posted on August 31, 2001 07:46:59 AM new
The big Bush budget lie was unveiled this week by the Congressional Budget Office. Let’s stop there for a moment. [b]There are two sources for budget information: the White House and the CBO. In any administration, one is partisan, the other is non-partisan. One cooks the books, the other reports the facts. No matter who is president, I'll trust the CBO over the White House. You should, too[b].
According to the CBO, the mighty U .S. surplus -- on which Bush’s across-the-board tax cut was based -- has melted quickly and dramatically, from a projected $275 billion in May to $153 billion today. That’s a loss of $122 billion in expected revenue in just 4 months.
Only one-third of that reduction, says the CBO, is due to the ongoing economic slowdown, but two-thirds of it disappeared in the Bush tax cut.
Making matters worse, almost every penny of that still-intact $153 billion isn’t really a government surplus, at all. It’s extra money collected by Social Security taxes. It’s that famous “lockbox” -- which every Republican and Democrat has promised never to steal from again, under pain of death, because it belongs to seniors and should not be tapped to pay for fixing potholes or paying government salaries.
But this year, the White House and the Congress will be forced to raid the lockbox. Just paying for current government obligations -- no new spending -- will require taking $9 billion from the Social Security surplus in the current fiscal year, $18 billion in 2003, and another $3 billion in 2004.
Dancing to explain how he managed to lead the country from A-OK to IOU in just 4 months, President Bush has come up with two answers, neither of them convincing. First, he blames the Congress for big spending. This is absolute nonsense. The only new money in the budget this year is for education and defense, both of which Bush asked for himself, and neither of which has yet been approved.
Next, Bush does what all Republicans do whenever there’s bad news. He blames Bill Clinton, arguing that Clinton’s policies caused the economy to decline, but that it will bounce back, as soon as the tax cut kicks in. Wrong again.
The eight Clinton years were a time of unprecedented economic growth, at the end of which came a natural slowdown.
But there’s no sign the Bush tax cut has re-stimulated the economy at all, so far.And, again, according to the CBO, the worst is yet to come, because the Bush tax cut grows over time, requiring even more money to be stolen from Social Security in the years ahead.
Which is just what George Bush promised never to do. As a candidate, he insisted there was enough money to cut taxes, increase military spending and pay for prescription drug benefits without dipping into the Social Security surplus. As president, he vowed he would never, never touch the Social Security surplus. He’s lucky his nose didn't grow.
The truth is, Bush has nobody to blame but himself. On a macro level, he made the same stupid mistake everyone of us, on the micro level, has learned to avoid. He spent money he didn't have. Worse yet, he gave away money the government didn't have. He pushed a tax cut through Congress without knowing how much money was in the bank. He squandered the surplus on an irresponsible tax cut. And now he has no choice but to steal from Social Security or go back to the days of deficit spending.
Which would you rather have, a president who lies about sex, or a president who lies about the budget? Frankly, I'd rather have a president who lies about nothing. But lying about the budget is a lot more serious than lying about sex, because it hurts a lot more people.
posted on August 31, 2001 11:08:48 AM new
Looks like there is still a surplus. Why exactly would you like to give your money to the government when they don't need it? If there is a surplus, the government has too much money. I personally would like to keep as much of my money as I can. I work hard for it.
posted on August 31, 2001 11:34:13 AM new
thecritterconnection, I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but why would there even be a hint of the Republicans wanting to dip into SS if they have all this surplus monies? Do you think it all adds up?
posted on August 31, 2001 11:35:37 AM new
There is no SS trust fund, as such. There is no lockbox. All SS money collected finds it's way into the general accounts fund.
posted on August 31, 2001 11:51:22 AM new
The government like most people and corperations don't speak to the senior citizens with any respect as if they can understand the complexities of funding. So they speak in generalities that are often
plain out and out lies. The old people are too stupid after all - They think the cash money get dumped in a big iron lock box with a slot in top like a piggy bank - right?
I would get more upset with them for thinking the public in general is stupid - but we do keep electing them don't we?
posted on August 31, 2001 11:59:29 AM new
Not quite true, Tex1, but almost. Nevertheless, it's politically dangerous, maybe even suicidal to be perceived as the raider of the social security systems ability to remain viable and solvent.
posted on August 31, 2001 12:13:08 PM new
This may sound harsh, but I am a Gen-Xer and don't believe in Social Security. There was no SS prior to WWII and it seems people were able to live. They relied upon themselves or their families. I would much rather have all of the taxes taken out for SS given to me directly to invest in my own retirement.
I am sure this is not popular with those that believe that it is not necessary to provide for themselves in their retirement. I don't believe in Medicare or Medicaid either. Pay for your own insurance, I don't feel that generous to pay for your problems.
I believe in personal responsibility for yourselves, and that the government has been taking care of too many people for too long.
I plan to work until I die, and many my age feel the same way. There is no free ride retirement. I will save my money, and try to invest wisely for my future.
posted on August 31, 2001 12:17:45 PM new
thecc - if you invested a big chunk of your money for your retirement, but the Trust Company went T/U, would you be angry? This isn't a free ride, it's an investment that might come in handy for alot of folks. The word "trust" is starting to disintigrate in our society.....
posted on August 31, 2001 12:55:24 PM new
What's giving me both the biggest chuckles and the biggest headaches is the way that the positions held by the two parties and the accusations leveled at them both have reversed over time. It was not so long ago was it that Democrats were seen as Economic Disaster Makers and Republicans were a sure bet to a sound economy. How things have changed! Now, if you want to have a Balanced Budget and a sound economy, you elect Democrats to run the government. If you want to destroy the economy and wind up borrowing into your great-great-great grandchildren's future - just vote Republican.
I think that this was always a misconception. I think that Democrats, however they may want to redistribute the wealth to people, have always been much more fiscally responsible than Republicans have been. It is just another lie of the Republican Blather Machine generated to fool conservative voters into putting them into power.
But it is not always the political parties that are at fault for the misconceptions of voters. For a long while there, many voters and media proposed this fantasy that Democrats take the tax money and redistribute it to "unworthy lazy low-lifers"; while on the other hand, Republicans merely wanted to get into power so that they could stop that practice AND reduce government spending and taxation. What the Republican voter has to face now is the reality - Democrats spend tax money on the general population and Republicans funnel tax money to the Rich and Powerful. The tragedy is that this is always the way that is has been.
If you want the government to spend less money, you have to stop sending them so much AND you have to prevent them from borrowing money as well. You do that, and you'll get a Balanced Budget and lower taxes. But PLEASE - no more of this nonsense about how the Republican Party is out there to protect YOUR money and give it back to you - they're out there protecting your money FROM you!
Don't jump on me for having said that! What do you think that we send politicians into office for? Do you think that we send them into office just to vote on bills and other legislation and never touch a penny in taxes? Bills and legislation need money - lots and lot'sa money! The more work that our politicians do, the more it costs us every year.
sp.
[ edited by Borillar on Aug 31, 2001 12:56 PM ]
posted on August 31, 2001 12:59:15 PM new
thecritterconnection
My husband and I did make plans for our retirement and those plans include Social Security payments. We're in our fifties. Our money is invested in stocks, real estate, his retirement account from his past job,a diversified account from his present employer, and a variety of piddling things like art and gold which we didn't purchase as investments. What's your solution for people my age? We took Social Security payments into account when we figured out when my husband could retire.
posted on August 31, 2001 02:19:11 PM new
saabsister:
I am not planning for your retirement. There will be no retirement for people my age, under 30. We will be working for the rest of our lives. If you plan on retiring, then you should be living on your own investments. Why should you then be living off of my social security payments, when I am working to put them in?
This may sound harsh to some, but look at it from the younger generation's point of view. I work full-time, and have my two of my own businesses. I see way too many people living off of the state, while I work very, very hard for what I have.
I believe in paying the goverment what is necessary to run the government, and nothing more. Does it make sense to give them more money than they need?
If my investments fail, then it is my problem. I have diversified my portfolio to minimize the risk as much as possible, and I don't look forward to retiring. I plan to work as long as I can, and then I will live off of what I have.
It would seem that many people assume the government is going to take care of them? Where is that written that this is a given?
posted on August 31, 2001 02:26:26 PM new
I guess you could say that I am Libertarian.
Or may just really tired from working way too many hours, and packing up packages. Luckily, the work day is almost over, and it has been really slow here.
posted on August 31, 2001 02:31:24 PM new
There were also many people who didn't die penniless at 60. This is where the personal decisions that you make in your life come to play. You make poor decisions, then you pay the price. Make good decisions, profit from them. Personal accountability. I just think that people need to take care of themselves. Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, etc. You also didn't talk about retiring back then either. You worked until you died. Retirement appears to be kind of lazy to me. Just because you reach a certain age, you don't have to work for your income anymore. Seems strange to me.
posted on August 31, 2001 02:32:29 PM new
thecritterconnection...
I'm an Independent...leaning toward Libertarian, myself. There are a lot of problems in it for me, though.
As saabsister pointed out...many folks have been paying into SS their entire working lives, with the expectation that what they were told, would come to pass. It would be a true horror, should that rug that they've paid for, and are standing on trustingly, should be yanked away. I'm in the same age group so I speak for myself, as well.
I am sure that baby boomers, etc, may have been planning for this, and I am pretty sure that they will get their money. But, I and you will be subsidizing them. We will be paying our taxes, that we have no real say in. There will be nothing for us and the younger ones. I don't plan on SS, and I plan to work forever.
Maybe it is because I got the paystub today, and I saw all of the SS money taken out. I could easily be investing this in ways that will earn me more money later, or paying down debt. Luckily, I have the businesses for extra investing and debt reduction.
posted on August 31, 2001 03:16:50 PM new
thecritterconnection, maybe there's 2 separate issues here - one is whether people should be saving more for their retirement and not relying so much on the government, and the other is whether people, that have paid into a SS trust fund their whole working careers, should be able to draw from that fund when they retire.
posted on August 31, 2001 03:35:32 PM new
thecritterconnection
You sound as though you've made some sound decisions about your investments. We old folks have seen stocks and real estate founder before so a pension and SS become a buffer - and to some people, everything. I've seen a lot of people your age around here(DC) that can already retire and if their fortunes hold, I'll bet they will. On the other hand, I'll bet most of your fellow Gen-Xers are no more knowledgable about stocks than my generation is. If they lose in the stock market what will happen to them. No fair saying "Let them starve". If that ever becomes a commonplace fate, you'd better have money for bodyguards because things will get ugly.
posted on August 31, 2001 03:52:02 PM new
Yes, Helen, maybe you're on to something. I should have done one of those searches that I don't do often enough. It's an interesting problem nonetheless even when presented with the pat generational arguments from both sides.
posted on August 31, 2001 04:43:15 PM new
Some of us baby boomers have been downsized out of our jobs numerous times and cheated out of our company pensions. We have not much left but SS. What would you have us do? I will be working till I die too because SS will not be enough.Not my fault it just is. It could happen to you as well. When we were young there were no private pension funds, in fact we were penalized for trying to save that kind of money and it was all taxed. You are lucky to have options. My bills would all be paid too if I hadn't paid SS all these years.But I have.I don't feel bad about it.I am sorry that you do.
My children are both GenXers. They are both in the trades and as long as the unions stick around they will have good pensions. They are both planning on retiring before they are 60. Why can't you do the same? Why would you, as young as you are, feel that you will have to work till you die? I don't understand. You're generation is the first one to be given all these options. Take them and retire young.
My kids, thank goodness, would never complain about the money they pay into SS. They understand that some will need it desperatly when they are old.
posted on August 31, 2001 05:43:50 PM new
Good thing she wanted you to post that artsupplies
critterconnection you are someone the rest of these kids (kids meaning the other generation X's and now the echo boomers ) need to look to. You've done very well for yourself.
posted on August 31, 2001 06:22:39 PM new
In my oh-so-humble opinion...
There is an element of selfishness attached to those who do not want to pay "their" hard-earned monies into Social Security.
They say they want to be responsible for their own financial future, but what I am hearing is they should not have to be responsible for anyone else, especially the elderly:
People who did not have the options of 401Ks and IRAs for most of their working lives, if at all.
People who were the first to be let go during company downsizings because of the pay they had earned for umpteen loyal years and (though they deny it) age.
People who lost their pensions and medical coverage when companies went belly-up.
Women who made only a fraction of what men were making for the same jobs. (Even in these enlightened times, that is still the case).
Women whose priority was their family, not the biggest house, newest cars and a meager pay that went to daycare for someone else to raise their children.
As for investments...
Not much left over for investing when you are paying a mortgage and all the expenses that go with homeownership; raising children and all that that entails; paying college tuitions, etc.
Only after all that are a lot of people able to start investing for their futures.
Never, in my working years, did I ever hear anyone complain about paying any of their hard-earned monies into Social Security.
Never did I hear anyone begrudge the elderly who collected "our" hard-earned monies from Social Security.
Maybe we were more respectful of the elderly.
Am I rambling?
BTW, what age group would be considered a Gen-Xer? I really don't know.
posted on August 31, 2001 06:44:03 PM new
Hi,arttsupplies. Yes, if one of those breaks a leg, it's no small matter. And if someone fell from one of those, a hospital stay may prove expensive. Unless the rider could pay with her own cash, I bet the rest of us poor slobs would be paying for it through our insurance.
[ edited by saabsister on Aug 31, 2001 06:45 PM ]
posted on August 31, 2001 07:23:30 PM new
Back to the topic -
TheCritterConnection - You are a very intelligent young person and if you were my son I would be very proud of you!! Your thinking is so clear and concise, if only others would think like you maybe we could do away with some of these financial 'they owe it to me' mentalities.
