"Boy Wonder" will not get his "privitization scam"...... Greenspan spoke

[cthrumatrix]

here's his quote from Dow Jones
--------------------------------------------

"I would be very careful about a very large increase in debt," Greenspan said.
A "very small" increase in debt wouldn't be of concern, he added.

"I would say over a trillion is large," Greenspan said, when pressed to get
more specific.


Rewind-- How much does "chimpy" need for privatization ? Several $$ Trillion is the answer. Game over. Our debt bubble would be sooo large --- our creditors would demand double the interest and flush their dollars down the toliet.


This is why shrub has been working a parallel track for "a National Valued Added Tax" with a read out to Tres. Sec. Snow in July.

They will plug soc sec, modify the tax code and reap more dollars with a major tax reform --- we will have no idea how much $$$$ they could raise with a VAT (by the way,,,read HR Bill 25 it talks all about a Value Added Tax - 23% was the amount in the bill)

[Richardo]

1. This is what it's come to: "I would say over a trillion is large."

Thank you for that insight, Mr. Federal Reserve Chairman. :eyes:

Bush actually needs our Central Bank to give that assessment. Yeesh.

[RobertSeattle]

2. A trillion here, a trillion there...

Or as I prefer to write it:

$1,000,000,000,000.00

Or Maybe One Million Million? One Thousand Billion?

:evilgrin:

[Inland]

3. Bush can live with a tax that falls on the poor and middle classes

Payroll taxes, a-OK. VAT, a-OK. Income taxes limited to wages--a-OK. What a dick.

[DemocracyInaction]

4. Are we listening to the same speech???

I tunned to Bloomberg to see what was going on. They claim that he said that SS HAD to be addressed during Bush's term (why the rush, Allen...I mean it can't be addressed 5 days after he leaves or anything??). Then they said that when asked he said he supported privatizing (when so many point out that it does not solve the problem..just kicks it into another folder). Then he said (does this man drink)that he didn't know if the financial markets really were prepared for all this and whether they were prepared for possible big interest rates being raised because of having to borrow so much money...........yep, Allen, let's go out and bring down the whole goddamn economic system of the US of A to see if this scheme works instead of doing something solid and intelligent (like, gasp, raising the SS tax---and that would be just a couple a bucks a month). In other words, Alen is paid off and sucking Bush dick but is doing a bit of choking on it because he just ain't so damn sure that we won't have a real financial mess over it. Now that's a man you want to bet on. They said the Dems are no longer impressed (citing a few other things) with calls Greenspan has made.

[BanzaiBonnie]

5. Try this one...

If we decided as a society that we were going to put $2,000 a year into a savings account from the day each child was born until he or she reaches age 18 — and if we assume a 6% annual interest rate — each child would have $65,520 at age 18. (The worst return for a 25-year investor in the stock market from 1929 before the crash to 2004 was an average of 6% a year.) With no further contributions, again with a 6% interest rate, those savings would grow to $1,013,326 at age 65.

If we began to do this now, the first-year cost would be $8 billion; that is $2,000 times the roughly 4 million children born each year. The second year would cost $16 billion and so on until we were contributing $2,000 per year to a savings account for every child from birth until age 18. When fully implemented, the cost would be $144 billion per year. To put this $144 billion per year into context, this year's combined spending for Social Security and Medicare will exceed $750 billion.



http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-oneill15feb15.story


Paul O'Neill in today's LA Times