WP: $3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details Agenda

[DeSPURado]

Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A01

The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade.

A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.

Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts.

And Bush's agenda has many costs the administration has not publicly estimated. For instance, Bush said in his speech that he would continue to try to stabilize Iraq and wage war on terrorism. The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost.
WPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18876-2004Sep13.html)

[Tommy Duncan]

Switching SS to a real individual account system will reduce the projected liability of that program, something that apparently was not factored in.

[DeSPURado]

wrong we still pay taxes into a privatized social security. That wouldn't go away under Bush's plan.

[Tommy Duncan]

Calm down. Obviously you cannot think straight.

If you create private accounts what do you think happens to the future benefits to be paid out? Again, a reduction in the unfunded liability.

[DeSPURado]

It still requires the government to put the money in. It would be the biggest cash giveaway to big business in the history of man. Well since the pyramids. Oh wait that was free.

[Tommy Duncan]

Um yeah and again, it would reduce the future amount of benefits to be paid out. What part of this is hard for you to understand?

Only in America would workers getting to keep more of their paycheck, invest it, and pass it on to their children be referred to as a "giveaway."

[Yonivore]

"biggest cash giveaway"
Who's giving money away? Whose money are they giving away? And, to whom are they giving the money away?

1) Nobody is giving money away, the government is merely taking less from wage earners.

2) They're not giving anybody's money away, they're merely allowing the wage earner to keep more of the money they earned by reducing the Social Security tax.

3) They're not giving money to anyone...the person that has been allowed to keep more of their own money is putting it into a private pension fund.

[DeSPURado]

Um yeah and again, it would reduce the future amount of benefits to be paid out.

No it wouldn't people would still be paying taxes into the privatized security fund. The government would just end up with less money. They still would have the debt from social security, they would just owe it to big business.

[Tommy Duncan]

Oh man. Look, the government is committed to paying benefits to retirees. Do you understand that? Part of any privatization arrangement will have a reduction in benefits.

When have I said that the tax rates would be lowered? The point is that the future benefits to be paid out would be lowered, which, again, would lower the projected unfunded liability.

[Tommy Duncan]

No it wouldn't people would still be paying taxes into the privatized security fund.

When have I said otherwise?




The government would just end up with less money.

The government would route the money into the accounts.




They still would have the debt from social

And again, that would be reduced because there would be a reduction in future benefits to be paid out.

[DeSPURado]

"will have a reduction in benefits." - thats what Bush is trying to get you to think. The reality is that no where in Bush's proposal did it actually reduce benefits. In fact like the move to privatize the millitary (IE - Haliburton doing laundry) there are going to be untold admin costs that are added in bringing the price tag up.

[Tommy Duncan]

Now that you've seen the error of your ways you want to move the debate to how large the projected benefit cuts will be. The point of the reform is precisely to reduce the projected unfunded liability.

Where is your proof that Bush's plan would not reduce the amount of benefits the government would pay out?

[DeSPURado]

My proof is that its not included in his proposal. You can't prove a negative.

[Tommy Duncan]

Hey, I'm only asking you to subtantiate what you stated:


The reality is that no where in Bush's proposal did it actually reduce benefits.

[DeSPURado]

Again I would have to post the entire proposal to do what you are asking.

[Tommy Duncan]

:lol

Oh, so you can prove a negative, but no one else can.

F'in A.

[DeSPURado]

You are also talking about a bill that house republicans would not vote for in fact they voted on the following:


House Republicans have distanced themselves from Bush's ideas -- at least rhetorically -- by passing a bill that promised not to "privatize" the retirement system

WPOst (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59621-2002Jul24?language=printer)

[Tommy Duncan]

Election year posturing. The reality of the situation is that the system must be changed. Perhaps a second term Bush administration would be able to do that since he wouldn't be committed to spending like mad in order to be reelected.

[DeSPURado]

:lol It stands to reason that he will never have the majority of both congresses again, in the way he does now. Did you notice the date on that article either? 2002 not quite in the election cycle, maybe just before the midterms. I am getting my numbers confused. Why didn't they do it in the mean time?

[Tommy Duncan]

Why did Bush agree to expand Medicare, which was the equivalent of doubling the amount of outstanding US debt?

[DeSPURado]

To let the pharmaceutical industries name their own price for drugs and not allow medicare to negotiate at all on the price.

[Tommy Duncan]

To buy the votes of the elderly.

[DeSPURado]

Which is turning out to bnackfire, because they failed to follow the most basic rule when dealing with the elderly. Give them one card, make it simple to use.

Oh and now the elderly are pissed off that their costs have actully been going up under the new discount card, because the costs can't be negotiated.