| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2005/2/16-17 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Domestic/SocialSecurity] UID:36203 Activity:very high |
2/16 How do the Republicans on the motd think about this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4805078,00.html
Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security
\_ What bullshit. Bush'll raise taxes for Social Security, but
the money will actually go to fund the Iraq war and other
budget needs, just like the current Social Security surplus.
Yes, that's right: SS tax brings in more money than SS
beneficiaries receive, and Congress spends the rest and gives
the SS system an IOU--which will never be paid because when
the IOU comes due, we won't have enough tax base to pay it.
Spending has to be cut. Period. --PeterM
\_ The SS surplus by law is used to buy T-bonds. Currently the
SS program has trillions in t-bonds and will continue to accumulate
more until 2018 or so. After that the SS program will start cashing
in the t-bonds to pay benifits.
\_ I don't think you are a republican, but thanks for your
input anyway. -op
\_ Didn't I sound like a Republican? --PeterM
\_ No, a loyal Republican would support private accounts and
be opposed to any across the board increase in the
payroll tax.
\_ You sure about that? If what you were saying were true, "IOU
... will never be paid ... enough tax base", don't you think
Dubya would be saying it would be a lot EARLIER than 2042 when
we'd be in trouble? I believe we start drawing on the "IOUs"
as early as 2010.
as early as 2018.
\_ He is: "Some in our country think that Social Security is a
trust fund -- in other words, there's a pile of money being
accumulated. That's just simply not true. The money -- payroll
taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent
on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is
no trust. We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what
goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in
-- what's coming out is greater than what's going in. It says
we've got a problem. And we'd better start dealing with it now.
The longer we wait, the harder it is to fix the problem."
- Bush 2/9/2005 http://csua.org/u/b3g (whitehouse.gov)
\_ Thanks. Okay, Dubya does mention 2018 in saying "we've
got a problem". And from what you posted, Dubya is
saying the trust fund does not have "a pile of money being
accumulated".
So I ask you, peterm, and Dubya, will those government
bonds "never be paid" -- never be redeemed?
Someone please answer question below:
Question: Has the U.S. ever redeemed any of the government bonds
that surpluses have been used to purchase?
\_ have you ever redeemed IOUs you wrote to yourself? SS is
a fraud ponzi scheme. If I, as an individual, tried to
sell this kind 'insurance' plan I would be put in jail.
\_ "The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred
for payment of pensions and bounties for services
in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall
not be questioned."
Why do you hate America?
\_ You would also be put in jail if you overthrew a foreign
government. This is a stupid argument.
\_ You and peterm are saying:
U.S. economy + U.S. government bonds
== Your personal finances + IOUs you write yourself
... when in fact the above equation is a myth.
Since this is an important topic, I'll start a new motd
thread on another day (sorry, got a lot of work - can't
monitor the motd today). -the "You sure about that?" guy
\_ Bush is the one spending all the damned money. Of course
he doesn't want to come clean.
\_ Bush is brilliant! -conservative
\_ You misspelled 'Republican'.
\_ Will benefits also be raised? I doubt the plan is for high
income to pay more in and get the same back out.
\_ How is this different than what Kerry proposed, which is pretty
much distributing wealth from the wealthy to the poor?
\_ Republicans aren't supposed to be raising taxes, at all,
especially since this is Bush Jr.
... Read my lips!
\_ FUCK POOR PEOPLE! Maybe if we cut their benefits enough of
them will FUCKING STARVE and not hold our mighty economy back!
\_ if there are not poor people, then the middle class becomes
the poor people.
\_ I am not really interested in hearing what Republicans think
about Kerry. I already know that. -op
\_ I'm irritated at this. I'd rather see bigger cuts to the federal
budget. But then I'd also like to see the borders secured. Those
are the two things that make conservatives scratch their collective
heads about GW. -emarkp
\_ you can't fight a war and then cut taxes and balance the budget,
something has got to give, and in this case his rich friends
(ppl making over 90K) are getting fucked. Now they can only
afford to buy BMW 500s for their kids instead of BMW 740is.
\_ 90K/year is rich? Are you a troll? No one making 90k/year
can afford a 740is, kids, mortgage, etc. Try some math.
\_ 90K/year anywhere other than SFBA, LA, or NYC puts you
nicely well off, able to afford a house, save for
retirement, and leverage into real estate/entrepreneurship.
It's not rich, but for most of the nation is upper middle
class.
\_ The rich friends aren't worried about payroll taxes. They're
sitting pretty with dividend and capital gains cuts, not to
mention lower attention on tax avoidance.
\_ Your assumption is that cutting tax rates reduces revenue.
That is not necessarily theoretically true, and isn't actually
true in GWB's case. I've charted the last 100 months of
income/expense (from cbo.gov) and while revenue dropped
dramatically post-9/11, we've increased year-to-year for the
past 2 years. Tax revenue is actually above 1997/1998 levels.
-emarkp
\_ This is silly. Tax revenue _should_ increase year to
year. Why? Because the economy grows year to year. It is
rare for the economy to not have a net gain over the whole
year, and even rarer for it to not have a net gain over
two years. The 2004 economy _should_ be larger than the
1997 economy. That's 7 years. On average the economy has
grown ~3 pct(iirc) per year. That's 21 pct growth since
1997, assuming the boom/bust years even out.
\_ Except the predictions were that the Bush's economic
policy would destroy the economy, 9/11 was a serious
blow, and the tax cuts lowered the revenue in theory.
-emarkp
\_ Not destroy the economy right away, duh. Def-i-cit.
\_ Deficit/GDP is lower than 1990-1993 years.
\_ It is true that it is lower than the worst
period since WWII. It is the second worst.
\_ Tax cuts did lower the revenue, look at the numbers
below. The economy was not destroyed. Yes, it
entered recession, but overall, growth occurred from
2000-2004. The key is that _despite_ economic
growth almost equal to the Clinton boom years, gvmt
tax revenue dropped SUBSTANTIALLY. Ergo, in
actuality, tax cuts reduce tax revenue.
\_ "From 1996 to 2000 GDP grew by $2 trillion, and tax
revenues grew by $550 billion. From 2000 to 2004 GDP
grew by $1.9 trillion, but tax revenues declined by
$143 billion. What changed? We had roughly the same
level of economic activity. If tax cuts lead to more
federal revenue, shouldn't $1.9 trillion in growth
have yielded more than $550 billion in new tax revenue,
and not a $143 billion decline?" -Former conservative,
now liberal economist. All numbers from Chamber of
Commerce and CBO.
\_ Good reference, and thanks for pointing it out:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html
Includes tax revenue as percentage of GDP. I had no
idea it has been hovering near 20% since WW2. That's
amazing and horrifying. -emarkp
\_ Add in state taxes and the total government take
is more like 30%. But still lower than every other
member of the OECD. -ausman
\_ So you have discovered tax revenues fall when
the economy enters a cyclical downturn after a
bubble market, and after the World Trade centers
are destroyed which send the economy reeling,
and that tax revenues fall in a war based economy.
Congratulations for this perspicacious revelation.
You should rename yourself former conservative
liberal economist who is also stupid.
\_ Can you even read? 4 year period. Same economic
growth: ~1.9-2 trillion dollars. Cyclical economy,
bubble economy, 9/11 should have _nothing_ to
do with it. If the economy grows the exact same
amount, why in the world would any of your factors
affect tax revenue? The _only_ thing affecting
tax revenue, after economic growth is the Bush
tax cut.
\_ Well, it's simple. Bush's morals inspired more
ppl to take him as a role model and cheat on
their taxes.
\_ three words you may have heard of and were
alluded to in my post: capital gains, bubble
\_ The shortfall has to do with capital gains,
but only because GW Bush cut cap. gains and
dividend taxes. If you think the difference
in capital gains taxes(at an equal level of
taxation) comes out to $700 billion, you're
crazy. Prove it. Meanwhile, I'll say that
the bulk of that $700 billion tax revenue
shortfall is due to Dubya's tax cut.
\_ Tax revenue is up, but interest rates are still abnormally
loose, and the tax cuts have not fully hit yet. Also, the
promise of yet more money into military action and cutting
meat rather than fat is going to make continuing these
trends difficult if not impossible. State and local
governments are trying to pick up the slack while already
bankrupt. I can't remember which agency (maybe gao)
governments are trying to pick up the slack while heading
for bankruptcy. I can't remember which agency (maybe gao)
reported that if the tax cuts were made permanent, by 2024
the only thing the fed gov could afford would be debt
interest.
\_ this is nice, but would be much better and more convincing
to us stupid liberals if it came from someone other than
religious right conservatives.
\_ Then track it yourself. sheesh. -!pp
\_ All the data is at:
http://www.cbo.gov/byclasscat.cfm?cat=35
Where I couldn't find a simple line-item for monthly
income or expense, I used the estimated value.
I've uploaded the data to /csua/tmp in OpenOffice and MS
Excel format. Check it yourself. Let me know if there
I've uploaded the data to /csua/tmp in OpenOffice
format. Check it yourself. Let me know if there
are errors.
/csua/tmp/bud_1997_to_Present.sxc
/csua/tmp/bud_1997_to_Present.xls
-emarkp
\- Can you do this back to 1990? Also, are these
inflation adujusted? ok thx.
\_ Historical data:
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0
I don't think any of the numbers are inflation
adjusted. Do you have a handy inflation table?
[Found one. I included inflation and remove the .xls
file. Use OpenOffice.]
-emarkp
\_ Haha, this remark made my day. -- ilyas |
| 5/25 |
|
| www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4805078,00.html UP Bush May Raise Taxes for Social Security Wednesday February 16, 2005 8:31 PM AP Photo NHPM105A By LAURA MECKLER Associated Press Writer PORTSMOUTH, NH (AP) - President Bush is not ruling out raising taxes on people who earn more than $90,000 as a way to help fix Social Security' s finances. At the same time, he renewed his pitch Wednesday for Congress to approve an overhaul that would include Social Security private accounts for many workers. He told 2,000 people in an airport terminal that rich and poor alike should have a chance to invest in the stock market. Asked directly, Bush said he would not bar raising the $90,000 cap, altho ugh he does not want to see the payroll tax rate go up. The one thing I'm not open-minded about is raising the payroll tax rate . White House spokesman Trent Duffy said raising the cap on Social Security taxes is just one option among many being advocated. Just because he said it was an option doesn't mean he embraced it,'' Du ffy added. Under the current system, payroll taxes are paid only on the first $90,00 0 in wages. That ceiling rises each year with inflation - last year it w as $87,100. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and other lawmakers have argued that Bush's plan for personal accounts, which will cost more than $1 trillion up fro nt, would be more attractive to Democrats if it is financed by raising t axes on the wealthy. If Congress did nothing but lift the cap entirely and therefore subjected all wages to the tax, Social Security would be financially balanced for 75 years, though the system would again face trouble after that, accord ing to one economic analysis. In New Hampshire, Bush vowed to continue to travel the country, convincin g Americans the system needs fixing. He hopes they will, in turn, persua de their congressional delegation to act. I'm going to talk to the American people over and over and over again u ntil the members of Congress recognize we have a problem,'' Bush said. It's a case he must continue to make, said Senate Finance Committee Chair man Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. |
| csua.org/u/b3g -> www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050209-15.html Thanks for leaving the private sec tor to come to Washington, and bring your family here to serve our count ry. You're going to be -- he's going to be a great Secretary. And for th ose of you here who work in the Commerce Department, you're lucky to hav e him as a boss. Senator Hatch, and Senator Cornyn, from the great state of Tex as, are leaders when it comes to legal reform. Congressman Bob Goodlatte from the great state of Virginia is with us, as well. We're honored three members took time out to come and hear this, what I think is a vital discussion about how to make America the best place in the world to do business. We're going to ha ve an interesting discussion about why we need to do something about cla ss-action lawsuits. I do want to put it in the larger context, though, about why we even ough t to take on this issue. As Carlos said, lawsuits are -- a litigious soc iety is one that makes it difficult for capital to flow freely. And a ca pitalist society depends on the capacity for people willing to take risk and to say there's a better future, and I want to take a risk toward th at future. And I'm deeply concerned that too many lawsuits make it too d ifficult for people to do that. And so I've called upon Congress to work with the administration on legal reform, whether it be to reform the asbestos litigation issue or medica l liability reform to make sure medicine is cost-effective to our citize ns, or whether it be class-action reform. Legal reform is part of a larg er agenda to make sure this economy of ours continues to grow. As you know, last month, in the month of January, t his country created 146,000 new jobs. But it's important for the Co ngress to work with the administration to keep this progress going. And so legal reform is part of a strategy for economic vitality and growth. I'm not surprised some people are yelling about it alre ady. But it is a budget that is lean and effective and says we'll spend money on programs that work. And I look forward to working with Congress to get that budget passed. We've been debating it fo r too long and now is the time for action. I believe that Congress has heard the message from the people that, let's work together to encourage conservation and renew able sources of energy, and let's spend money wisely on new technologies , and why don't we promote clean and safe nuclear power -- all aimed at not only protecting our environment, but at the same time, making us les s dependent on foreign sources of energy. So my call to Congress again, like I did a week ago today, was, let's sto p the debate on energy and get a bill to my desk to show the American pe ople that we can respond. We'll continue to open up markets for goods ov erseas and, at the same time, enforce our trade laws. Carlos is going to be a part of the enforcement mechanism of our trade laws. We opened up markets to 12 countries over the past four years through new free trade agreements in countries like Australia and Singapore. And over the next four years, we'll continue to open up markets. And the reason I believe it's important is because when we're good at som ething, we ought to make it easier to sell what we're good at overseas a nd create new customers for US entrepreneurs and farmers and ranchers. Given a level playing field, this country can compete with anybody, any time, anywhere. And so we're going to continue to work with Congress to advance good trade policy. We'll work on things like simplifying the tax code, reasonable, wise immi gration reform, good health care policy, as well as taking on the tough task of strengthening the Social Security system for younger generations to come. Now, I understand some have been listening closely to this debate, and I want to make two points about Social Security before we get to the subje ct at hand. For those of you in Washington wh o say we don't have a problem, all you got to do is look at the facts. W e don't have enough people paying into the system to take care of baby b oomers like me who are living longer and longer and longer and are going to be promised more benefits. We've got more people who are going to be receiving benefits over time, with fewer payers into the system. And th ose who are receiving benefits will live longer and will receive more mo ney. In the year 2027, the federal government is some how going to have to come up with $200 billion more than the payroll tax to make sure we fulfill the promise. Starting in 2018, which isn't all that far away, 13 years away from now, the system goes into the red. That means more money coming out of S ocial Security than going in. Some in our country think that Social Security is a trust fund -- in othe r words, there's a pile of money being accumulated. The money -- payroll taxes going into the Social Security are s pent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs . We're on the ultimate pay-as-you-go system -- what goes in comes out. And so, starting in 2018, what's going in -- what's c oming out is greater than what's going in. The longer we wait, the harde r it is to fix the problem. Secondly, if you're a person who is retired or near retirement, nothing w ill change, there is enough money. I know there ar e some who have heard talk about Social Security around the country here , saying, oops, he's going to take away my check. I don't care what the rhetoric is, what the mailings say, what the TV ads say, you're in good shape. It's the younger workers who ought to be asking the members of the Congress and the President of the United S tates, what are you going to do to fix the problem. And I'm looking forward to working with Congress to fix the problem. All ideas are on the table except running up the payroll tax. And we've got some e xperts here to help us understand what class-action lawsuits are all abo ut, and how best to effect good public policy. Look, there is a bill wor king its way through the Senate now, and I want to thank both Republican s and Democrat members of the Senate for working on that bill. And we're about to hear from two -- actually three -- two people who have studied the issue, and one who has actually lived with it. It is important, for the sake of this country and for the sake of our eco nomy, to have a fair answer to a problem that is escalating. The problem is people are filing suits all over the country in a state courthouse t hat's affecting people in other states. And oftentimes businesses are ge tting drug into it, or people are getting drug into it that are unaware they're getting drug into it, and if they are getting drug into it, when there's finally a settlement, they don't get much. And so we've worked with Congress to come up with a reasonable solution. And they've come up with a reasonable solution that says interstate clas s-actions ought to be conducted in the federal court. And my call to the Senate today is to get that bill done as quickly as possible so we can get it to the House and get it to my desk. And the Senate has got to pas s the bill on the floor without amendment. They need to pass a clean bil l, one that makes sense for the American people. He's so good at being an attorney, he's teaching others how to be an attorney, at Duke University, if I'm n ot mistaken. He was telling me today -- I don't know if you know this or not, this falls in the "small world" category -- and if our mutual frie nd is listening on C-SPAN, it will blow his mind we're talking about him -- but I was raised in Midland, Texas, and the fellow who lives across the street from him in North Carolina's father, was the baby doctor for my three little brothers. THE PRESIDENT: Walter, why are you interested in the issue? He's actually served in government for the previous administration. He represents the spirit needed to have good legal reform, and that is the bipartisan spi rit. And tell us why you're here and give us your interest in the subjec t * * * * * THE PRESIDENT: Tell people what a class-action is. MR DELLINGER: Well, a class-action -- the idea of class-action started w hen we realized that often there were many people that had small -- the same sm... |
| www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy05/hist.html Skip to side navigation. GPO Access Home Page. Go Site Search: advanced Submit. Navigation Bar Office of Management and Budget seal. Database Features. Budget Main Page - FY05 Budget Simple Search Advanced Search Browse - Browse FY05 Search Tips About the Budget Related Resources. Economic Indicators Economic Report of the President About Government. Ben's Guide Logo. Ben's Guide to US Government Adobe Reader icon. Home Page > Executive Branch > Budget of the United States Go vernment > Fiscal Year 2005 > Browse > Historical Tables Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2005 Download entire Historical Tables, (535 KB, ZIP file). Documents are available in XLS format. Government Employment and Population, 19622003 (19 KB) ZIP format: You may need WinZip installed on your computer to unzip a ZIP file. A service of the US Government Printing Office. |
| www.cbo.gov/byclasscat.cfm?cat=35 Days Vertical Line By Subject Area Vertical Line Search Vertical Line New-Document Notification Search Vertical Line Browse Vertical Line Background Info Vertic al Line New-Document Notification Mission Vertical Line Staffing & Organization Vertical Line Pa nel of Economic Advisers Vertical Line Policies for CBO's Work Who We Are Vertical Line What We Do Vertical Line Job Opportu nities Vertical Line Citizenship Requirements Vertical Line Fell owships Vertical Line Internships Vertical Line Benefits Address & Contacts Vertical Line Directions to CBO Vertical Line Obtaining CBO Products Budget & Economic Information: bullet Analysis of the President's Budget bullet Appropriations bullet Budget Accounting & Process bullet Budget & Economic Outlook bullet Budget Options bullet Long-Term Budgetary Issues bullet Monthly Budget Review bullet Sequestration Reports bullet Unauthorized Approps. |
| www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1821&sequence=0 Historical Budget Data Retrieve in: Historical Budget Data The historical budget data presented below are from Appendix F of the CBO publication The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2005-2014 , released on January 26, 2004. Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2003 Billions of dollars Table 2. Revenues, Outlays, Surpluses, Deficits, and Debt Held by the Public, 1962 to 2003 Percentage of GDP Table 3. Revenues by Major Source, 1962 to 2003 Billions of dollars Table 4. Outlays for Major Spending Categories, 1962 to 2003 Billions of dollars Table 6. Outlays for Major Spending Categories, 1962 to 2003 Percentage of GDP Table 7. Outlays for Entitlements and Other Mandatory Spending, 1962 to 2003 Billions of dollars Table 10. Outlays for Entitlements and Other Mandatory Spending, 1962 to 2003 Percentage of GDP Table 11. Surpluses, Deficits, Debt, and Related Series, 1962 to 2003 Table 12. Standardized-Budget Surplus or Deficit and Related Series, 1962 to 2003 Billions of dollars Table 13. Standardized-Budget Surplus or Deficit and Related Series, 1962 to 2003 Percentage of potential GDP Detailed historical data are maintained by the Office of Management and Budget and published annually as part of the Presidents budget submission. |