What you didn't explain is how his tax increases, whether you
call them accelerations or not, did increase social security

I guess if you ignore the fact that a bipartisan commission
recommended it, and Congress passed it, and the increases

You can get almost anything labeled 'bipartisan',

Only to someone like you, who uses words as weapons rather
than as descriptors. You would just as quickly call them

Or to someone like you who doesn't address the actual question,
but automatically attacks motives.

Rostenkowski's tax increases or Tip O'Neil's tax increases,
if you thought it would serve your purposes of the moment.

You have to reach back that far to get something to falsely
accuse with. Just demonstrates how weak your thinking is.

Presidents Clinton and Reagan, unlike Obama, could
negotiate and get things done. At the time, Reagan was

Clinton and Reagan didn't face a fanatical group, financed by
billionaires, with a supreme court decision giveing corporations
the rights of people to allow unlimited political attacks
financed by those billionaires.

...

Carter had left Social Security in a mess. A bipartisan

When you show Carter did any such thing we can discuss it.

Commission made recommendations, Reagan and O'Neil accepted
them, and both houses of Congress passed them. The result,
in the words of one US News article: "Students of Reagan
have offered praise for this agreement. Reagan biographer

They may well have. Doesn't change the fact that it did not
solve the problems, we are facing them again. It also does not,
in any way, challenge my original point, all it really did was
give the federal government more money to spend today without
raising taxes other than social security taxes, which apply to
the workers, not investors. IOW, it let the Reagan
administration hide their violation of the promise to cut taxes,
not raise them.

Lou Cannon praised Reagan's Social Security commission as
an example of "a compromise that did some things the
Democrats wanted and some things the Republicans wanted,"

Which is irrelevant to the original point.

while even the former president's critics including author
Will Bunch cited the Social Security deal as a "practical"
and bipartisan reform that had a "lasting positive impact"
on government and public policy."

Where is the lasting impact? Why are we going through it all
over again? And how does that change the fact that the federal
government got more money to spend immediately, while putting
off repayment to the future?

So, yeah, YOU can call something anything you want to.
Doesn't change the facts.

It certainly does not change the facts. The fact is, the
government got more money to spend at that time, while
concealing the fact that they were breaking the promise not to
raise taxes. It was another tax increase on workers.

You didn't even argue that point.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

I guess if you ignore the fact that a bipartisan commission
recommended it, and Congress passed it, and the increases

doesn't change
the fact that it put more money into the pot for the government
to spend.

To spend on Social Security. You still aren't getting this
simple fact.

To spend on other things at that time, with a promise it would
be there 20 or 30 or 40 years in the future.

It will make no positive difference at all, and will likely do
great harm. Too bad it's so far into the future. If it was so
necessary, so good, why not make it effective immediately? Why
wait 20 years?


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

...

Somehow the idea that moving increases up from 2030 to current
years doesn't increase government revenue to be spent now is a
bit absurd.

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.

IOW, you dispute details you did not give the first time around,
but you ignore the original point.

Look at your story. Look at the facts. Do you see the
vast difference? Anyone else would.

Do you see where you ever gave a link to your sources? No one
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

And all of what the trust fund got was available and spent on
other functions.

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

Yet you still don't give your source.

Is that simple enough for you to understand YET?

What do you mean "yet"? When you give facts we can argue them.
Adding them later is your way of spinning the debate. Above all,
not giving your sources is your way of giving alleged facts that
are hard to check.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

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.

As I went into once before, the budget is not what we are really
talking about, that's just a convenient term. What we are
talking about is actual spending. Since maturing bonds are paid
off, whether by tax money or borrowed money, your point is
lacking accuracy.

If we pay off the mature bonds out of revenue, then that
requires balance, not surplus. When we borrow to pay off bonds,
that gives us a deficit. If we pay off a portion of the mature
bonds out of revenue, and borrow to pay off a portion, the
result is a lower deficit. A surplus means we can pay off bonds
that haven't matured.

Paying off some mature bonds from revenue rather than borrowing
reduces the debt at a slower rate that paying them all out of
revenue, but it does reduce the debt.

Any way you look at it, to pay off all mature bonds out of
revenue all you have to do is have a balance between revenue and
spending. Paying bonds is spending. Borrowing only to pay off
mature bonds will not increase the debt, if the interest has
been paid also. Borrowing to pay current expenses does increase
the debt.

All of which you argued ignored the original point, in which I
pointed out that any bond payment plan that incurs more cost for
paying early than waiting for maturity is illogical. At least
from the borrower's point of view it's illogical. The lender can
reasonably expect to charge a bit more for paying early, but not
more than the total cost of waiting to maturity. That kind of
penalty would be absurd from the borrower's point of view.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Hey Earl, you are an economist, would you try to explain to
Richardson how he got this completely wrong.

Hey Bob, you aren't.

If he has any questions he wants to direct to me, he can do
so. Or he could ask you. Or he could ask a brick wall.
But I repeat myself....

YOu are repeating yourself... again...

Explain to him how social security was set up that way from the
begining.

You were embarrassed on this subject not long ago.

No, I was not. If you were an economist you would have
embarrassed yourself by displaying your incompetence.

...

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Combining three short messages on the same topic into one.

...

The "actual question" in this case was your desire to call
them Reagan's tax increases, thus ignoring the fact that a
bipartisan recommended them, a bipartisan majority in both
houses of Congress passed them, and they were simply a
slight acceleration of Carter's already-in-place tax
increases.

...

Well, I decided to get the original source. So I found the
Greenspan commission report online. Turns out I was right on all
points.

The only question is, were you ignorant of what actually
happened? If you were than you shot off your mouth, or keyboard,
over something you knew nothing about. OTOH, if you knew then
you lied.

...

They may well have. Doesn't change the fact that it did not
solve the problems, we are facing them again.

That was thirty years ago. Once again your "response" is
meaningless and empty, as well as wandering off the point.

That "solution" was supposed to make social security solvent for
decades beyong this time. It didn't work, neither will any
solution they come up with now that follows the same pattern.

all it really did was
give the federal government more money to spend today without
raising taxes other than social security taxes, which apply to
the workers, not investors.

It gave the government more money to spend ON SOCIAL
SECURITY PAYMENTS, thus avoiding going into the red. You
keep repeating this mistake, without showing any sign that
you know what you are talking about.

You call yourself an economist, but you don't even know, all the
Social Security surplus goes into Treasury bonds that constitute
a loan to the federal government. That money goes straight into
the general revenue, with nothing but the bonds left in the
trust fund.

The general revenue pays for government spending. Thus, all the
surplus went straight into current spending, not into some vault
somewhere.

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

it put more money into the pot for the government
to spend.

To spend on Social Security. You still aren't getting this
simple fact.

To spend on other things at that time, with a promise it would
be there 20 or 30 or 40 years in the future.

You are contending that in 1983 the federal government
could take money from the SS trust fund and spend it on
"other things." You really don't have a clue.

OMG! You are displaying an incredible level of ignorance. Try to
look it up, or ask any economist, even a right winger. All of
the paryroll tax revenue deposited into the Social Security
Trust fund goes, immediately, into treasury bonds, and those
bonds are what the government holds in the trust fund, not the
cash. All money invested in T-bonds then goes into the general
funds, and is spent on govt appropriations.

IOW, everything I said is literally true.

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

...

IOW, you dispute details you did not give the first time around,
but you ignore the original point.

To recap, you claimed that the 1983 social security changes
constituted a huge tax increase. I pointed out that it

It did. The Greenspan commission gave two periods of change, the
sort term, 1983 to 1989, and long term, beyond 1989. The short
term was Reagan's time in office.

According to the Greenspan committee report, the intent was to
increase revenue, under the short term period, IOW Reagan's
term, aprox $150-$200 billion. Back in 1983 that was a huge
increase. The report states that the changes they came up with
produced about $168 Billion in increased revenue.

broadened the tax BASE in several ways, and increased the

IOW, increased revenue.

tax rates by slightly accelerating CARTER's
already-in-place rate increases, resulting in people paying
slightly more in 1984, 1988, and 1989 and THE SAME in the

IOW, during Reagan's term. Remember, the govt works on a fiscal
year, and 1989 was Reagan's last fiscal year.

remaining thirty-three years, compared to what they would
have paid in the ABSENCE of the 1983 changes. I did not

IOW, give Reagan more to spend. Just what I said.

dispute the details, I supplied the details that you were
ignorant of. And you did not dispute the details. You
just ignore them.

I did point out that your details supported my claims. Now I
have even more to add. The Greenspan report said accelerating
the tax increase would increase the Reagan administration
revenue by $40 Billion. Note: not one penny of additional for
later administrations since they would have had the increase
anyway. Whether you like it or not, that is a tax increase under
Reagan.

That is also about 25% of the total $168 Billion they projected.
So, that was a total tax increase under Reagan of $168 billion.

All non-increase changes totaled less than $2 billion, so I am
not going to bother with them here. All the long term
projections totaled less than $2 billion and had no effect on
Reagan's time, so I am ignoring them also.

And that was a lot of money in a year when the defict was $208
Billion, and the total federal spending was $601 Billion.

Oh, and you also left out that Moynihan tried to get the changes
repealed when he realized that all they had accomplished was to
give Reagan, and Bush I, more money to spend under cover of the
trust fund. Moynihan was one of the commission members.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

...

As I went into once before, the budget is not what we are really
talking about, that's just a convenient term. What we are
talking about is actual spending. Since maturing bonds are paid
off, whether by tax money or borrowed money, your point is
lacking accuracy.
If we pay off the mature bonds out of revenue, then that
requires balance, not surplus.

It is sometimes difficult to know when you are pretending
to be ignorant and when you really are ignorant on a given

As I have shown in my previous respone, you are demonstrating
incredible levels of ignorance.

subject. If current spending and current revenue remain in
exact balance for the next fifty years, the amount of debt
will remain the same for the next fifty years. If you are

Do you ever do a budget for you own spending? Did you ever
borrow money to buy a car or a house? Your car and mortgage
payments are counted as spending in your budget.

ten thousand dollars in debt, and you spend your whole
paycheck every month, you will remain ten thousand dollars
in debt. You have to make more or spend less to pay down
the debt.

If you spend your whole paycheck every month you will pay off
your debt if you, properly, account for your debt payments under
spending. If you don't, your creditors will demand payment with
penalties. If you don't believe me, just ask any accountant, or
budget planning advisor. Or a real economist.

Paying off some mature bonds from revenue rather than borrowing
reduces the debt at a slower rate that paying them all out of
revenue, but it does reduce the debt.

To do that requires a surplus of revenue over spending.
What part of this are you pretending to not understand?

Paying off bonds is spending. What part of that are you really
not understanding?

Or do you think there is some magic involved when it comes to
the federal debt? Maybe that explains why you believed in
Reagan.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

He calls it "Reagan's" tax increase, ignoring the fact that
it was proposed by a bipartisan commission and passed by a
bipartisan majority in Congress before being signed by
Reagan. But Bob considers those facts "meaningless" to the
question of whose tax increases they were! Meaningless!

The commission was headed by Alan Greenspan, and served the
purposes of the Reagan administration.

Finally you say something about the bipartisan commission (while still ignoring
the bipartisan support in both houses of Congress), but really you say nothing.
Greenspan was one of the fifteen members. He didn't make the recommendations.
The commission made the recommendations. That includes several Democrats including Claude Pepper, and an assistant secretary of HHS under Carter, and a former head of the SSA, and the head of the AFL-CIO! It was bipartisan, which is one of the many words you just don't understand.



--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

I even specified WHICH YEARS actually saw the accelerated
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. There were only three
years that saw higher rates than if the act had not been
passed.

As I pointed out, the accelerated tax increases accounted for,
by the Greenspan commission's own report, only about 25% of the
increased revenue.

You started off talking about the tax increase. I am the one who had to explain to you that the law made a variety of changes apart from just the rate increases that you wanted to talk about. You wanted to attribute all of the amount to the higher tax rates. That was a couple of months ago. It is good that you are starting to change your story, even if you aren't willing to do it
openly.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

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.

You stopped too soon. It reports the actual budget receipts, the actual budget
outlays, and the actual resulting surplus or deficit. Not just the budget REQUEST.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

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.

You persist in your completely absurd belief that going into debt is income and
that paying off debt is spending. Your first response is to pretend that you do not know what two simple English words MEAN. Your second was to ask an irrelevant question. I answered the irrelevant question. Revenue is "counted"
as revenue because revenue IS revenue. Yes, your question really WAS that dumb.

Then explain why the social security trust funds are counted as
revenue and debt.

Jeff already did. I already did. That is why your response is so funny.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Hello Earl,

He calls it "Reagan's" tax increase, ignoring the fact that
it was proposed by a bipartisan commission and passed by a
bipartisan majority in Congress before being signed by
Reagan. But Bob considers those facts "meaningless" to the
question of whose tax increases they were! Meaningless!

The commission was headed by Alan Greenspan, and served the
purposes of the Reagan administration.

Finally you say something about the bipartisan commission (while
still ignoring the bipartisan support in both houses of Congress),
but really you say nothing.

Every committee/commission in Congress is by definition "bipartisan".
All that is needed is for one member of another party to be on that committee/commission to make it bipartisan. See how that works?
Golly gee. I'm sooooo smart. :)

Greenspan was one of the fifteen members. He didn't make the EC>recommendations.

"If you'll lie by omission, you'll lie by commission."
- Kathleen Parker

Who appointed Greenspan? Was it a Democrat who appointed him? Or
was it a Republican? And who set the agenda for the meetings? Who
chaired the meetings? How many Democrats were on the commssion?
How many Republicans were on the commission?

The commission made the recommendations. That includes several
Democrats including Claude Pepper, and an assistant secretary of HHS ED>under Carter, and a former head of the SSA, and the head of the

AFL-CIO! It was bipartisan, which is one of the many words you just EC>don't understand.

None of those Democrats had any real power at the time, given there
was a Republican president by the name of Ronald Reagan who was heads
and heels in love with a monetarist named Alan Greenspan.

And let's not forget about Reagan's Boy Wonder, David Stockman ...

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
* Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)

Hello Earl,

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.

You stopped too soon. It reports the actual budget receipts, the
actual budget outlays, and the actual resulting surplus or deficit.
Not just the budget REQUEST.

Scrap the cap. Problem solved.

When it comes to taxation, some folks advocate a national sales tax,
or values added tax, as a replacement for the federal income tax.
Everybody pays the same rate, whether rich or poor. In that light,
this type of tax is fairer than a progressive income tax (according
to conservatives). And yet, those same conservatives cry foul when
it comes to removing the cap on social security.

Jesus had a few choice words for folks like that. Actually more
than a few. :)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.06.00.00-gb
* Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)

Apparently the problem with bad posts is coming from you. You
are multiple posting of msgs.

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.

You stopped too soon. It reports the actual budget
receipts, the actual budget outlays, and the actual
resulting surplus or deficit. Not just the budget REQUEST.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@bex.net http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Another duplicate post from you, and you complain about problems
with dates from me? Look in the mirror.

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.

You persist in your completely absurd belief that going
into debt is income and that paying off debt is spending.
Your first response is to pretend that you do not know what
two simple English words MEAN. Your second was to ask an
irrelevant question. I answered the irrelevant question.
Revenue is "counted" as revenue because revenue IS revenue.
Yes, your question really WAS that dumb.

Then explain why the social security trust funds are counted as
revenue and debt.

Jeff already did. I already did. That is why your
response is so funny.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@bex.net http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

...

Every committee/commission in Congress is by definition
"bipartisan". All that is needed is for one member of
another party to be on that committee/commission to make it
bipartisan. See how that works? Golly gee. I'm sooooo
smart. :)

Earl's msgs are being cross posted to this echo, apparently from
another BBS, according to Ed Koon.

Pls do not respond to them.



BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@bex.net http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Bob Klahn - Moderator - Debate Echo...
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

...

Scrap the cap. Problem solved.

I learned, the cap is a fairly recent addition anyway.

When it comes to taxation, some folks advocate a national
sales tax, or values added tax, as a replacement for the
federal income tax.

US a sales or VAT to replace social security and medicare taxes.
They are already a flat tax.

to conservatives). And yet, those same conservatives cry
foul when it comes to removing the cap on social security.

Now that you mention it...


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@bex.net http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... How do you know you're not immortal until you die?
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
* Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

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
something.

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.

If you had actually read what I said, and if you had even a low level of understanding of the English language, you would realize I said the opposite. Did you not read it, or did you not understand? There is no third option other
than your complete dishonesty.

I pointed out to you weeks ago which three years actually saw a tax increase due to the 1983 law. You have yet to show any sign that you read it, let alone
understood it, let alone being able to honestly admit it.


--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)