The funds are in a lock box -- at an undisclosed location -- where Cheney and Scalia are hunting. relax. The adults are in charge.
On Tue, Mar 02, 2004 at 06:43:10PM -0500, Peter Hollings wrote: > OK, here's a comment: Since the trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund > are personally liable for the savings of the beneficiaries and Greenspan has > now put us on notice that further lending of trust funds to the US > Government is in jeopardy of not being repaid, we should put the Trustees on > notice that we, the beneficiaries, will sue all present and future trustees > personally for any reduction in our benefits. > > Peter Hollings > > -----Original Message----- > From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mike Ballard > Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 6:13 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] any comments? > > > --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > March 2, 2004/New York TIMES > > NEWS ANALYSIS > > Medicare and Social Security Challenge > > By EDMUND L. ANDREWS > > > > > In theory, the two giant trust funds are > > accumulating huge surpluses > > that can be used to pay for benefits when the baby > > boomers retire and > > the systems start taking in less than they are > > paying out. In practice, > > those surpluses are being spent, and the government > > will probably have > > to borrow enormous sums to meet its obligations to > > retirees. > > The wages system is the greatest robbery in history. > The amount of wealth which is stored away for > wage-slaves once they retire is being squandered. > > > > "It is time to start telling people the truth," said > > Laurence Kotlikoff, > > a professor of economics at Boston University and a > > longtime analyst of > > the issue. "Suggesting that some minor adjustments > > to Social Security > > will solve the problem is doing a disservice." > > I doubt whether the good professor will be telling the > truth about how the working class has increased its > productivity many times over during the decades when > the baby boomers were creating wealth for the > capitalist class and that the major adjustment that > needs to be made is to siphon off a portion of that > wealth (by taxation--who care really how it's done) > and put it into social security. After all, that > would be silly and besides he's got his tenure to > think of. > > > > Mr. Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, > > provoked a political > > tempest when he told members of the House Budget > > Committee last week > > that Congress needed to trim future Social Security > > and Medicare > > benefits to head off a fiscal calamity in decades to > > come. > > It's the same old tired song of the ruling class: > workers must sacrifice so that WE the deserving can > lap up the cream. > > > > Mr. Greenspan proposed adjustments in how the > > government increases > > benefits to keep up with inflation and suggested > > pushing back retirement > > ages to better reflect increased life expectancy. > > Actually, just the opposite should happen. Workers > should retire earlier so that reserve army of labour > shrinks, solving both the unemployment problem and the > miserably low wages which the lower strata of the > working class receive for services rendered. The > adjustments which should be made have to do with > adjusting the rate of surplus value extracted from the > ever more productive working class. > > > > > Democrats immediately attacked the proposed cuts, > > saying they would be > > unnecessary if President Bush had not been running > > up large annual > > budget deficits just before millions of baby boomers > > reach retirement > > age. > > > > "Cutting Social Security benefits is not the way to > > rein in the > > irresponsible Bush budget deficit,'' chided Senator > > Tom Daschle of South > > Dakota, the Senate Democratic leader. > > A correct observation from the left-wing of the > capitalist bird. > > > > President Bush and Republican lawmakers distanced > > themselves as well, > > saying that much of the problem could be averted by > > setting up private > > savings accounts. > > A ridiculous proposal which plays to the ignorance of > the working class about who actually produces the > wealth and who retains the lion's share. > > > > But as precarious and uncertain as long-range > > forecasts are, most > > experts agree that the combined challenges of Social > > Security and > > Medicare are too big to be addressed without > > politically painful > > remedies. > > The bourgeois are ever ready to sacrifice to the last > proletarian. The workers should return the favour. > Unfortunately, the constant drum beat coming from > their ever turned on TVs will fill their poor open > minds with bourgeois arguments. After all, Jesus > suffered, so you must suffer. The Bible and the TV > tell us so. > > > > The number of retirees is expected to soar from > > about 40 million today > > to more than 76 million by 2030, which means that > > fewer dollars will be > > coming in from payroll taxes and many more dollars > > will be going out in > > retirement and medical benefits. > > Like I said, take out of the suplus value which is > being created. It's bloody simple. > > > > The oldest baby boomers turn 65 in 2011, and by one > > estimate a husband > > and wife who retire that year are likely to collect > > $700,000 in benefits > > before they die. > > I can see the pundits favouring new Federally funded > euthanasia programs. > > > > > Trustees of the Medicare and Social Security funds > > predict that the two > > programs will run surpluses of more than $200 > > billion a year for at > > least the next decade. But the Medicare trust fund > > will start running > > deficits in 2013 and run out of money by 2026. > > Starting in 2018, the > > Social Security System starts paying out more than > > it takes in and will > > have to dip into its trust fund. By 2044, the trust > > fund will be > > exhausted. > > This bourgeois claptrap is exhausting me. > > > Most experts say the problems of Social Security are > > much smaller and > > more predictable than those of Medicare, because > > retirement formulas are > > fairly simple and the cost of benefits depends > > primarily on demographic > > trends that are quite predictable. > > Look, maybe the medicare part is overestimated too. > Maybe people will live healthier lives. In any event, > perhaps economic historians will ponder the question > of why an impovershed country like Cuba could provide > free healthcare while a rich country like the USA > couldn't seem to afford it. > > > > > But Medicare's condition is more ominous, because > > medical costs have > > been rising much faster than the overall rate of > > inflation and the > > demand for health care is expected to soar as the > > baby boomers retire. > > Here's a market solution for ya, although I'm loathe > to provide them: increase the supply of doctors and > thereby lower the prices they charge. > > > > The Bush administration estimated last year that > > Medicare's obligations > > would be more than $10 trillion over the next 75 > > years. But that was > > before President Bush signed the law that will add > > prescription drug > > benefits to Medicare - which the administration now > > predicts will cost > > $540 billion over the next 10 years. The costs would > > climb rapidly after > > that, as the number of elderly people soars. The > > Congressional Budget > > Office has predicted that the new program could cost > > as much as $2 > > trillion in its second decade. > > All workers do is "cost" the system. After all, they > are just consumers. Right. They're selling bridges > here. > > > > Mr. Bush and many administration officials contend > > that much of Social > > Security's problems could be solved by letting > > people divert some of > > their payroll contributions to private investment > > accounts they might > > manage for themselves. > > These people are relentless in their quest for more > and more wealth. Now, they want the working class to > put their meagre wages into corporate stocks and > bonds. Let's ask the bamboozled workers at United how > "employee stock owership" of the company worked out. > This is just ridiculous! > > > > But some experts say that the government would have > > to borrow as much as > > $1 trillion over the next several decades to make up > > for the lost > > revenues and pay retirees benefits earned under the > > old system. > > Oh my god! They'd have to issue bonds! > > > > And the Congressional Budget Office, in a report on > > privatization plans > > last year, said none of the proposals would have > > much effect. > > > > "Using government resources to buy stocks and bonds, > > without other > > spending and tax changes, would not automatically > > lead to an increase in > > the nation's pool of investment resources,'' the > > budget office > > concluded. "There is no such thing as a free > > lunch.'' > > Right. The only people getting the free lunch around > here are the parasites who already own most of the > wealth we produce. > > > > > Some experts contend that even the administration's > > chilling projections > > about the looming problems of Social Security > > seriously understate the > > problem. > > The problem is the wages system. > > > > In 2002, two senior economists at the Treasury > > Department were asked by > > Paul H. O'Neill, then the Treasury secretary, to > > come up with a > > comprehensive estimate of the federal government's > > long-term fiscal > > problems. The total, calculated Kent Smetters, then > > a deputy assistant > > secretary for economic policy, and Jagadessh > > Gokhale, an economist on > > loan to the Treasury from the Federal Reserve Bank > > of Cleveland, was an > > almost unthinkable $44 trillion. > > My gods! The workers who will have created trillons > more than this, might actually need to consume more > than WE'D planned for. > > > > That projection was swiftly disavowed by the > > administration. Rob > > Nichols, a spokesman for the Treasury Department, > > said the White House > > never intended to use the study in its official > > budget forecast. "They > > were doing what they called an independent paper,'' > > he said. > > > > Mr. Gokhale, now a senior fellow at the Cato > > Institute, a policy > > research group in Washington, recalled matters > > differently. "At some > > point, late in the game, it was decided that it > > wouldn't be in the > > budget,'' he said. "In my opinion, if they had > > reported these numbers, > > they would have gotten a lot of credit.'' > > These right-wing geeks would like nothing better than > to sell more suffering to the working class by giving > even more of the pie the workers create to the > capitalist class. That's their "job". > > > > > Professor Kotlikoff of Boston University has devised > > a "menu of pain'' > > to lay out different ways of bridging the gap. The > > choices range from an > > immediate increase in federal income taxes of 69 > > percent to an immediate > > cut in Social Security and Medicare benefits of 45 > > percent. > > Plans, plans. A million will be proposed. It all > boils down to the division of wealth created by the > working class and owned by the capitalist class. > > > > And those numbers may be too low, he said, because > > even the disavowed > > Treasury estimate for the shortfall may be too low. > > Adding in the new > > prescription drug program, he said, the imbalance is > > closer to $51 > > trillion. > > More astounding figures. HOw much wealth will be > produced while this astounding figure is being > consumed by the greedy workers in retirement? > > > > Whether one accepts the administration's forecast or > > that of the > > disavowed study, everyone agrees that the potential > > problems with Social > > Security and Medicare dwarf the short-term problems > > of balancing the > > budget. > > These people are sick and they are defending a sick > society. > > > "The issue is entitlements,'' said N. Gregory > > Mankiw, chairman of the > > White House Council of Economic Advisers. "That is a > > huge challenge, but > > it would be a challenge even if we had a balanced > > budget today.'' > > Labour is entitled to all it creates. The problem is > lickspittles like Mankiw. > > Bosses...who needs 'em, > Mike B) > > ===== > **************************************************************** > You can't depend on your eyes when > your imagination is out of focus. > --Mark Twain > > http://profiles.yahoo.com/swillsqueal > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster > http://search.yahoo.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
