RE: Sen. Gregg on 1988 vs 2015

[Michael Jones <powderfinger99@yahoo.com>]

The 800B FICA tax surplus can also be viewed in a different manner.
I would propose that the presence of the 800B dollars caused
government to spend 800B. Not the other way around.

If they never got the money, it is not entirely clear that they
would have spent it anyway. Unfortunately, it is generally taboo
(suuported by the media and interest groups) to talk about limiting
government. If you read through all the posts on each of these
forums, you never here discussion about cutting government.  The
discussions mention cutting benefits, raising taxes, or increasing
investment return, or even creating MORE entitlements The assumption
is that all the spending government does is legitimate. Why can't
this problem be viewed in the same manner as perhaps a family might
work out their own budget? Am I too naive? Sen. Gregg discussed in
a previous post how his plan would decrease my future general
revenue taxes (estimated to be 6% of payroll) needed to pay future
benefits. If I follow Steve's logic here, I suppose that's a tax
cut.  Michael