Kudlow: US Will 'Bond Out' to Cover Social Security, Medicare Gaps Read Newsmax: Kudlow: US Will 'B

[Bullseye]

No one is talking about iron clad ideology here. Neither Trump nor the republican party have done anything resembling fiscal conservatism for the life of his presidency.

That's called reality. His tax plans were starting to generate gains in economic activity and therefore tax revenue. But cutting deficits and buoying millions of unemployed people and staggering business aren't really complementary,

 

[Bullseye]

What part of "Money getting in the hands of people who don't even need it" that you did NOT understand?



At the risk?(LOL)

What? I'd suggest a lot more money got into the hands of those who really needed it than those that don't.

 

[Razoo]

Kudlow is full crap and has been for at least 40 years ....... Newsmax is a right wing PAC

How will the rest of the U.S. economy be affected if any other plan is enacted?

Put simply, moving to a system of private accounts would not only put retirement income at risk--it would likely put the entire economy at risk.

The current Social Security system generates powerful, economy-stimulating multiplier effects. This was part of its original intent. In the early 1930s, the vast majority of the elderly were poor. While they were working, they could not afford to both save for retirement and put food on the table, and most had no employer pension. When Social Security began, elders spent every penny of that income. In turn, each dollar they spent was spent again by the people and businesses from whom they had bought things. In much the same way, every dollar that goes out in pensions today creates about 2.5 times as much total income. If the move to private accounts reduces elders' spending levels, as almost all analysts predict, that reduction in spending will have an even larger impact on slowing economic growth.

The current Social Security system also reduces the income disparity between the rich and the poor. Private accounts would increase inequality--and increased inequality hinders economic growth. For example, a 1994 World Bank study of 25 countries demonstrated that as income inequality rises, productivity growth is reduced. Market economies can fall apart completely if the level of inequality becomes too extreme. The rapid increase in income inequality that occurred in the 1920s was one of the causes of the Great Depression.

Won't having people invest in stocks strengthen the business sector?

There is a commonly accepted myth that buying stock in the stock market provides funds directly to businesses that they can use for new investment. This is completely incorrect. Only when someone buys stock that is part of an initial public offering (IPO) does the money go directly to the firm. If you were to buy a share of General Motors stock tomorrow, the money you pay would go to the stockowners and not to General Motors. If a large number of people were to suddenly enter the stock market, it would drive up the selling price of stock and create a windfall for those who currently own stock, but it would not provide a penny to the firms whose stock is traded. Economists Dean Baker and Bob Pollin did a study a decade ago during the IPO boom that illustrates this distinction. They found that for every $113 in stocks traded, only $1 actually went to businesses to finance real investment.

Your question does point to a change that could greatly strengthen Social Security in the future. Many economists, both conservative and liberal, support the idea of a tax on speculation in the stock market. This is often called a "Tobin tax" after one of its proponents. The tax rate would not have to be very high to have a big impact. Using data from 1992, a tax rate of just 0.5% on stocks that are held for less than five years would generate revenues of more than $15 billion per year. If this revenue were allocated to the Social Security trust fund, the shortfall projected by the trustees would be completely eliminated.

Never known a rich person to decline $1000 or more a month ............. nor do they turn away medicare insurance!!!

What we want is everyone to pay the same percentage rich or not....... wtf!!!!

 

[Razoo]

Pay The Stimulus Money!

We taxpayers should receive stimulus money @ $ 2000 twice a month to spend in the economy as reward for being such fine people which would insure job security and plenty of economic growth. After all tax dollars do belong to the taxpayers.

Reckless decisions by government has put millions out of work and 170,00 have died. Those under treatment or quarantine cannot work. Through no fault of their own.

The employed did not ask the government to treat the potential coronavirus threat as if there was no reason for concern. As a result COVID 19 came upon us and is not going away. Meanwhile government kept advising no need to worry all will be swell.

Unemployed workers should also receive $600 per week. Perhaps until workers are called back to work or new employment is found that pays a part time living wage @ $33,000 annually or a full time living wage @ $64,500 annually.

No one knows when COVID 19 will go away. Therefore government assistance should remain in place until further notice. Subjecting the nations once employed work force or for that matter any of us to congressional irresponsible behavior every few weeks is not acceptable.

Taxpayers are an investment thus provide strength to the economy = best bang for our tax bucks. I'm sure the lions share of unemployed taxpayers would rather be receiving a paycheck instead of unemployment insurance.

Elected officials pay themselves more than $3,200 per week plus a variety of expense accounts = Over rated and over paid!

 

[Variant]

That's called reality. His tax plans were starting to generate gains in economic activity and therefore tax revenue. But cutting deficits and buoying millions of unemployed people and staggering business aren't really complementary,

Which is why I mentioned the beginning of his presidency, since he has had all the time he needs to try to actually address the budget before the bottom fell out. It never happened.

If you never act upon your principles they aren't your principles. Trump isn't a fiscal conservative.

 

[iguanaman]

Mr. Lawrence Kudlow is a TV entertainer, not an economist.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Same goes for the President. He is a reality show host not a leader.

 

[Luther]

What? I'd suggest a lot more money got into the hands of those who really needed it than those that don't.

Take my street?

No one needed it

 

[Bullseye]

Take my street?

No one needed it

what?

 

[Bullseye]

Which is why I mentioned the beginning of his presidency, since he has had all the time he needs to try to actually address the budget before the bottom fell out. It never happened.

If you never act upon your principles they aren't your principles. Trump isn't a fiscal conservative.

What specifically do you think he didn't do, that he should have?

 

[Razoo]

No one is talking about iron clad ideology here. Neither Trump nor the republican party have done anything resembling fiscal conservatism for the life of his presidency.

Agree .....

 

[Razoo]

eliminating payroll taxes will certainly push them in that direction.

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt” in 2042. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.” Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels. According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments).

In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do. The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

 

[Razoo]

Who actually lies about Social Security Insurance? All who claim Wall Street is better no matter what?

President Bush among others has repeatedly said that those who put their money in private accounts are "guaranteed" a better return than they'll receive from the current Social Security system. But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: "the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative"--for good reason.

During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than 10 years where the return on stocks was negative. After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush is lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

 

[Helix]

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt” in 2042. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.” Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation. As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels. According to analysis by the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a 70% benefit level then would actually be higher than 2005 benefit levels in constant dollars (because of wage adjustments).

In other words, retirees would be taking home more in real terms than today’s retirees do. The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

i hope for the optimistic scenario. Republicans have still wanted to hand the system off to the for profits for decades, and i don't trust them to do anything other than to screw it up on purpose.

 

[Razoo]

I am with you ........

Democrats are needing to step up vigorously. WE the people need to see executive privilege reined in or eliminated. The same goes for presidential pardons. And of course the Electoral College needs to be squashed.

The few see huge windfalls if Social Security is forced in that direction and the people needing Social Security will not have it nor will they have Medicare.

I say there are too many republicans voting for libertarians and fundamentalists yet have no clue. It is time democrats educate the voting public across the board.

 

[jcgriff2]

Look at the fiscal conservatives at work?

Kudlow: US Will 'Bond Out' to Cover Social Security, Medicare Gaps Under Trump's Tax Order | Newsmax.com

First off, we don't need the 98 point font. I am not that blind yet.

As of right now, payroll taxes for the period 1 Sept 2020 through 31 Dec 2020 are simply being deferred - not forgiven. Trump has said that if he wins, he will likely forgive those payroll taxes not collected.

So what if we have to borrow additional money for this great idea for a partial stimulous type bill for the American workers. We borrow a hell of a lot more money for all of the democrat's pet projects (PORK) that for the most part are absolutely unnecessary.

Some items that Pelosi is demanding for the now $3 Trillion newest stimulous bill -

• Restoring the SALT deduction. Congress would repeal the $10,000 cap on State and Local Tax (SALT) deductions, which is a big benefit for high-tax (left-leaning) states and high-income households. The SALT deduction encourages states to levy higher taxes on wealthier taxpayers by reminding them that they can deduct these taxes from their federal tax obligations.
• $2,000 in monthly checks to every adult – Universal basic income will undoubtedly discourage workers from returning to their jobs.
• A $1 trillion blank check to state and local governments – Some states mismanaged their funds before COVID-19 broke out and now they want taxpayers to bail them out.
• Bailing out the Postal Service. Keeping USPS alive is a perennial favorite of the left because of its unionized workforce. However, giving it $25 billion to cover lost revenue enables the feeble delivery service which still struggles to compete with its far more efficient competitors who have done well in delivering on the online spending spike during the coronavirus. If a first class stamp needs to cost $2 -- then charge $2 for it.
• $100 billion emergency rental assistance program for cities and states
• Increased nutrition spending
• The suspension of work requirements for welfare programs, create powerful disincentives for Americans to return to work
• Improve broadband infrastructure in underserved communities – What about rural areas? We want to encourage the private sector to work with the government to expand broadband across America not just to certain communities
• Cancellation of rents and home mortgage payments through the coronavirus pandemic – Landlords and banks would revolt, but the expectation is Uncle Sam would quiet them with more taxpayer money. This is a repeat of 2008/9

Remember - these are just a few of the items that Pelosi and her fellow dems want.

Trump's payroll tax deferment on the other hand will definitely help the average worker as they'll have more take-home pay.

At least Trump is doing something. That's more than I can say for asinine Pelosi and her bunch. They keep passing House bills without consulting Republicans; hence the reason why they sit on Senator McConnel's desk collecting dust.

All the democrats do is start with a stimulous bill, then add $1.5 - $2 Trillion to it for all of their pet projects (PORK, PORK, PORK) like Pelosi's beloved Kennedy Center. We gave them $25 million in the last stimulous bill. If they can't meet their expenses, then they should fire all employees; file for bankruptcy; close th damn place; if no buyers - bulldoze (level) it to make room for other businesses. The Kennedy Center and other places like it are national disgraces because taxpayers should not be supporting them.

Pelosi, Schiff, Nasty Nadler and her other House clowns are just that - all clowns who are not serious about passing a reasonable stimulous package, so Trump, once again fixes the problem the best he can -- he got out his sharpie and signed some Presidential Executive Orders extending existing COVID-19 stimulous plans to help the American people.

Meanwhile, Pelosi and her pathetic crew do absolutely nothing -- nothing at all. They are still at home being paid $20,000+ per month for being members of the House and have not shown up for regular work days since early March 2020. That is 5 total months - $100,000 that each of the 435 House members have been paid for doing absolutely nothing with Pelosi leading the charge. Have you made that much money in the last 5 months but don't bother to work or show up for work? What a disgrace.

Meanwhile, President Trump has been at work every single day.

 

[Razoo]

I say COVID 19 has been in America much longer than America was advised. Which brings forward the obvious question “ How long has COVID 19 been allowed penetrate the USA population?”

Expecting an honest answer is nonsense because politicians cannot speak in those terms. They choose spin!

Pay The Stimulus Money! IT'S PATRIOTIC!!!!!!

We taxpayers should receive stimulus money @ $ 2000 twice a month to spend in the economy as reward for being such fine people which would insure job security and plenty of economic growth. After all tax dollars do belong to the taxpayers.

Reckless decisions by government has put millions out of work and 170,00 have died. Those under treatment or quarantine cannot work. Through no fault of their own.

The employed did not ask the government to treat the potential coronavirus threat as if there was no reason for concern. As a result COVID 19 came upon us and is not going away. Meanwhile government kept advising no need to worry all will be swell.

Unemployed workers should also receive $600 per week. Perhaps until workers are called back to work or new employment is found that pays a part time living wage @ $33,000 annually or a full time living wage @ $64,500 annually.

No one knows when COVID 19 will go away. Therefore government assistance should remain in place until further notice. Subjecting the nations once employed work force or for that matter any of us to congressional irresponsible behavior every few weeks is not acceptable.

Taxpayers are an investment thus provide strength to the economy = best bang for our tax bucks. I'm sure the lions share of unemployed taxpayers would rather be receiving a paycheck instead of unemployment insurance.

Elected officials pay themselves more than $3,370 per week plus a variety of expense accounts = Over rated and over paid! $174.000-194,000 per year.

 

[Torus34]

Same goes for the President. He is a reality show host not a leader.

Hi!

Thank you for your response.

A leader is, at the end of the day, a person who can get others to do his bidding. That is a neutral statement. It's when we examine the means employed that concerns such as ethics and morality arise. Is a leader who uses high moral principles to motivate followers to be preferred to one who uses fear of others [Ed.: You know, 'them',] or the force of arms [Ed.: read 'police state'] to achieve his/her goals?

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

 

[Luther]

what?

Really.....

 

[Luther]

First off, we don't need the 98 point font. I am not that blind yet.

As of right now, payroll taxes for the period 1 Sept 2020 through 31 Dec 2020 are simply being deferred - not forgiven. Trump has said that if he wins, he will likely forgive those payroll taxes not collected.

So what if we have to borrow additional money for this great idea for a partial stimulous type bill for the American workers. We borrow a hell of a lot more money for all of the democrat's pet projects (PORK) that for the most part are absolutely unnecessary.

Some items that Pelosi is demanding for the now $3 Trillion newest stimulous bill -

• Restoring the SALT deduction. Congress would repeal the $10,000 cap on State and Local Tax (SALT) deductions, which is a big benefit for high-tax (left-leaning) states and high-income households. The SALT deduction encourages states to levy higher taxes on wealthier taxpayers by reminding them that they can deduct these taxes from their federal tax obligations.
• $2,000 in monthly checks to every adult – Universal basic income will undoubtedly discourage workers from returning to their jobs.
• A $1 trillion blank check to state and local governments – Some states mismanaged their funds before COVID-19 broke out and now they want taxpayers to bail them out.
• Bailing out the Postal Service. Keeping USPS alive is a perennial favorite of the left because of its unionized workforce. However, giving it $25 billion to cover lost revenue enables the feeble delivery service which still struggles to compete with its far more efficient competitors who have done well in delivering on the online spending spike during the coronavirus. If a first class stamp needs to cost $2 -- then charge $2 for it.
• $100 billion emergency rental assistance program for cities and states
• Increased nutrition spending
• The suspension of work requirements for welfare programs, create powerful disincentives for Americans to return to work
• Improve broadband infrastructure in underserved communities – What about rural areas? We want to encourage the private sector to work with the government to expand broadband across America not just to certain communities
• Cancellation of rents and home mortgage payments through the coronavirus pandemic – Landlords and banks would revolt, but the expectation is Uncle Sam would quiet them with more taxpayer money. This is a repeat of 2008/9

Remember - these are just a few of the items that Pelosi and her fellow dems want.

Trump's payroll tax deferment on the other hand will definitely help the average worker as they'll have more take-home pay.

At least Trump is doing something. That's more than I can say for asinine Pelosi and her bunch. They keep passing House bills without consulting Republicans; hence the reason why they sit on Senator McConnel's desk collecting dust.

All the democrats do is start with a stimulous bill, then add $1.5 - $2 Trillion to it for all of their pet projects (PORK, PORK, PORK) like Pelosi's beloved Kennedy Center. We gave them $25 million in the last stimulous bill. If they can't meet their expenses, then they should fire all employees; file for bankruptcy; close th damn place; if no buyers - bulldoze (level) it to make room for other businesses. The Kennedy Center and other places like it are national disgraces because taxpayers should not be supporting them.

Pelosi, Schiff, Nasty Nadler and her other House clowns are just that - all clowns who are not serious about passing a reasonable stimulous package, so Trump, once again fixes the problem the best he can -- he got out his sharpie and signed some Presidential Executive Orders extending existing COVID-19 stimulous plans to help the American people.

Meanwhile, Pelosi and her pathetic crew do absolutely nothing -- nothing at all. They are still at home being paid $20,000+ per month for being members of the House and have not shown up for regular work days since early March 2020. That is 5 total months - $100,000 that each of the 435 House members have been paid for doing absolutely nothing with Pelosi leading the charge. Have you made that much money in the last 5 months but don't bother to work or show up for work? What a disgrace.

Meanwhile, President Trump has been at work every single day.

Meanwhile, President Trump has been at work every single day.

What?

Trump defends golf outings: It's my 'exercise' | TheHill

 

[Razoo]

I say COVID 19 has been in America much longer than America was advised. Which brings forward the obvious question “ How long has COVID 19 been allowed penetrate the USA population?”

Expecting an honest answer is nonsense because politicians cannot speak in those terms. They choose spin!

Pay The Stimulus Money! IT'S PATRIOTIC!!!!!!

We taxpayers should receive stimulus money @ $ 2000 twice a month to spend in the economy as reward for being such fine people which would insure job security and plenty of economic growth. After all tax dollars do belong to the taxpayers.

Reckless decisions by government has put millions out of work and 170,00 have died. Those under treatment or quarantine cannot work. Through no fault of their own.

The employed did not ask the government to treat the potential coronavirus threat as if there was no reason for concern. As a result COVID 19 came upon us and is not going away. Meanwhile government kept advising no need to worry all will be swell.

Unemployed workers should also receive $600 per week. Perhaps until workers are called back to work or new employment is found that pays a part time living wage @ $33,000 annually or a full time living wage @ $64,500 annually.

No one knows when COVID 19 will go away. Therefore government assistance should remain in place until further notice. Subjecting the nations once employed work force or for that matter any of us to congressional irresponsible behavior every few weeks is not acceptable.

Taxpayers are an investment thus provide strength to the economy = best bang for our tax bucks. I'm sure the lions share of unemployed taxpayers would rather be receiving a paycheck instead of unemployment insurance.

Elected officials pay themselves more than $3,370 per week plus a variety of expense accounts = Over rated and over paid! $174.000-194,000 per year.

Donald Trump admitted it: He's actively trying to sabotage the U.S. Postal Service to prevent people from voting.

Thursday morning, he told Fox Business News that he opposed including funding for the postal service in the next COVID-19 relief bill because “they need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots.”

It would be unbelievable . . . except this is Donald Trump. It's been clear all along that Trump and the Republicans will do ANYTHING to hold on to power.

 

[Variant]

What specifically do you think he didn't do, that he should have?

To qualify as a fiscal conservative I would assume he should have made some attempt to reign in the debt.

What Trump and Republicans have done is run up more debt in good economic times, then they got hit with a real economic problem and we're more poorly set up to face it.

 

[jnug]

We are not going to "bond out" of Trump's payroll tax fantasy.

First things first...as you might have guessed when first announced as a "temporary suspension" of the payroll tax Donald Duck then announced that if re-elected he would work to permanently kill the payroll tax.

Borrowing when interest rates are low is a good way to borrow for stimulus or to deal with specific events or phenomenon. Borrowing after the financial meltdown made sense for example. Borrowing to support the effort V. COVID specifically makes sense because Trumpkin forced interest rates negative via political pressure at the Fed. Makes sense to borrow for COVID though as Donnie Boy keeps frigging up the government response, the longer the COVID crisis goes. We are surely still to deal with it headed into the fall flu season.

But no country and I do mean no country has prospered long in a negative interest rate environment and we will be no different. Its fools gold to run at negative rates. it is also in part why segments of the stock market are doing well. Where else are investors to put their money.

However to "bond out" of a tax associated with a long term government program like SS is MADNESS.....simple madness.

One benefit of getting the Orangutan out of the Oval will be a hoped for return to normalcy at the Fed as Powell is stuck picking his poison one day to the next. Which IDIOT Trump demand does he acquiesce to and which does he not.

 

[Bullseye]

To qualify as a fiscal conservative I would assume he should have made some attempt to reign in the debt.

Maybe in textbooks or college classrooms; the real world had different ideas.

What Trump and Republicans have done is run up more debt in good economic times, then they got hit with a real economic problem and we're more poorly set up to face it.

LOL, except Trump and the Republicans didn't control the writing of tax and spending legislation - that's a House prerogative.

 

[Razoo]

raise taxes and pay for them. easy enough.

Conservatives are always lying and claim the trust fund is just a bunch of government IOUs and therefore worthless. Is this true?

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds.

(At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.)

Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation. Former President Bush appeared to be ready to break this tradition. He appeared to want the Treasury to “selectively default” on the bonds in the Social Security trust fund.

He obviously felt the United States doesn’t have to meet its obligation to the working people of America the way it meets its obligations to ultra-wealthy bondholders. His suggestion that the U.S. government might not be willing to repay its debt obligations was remarkable and for a time completely disrupted global financial markets.

 

[Helix]

Conservatives are always lying and claim the trust fund is just a bunch of government IOUs and therefore worthless. Is this true?

The trust fund does just contain IOUs, but they’re not worthless. If they are, someone should tell that to the very smart and very rich people, and the central banks of Japan, China, and many other countries that hold a large share of their assets in U.S. government bonds.

When the trust fund was created in 1935, the law stipulated that any excess revenues coming into the Social Security system must be used to purchase federal government bonds.

(At the time, the stock market had just lost over 75% of its value and was understood to be unsafe.)

Federal bonds are absolutely safe; the government of the United States has never defaulted on any bond obligation. Former President Bush appeared to be ready to break this tradition. He appeared to want the Treasury to “selectively default” on the bonds in the Social Security trust fund.

He obviously felt the United States doesn’t have to meet its obligation to the working people of America the way it meets its obligations to ultra-wealthy bondholders. His suggestion that the U.S. government might not be willing to repay its debt obligations was remarkable and for a time completely disrupted global financial markets.

I missed that back in the day. Thanks for the analysis.