But what you said was:
"See, the last part of the budget surplus that this administraton frittered away was the Social Security trust fund. "
You insinuated that the budget surplus covered the commitments of the Social Security trust fund. If you misspoke.....no problem.
Am I saying this administration is fiscally conservative?
Nope. But by the same token I do not consider the Roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson or Nixon administrations to be fiscally conservative either.
Quoth Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
-
- Save a Koala, deport an Australian
- Posts: 17516
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
- Location: Straya mate!
- Contact:
I think the Australian conservative government had the right idea. They levied an extra 1% "war tax". May as well be honest with people and admit that war costs money that ultimately comes out of everyone's hip pocket at some time.
Cutting taxes while spending 200B+ on a war is retarded. Incredibly retarded. Anyone that can support the current administration without squirming over that fact has no right to call themselves conservative.
Dd
Cutting taxes while spending 200B+ on a war is retarded. Incredibly retarded. Anyone that can support the current administration without squirming over that fact has no right to call themselves conservative.
Dd
- SicTimMitchell
- E Pluribus Sputum
- Posts: 5153
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 1:05 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Contact:
Part of the problem is separating the SS surplus from the budget surplus in general -- because of both parties' tendency to treat SS surpluses as free cash.
Under Clinton, the SS surplus ran around 30-40B per year.
In 1999 and 2000, the SS surpluses were actually used to retire debt. (Rung up by both Republican and Democratic administrations.)
Then, during W's first three terms, the surpluses shot up to about 160B per year. This was partly the reforms of 1983 coming home to roost, when FICA payroll taxes were raised and SS benefits were cut. You don't hear much about that these days, because anarchy did not ensue.
Let's just say that none of these huge surpluses were used to retire more debt, nor put into a "lockbox" to help ensure the solvency of Social Security.
Which really raises the question of why Social Security is such a priority for Bush now.
Under Clinton, the SS surplus ran around 30-40B per year.
In 1999 and 2000, the SS surpluses were actually used to retire debt. (Rung up by both Republican and Democratic administrations.)
Then, during W's first three terms, the surpluses shot up to about 160B per year. This was partly the reforms of 1983 coming home to roost, when FICA payroll taxes were raised and SS benefits were cut. You don't hear much about that these days, because anarchy did not ensue.
Let's just say that none of these huge surpluses were used to retire more debt, nor put into a "lockbox" to help ensure the solvency of Social Security.
Which really raises the question of why Social Security is such a priority for Bush now.
Bangzoom
94 Ranger of Karana
Veteran Crew, through and through
_______________________________________________________________________________
94 Ranger of Karana
Veteran Crew, through and through
_______________________________________________________________________________
- SicTimMitchell
- E Pluribus Sputum
- Posts: 5153
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 1:05 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, MN
- Contact:
Talk about horrible freudian slips. It was Bush's first three years I meant.Then, during W's first three terms
And yes, being known as the president who saved Social Security would probably be nice. Except most Americans aren't buying it, and he helped break it.
Bangzoom
94 Ranger of Karana
Veteran Crew, through and through
_______________________________________________________________________________
94 Ranger of Karana
Veteran Crew, through and through
_______________________________________________________________________________