Greenspan says tax increases probably needed in addition to benefit cuts t

[RamboLiberal]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/a/2004/03/11/national1805EST0853.DTL

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Thursday that tax increases probably will be needed in combination with benefit cuts to close the massive funding gap faced by Social Security.

For the good of the economy, he said, Congress needs to get most of the savings by trimming benefits.

Greenspan sparked a political uproar two weeks ago when he said the government will not be able to afford all the benefits promised to future Social Security retirees. He was criticized by Democrats for continuing to support making President Bush's tax cuts permanent while at the same time endorsing cuts in retirement benefits expected by 77 million baby boomers.

On Thursday, Greenspan said he believed that a tax increase would be needed to close the funding gap in Social Security. But he urged Congress to do as much as possible first by trimming benefits because of the harm higher taxes would have on the economy.

[stepnw1f]

1. I say we trim

your benefits instead, Mr. Greenspine. It's time we march to Washington and fire some bastards!

[unblock]

2. setting the stage for a "democratic" tax increase

president kerry will of course have to increase revenues somehow.

i'm starting to think the republican powers that be are already writing off b*sh and are working on 2006 and 2008 strategy, making sure that the tax hike gets pinned on kerry.

[aquart]

3. Let me guess: tax the middle class and working poor?

[Webster Green]

4. So he supports tax increases AND tax cuts....

I can't take much more of this.

[JaySherman]

5. My sentiments exactly

It's completely mind-blowing.

[unblock]

6. it's easy:

the tax CUT was needed to stimulate the sluggish economy and get rid of the surplus that was due to the booming economy.

the tax HIKE is now needed to reign in the booming economy and get rid of the deficit due to the sluggish economy.

which part don't you understand?

[HawkerHurricane]

7. Easier than that...

The tax CUT on the top 10% was needed to boost the economy...
The tax HIKE on the bottom 60% is needed to save social security and create a new surplus so they can justify a new tax cut to the top 10% in 4-8 years...

[necso]

8. I imagine that the tax increase,

that this asshole is talking about is another social security tax increase (more regressive taxation).

So we should raise taxes on the struggling, cut benefits to those in need, and spend the difference on cutting the taxes of the ludicrously well off. More sound fucking fiscal policy --- I suggest seppuku, you piece of shit.

[bif]

18. Shouldn't that be fiscal fucking policy?

Sound more appropriate somehow.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

10. Buh-bye!

[orwell]

11. Al Qaeda Greenspan

Whoo..sounds like a flip flop.

This guy is so full of himself it smells.

Time to retire Al. Catch up on all the Ayn Rand you hold so dear.

Good riddance.

O

[saigon68]

13. Greenspan smoking crack

Has to be ---

What horse shit. cut benefits, raise taxes, cut taxes

I hope they will still fund soup kitchens and homeless shelters?

[wellst0nev0ter]

12. Greenscam Must Have Been Talking To This Guy

The idea of financing tax relief to the middle class through general revenues was promptly ridiculed by Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, a conservative Republican strategist who has close ties to the White House. "There is no money in the general fund. You are talking about bankrupting Social Security," Norquist said.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/10/dean_confirms_tax_cut_plan_but_gives_no_details/

Apparently there IS a tax cut that this Leninist disciple doesn't like.

[Kahuna]

14. Either Greenie is dithering or he is purposely trying to

torpedo the chimp.

[Miss Authoritiva]

15. Greenspan's alarming code-speak

Some of the code-speak in Greenspan's responses really must have been jarring and unnerving to the establishment. Two in particular stand out:

(1)"excesses of commitments above available resources" -- translation: We overpromised to the masses and now the fools really expect the money to be there.

(2) "cannot have them (the baby boomers) find out they were betrayed by their government" -- translation: You know, revolution is always a possibility.

Things must be really awful -- awful without precedent -- when Alan Greenspan speaks of government betrayal.

[UpInArms]

16. Welcome to DU, Miss Authoritiva!

:hi:

Meanspin is a chief of betrayal -

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040322&s=greider

Greenspan is familiar with the accounting because he was chairman of the bipartisan commission that supposedly "fixed" the Social Security problem back in 1983 by imposing a huge increase in FICA payroll taxes--extra revenue that produced the still-growing surpluses. This historic tax shift (I think of it as the "crime of '83") was most convenient to the Reagan Administration because Reaganomics had just created huge budget deficits by cutting income taxes for the monied interests and pumping up the military budget. The burgeoning surpluses from the Social Security payroll tax would help offset the economic impact of the deficits. Hardly anyone noticed at the time, since Democrats cooperated in the "solution." Now Bush Jr. has done the same thing. And Greenspan is proposing another "fix": Double-cross the workers who paid the extra trillions; don't disturb the new monster tax cuts delivered to the rich. Any con artist would appreciate the bait-and-switch as a nifty piece of work.

...more...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

23. One of the most telling taxes of that era was the tax on

gratuities. It told you all you need to know about how taxation is viewed by the ruling elite. FICA taxes for Joe Blow. A 50% reduction in income tax for the top 10% of "wage" earners. And so it goes...

[Crachet2004]

17. Greenspans comments are an overall negative for Bush.

I think he is saying: keep income tax cuts for the wealthy, while cutting benefits, raising retirement age (again), and raising the SS tax.

I'm glad he's getting the effect of the Bush tax cuts out in the open.

Now, I wonder how long they can keep lying about inflation.

And someone should find out what KIND of jobs, the new jobs will be-if any are ever really created, down the line.

[bif]

19. The new jobs are manufacturing jobs at Mcdonald's

Everyone knows that!

[PA Democrat]

20. But just what TYPE of tax increase is Greenspan proposing?

Right now the government is financing ongoing operations by taking from the social security surplus which we know is funded by a very REGRESSIVE tax. If Greenspan proposes additional increases to SS taxes, he should be hung.

My God, the hypocrisy of Republicans using the term class warfare! If screwing the middle class and working poor further by shifting the burden of funding the federal government onto them isn't class warfare, I don't know what is.

[UpInArms]

21. what TYPE of tax increase is Greenspan proposing?

a regressive one, of course -

raise SS taxes, cut benefits, make permanent the tax cuts on estates and top 1%

this from the man who wants to away with the minimum wage (because it is governmental interference in the "free markets")

[bluedeminredstate]

22. He's gone from

a very respected man - deserved or not - to a total tool and shill for the GOP. What a dick. And his wife sucks too.

[gulfcoastliberal]

24. Gee, like the Harm the Clinton Tax Increase

On top earning groups had on the economy? Yup, that Clinton economy is just synonymous with harm. Fucking repug shill scumbag.