The Bush Tax Cuts got us in this mess:

[expat_panama]

"...why is the debt not paid in full as Greenspan clearly said it would be...

Huh, I must have missed that one. I'd sure like to see how Greenspan said the national debt would be paid in full by now, please tell me where you found that one.

does it matter?? he said it before 9/11, two wars, housing depression, and a communist president.

I've no idea why GreatDay asked, but I'm curious about what Greenspan said. Sure, Greenspan was totally wrong on so many things, but he did somehow managed to convince others on policy a lot.

 

[GreatDay]

Huh, I must have missed that one. I'd sure like to see how Greenspan said the national debt would be paid in full by now, please tell me where you found that one.

does it matter?? he said it before 9/11, two wars, housing depression, and a communist president.

I've no idea why GreatDay asked, but I'm curious about what Greenspan said. Sure, Greenspan was totally wrong on so many things, but he did somehow managed to convince others on policy a lot.

Here it is pulled from the top, forgot this was all short bus folks on this site figures ran by con mods:

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”


“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”


Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001


So you guys really think Greenspan was predicting more clam than we had ever seen? Are you all saying Bush should have raised taxes when he went to war?

 

[BillyV]

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

calling $800 billion waste is your opinion.

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

i don't think they should keep money we need to run the government out of government hands. and, frankly, i'm not all that interested in cutting things that only affect the middle and working classes unless and until the top 1% do their share or they cut the military budget.

TARP was signed by bush. should that be attributed to this president?

No. Obama should only get blame for the TARP money he spent. Like the auto portion. Should the Obama stimulus be attributed to Bush?

again, the problem is cutting our own income flow.

Great. How much did the tax cuts reduce government income flow?

i think he did the right thing with the auto bailout. we got most of the money bank. the industry is thriving. and we probably saved a couple of million jobs.

i fail to see why that shouldn't get him kudo's.

according to the information i found, this is the current cost of tax cuts for the top 5%:

$1,121,871,274,753

Calculating the cost of the Bush tax cuts - The Washington Post
Cost of Tax Cuts for the Wealthiest Americans Since 2001 | Cost of Tax Cuts

That's probably true, but the real money is not being saved by the 1% or the 5%, but by the middle class. When they considered the cost of extending the "Bush" tax cuts (now by his signing the extension the "Obama" tax cuts) in 2010, they estimated a 10 year cost of $3.3 trillion; $2.2 trillion of that was for individuals earning less than $200,000 and couples earning less than $250,000. So on the theory that we have to restore "our own income flow", shouldn't we roll back all the reductions on extension from 2001 and 2003? I mean, taxes are good, right?

 

[expat_panama]

...why is the debt not paid in full as Greenspan clearly said it would be...

--and what Greenspan actually said was--

...the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions...

...budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly...

My take is that he saw problems with the balanced budget. Big problems.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

...why is the debt not paid in full as Greenspan clearly said it would be...

--and what Greenspan actually said was--

...the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions...

...budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly...

My take is that he saw problems with the balanced budget. Big problems.

I thought he was worried about budget surpluses rather than balanced budgets?

 

[GreatDay]

...why is the debt not paid in full as Greenspan clearly said it would be...

--and what Greenspan actually said was--

...the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions...

...budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly...

My take is that he saw problems with the balanced budget. Big problems.

yep I think he had a problem with America paying off it's debt, because that would reduce the power of the bankers and bond holders...

 

[expat_panama]

...what Greenspan actually said was--

...budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly...

My take is that he saw problems with the balanced budget. Big problems.

I thought he was worried about budget surpluses rather than balanced budgets?

No, GreatDay nailed it:

...he had a problem with America paying off it's debt, because that would reduce the power of the bankers and bond holders...

Exactly. The government pays off its debt with funds gained by confiscating private wealth. That takes power and wealth away from free individual American people and puts it in the hands of thugs that have taken control of the state.

Hey don't get me wrong, I like the thugs that've taken over Washington as much as the next guy but as Greenspan pointed out, those way those guys do things can be "quite costly".

 

[GreatDay]

No, GreatDay nailed it:[/uote=GreatDay;5870431]...he had a problem with America paying off it's debt, because that would reduce the power of the bankers and bond holders...

Exactly. The government pays off its debt with funds gained by confiscating private wealth. That takes power and wealth away from free individual American people and puts it in the hands of thugs that have taken control of the state.

[/QUOTEHey don't get me wrong, I like the thugs that've taken over Washington as much as the next guy but as Greenspan pointed out, those way those guys do things can be "quite costly".

So you prefer the thugs that no body voted for? I admit we don't get the best people given that the trust fund babies have been picking them out for us, and as I said in my piece “Why am I a Liberal?” trust fund babies are always getting conned, that's how Republican get elected conning trust fund babies, so we need public funding for public elections, so that the people with the power listen to the people. Take the power from the bankers that no body voted for , get the money out of politics, so the people in Washington will do good for the people not just the trust fund babies.


You use the word confiscation a lot, do know how I can stop the bank from confiscating money from me every month they say they will take my house if I don’t let them confiscate my money.


It would almost seem that you think the rich are some separate people that they aren’t Americans or something, really weird you guys that hate even the ideal of a free people running their own country. Would you feel better if the President inherited his position like the trust fund babies you are so afraid might have to go to work if we decide we are not going to let daddy make them the boss of us.


Oh by the way it is not The Government's debt it is our debt, people often like to think it's somebody else's problem, and we should pay it off with our money it's a smart way to run things.

 

[expat_panama]

...budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly...

...Hey don't get me wrong, I like the thugs that've taken over Washington as much as the next guy but as Greenspan pointed out, those way those guys do things can be "quite costly".

So you prefer the thugs that no body voted for? ...

Let's think together on this a minute.

We're talking about Greenspan's "a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government" and those things are run by Treas. Sec Geithner, Fed. Chairman Bernanke, etc. --folks nobody voted for-- so we're talking economics, not votes. We all know that governments taking over private wealth in a big way (think countries like Cuba, North Korea, the former USSR) go bankrupt.

 

[BillyV]

So you prefer the thugs that no body voted for? I admit we don't get the best people given that the trust fund babies have been picking them out for us, and as I said in my piece “Why am I a Liberal?” trust fund babies are always getting conned, that's how Republican get elected conning trust fund babies, so we need public funding for public elections, so that the people with the power listen to the people. Take the power from the bankers that no body voted for , get the money out of politics, so the people in Washington will do good for the people not just the trust fund babies.


You use the word confiscation a lot, do know how I can stop the bank from confiscating money from me every month they say they will take my house if I don’t let them confiscate my money.

Only government can “confiscate” your money without your permission. Don’t want the bank to ask for mortgage payments? Here’s a thought; don’t borrow money to buy a house! Don’t blame the bank for asking you to honor an agreement you entered into of your own free will. Remember, without the bank most people wouldn’t be able to own a house without many years of saving; then you could spend your time hating the evil, greedy landlords and the “Rent’s Too Damn High” party would be a national contender.

It would almost seem that you think the rich are some separate people that they aren’t Americans or something, really weird you guys that hate even the ideal of a free people running their own country. Would you feel better if the President inherited his position like the trust fund babies you are so afraid might have to go to work if we decide we are not going to let daddy make them the boss of us.

You apparently have serious envy issues. Is your boss’s son “the boss of you?”

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, GreatDay nailed it:[/uote=GreatDay;5870431]...he had a problem with America paying off it's debt, because that would reduce the power of the bankers and bond holders...

Exactly. The government pays off its debt with funds gained by confiscating private wealth. That takes power and wealth away from free individual American people and puts it in the hands of thugs that have taken control of the state.

[/QUOTEHey don't get me wrong, I like the thugs that've taken over Washington as much as the next guy but as Greenspan pointed out, those way those guys do things can be "quite costly".

So you prefer the thugs that no body voted for? I admit we don't get the best people given that the trust fund babies have been picking them out for us, and as I said in my piece “Why am I a Liberal?” trust fund babies are always getting conned, that's how Republican get elected conning trust fund babies, so we need public funding for public elections, so that the people with the power listen to the people. Take the power from the bankers that no body voted for , get the money out of politics, so the people in Washington will do good for the people not just the trust fund babies.


You use the word confiscation a lot, do know how I can stop the bank from confiscating money from me every month they say they will take my house if I don’t let them confiscate my money.


It would almost seem that you think the rich are some separate people that they aren’t Americans or something, really weird you guys that hate even the ideal of a free people running their own country. Would you feel better if the President inherited his position like the trust fund babies you are so afraid might have to go to work if we decide we are not going to let daddy make them the boss of us.


Oh by the way it is not The Government's debt it is our debt, people often like to think it's somebody else's problem, and we should pay it off with our money it's a smart way to run things.

get the money out of politics

Get the government out of the economy.

 

[GreatDay]

Exactly. The government pays off its debt with funds gained by confiscating private wealth. That takes power and wealth away from free individual American people and puts it in the hands of thugs that have taken control of the state.

[/QUOTEHey don't get me wrong, I like the thugs that've taken over Washington as much as the next guy but as Greenspan pointed out, those way those guys do things can be "quite costly".

So you prefer the thugs that no body voted for? I admit we don't get the best people given that the trust fund babies have been picking them out for us, and as I said in my piece “Why am I a Liberal?” trust fund babies are always getting conned, that's how Republican get elected conning trust fund babies, so we need public funding for public elections, so that the people with the power listen to the people. Take the power from the bankers that no body voted for , get the money out of politics, so the people in Washington will do good for the people not just the trust fund babies.


You use the word confiscation a lot, do know how I can stop the bank from confiscating money from me every month they say they will take my house if I don’t let them confiscate my money.


It would almost seem that you think the rich are some separate people that they aren’t Americans or something, really weird you guys that hate even the ideal of a free people running their own country. Would you feel better if the President inherited his position like the trust fund babies you are so afraid might have to go to work if we decide we are not going to let daddy make them the boss of us.


Oh by the way it is not The Government's debt it is our debt, people often like to think it's somebody else's problem, and we should pay it off with our money it's a smart way to run things.

get the money out of politics

Get the government out of the economy.

Get the government out of the economy

Starting with patent law and ending with shoplifting!! hear Hear you are a true communist my friend!!!

 

[Sallow]

Bush is responsible for Obama deficits?

Yeah?

This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard

Yeah..he is.

The reality based community knows what happened before 2009.

 

[GreatDay]

Bush is responsible for Obama deficits?

Yeah?

This new learning amazes me, Brother Maynard

Yeah..he is.

The reality based community knows what happened before 2009.

Those were the days, my friend we thought they'd never end…

BBC News | The Economy | US to buy back national debt

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so the people in Washington will do good for the people not just the trust fund babies.

are you a communist?? Our country was founded on the idea of freedom from the people in Washington!!! We want to be free of them as our Founders intended, not waiting like helpless children for them to kill us with their good intentions.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So you prefer the thugs that no body voted for? I admit we don't get the best people given that the trust fund babies have been picking them out for us, and as I said in my piece “Why am I a Liberal?” trust fund babies are always getting conned, that's how Republican get elected conning trust fund babies, so we need public funding for public elections, so that the people with the power listen to the people. Take the power from the bankers that no body voted for , get the money out of politics, so the people in Washington will do good for the people not just the trust fund babies.


You use the word confiscation a lot, do know how I can stop the bank from confiscating money from me every month they say they will take my house if I don’t let them confiscate my money.


It would almost seem that you think the rich are some separate people that they aren’t Americans or something, really weird you guys that hate even the ideal of a free people running their own country. Would you feel better if the President inherited his position like the trust fund babies you are so afraid might have to go to work if we decide we are not going to let daddy make them the boss of us.


Oh by the way it is not The Government's debt it is our debt, people often like to think it's somebody else's problem, and we should pay it off with our money it's a smart way to run things.

get the money out of politics

Get the government out of the economy.

Get the government out of the economy

Starting with patent law and ending with shoplifting!! hear Hear you are a true communist my friend!!!

We can keep the patent office, 90% of the rest of it can go away.

 

[GreatDay]

get the money out of politics

Get the government out of the economy.

Get the government out of the economy

Starting with patent law and ending with shoplifting!! hear Hear you are a true communist my friend!!!

We can keep the patent office, 90% of the rest of it can go away.

Oh so that's the kind of con you are you don't really want to cut government you just want to limit government to doing the things you want it to do, I bet you're OK with having 2 million people in prison too you don't think we should pull back a little on trying to micromanage people's lives do you? I know you think you're a King the wealthy shouldn't pay taxes but the poor should do as they are told, I have chatted with a number of cons they pretty much all feel the same, the government is there to do the will of the rich and keep the people in line.

 

[GreatDay]

YO expat-panama

--that according to Abraham Lincoln most quotes on the internet are made up.

Are you suggesting that I have been inaccurate in my memory?

How much of your rep are you willing to risk?

Do you want to admit you know nothing of such an important testimony?

As far as your chart goes, what mystery is there in cutting cap gains and watching the pigs feed?

Do you come here to mislead often?

How much of his rep?

You must be a sock.

And I think I know whose sock you are.

Idiot.

No capacity for thought, just insults?

What a poor and vacant life you must lead.

Here's your stupid quote, now kiss my ass bitch:

“The most recent projections from OMB and CBO indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach about $800 billion in fiscal year 2010, including an on-budget surplus of almost $500 billion. Moreover, the admittedly quite uncertain long-term budget exercises released by the CBO last October maintain an implicit on-budget surplus under baseline assumptions well past 2030 despite the budgetary pressures from the aging of the baby-boom generation, especially on the major health programs.

These most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach and, indeed, would occur well before the end of the decade under baseline assumptions. This is in marked contrast to the perception of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade. But continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically, nonfederal) assets.

At zero debt, the continuing unified budget surpluses now projected under current law imply a major accumulation of private assets by the federal government. Such an accumulation would make the federal government a significant factor in our nation's capital markets and would risk significant distortion in the allocation of capital to its most productive uses. Such a distortion could be quite costly, as it is our extraordinarily effective allocation process that has enabled such impressive increases in productivity and standards of living despite a relatively low domestic saving rate.”


“Returning to the broader fiscal picture, I continue to believe, as I have testified previously, that all else being equal, a declining level of federal debt is desirable because it holds down long-term real interest rates, thereby lowering the cost of capital and elevating private investment. The rapid capital deepening that has occurred in the U.S. economy in recent years is a testament to these benefits. But the sequence of upward revisions to the budget surplus projections for several years now has reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.
Indeed, in almost any credible baseline scenario, short of a major and prolonged economic contraction, the full benefits of debt reduction are now achieved well before the end of this decade--a prospect that did not seem reasonable only a year or even six months ago. Thus, the emerging key fiscal policy need is now to address the implications of maintaining surpluses beyond the point at which publicly held debt is effectively eliminated.”


Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan
Current fiscal issues
Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives
March 2, 2001

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the government is there to do the will of the rich and keep the people in line.

the will of the rich is sort of sacred. In a Republican capitalist society Steve Jobs got rich by doing what he did. The poor don't make contributions like that. The rich got us from the stone age to here by serving humanity, the poor merely leech off the rich.

 

[edthecynic]

the government is there to do the will of the rich and keep the people in line.

the will of the rich is sort of sacred. In a Republican capitalist society Steve Jobs got rich by doing what he did. The poor don't make contributions like that. The rich got us from the stone age to here by serving humanity, the poor merely leech off the rich.

That's Right, those military leeches who defend the right of private ownership for the rich make no contribution to society in a Republican Capitalistic society.