Combining three short messages on the same topic into one.   
      
    ...   
      
    EC> The "actual question" in this case was your desire to call   
    EC> them Reagan's tax increases, thus ignoring the fact that a   
    EC> bipartisan recommended them, a bipartisan majority in both   
    EC> houses of Congress passed them, and they were simply a   
    EC> slight acceleration of Carter's already-in-place tax   
    EC> 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.   
      
    EC> That was thirty years ago.  Once again your "response" is   
    EC> 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.   
      
    EC> It gave the government more money to spend ON SOCIAL   
    EC> SECURITY PAYMENTS, thus avoiding going into the red.  You   
    EC> keep repeating this mistake, without showing any sign that   
    EC> 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.   
      
    EC> You are contending that in 1983 the federal government   
    EC> could take money from the SS trust fund and spend it on   
    EC> "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.   
      
    EC> To recap, you claimed that the 1983 social security changes   
    EC> 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.   
      
    EC> broadened the tax BASE in several ways, and increased the   
      
    IOW, increased revenue.   
      
    EC> tax rates by slightly accelerating CARTER's   
    EC> already-in-place rate increases, resulting in people paying   
    EC> 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.   
      
    EC> remaining thirty-three years, compared to what they would   
    EC> have paid in the ABSENCE of the 1983 changes.  I did not   
      
    IOW, give Reagan more to spend. Just what I said.   
      
    EC> dispute the details, I supplied the details that you were   
    EC> ignorant of.  And you did not dispute the details.  You   
    EC> 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)