AMEN

Nick D.

> Exactly.  Why in the Hell is G-Dumb-Ya "giving" us a tax cut/"refund" when
> we owe $2,000,000,000,000 to Social security, and another
> $3,000,000,000,000 to the federal deficit?  He is another one wanting to
> spend the surplus before it's here.  Plus, he says he is only going to pay
> down the "easy" debt (About $3 trillion out of the $5 trillion).  And the
> other $2 trillion will remain.  I mean, I want lower taxes...who doesn't?
> But I want the debt paid off, Social Security and Medicare fully funded
> again, FIRST.  Pay off the debts, then the budget will look fantastic in
> the year 2010.  The 34% of the budget that currently goes to debt interest
> will be freed up for other programs or, even better, a 34% tax cut!  The
> government already does far more than it is supposed to.  There are
> currently over 20 cabinet positions, each with their own agencies.  Do you
> know how many cabinet positions FDR had?  Answer: 4.  Cut the government,
> cut the debt, then cut our taxes.  IN THAT ORDER.
>
> My soap box just broke under the weight of all that hot air.  I bid you
all
> well.
>
> Randy Keefer
>
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2001 11:55:22 -0500, Jerry Fochtman
<[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >The thing that bothers me is that the billions of dollars
> >currently in the Social Security funds are used in determining
> >the fact that our federal budget will have a surplus. When
> >in fact that by current law, the government cannot use these
> >funds for anything except for paying retirement benefits.
> >So the bottom line is, there is actually several billion
> >dollars less than reported that can actually be used for
> >various programs.  And if, as predicted, these funds run-out
> >in the 2021+ timeframe, the impact on the budget will be
> >an obligation to pay the benefits for all those that
> >contributed.
> >
> >This accounting 'slight of hand' was done back in the 80's
> >whereby previously, these funds were not reflected in the
> >budget.
> >
> >Also, did you know that the only thing that these funds can
> >be invested in is treasury bonds/bills at what are usually
> >fairly low rates of return when compared to other forms of
> >secured investment?  One item Bush/others wanted to do was
> >at least allow the funds to be able to invest a part of these
> >monies in other securities to try and enhance the overall
> >rate of return for the future benefit of the participants.
> >
> >While I'm on my soap-box, I also dislike politicians who
> >feel obligated to spend the projected surplus, especially
> >before it is a reality, simply because its there.  I'd
> >rather see them buy-down some of the national debt, although
> >I do realize that having some debt is actually good for
> >our overall economy.
> >
> >* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> >* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *