I guess if you ignore the fact that a bipartisan commission
recommended it, and Congress passed it, and the increases
the fact that it put more money into the pot for the government
To spend on Social Security. You still aren't getting this
Somehow the idea that moving increases up from 2030 to current
years doesn't increase government revenue to be spent now is a
Your attempt to twist the facts is what is "absurd." The
law did not jump the 1984 tax rate up to the 2030 rate. It
slightly accelerated Carter's tax increases. Specifically,
the 1985 rate increase got moved up to 1984, the
already-passed increases for 1985-87 remained the same,
part of the already-passed 1990 increase got moved up to
1988, and the already-passed increases from 1990 to 2030
remained the same.
Look at your story. Look at the facts. Do you see the
vast difference? Anyone else would.
So, as far as the increased tax rates, leaving out the
other provisions of the law, taxpayers paid a little more
(and the SS trust fund got a little more) in 1984 than
would have been the case if the changes had not passed. In
1985, 86, and 87, they payed THE SAME RATE as they would
The increases were already scheduled to take place.
Taxpayers paid a little more in 1988 and 89 than they would
Is that simple enough for you to understand YET?
An exactly balanced budget would have exactly the effect of
paying off only mature bonds.
An "exactly balanced" budget would be able to pay off
mature bonds by issuing new ones, thus keeping the debt the
Since paying off maturing bonds are part of the govt fiscal
policy, no further change than exacly balancing spending and
revenue is necessary to pay off the debt by the time the current
bonds all mature.
Paying off matured bonds without issuing new bonds to
replace them would require running a surplus, not a
balance. At an exact balance, the total indebtedness would
remain the same. Less aggregate indebtedness would mean a
surplus. All of which has nothing to do with Greenspan's
point about the disruption that would come from buying
NON-mature bonds back prematurely.
That is why, if one looks up budget data, they don't just
find "wish list" data. They also find out what actually
happened. From Obama's 2014 Budget: "Historical Tables,
Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2014
provides data on budget receipts, outlays, surpluses or
deficits, Federal debt, and Federal employment over an
extended time period, generally from 1940 or earlier to
2014 or 2018."
Yep. The * Historical Tables* report the results.
None of this relates, however, to your belief that going
into debt counts as "income" while paying that debt down or
off is "spending."
First, I did not say income, I said revenue. Second, look at the
records. The trust funds are counted in the revenue columns.
The revenue that people pay in through the payroll tax IS
REVENUE! What is it that you still need help with here?
Perhaps the fact that you used the word "income" above, yet I
used revenue consistently.
Then explain why the social security trust funds are counted as
revenue and debt.
But now you have been taught that the tax increase was only
a part of that supposed "165 billion." I even explained
exactly what years saw a tax increase from the 1983 law,
and what years saw NO increase over the 1977 Carter tax
increases that were already slated to go into effect. If
you had just paid attention, you would have learned
Now you are playing a word game, pretending a tax increase today
doesn't count if it was already schedualed for 5 years from now.
|Nodes:||8 (0 / 8)|