Greenspan asking for Social Security Cuts!!!

[catnapper]

My husband, Mr. Catnapper, says:
"I was in the military, worked in the post office, and am now a public school teacher. I am watching this idiot take away everything that he has worked for since he was 16."

I told him to continue with his rant, and he said "I'm done" but then interjected that Greenspan is worthless... then mumbled something about whole other issues and whole other htreads.

[trayi52]

Is this going to happen or is it? Is Greenspan going to get his way? Does he usually? Or this being an election year just going to mean he is beating a dead horse with a whatever you beat a dead horse with?

I am serious, Are they going to cut What we are getting now in half? My brother in law keeps saying yeap they have done made it law! I keep saying not law yet.

Well? Anybody?Answers?

[mugsy]

Willie, as far as I know, this is just a suggestion....but, I may be wrong.

Yes, this is an election year, but Greenspan is not an elected official. I get nervous when one guy has the power to decide interest rates, value of money, money in circulation, etc....

[mugsy]

Ok...I was wrong...he does want cuts throughout....but...here are some links...

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...-newslocal-hed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Feb25.html

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...pan-cuts_x.htm

This one is his statement in front of the federal reserve. The Social Security stuff is about 1/2 way down....

http://www.federalreserve.gov/boardd...25/default.htm

[moosmom]

Quoted by Greenspan:

History has shown that, when faced with major challenges, elected officials have risen to the occasion. In particular, over the past twenty years or so, the prospect of large deficits has generally led to actions to narrow them. I trust that the recent deterioration in the budget outlook and the fast-approaching retirement of the baby-boom generation will be met with similar determination and effectiveness.

Risen to the occasion? Yeah, is that before or AFTER those scumsucking politicians vote themselves a nice hefty raise in THEIR pay, voting NO for a federal unemployment extension, while those of us who are having difficulty finding ANY type of job are forced to apply for assistance???

I think I'm going to be sick!!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Originally posted by trayi52
Is this going to happen or is it? Is Greenspan going to get his way? Does he usually? Or this being an election year just going to mean he is beating a dead horse with a whatever you beat a dead horse with?

I am serious, Are they going to cut What we are getting now in half? My brother in law keeps saying yeap they have done made it law! I keep saying not law yet.

Well? Anybody?Answers?

Congress would have to vote on any changes. At least they always have to vote on OUR LITTLE 1% (APPROX $10 a month) increase, then the President would have to sign it. (I always wonder how big a laugh they get over that. I'm sure there are lots of snickers anyway.)

Most of us in my town, can hardly make it now. We are so far below the poverty level we can't even see the top.

NEWS FLASH FOR ALL POLITICIANS AND LAW MAKERS:
If our SS was enough we could live on, we wouldn't need extra programs like the help with heating program, food programs and such.

If they want to trim the budget, cut out all saleries for out of office senators and house members. Why should they still receive even a small salary now they are out of office. Let them get a job like the rest of the country.

[trayi52]

Yes, and I would also like to ask them to trade places with us for, oh say 6 months. Just 6 months, let them try and pay electric bills, food bills, telephone bills, etc. You know just the neccessties of life. See if they could live on what we have to live on!

That is probably just piggy bank money to those a**holes though. They could not live like that. I doulbledog dare them to try! Those wussies, couldn't! They don' t any of those a**wipes have the jewls to do it.

They stand up there in their big expensive suits, and want to take the food out of other people's mouth to put those fancy threads on their backs! I swear, I hate politicians!!!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Originally posted by trayi52
Yes, and I would also like to ask them to trade places with us for, oh say 6 months. Just 6 months, let them try and pay electric bills, food bills, telephone bills, etc. You know just the neccessties of life. See if they could live on what we have to live on!

Several years ago, the powers that be in Kansas, decided to live on food stamps for a month or two to prove that people could live on it. Only food bought with the stamps was allowed. Keep in mind that only food could be purchased. No toilet paper etc. The 'experiment' was quickly hushed up when they couldn't do it!

[lizbud]

Hey folks, don't shoot the messenger. Greenspan is just
"telling it like it is". I think he's been way to subtle so far in
getting the financial picture of this country across to the people
in Washington... More bad news guys.......


Taxpayers' Fannies on the line
Failure looms for inadequately regulated mortgage giants


AUSTIN, Texas -- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have gone and gotten themselves in big trouble. For those of you who do not follow the business pages, I only wish we were talking about pregnant teen-agers. Fannie and Freddie are the two government-sponsored mortgage companies that help most of us buy homes. Trouble is, they've run themselves into big-time debt -- they've doubled the amount they owe in just the last five years. When I say big-time, try $2 trillion. And guess who's on the hook if these things go under? Congratulations, taxpayers.
This week, Alan Greenspan, the Great Pooh-Bah of the financial world, opined in his usual Delphic style before the Senate Banking Committee, "To fend off possible future systemic difficulties, which we assess as likely if the expansion continues unabated, preventive actions are required sooner rather than later." The Wall Street Journal helpfully translates this as, "Act quickly." Hard to tell with Greenspan: I yield to the Journal's long experience in Greenspan translation, but it could also mean, "Push the panic button now!"

What we have here is the same thing that happened after the famous S&L deregulation in the 1980s -- privatized profit and socialized risk. You may recall that little adventure in deregulation -- the universal panacea according to the right -- cost the taxpayers half a trillion dollars.

Fannie and Freddie were created by Congress as private companies to encourage home ownership and -- in theory, on paper -- the taxpayers aren't responsible if they go bust ... but they're literally too big to fail. Unfortunately, the markets have always assumed Fannie and Freddie's debt was guaranteed by the U.S. government. Should they go under and the government not pay, it would be as though the United States government were defaulting on a sort of low-level debt. All that would do is cause financial collapse and chaos and probably worldwide depression, but try not to think about it too long.

On the other hand, the people responsible for all this have already been thinking about it too long. For over a year now, Fannie and Freddie's pickle has been obvious, and the experts on the financial pages have been writing, "Do Something," for ages.

The fiscal irresponsibility of this so-called CEO-administration is a source of constant wonder. This potential financial crisis is racing toward us like a tidal wave, gaining strength as it comes. Are they actually going to stand there like Alfred E. Neuman, saying, "What, me worry?"

Of course, the conservatives think the thing to do is privatize the companies, and the liberals think the thing to do is regulate them. I don't see where privatizing gets us any further. Oh, to be sure, in the long run, market discipline would work like a charm, but one reason I'm a Keynesian is the old boy's observation, "In the long run, we'll all be dead." And dead-broke, too, if these things default.

Seems to me Fannie and Freddie's mess is the perfect argument FOR government regulation, and not just of the two giant mortgage companies. These GSE's (gobbledygook for "government-sponsored entities") have been hedging their debt risks through hedge funds, which are in turn almost entirely unregulated. Greenspan warns that Fannie and Freddie's debt could soon be larger than the federal government's. Think about it. Remember what happened when one large hedge fund, Long-Term Capital Management, started to go under? Ooops.

You know, when a bleeding heart liberal like me has to sit around lecturing a Republican administration on fiscal responsibility, we're in a sorry pass. I watch the entire corporate and financial structure of this country running around raising money like crazy for the re-election of George W. Bush, and I am reminded once more that capitalism will destroy itself if you let it.

Congress has already failed in its oversight responsibilities by letting the companies get into this mess. The Center for Responsive Politics reports Fannie and Freddie contributed $6.5 million to federal campaigns in 2002. Fannie has hired 14 lobbying firms, and Freddie 26. They spent $9.7 million on lobbying in the first six months of last year. According to Ralph Nader (always a reliable source in these matters, no matter what his political judgment), "The board of directors on staff of Fannie and Freddie have always been populated by former officials and political activists from both the Republican and Democratic parties who are given huge pay packages."

The Bushies want to put regulation of the GSEs in the Treasury Department and abolish the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the independent agency whose sole responsibility is monitoring the GSEs. Moving regulation to Treasury would make the GSEs even more political and even more apparently creatures of government. In typical Republican fashion, the small agency now handling the job has been starved for funds.

This is the great Gingrich ploy -- don't give a regulatory agency enough money to do its job, and then when things come unstuck, announce that regulation doesn't work.

Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
02.26.04

[catnapper]

lizbud, should we all dive for cover now? Geesh, that is much more information than I ever knew and more than enough to keep me awake at night.

As it is, my family is struggling to breathe... we are definately the working poor. We have little to near nothing in the fridge or pantry and often wonder what we were going to eat for dinner - or even when we'd be able to get more food. Let me tell you, I'm so very sick of spaghetti! If things get worse... as Ricky Ricardo says "eye-yi-yi!"

*Leaves to go find a cozy closet to hide in.

[moosmom]

Lizbud,

Thanks for that little "snipit" of information. You just reaffirmed my total distain for politicians.

Catnapper,

As it is, my family is struggling to breathe... we are definately the working poor. We have little to near nothing in the fridge or pantry and often wonder what we were going to eat for dinner - or even when we'd be able to get more food. Let me tell you, I'm so very sick of spaghetti! If things get worse... as Ricky Ricardo says "eye-yi-yi!"

*Leaves to go find a cozy closet to hide in.

I can't WAIT to see what Michigan Family Assistance has in store for me!! I'm like the Old Mother Hubbard of Michigan. Even my cats eat better than I do!!! I supposed if I ask nicely, they'll share. Hummph!!

Got any room in that cozy closet??? Move over!!

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Ok, show of hands:
How many think Greenspan will apply for SS when he is able, assuming it's still there?
ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mugsy]

He is able...he's something like 78 years old.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

Originally posted by mugsy
He is able...he's something like 78 years old.

OOPS!!!
I wonder if he takes it?

[mugsy]

I kind of doubt it....he and his wife (Andrea Mitchell, reporter for one of the networks) make plenty 'o money....I have a feeling that if he did, there would be such an outcry that he would drop it! lol