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 *