Spiny Norman
23 years ago




I'm waiting for Robby to insult Grizzled.
tailgater
23 years ago

Spiney, no offense, but those sources are a joke.
The Cato Institute and the atlantic.com have been sipping too much wine.
It's true that the bonds are an "IOU" of sorts, but since when can somebody (or something) Owe money to itself??
It's impossible.
The ONLY way to pay those bonds when they become due will be to increase the revenue stream.
The governments revenue stream is simple: TAXES.
So, while the actual "facts" that those two inept sources lay down are based on truths, they are in fact misleading and unrealistic.
In other words: LIES.
Spiny Norman
23 years ago

It is true that the interest the government pays on these bonds is a drain on the Treasury, as will be the money paid by the government when the fund ultimately cashes in its bonds. But this drain has nothing to do with Social Security. If the Social Security Trust Fund were not currently building up a surplus, and lending the money to the government, the government would still be running a deficit of approximately $60 billion in its non-Social Security operations. It would then have to borrow this money from individuals like H. Ross Perot and Peter G. Peterson and to pay out more interest each year to the people it borrowed from. Therefore, the government's debt to the fund is simply a debt it would have incurred in any event. The government's other spending and tax policies, not Social
Security, will be the cause if there is any problem in the future in paying off the bonds held by the fund.
SteveS
23 years ago
don't be mis-led by the term "Social Security Trust Fund" ...

No money is now,or has ever been, held "in trust" in the conventional sense of the term. It is a highly misleading name that has been given to the general SS fund in order to camoflauge the fact that absolutely NOTHING is being held in actual trust ....nor are there any reserves ... tomorrow's pay-outs are strictly dependent on tomorrow's pay-ins and since the outs will exceed the ins within a generation unless it is fixed, the whole house of cards is gonna collapse ... period ... end of story ...

Don't trust Bush? ... well, I trust him at least a billion times more than I trusted Slick Willie and his would-be successor Al Bore combined ... those boys showed a serious knack for bamboozling the public
tailgater
23 years ago
Spiney, You are correct.
Why then debunk the original post with Cato Institute "facts" that you don't agree with?

Either way, the problem will be very real when the boomers retire. Had the trust been filled with real money instead of bogus IOU's, then we'd be able to handle it.
Instead, something will explode.
As for Uncle Sam's general spending causing the deficit, that is true. But had the government funded all the existing programs with tax increases rather than stealing from the ss fund, the American public would be outraged.
Now, they claim the only way to cut spending is to hurt necessary programs like education.

Instead, we need to eliminate all but the very necessary social welfare programs. A little pain now will do a whole lot of good in the future.
JonR
23 years ago
Yo : How about this for a fast financial fix, lets just keep Iraq. JonR
Spiny Norman
23 years ago
Tailgater,

You are absoutely right. The reason we are in this fix is because our politicians (both sides of the aisle) have been playing fast and loose with the money and were too spineless to face up to the reality of the situation. I'm sure most of the plans that Bush's panel comes up with will intail some sort of belt tightening. I only hope that it will be implimented fairly. IE; Corporate welfare as well as social welfare cuts. I doubt that it will happen that way due to the lobbying efforts of those industries.
By the way, here is the SSA's take on it.

http://www.ssa.gov/qa.ht 
23 years ago
I have an idea? Why don't we cut some Federal programs? What exactly does "The Department Of Education do?" If we didn't have one, would we not be educated? What about all those studies? All the pork? how does a fly land on the ceiling for how many million? a few million here, a few million there, before you know it, you're talking about real money...

There's a federal organization for "civil rights", there's a New York state org for "civil rights", there's a NY city org for "civil rights". Are all of these really necessary?? Our former govener Bill Campbel actually said, he would not endorce a single improvement in process, procedure, organizational structure, etc... if it cost "1 single government union job"... With an attitude like this, how can things ever improve? How do you ever improve efficiency? How do you ever phase things out that aren't needed? P.S., he was a democrat...
Spiny Norman
23 years ago
Lets Kill this program as well.......

The Export-Import Bank: Corporate Welfare At Its Worst

by Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

This country has a $6 trillion national debt, a growing deficit and is borrowing money from the Social Security Trust Fund in order to fund government services. We can no longer afford to provide over $125 billion every year in corporate welfare - tax breaks, subsidies and other wasteful spending - that goes to some of the largest, most profitable corporations in America.
One of the most egregious forms of corporate welfare can be found at a little known federal agency called the Export-Import Bank, an institution that has a budget of about $1 billion a year and the capability of putting at risk some $15.5 billion in loan guarantees annually. At a time when the government is under-funding veterans' needs, education, health care, housing and many other vital services, over 80% of the subsidies distributed by the Export-Import Bank goes to Fortune 500 corporations. Among the companies that receive taxpayer support from the Ex-Im are Enron, Boeing, Halliburton, Mobil Oil, IBM, General Electric, AT&T, Motorola, Lucent Technologies, FedEx, General Motors, Raytheon, and United Technologies.

You name the large multinational corporation, many of which make substantial campaign contributions to both political parties, and they're on the Ex-Im welfare line. Needless to say, many of these same companies receiving taxpayer support pay exorbitant salaries and benefits to their CEOs. IBM, for example, gave their former CEO Lou Gerstner over $260 million in stock options while they were lining up for their Ex-Im handouts.

The great irony of Ex-Im policy is not just that taxpayer support goes to wealthy and profitable corporations that don't need it, but that in the name of "job creation" a substantial amount of federal funding goes to precisely those corporations that are eliminating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. In other words, American workers are providing funding to companies that are shutting down the plants in which they work, and are moving them to China, Mexico, Vietnam and wherever else they can find cheap labor. What a deal! For example, General Electric has received over $2.5 billion in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Ex-Im Bank. And what was the result?
From 1975-1995 GE reduced its workforce from 667,000 to 398,000, a decline of 269,000 jobs. In fact, while taking the Ex-Im Bank subsidies, GE was extremely public about it's "globalization" plans to lay off American workers and move jobs to Third World countries. Jack Welch, the longtime CEO of GE stated, "Ideally, you'd have every plant you own on a barge."

General Motors has received over $500 million in direct loans and loan guarantees from the Export-Import Bank. The result? GM has shrunk its U.S. workforce from 559,000 to 314,000. Motorola has received almost $500 million in direct loans and loan subsidies from the Ex-Im Bank. The result? A mere 56 percent of its workforce is now located in the United States.

In fact, according to Time Magazine, the top five recipients of Ex-Im subsidies over the past decade have reduced their workforce by 38% - more than a third of a million jobs down the drain. These same five companies have received more than 60 percent of all Export-Import Bank subsidies.
Boeing, the leading Ex-Im recipient, has reduced its workforce by more than 100,000 employees over the past ten years.
Here are a few examples of your Ex-Im taxpayer dollars at work:

The Export-Import Bank has provided an $18 million loan to help a Chinese steel mill purchase equipment to modernize their plant. This Chinese company has been accused of illegally dumping steel into the U.S. - exacerbating the crisis in our steel industry.

Since 1994, the Export-Import Bank has provided $673 million in loans and loan guarantees for projects related to the Enron Corporation, leaving taxpayers exposed to $514 million. The Ex-Im Bank approved a $300 million loan for an Enron-related project in India even though the World Bank repeatedly refused to finance this project because it was "not economically viable."

The Export-Import Bank is subsidizing Boeing aircraft sales to the Chinese military. According to the President of Machinists' Local 751: "Boeing used to make tail sections for the 737 in Wichita, but they moved the work to a military factory in Xian, China. Is this Boeing's definition of free trade, to have American workers compete with Chinese labor making $50 a month under military discipline?"

The Ex-Im Bank insured a $3-million loan to aid General Electric build a factory where Mexican workers will make parts for appliances to export back to the United States. This project is responsible for the loss of 1,500 American jobs in Bloomington, Indiana.

And on and on it goes. The bottom line is that if the Export-Import Bank cannot be reformed so as to become a vehicle for real job creation in the United States, it should be eliminated. American citizens have better things to do with their money than support an agency that provides welfare for corporations that could care less about American workers.

(Sorry bout the length.)
-Spiny
23 years ago
Spiney, I have enjoyed reading your posts, but do you truely believe that corporations pay taxes? Any taxes? Do you believe if there was "reform" that they would "pay" taxes? Or do you believe they would increase the cost of their goods and services and pass the cost along to their customers (ahem, that would be you and me).
RICKAMAVEN
23 years ago
lucky for me i didn't read these posts, i just spend the money as fast as it come in. i think i may be the only one posting who is actually drawing social security and have for 8 years.

i do remember when soc sec was capped at $25,00 earnings and i believe 3 or 4 percent of earnings. migh have been lower. one year they would raise the base and the next year the percent.

it is a tough go for a lot of people. until you are 75 or maybe 80, you get one dollar less for each 2 you earn or vic versa. so what to do. work off the books.

next time you see some old guy like me working for minimum wages trying to exist, remember he is losing part of that income by the loss of soc sec income. in addition you not only pay tax on the income, you also pay soc sec tax also and it does not have any affect on your soc sec, it doesn't go up.

self employed soc sec tax is close to 15%. before you eat, before you smoke the govt has taken 15% + income tax. then the cigars in calif are taxed at 30% or more.

tis a puzzlement.


my numbers and %'s are not accurate, only close, so no corrections are necessary.

show me the money, your ass, hide the money.
tailgater
23 years ago
Spiney,
I looked up the ex-im bank and it's not what your post states. It's a bank that lends money so companies can produce or purchase items for export.
Key word: "Lends"
There are no subsidies from banks. They lend money and receive the lended amount back, plus interest.
My search could have been more thorough, perhaps, but I see nothing that mentions the Ex-Im Bank as a Federal "Agency", and nowhere does it mention a Billion dollars in subsidies.
If it's true, I agree let's squash it.
But it seems that your cut and paste isn't accurate.
Spiny Norman
23 years ago
It is indeed a Federal program .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/06/20020614.html 

It makes loans at greatly reduced rates that require subsidies by the government to keep it afloat. I'ts main use has been as a tool of American Foreign policy and a handout to corporations with powerful lobbies.
Started by FDR to increase trade with the USSR and to fill in where commercial banks had failed to provide enough lending for export.

From.....
http://assets.cambridge.org/0521811430/sample/0521811430WS.pdf 

In making it's loans, the bank by statute had to avoid competing with commercial banks while still expecting a reasonable assurance of repayment. It was not supposed to be a concessional lender or an aid giving institution.

Don't know about you, but I would love to see the phrase "Reasonable assurance of repayment" in the contract for my next loan. Especially one with interest rates far below the market average.

Spiny Norman
23 years ago
"""Spiney, I have enjoyed reading your posts, but do you truely believe that corporations pay taxes? Any taxes?"""

They pay very little if any at all and none pay anywhere the 40% rate you see on paper.

"" Do you believe if there was "reform" that they would "pay" taxes?"""

Not until we have REAL campaign finance reform. As long as they can buy the politicians, they will find a way to avoid paying their fair share.

"" Or do you believe they would increase the cost of their goods and services and pass the cost along to their customers (ahem, that would be you and me)."""

I'm either going to be paying more in taxes to make up for the shortfall (present system) or an increase in cost for the products. I prefer the latter because
(A), It's not a hidden cost.
(B) I will have the choice of buying the product or not.
(C) Because companies will still have to compete for my business, I will be paying for the true cost of the product. Isn't that a cornerstone of the free market system? Compatition among companies providing the best goods and services based on the cost to provide them?
tailgater
23 years ago
Corporations pay no taxes?
Then why do so many flee from state to state, or even out of the country?
It's not just cheaper wages that keeps a company in a particular area.
I live in massachusetts, where just about every large manufacturing company has fled. NOT due solely (or even primarily) from the higher average wage. They leave because of the severe taxes the state demands.

And many more companies leave the US because of the Federal taxes due to uncle sam.
Cheap labor is only one of the reasons.

So don't kid yourself into believing that corporations don't pay taxes.
It's like the uninformed who think everything is a "write off". Just exactly what do they think that means? Where is it being writen off from, and who eventually pays?
They don't know, but it's a great catch phrase.
Users browsing this topic