Greenspan Endorses Gore's Lockbox for SS

[Erika]

Sorry, I don't have some links but they are everywhere.
It really angers me that Bush and his right-wingers laughed at Gore's recommendation of a lock box for SS in 2000. Now Greenspan is recommending that very idea. Gore was a visionary.

President Gore (I wish), we love you.

[Kagemusha]

1. I'll settle for a commitment by the government to honor treasury bonds

That would keep SS solvent for decades.

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. Yeah. Now that Bushco has spent the last 5 years looting the

treasury.

He could have mentioned this a little sooner. Like during the 2000 election.

[Erika]

3. Bush & the GOP laughed at Gore for his lockbox theory

in 2000 calling him totally out of touch with the "new economy". You don't hear that term anymore either.

[NYC]

4. A little late for Greenspan to be endorsing the lock box idea.

He could have mentioned this 5 years ago.

[xray s]

5. The whole issue is will the government honor its debt or not

Apparently Greenspan is saying the government won't honor government bonds if those bonds are purchased by the Social Security Trust Fund, but they will honor government bonds if they are purchased by the Chinese to fund Bush's two trillion dollar privatization scam.

Which makes NO FUCKIN SENSE AT ALL!

[Erika]

6. I've been purchasing $100 govt bonds monthly since 1986

It sounds like I better redeem them.

[CindyDale]

10. It's unconstitutional for the government not to honor its debt

I'm not an attorney, but so far as I understand what they are proposing to do with the trust has no basis in law whatsoever. It is theft.

edit: typo

[xray s]

12. absolutely theft

It's as if you went to the bank, took out a 5 year CD, and after the 5 years were up, the bank said "sorry, we gave your money to a rich guy who built a big mansion and now he doesn't want to pay us back, so we can't pay you."

Everytime the government can't find a billion it gave Bush's cronies in Iraq is a billion out of your Social Security Trust Fund.

In 2001 Bush took that trust fund cash and gave it mostly to rich people and wealthy corporations in the form of a tax cut. They didn't need it. Now they are getting richer and richer. But will they take some of that new wealth and pay it to the government to pay off the bonds in the trust fund? NO! Will they take some of that wealth to pay for Bush's privatization scam? NO!

They would rather default on the Social Security Trust Fund than give up their stolen wealth. I have been paying into that fund for 30 years and I am pissed :grr:

[CindyDale]

16. And you know, it will kill the job market if no one ever retires

There is no sense to this, but I'm sure we will get the money back, whether it is by lawsuit, taxes, nationalization of resources, or whatever. The reason I'm sure is that it's not going to work.

[BlueInRed]

7. What I read is that he endorsed a lock box for PRIVATE ACCTS, but not

for our contributions to Social Security. So, it was a way to trick the supporters of the lock box into supporting private accounts. At least that's the way I read the story. (I think it was the NYT version, but it may have been AP.)

[BrklynLiberal]

8. The date of this article was SUNDAY OCTOBER 17, 2004

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=173606

Kerry Warns of Social Security 'Surprise'
Kerry Accuses Bush of Planning 'January Surprise' That Would Privatize Social Security
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON Oct 17, 2004 — Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry accused President Bush on Sunday of planning a surprise second-term effort to privatize Social Security and forecast a "disaster for America's middle class."

Republicans denied the charge as scare tactics with little more than two weeks remaining in a tight election. "It is just flat inaccurate," said GOP chairman Ed Gillespie.

<snip>

Kerry talked about Social Security from the pulpit of the Mt. Olivet Baptist Church in Columbus, Ohio, citing a report in The New York Times Magazine that quoted Bush as telling supporters that "privatizing Social Security" would be high on his second-term agenda.

He called it Bush's "January surprise," and said it may be good for "the wealthiest people and the well connected in America, but it's a disaster for America's middle class."

Citing estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, Kerry said Bush's plan would mean "benefit cuts for seniors of between 25 percent and 45 percent. That's up to $500 less for food, for clothing, for the occasional gift for a grandchild," he said, and vowed anew not to cut benefits or raise the retirement age if elected.

Bush has long advocated overhauling Social Security to allow younger workers the choice of putting a portion of their payroll taxes into private accounts.

Aides also have said that current Social Security beneficiaries and those approaching the age of eligibility would not be required to accept any changes in the current system.

But implicit in any such modification is the need either to replace or offset the money that will begin flowing to private accounts rather than traditional Social Security. Estimates run into the trillions of dollars over several years.

Purely in political terms, Republican survey data long ago discovered that voters recoil at the use of the word "privatize" in connection with either Social Security or Medicare.

<snip>

Gillespie said the account of Bush's remarks was a "second-hand report and it is just flat inaccurate."
<snip>
Bush's campaign spokesman was more blunt,
"John Kerry's misleading senior scare tactics are just another example of a candidate who will say anything to get elected," said spokesman Steve Schmidt, "no matter how false his accusations or how contradictory they are with his record of repeatedly voting for higher taxes on Social Security."

[Erika]

9. Kerry spoke the truth

[dennis4868]

11. INDEED A VISIONARY

it was Gore who wanted tighter security at airports, locked cabins, and for Clinton to be much more agressive in Aghanistan way before 911....there is no question in my mind had Gore been Prez there would have never been a 911.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. I have always felt that way.....If Gore had been in the WHite House, as

he should have been, there would never have been the 9/11 tragedy.
Getting * in there was part of the BFEE plan, as was the whole 9/11 scenaraio. MIHOP.

[applegrove]

13. Now to put all the money back in that Bush spent. n/t

[NightOwwl]

15. No, this thread is entirely misleading.

He endorses using PRIVATE ACCOUNTS as lockboxes. The only thing this has in common with Gore is the term lockbox. Greenspan is basically saying that the government can't be trusted with SS, so maybe private accounts aren't such a bad idea after all. This is total bullshit! Why not just force government to act responsibly? Is that too much to ask?

Greenspan: Accounts are the 'lockbox'
Fed chair argues accounts for Social Security can boost national savings and preserve worker funds.

"We need, in effect, to make the phantom 'lockboxes' around the trust fund real," Greenspan said in testimony Tuesday before the Senate's Special Committee On Aging.

As the system is now, the surplus that has been paid into Social Security over the past 20 years has been treated as part of the general budget and has already been spent by the U.S. Treasury.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/retirement/greenspan_aginghearing/?cnn=yes

Besides, do you trust them to keep the money you earmark for private accounst untouchable? I sure don't.

[OneTwentyoNine]

17. Nah...he supports BUSH and his crazed SS destruction.....nt