is those programs are going bankrupt. The fact of the matter is if you spread the debt out to each family in America each would owe $45,000--compared to Greece at $40,000--and raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to solve our budget shortfalls.

In 1968 Congress allowed the 'temporary' spending of Social Security money. Before that it was actually put into savings. Well it wasn't temporary and the federal government has been spending, literally taking SS money out of your paycheck--if you have a paycheck--and spending it. Not really spending it, it has to go and pay the interest on our national debt.

Despite all your programming telling you it is the wealthy that has destroyed all these wonderful government programs, it is the government that did it.

The only solution is fixing the economy. Bottom line, raising taxes is counter-intuitive to that goal.

 

[Google]

The solution to this problem is a thriving economy. It isn't a coincidence that all states that are showing positive economic growth are red states.

I live in the bluest state in the nation - one of our Senators is an avowed socialist, for Gods sake, and he won by a landslide.

our unemployment rates is 5%.

Can you tell me the top ten states for economic growth? Google it.

 

[Google]

First off.... POT? Meet Kettle. You guys slam anyone who posts articles YOU don't agree with.

Raising taxes means more revenue to work with, add to that the $1T in cuts already proposed(and more to be negotiated), that means we can pay down this debt.

To continue with you... the Stimulus Act achieved the prevention of an economic collapse.

Yep... you're probably right on the Corporate Contributer thing... that's why I want Publicly funded Elections... BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS TO DO THESE THINGS TO GET ELECTED!!!! Not just Obama, Not just Dems... But EVERYONE! in 2010, the GOP took over the house of Representatives and won many Governorships with the new "unlimited anonymous" donation ruling. But you don't want to talk about that, do you?

Once again.. POT... Meet Kettle.

Finally, I love how you idiots come across with the "Obama is a Marxist" bullshit.. then the truth comes out... he's a politician.. just like everyone before him. But he's still the Devil to you.

Raising taxes would, and again this is being extremely generous, raise at most $3 trillion annually. This number is based on raising taxes while the economy is growing, which is counter-intuitive.

The $1 trillion in cuts that has been 'proposed' and the higher taxes isn't going to solve a $14,000,000,000,000--and growing--deficit. Just isn't.

To continue with you the Stimulus Act did not prevent economic collapse. How do we know this? Because, by order from the Supreme Court, we know where the majority of that money went. Obama employed fear artistically leading up to the Stimulus Act telling anyone that would listen that if we didn't grant the Federal Reserve the unfettered power to spend hundreds of billions with ZERO oversight the sky would fall.

Now you can try to prove a negative, but that is a waste of time. Instead let's look at the promises Obama made about the Stimulus Act. Shovel ready jobs. BS Investing in infrastructure BS. Keeping unemployment down BS. Everything this president said was a lie, and he's joking about it.

The Stimulus Act didn't prevent economic collapse, unless you believe giving Goldman Sacs tens of billions at .01% interest rate achieved that.

Also, your president is ensuring that the unprecedented billion dollar campaign is going to be a norm now. The unlimited super pact organizations are being well exploited by the Democratic Party. Pot and kettle right?

You are mixing TARP and ARRA. TARP was Bush-era monetary policy. ARRA was Obama-era fiscal policy.

No I am not. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is what I was talking about. If you'd like I can post the congressional hearing where Ben Bernanke said that he didn't have to tell Congress where money from the ARRA went. Hell I can post the video of Obama making every single one of those broken promises.

 

[8537]

Fair is SUBJECTIVE... and of course those who earn less would readily take payment of their services from someone else, or even direct handouts at the expense of someone else... they think it is FAIR... while others will not think it is FAIR (namely the ones doing the paying)...

The key is EQUAL treatment... not only equal treatment when it benefits you... also not the acceptance of unequal treatment when it benefits you...

Oh... and nothing is stopping Gates nor Buffet nor anyone else from VOLUNTARILY giving the govt more...

Just say it then. You want to see the end of Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment benefits because you view them as unfair. The bottom line is that there are good people out there who use these programs and they are going to get screwed over if they get cut.

Nothing is stopping those 2 from giving the govt more but even if they did then it really wouldn't make a huge difference. Everybody who makes that much should be paying more and then it would make a difference.

Oh yes. We all want to see grandma homeless. This is the argument of the left and has been for decades.

The bottom line is those programs are going bankrupt. The fact of the matter is if you spread the debt out to each family in America each would owe $45,000--compared to Greece at $40,000--and raising taxes on the wealthy isn't going to solve our budget shortfalls.

In 1968 Congress allowed the 'temporary' spending of Social Security money. Before that it was actually put into savings. Well it wasn't temporary and the federal government has been spending, literally taking SS money out of your paycheck--if you have a paycheck--and spending it. Not really spending it, it has to go and pay the interest on our national debt.

Despite all your programming telling you it is the wealthy that has destroyed all these wonderful government programs, it is the government that did it.

The only solution is fixing the economy. Bottom line, raising taxes is counter-intuitive to that goal.

Social Security was never "put into savings". Even if the government wanted to do so, it has no mechanism for said savings. Before 1983 there were never any significant surpluses in the fund and revenues in a given year closely mimicked expenses. Small surpluses were carried forward as special treasuries but they were always used in the following year.

It was only with Reagan's decision to significantly increase the SS tax that we began to see sizable surpluses. With no mechanism for savings per se, the surpluses were exchanged for special treasuries that still sit in the trust fund.