On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 20:26:06 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 11:45 AM 2/17/2005 -0600, Gary Denton wrote: > >> Social Security cannot accumulate any excess revenues, be they assets, > >> investments, etc. All current revenues that Social Security cannot spend > >> on current benefits are mandated by federal law to be spent by the federal > >> government. > >Malicious untrue calumny. There is no such requirement. > > Malicious? > > Untrue? > > Calumny? > > Despite your over-the-top rhetoric, I will ask you one question. > > What do you think the requirement to invest those funds in government bonds > means? That the federal government will borrow money that it *won't* spend?
Thats two. Later question first - Yes, this happened before, or like most conservatives have you forgotten the Clinton budget surplus and the Social Security "lock box?" First question, I see you avoid directly criticizing Greenspan and Reagan and the Social Security "fix" they set up. I'll ask you - why did Greenspan require the excess taxes, higher than income taxes for low wage workers, to be invested in government bonds? Why did the GOP prevent Clinton from implementing his proposal that some of the investments be in the private stock and bond market? Was it to set up this present non-crisis, so effete elitists could argue those aren't really government bonds backed by the full faith and credit of the United States? So that the bonds can be defaulted on with a "screw you suckers" to all who had been excessively taxed to establish this so-called trust fund? Bush desperately needs his fix, a fix to Social Security to preserve his tax cuts to the rich and to continue with the Nordquist plan to lower taxes each year to eliminate all social spending by the federal government. Gary D, _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
