Social Security to run deficit next two years

[one...two...tree 2,762]

News Analysis: Who Manages the Economy Better—Republicans or Democrats?

We can look to the record. Here's the Economic Sweepstakes Quiz. The rules are simple. Guess which president since World War II did best on these eight most generally accepted measures of good management of the nation's economy. You can choose among six Republicans: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bushes I and II; and five Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. (No peeking.)

Which president produced:

1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?

2. The highest growth in jobs?

3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?

4. The highest growth in industrial production?

5. The highest growth in hourly wages?

6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?

7. The lowest inflation?

8. The largest reduction in the deficit?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

The answers are: 1. Harry Truman, 2. Bill Clinton, 3. Lyndon Johnson, 4. John F. Kennedy, 5. Johnson, 6. Truman, 7. Truman, 8. Clinton. In the Economic Sweepstakes, Democratic presidents trounce Republicans eight times out of eight!

If this isn't enough to destroy the myth that the economy has performed better under Republicans, the stock market has also done better under the Democrats. The Dow Jones Industrial Average during the 20th century has risen 7.3 percent on average per year under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it rose 10.3 percent—which means investors gained a whopping 41 percent more. And the stock market declined further during George W's two terms. Moreover, since WWII, Democratic presidents have increased the national debt by an average of 3.7 percent per year and Republican presidents have increased it an average of 10.1 percent. During the same time period, Democratic presidents produced, on average, an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent; Republicans, 6.3 percent. That's the historical record.

What about economic policies over the past 15 years? The Clinton-Gore administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. The national debt was reduced dramatically, the industrial sector boomed, wages grew and more Americans found jobs. How has the Bush-Cheney team fared? In the past seven years, we have experienced the weakest post-recession job creation cycle since the Great Depression, record deficits, record household debt, a record bankruptcy rate and a substantial increase in poverty. We have gone from being the nation with the biggest budget surplus in history to becoming the nation with the largest deficit in history.

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2008-10...s-or-Democrats-

Edited September 28, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[_Simpson_ 250]

News Analysis: Who Manages the Economy Better—Republicans or Democrats?

We can look to the record. Here's the Economic Sweepstakes Quiz. The rules are simple. Guess which president since World War II did best on these eight most generally accepted measures of good management of the nation's economy. You can choose among six Republicans: Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bushes I and II; and five Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. (No peeking.)

Which president produced:

1. The highest growth in the gross domestic product?

2. The highest growth in jobs?

3. The biggest increase in personal disposable income after taxes?

4. The highest growth in industrial production?

5. The highest growth in hourly wages?

6. The lowest Misery Index (inflation plus unemployment)?

7. The lowest inflation?

8. The largest reduction in the deficit?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

..

.

.

..

.

.

.

.

The answers are: 1. Harry Truman, 2. Bill Clinton, 3. Lyndon Johnson, 4. John F. Kennedy, 5. Johnson, 6. Truman, 7. Truman, 8. Clinton. In the Economic Sweepstakes, Democratic presidents trounce Republicans eight times out of eight!

If this isn't enough to destroy the myth that the economy has performed better under Republicans, the stock market has also done better under the Democrats. The Dow Jones Industrial Average during the 20th century has risen 7.3 percent on average per year under Republican presidents. Under Democrats, it rose 10.3 percent—which means investors gained a whopping 41 percent more. And the stock market declined further during George W's two terms. Moreover, since WWII, Democratic presidents have increased the national debt by an average of 3.7 percent per year and Republican presidents have increased it an average of 10.1 percent. During the same time period, Democratic presidents produced, on average, an unemployment rate of 4.8 percent; Republicans, 6.3 percent. That's the historical record.

What about economic policies over the past 15 years? The Clinton-Gore administration presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in our history. The national debt was reduced dramatically, the industrial sector boomed, wages grew and more Americans found jobs. How has the Bush-Cheney team fared? In the past seven years, we have experienced the weakest post-recession job creation cycle since the Great Depression, record deficits, record household debt, a record bankruptcy rate and a substantial increase in poverty. We have gone from being the nation with the biggest budget surplus in history to becoming the nation with the largest deficit in history.

http://www.berkeleydaily.org/issue/2008-10...s-or-Democrats-

The Berkeley daily enough said about that.

Edited September 28, 2009 by _Simpson_

[mawilson 2,133]

So explain to me why Dems and Rebs are not part of the gov and how them being able to access the funds is not a failure? It is a failed program but you want to pretend its not so that you can have your health care.

Health care will probably end up like Social Security. There will be a "health care tax",

at least initially, to pay for the new health care system. If by some miracle the new

system actually lowers health care costs, the tax will be commingled with other taxes

in the Treasury, just like the Social Security and Medicare taxes, and used to pay for

other things.

Notice how members of Congress always refer to the Social Security and Medicare taxes

as "the payroll tax"? It might as well be one tax - they are free to use the money

any way they want.

[_Simpson_ 250]

So explain to me why Dems and Rebs are not part of the gov and how them being able to access the funds is not a failure? It is a failed program but you want to pretend its not so that you can have your health care.

Health care will probably end up like Social Security. There will be a "health care tax",

at least initially, to pay for the new health care system. If by some miracle the new

system actually lowers health care costs, the tax will be commingled with other taxes

in the Treasury, just like the Social Security and Medicare taxes, and used to pay for

other things.

Notice how members of Congress always refer to the Social Security and Medicare taxes

as "the payroll tax"? It might as well be one tax - they are free to use the money

any way they want.

I agree, I really hope we dont implement something like this, all bad news.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A little historical perspective...

CBO: Social Security funds needed to balance books

August 29, 2001

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- This year's federal budget surplus has plunged to $153 billion because of the nation's economic doldrums and the Bush administration's tax cut, meaning the federal government will have to cover $9 billion of spending by dipping into Social Security, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected Tuesday.

The new estimate for the federal surplus is sharply lower -- off by 44 percent --- from the $275 billion figure the CBO was predicting just three months ago. The reduction means that President Bush and congressional lawmakers will be hard pressed to keep their pledge not to use Social Security funds for any other government spending, save for a planned, steady retirement of the government's outstanding debt.

The CBO projected Tuesday that, if current spending habits aren't changed, the Social Security surplus would be dipped into again in 2003, for $18 billion, and in 2004, for $3 billion. The congressional accounting office projects a return to overall budget surpluses large enough to spare the Social Security fund in later years.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/08/28/budget/

Edited September 28, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[mawilson 2,133]

GWB... big surprise.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

GWB... big surprise.

Don't be too hard on him. He was a supply-sider just as Reagan was.

[mawilson 2,133]

President Bush and congressional lawmakers will be hard pressed to keep their pledge not to use Social Security funds for any other government spending, save for a planned, steady retirement of the government's outstanding debt.

It should be a law, not a "pledge".

Note the date... August 2001. He was dipping into SS funds even before 9/11.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

President Bush and congressional lawmakers will be hard pressed to keep their pledge not to use Social Security funds for any other government spending, save for a planned, steady retirement of the government's outstanding debt.

It should be a law, not a "pledge".

Note the date... August 2001. He was dipping into SS funds even before 9/11.

I agree. He was cookin the books before he'd even served his first full year.

[SuperDuper! 230]

but wait I thought it was a well oiled machine

It's OK to make a mistake. You thought wrong.