Bush's Soc Security "private account plan"--would cost $1 Trillion to fund

[cthrumatrix]

Yes indeed folks... this what shrub's vision to privatize soc security ....all outlayed in the O'Neill book.

O'Neill (the truth teller) was against the 2nd round of tax cuts because he wanted to use the Clinton surplus to "fund" soc security privatization --- but not bush -- he wanted more tax cuts --- hence our surplus is "toast".

O'Neill and Greenspan (in the book) work together to outline what it would cost to set-up private accounts for all people over age 37. And the cost for this was $1 Trillion.

They have to do this, O'Neill commissioned a report where it shows if Medicare and soc sec is NOT controlled ..the govt is facing a $44 TRILLION gap - between taxes received and Medicare/soc sec entitlements --- hence you have the soc sec privatization plan.

The WH (shrub) LOCKED away the report.

The most interesting part will be:
------------------------------------
The media has the book --- the media and the powers that be know how much it will cost --- will they share this with you?

Will they connect the dots of the $44 trillion gap -- and the $$ Trillion Mars/ Moon plan?

[cthrumatrix]

1. any thoughts..?

[lovedems]

2. I don't think they care because by the time the gov't can't afford to pay

the entitlements, he will be long gone. It is obvious to me that this administration is incredibly short sighted. They don't look past the next year. I think they are asking all of their corporate donors, "what can we do for you NOW"

I am utterly amazed because he wants to send us to the moon and mars, fund faith based programs, make tax cuts permanent, and and start a marriage initiative AND CUT THE DEFECIT IN 1/2 and not one person has asked, "HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY FOR THIS??????"

This is what the democrats have been accused of since I first became politically aware, reckless spending, yet nobody questions the Smiry one.

[cthrumatrix]

3. That is the point --- they want the Moon --when there is a $44Trillion GAP

White House Shelved 44 Trillion Deficit Report?
By Peronet Despeignes of the Financial Times
May 30, 2003, 10:21



Thursday 29 May 2003

Study commissioned by O?Neill sees $44 trillion in red ink

The Bush administration has shelved a report commissioned by the Treasury that shows the U.S. currently faces a future of chronic federal budget deficits totaling at least $44 trillion in current U.S. dollars.

The study, the most comprehensive assessment of how the U.S. government is at risk of being overwhelmed by the ?baby boom? generation?s future healthcare and retirement costs, was commissioned by then-Treasury secretary Paul O?Neill.

But the Bush administration chose to keep the findings out of the annual budget report for fiscal year 2004, published in February, as the White House campaigned for a tax-cut package that critics claim will expand future deficits.

The study asserts that sharp tax increases, massive spending cuts or a painful mix of both are unavoidable if the U.S. is to meet benefit promises to future generations. It estimates that closing the gap would require the equivalent of an immediate and permanent 66 percent across-the-board income tax increase.

snip

http://www.chewinthefat.com/artman/publish/article_271.shtml
---------------------------------------------------------------------


AND the actual Federal Reserve Report Documenting the $44 Trillion!

http://www.ngiweb.com/FiscalReport.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a "ticking timebomb" that our government is avoiding. I listened to a one hour review of this issue today on the Financialsence.com saturday interview take a listen:

http://www.netcastdaily.com/fsnewshour.htm (the interview with Laurence Kotlikoff)

[lovedems]

5. This is exactly the kind of "cold hard facts" that the dems need to use

on the stump. I partially think that is why Clark and Dean are doing so well, they can make the argument against this reckless spending because they didn't vote on any of the bills.

The Washington indsiders that are running, helped (I think) get to where we are today with the deficits. Granted, the house and senate are run by the republicans, but the dems should have put up more of a fight. The flip side of the argument is I guess the could say we gave the republicans exactly what they wanted and now look where we are.

Hopefully our nominee, whoever he is, will bring all of this recklessness to the public. One thing a candidate doesn't want to do is piss of seniors, and if this gets out to the public, I think they will vote in droves against the chimp. It is an important issue and there are good facts supporting this administrations absolutely irresponsible behavior.

BTW, Gore's "lock box" doesn't sound so stupid anymore does it?

[cthrumatrix]

7. the fact is the media has this data -- they will sell seniors down the

river --- instead of asking the hard questions

[papau]

4. Media wants Bush-so stupid Bush ideas="just politics" -w/o comments

But media will have a lot of negative comments about Dem policies and the character of the Dem candidate.

Followed by repeating Rove Mantra "Bush has a program - all the Dems can do is criticize".

Followed by Bush and flag photo's/

[cthrumatrix]

6. Dean is right about the media -- they will brag about the moon -- and say

nothing about soc sec timebomb

[tom_paine]

8. Just another Imperial Ponzi Scheme

Funny, but the bill is coming due much quicker than anytone thinks.

Just in time for the implementation of the Police State waiting in the wings.

[cthrumatrix]

9. you know I was thinking the same thing -- the people are going to be

pissed -- all this was a known and shrub still hides behind :

Mars, moon, funding religion, immigration plan,marriage plan


it's such BS and the media won't bust him

[cthrumatrix]

10. kick for the lunch crowd