The Bush Tax - Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions

SourMilkSea · **The Bush Tax -** 09-25-04

I wanna know what the Bush supporters think of this...

Quote:

<H2>The Bush Tax, Part V: Social Security and Our Foreign Debt

Quote:

The Congressional Budget Office has just put out a study showing that the Bush deficit this year will hit $422 billion. That's just the latest installment of the Bush Tax that W has placed on our future.

All in all, since Bush took office, he has borrowed more than $1.5 trillion in our name to fund his unnecessary war in Iraq and $100,000 tax cuts for millionaires.

How much is $1.5 trillion? A stack of 1.5 trillion dollar bills would take us about halfway from the Earth to the Moon.

If Bush is re-elected and gets his way, the debt will shoot up another $2.3 trillion by 2014, enough to stretch that stack of dollar bills the rest of the way to the Moon and back again. By that time, much of the baby boom generation will have hit retirement, and many of our seniors will look to Social Security for support. (Currently, Social Security is the main source of income for 2/3 of retirees.)

The money, however, may not be there. Bush came up with about 40 percent of the $1.5 trillion by raiding the Social Security trust fund. Remember in 2000 when Al Gore tried to explain the importance of keeping the trust fund surplus in the "lock box?" Bush busted right through that lock and dumped the contents in the hands of his millionaire friends as tax cuts. Technically, he has "borrowed" the entire trust fund surplus, but "pilfered from future retirees" is more accurate.

Citizens for Tax Justice does a nice job of explaining why:

From a budget policy point of the view, the explicit purpose of building up surpluses in the Social Security trust fund now is to make the payment of Social Security benefits affordable in the future, by reducing the national debt and the annual interest payments due thereon. If the government instead uses the trust fund surpluses to pay for current spending, its ability to meet its obligations to Social Security in the future will be seriously impaired.

In other words, every dollar Bush "borrows" from the trust fund is a dollar we won't have for Social Security when we need it.
After sucking the Social Security trust fund dry, Bush borrowed another half of the $1.5 trillion from foreigners. He tripled our debt to the Chinese alone and signed the good name of the United States to $360 billion worth of IOUs to the Japanese.

At the very same time Bush has been marching around the world, threatening our enemies and allies alike and doing everything to make future conflict more likely, he's had to hold his hat out, begging for new loans.

For the time being, the world has agreed to loan the money. In dry think tank language, Brookings Institution economist Peter Orszag explains why this is a problem over the longer term:

This heavy reliance on foreign official creditors ... raises the possibility that foreign policy decisions will be distorted by financial considerations.

For example in a future conflict with China, over trade, human rights, or any number of issues, we may find our hands tied by the threat that the Chinese will refuse to lend us any more money.

It's not only Bush's reckless misleadership in Iraq that has left us weaker and less safe at home. He has pawned off our future to foreigners, transforming the United States into the world's greatest debtor nation and mortgaging the defense of this country to pay for tax cuts for the elite.

All of this amounts to a massive Bush Tax on our future retirees (that's all of us!) and our security. We'll all be paying the Bush Tax for years to come.

</H2>

John Preston · 09-25-04

Word of advice.
If anything is rock solid against Bush the Bush supporters tend to either not respond or go psychotically aggressive with illogical things.

Aeternus · 09-25-04

Shoving up problems towards the future... Take a good look at Europe the coming decade and you'll see what that will result into. This is going to cost the US citizen dearly in a year or 50.

Oh, wait, WW3 is planned for that time... nullifying all previous loans.

Void_enthroned · 09-26-04

I thought the bush tax was a tax on how many shrubs a unit of land has on it.

Synikul · 09-27-04

If you think Social Security will be around in your future, you're fooling yourself. I'm 36 and I'm throwing money down a black hole. The entire system needs to be scrapped and overhauled.

SourMilkSea · 09-28-04

Here is, (according to Bush's website) his idea's for social security...

Quote:

Social Security Reform: President Bush will strengthen and enhance Social Security, guaranteeing no changes in benefits for current retirees and near-retirees, while giving younger workers the opportunity to use their Social Security payroll taxes to build a nest egg for retirement that can be passed on to their families.

Well, it looks like Bush disagrees with you on overhauling of Social Security. I think it would be better to vote for a president who tries his best to help it, rather than vote for one that says he will...then doesn't. (uh oh! Flip Flop!) If Bush's plan was to get rid of social security all together and come up with a plan to help out all the people that once depended on it, then you would have a valid reason to vote for him. But if you wanna get rid of social security, don't be an asshole and support Bush just because he drains the funding and puts the future of millions of elderly people at stake.

RedBelle · 09-28-04

I don't know if anyone has seen this yet and I didn't find it in a search here.
http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon121.swf

Arty · 09-28-04

It may be that social security needs overhauling, but I don't think any President will ever feel that he can just scrap the whole system. Synikul - it may well be that your money would be better spent elsewhere, but I suspect pensions will continue for as long as there are large numbers of ageing voters who want to get back all that money that they've put in (i.e. for the foreseeable future).

Synikul · 09-28-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SourMilkSea

Here is, (according to Bush's website) his idea's for social security...

Well, it looks like Bush disagrees with you on overhauling of Social Security. I think it would be better to vote for a president who tries his best to help it, rather than vote for one that says he will...then doesn't. (uh oh! Flip Flop!) If Bush's plan was to get rid of social security all together and come up with a plan to help out all the people that once depended on it, then you would have a valid reason to vote for him. But if you wanna get rid of social security, don't be an asshole and support Bush just because he drains the funding and puts the future of millions of elderly people at stake.

The Bush plan is a major overhaul, and the current system will be scrapped in a few decades if future presidents follow through on it.

I have to add that is is one of the lamest attempts to talk someone out of a vote I've ever seen. You're a fucking amateur.

SourMilkSea · 09-28-04

Oh, well I'm sorry I made you angry! I know how much you people hate strait facts... Grow up child, find somebody else to whine to. Unless you actually have a legitimate arguement, let the grown ups talk about politics. Even though Bush is FOR supporting Social Security, your basically saying, "But he's gonna be dishonest and fuck it up, so I like him." You people are stupid.

Synikul · 09-29-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by SourMilkSea

Oh, well I'm sorry I made you angry! I know how much you people hate strait facts... Grow up child, find somebody else to whine to. Unless you actually have a legitimate arguement, let the grown ups talk about politics. Even though Bush is FOR supporting Social Security, your basically saying, "But he's gonna be dishonest and fuck it up, so I like him." You people are stupid.

Interesting. Someone who's obviously been folowing politics for maybe a year or two is calling me "child".

Politics is the art of the possible. In a perfect world, what I really want is Pat Buchanan to be Supreme Dictator of AmeriKKKa, with his closest advisor being Vice-Dictator David Duke.

What are the odds of that actually happening?

So I have to deal with reality, which is something you have already demonstrated an inability to do, given the language in your first post which is so slanted and twisted that it barely contains any facts.

Here in reality, it's Bush or Kerry. Given that ultimatum, Bush is the better choice for me. Bush is willing to take the heat for trying to do something about Social Security, while Kerry will just let it go until it needs a mass infusion of money to save it.

Elf · 09-29-04

If there was a bush tax I'd shave

Jordyn · 09-29-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elf

If there was a bush tax I'd shave

it's just feels better without bush...

http://www.cafepress.com/kerryvamps.13132756

SourMilkSea · 09-29-04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Synikul

Interesting. Someone who's obviously been folowing politics for maybe a year or two is calling me "child".

Politics is the art of the possible. In a perfect world, what I really want is Pat Buchanan to be Supreme Dictator of AmeriKKKa, with his closest advisor being Vice-Dictator David Duke.

What are the odds of that actually happening?

So I have to deal with reality, which is something you have already demonstrated an inability to do, given the language in your first post which is so slanted and twisted that it barely contains any facts.

Here in reality, it's Bush or Kerry. Given that ultimatum, Bush is the better choice for me. Bush is willing to take the heat for trying to do something about Social Security, while Kerry will just let it go until it needs a mass infusion of money to save it.

Yeah, I can really see how twisted and unfactual the article I posted is, even though just about every stated fact in there cites a link to its sources. But anyways, I'm sorry that these aren't things your used to Michael Savage pounding into your head. In fact, I should have just taken your side so I don't have to worry about making a legitimate arguement. I could just type some simple minded shit like, "More guns equal less crime!" or something.

\

Synikul · 11-11-04

Quote:

Bush Moves to privatize Social Security

WASHINGTON Nov 10, 2004 — Fresh from re-election, President Bush is dusting off an ambitious proposal to overhaul Social Security, a controversial idea that had been shelved because of politics and the administration's focus on tax cuts and terrorism.

Bush envisions a framework that would partially privatize Social Security with personal investment accounts, similar to 401(k) plans, that would be voluntary for younger workers.

A starting point is a plan proposed by a presidential commission in 2001 to divert 2 percent of workers' payroll taxes into private accounts. The remaining 4.2 percent and the payroll taxes employers pay would go into the system, helping fund benefits for current retirees. That leaves an estimated shortfall of about $2 trillion to continue funding benefits for current retirees.

Bush said his commission, headed by the late Democratic Sen. Patrick Moynihan of New York, provided "a good blueprint." The commission had been asked to propose a plan for establishing personal investment accounts.

For future retirees, base benefits would be cut by tying them to inflation instead of wage growth, with stock market gains assumed to make up any shortfall. The concept gained support in the stock market boom of the late 1990s.

Bush has not said how the $2 trillion transition costs would be funded, nor did his commission. Record deficits, Bush's desire to make his five rounds of tax cuts permanent and the rising cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan are major obstacles.

Republicans say doing nothing is worse. "There are a lot of things you could do, but none of them are without some sacrifice," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

Graham's plan would let workers divert into accounts 4 percent of their payroll taxes and spreads transition costs over 10-15 years. He said the yearly price tag of $80 billion to $100 billion could be funded by closing tax loopholes, cutting pork barrel spending, borrowing money or temporarily raising the payroll tax cap on earnings.

"No idea is off the table," Graham said. He thinks Republicans have about a six-month political window before Bush's election momentum starts to fade and attention turns to midterm elections.

Any plan needs Democratic support. But some of Bush's biggest Democratic allies on Social Security privatization won't be around in January. Texas Rep. Charlie Stenholm was defeated last week after districts were redrawn by the Legislature. And Sen. John Breaux of Louisiana is retiring.

Other Democrats have pledged to fight Bush's attempts to privatize the New Deal program known as the untouchable, third rail of politics.

To fund accounts, "we're talking about an infusion of $2 trillion in revenues to maintain current benefits, and we don't have that money now," said Rep. Bob Matsui of California, top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Social Security subcommittee.

Matsui said he is eager to see a "fiscally responsible" plan from the Bush administration. He also is skeptical of costs and funding options, citing overruns on the Medicare prescription drug plan that were hidden from Congress.

"If they put a plan out there and try to pass it and it's not vetted instantly and it doesn't add up, I will not allow this thing to go," he said.

Democrats argue that the system can be altered, not demolished, to improve future funding. "It doesn't require a radical adjustment like privatization," Matsui said. Shoring up the current system would require a combination of tax increases, benefit cuts for future retirees and raising the retirement age.

Supporters of accounts say Democrats can no longer criticize partial privatization without offering their own plan to deal with Social Security's $3.7 trillion, 75-year shortfall. As more baby boomers retire, the system will start paying out in benefits more than it collects in taxes in 2018.

FULL ARTICLE

I hope Bush can get this through.

Comments?

John Preston · 11-11-04

Everything that has a plus also has a negative.

SourMilkSea · 11-11-04

Quote:

Bush has not said how the $2 trillion transition costs would be funded, nor did his commission. Record deficits, Bush's desire to make his five rounds of tax cuts permanent and the rising cost of war in Iraq and Afghanistan are major obstacles.

eh, what's a measly $2 trillion dollars right? I'm sure he could just pull it right out of his ass...

Synikul · 11-12-04

If we don't reform the program at all it will cost even more. It's going to be hellishly expensive no matter what we do. It's a big shit sandwich, and we all have to take a bite. At least this way it will cost less to fix.

I'm surprised young people, in teens and twentys, don't support this. This way, you don't get screwed. If the current system keeps going without being altered, young people are going to get bent over hard in about 30 years.

Synikul · 01-05-05

Quote:

Official Reveals Details of Bush SS Plan
Tuesday, January 04, 2005

WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is focusing on a Social Security (search) proposal that would allow younger workers to invest nearly two-thirds of their payroll taxes in private accounts, with contributions limited to about $1,000 to $1,300 a year, an administration official said Tuesday.

A proposal is expected to be unveiled in late February. But the White House cautioned that President Bush has not decided on a specific plan.

The administration official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the size of the private accounts could be similar to a proposal by Sen. Lindsey Graham (search), R-S.C., and a plan from Bush's 2001 Social Security commission.

Both plans let workers divert 4 percentage points of their 6.2 percentage points in payroll taxes into accounts. The federal 12.4 percent payroll tax is split between workers and employers. Workers' remaining 2.2 percentage points in taxes continue going into the system.

Graham's plan calls for annual contributions to be capped at $1,300, while the commission proposed a lower limit of $1,000.

Bush "has not endorsed any specific proposal," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are looking at a number of ideas for strengthening Social Security and will continue working closely with congressional leaders to move forward in a bipartisan way to get it done this year."