FDR: America's #1 President

[Rohirrim]

I would have to agree with this ranking.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt is being ranked the top president in U.S. history by 238 scholars surveyed by Siena College.

Roosevelt has topped each of the five presidential scholar surveys conducted by the Albany, N.Y.-area college since 1982. Theodore Roosevelt came in at No. 2 in the survey released Thursday, followed by Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/fdr-rated-best-president-_n_632182.html

[cutthemdown]

Lincoln by far IMO.

[JJJ]

I would have to agree with this ranking.


Franklin Delano Roosevelt is being ranked the top president in U.S. history by 238 scholars surveyed by Siena College.

Roosevelt has topped each of the five presidential scholar surveys conducted by the Albany, N.Y.-area college since 1982. Theodore Roosevelt came in at No. 2 in the survey released Thursday, followed by Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/01/fdr-rated-best-president-_n_632182.html

Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!Hilarious!

[Rigs11]

Dry your tears JJ. I'm sure Bush will be top 5 sometime soon:rofl:

[BroncoLifer]

Any ranking which doesn't have Washington and Abe as its Top 2 is just plain wrong.

[JJJ]

Grover Cleveland, Grover Cleveland, Grover Cleveland.

Most underrated president ever. Has to be top 5. One badass president.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Academics putting this kind of list together is like Aryan skinheads putting together a list of great German chancellors. Amusing but not newsworthy.

I go with George Washington.

[Rohirrim]

That's what I thought. In order to join the "Rightie" club you must first accept the premise that FDR fits somewhere on the Evil Scale between Stalin and Pol Pot. Ha!

Since 1982, the opinion of historians hasn't changed. FDR is #1. :thumbs:

[Obushma]

That's what I thought. In order to join the "Rightie" club you must first accept the premise that FDR fits somewhere on the Evil Scale between Stalin and Pol Pot. Ha!

Since 1982, the opinion of historians hasn't changed. FDR is #1. :thumbs:

<a target='_blank' title='ImageShack - Image And Video Hosting' href='http://img138.imageshack.us/i/csmay05b.jpg/'><img src='http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/1928/csmay05b.jpg' border='0'/></a>
:thumbs:

[Smiling Assassin27]

That's what I thought. In order to join the "Rightie" club you must first accept the premise that FDR fits somewhere on the Evil Scale between Stalin and Pol Pot. Ha!

Since 1982, the opinion of historians hasn't changed. FDR is #1. :thumbs:

Ah yes, the invalid and uttelry contrived 'right vs left' meme. Couldn't go 3 minutes without that being raised again. While academics love FDR, economists are pretty critical of him, and with good reason.

This is a topic for another day, but if you consider trampling the consitution, tripling taxes, page after page of overbearing and unnecessary regluations, and stealing from your grandkids' future earnings, then FDR's your man. But my guess is that those who'd put FDR at #1 value personalities, speeches, and romantic notions in a President, which is not to say that FDR had no policy substance or leadership ability--he did. But #1? Hilarious!

[JJJ]

That's what I thought. In order to join the "Rightie" club you must first accept the premise that FDR fits somewhere on the Evil Scale between Stalin and Pol Pot. Ha!

Since 1982, the opinion of historians hasn't changed. FDR is #1. :thumbs:

Great war president.

And his economic policy legacy can still be felt today:

The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

[Rigs11]

smiley is just upset that raygun didn't register higher.

[Smiling Assassin27]

smiley is just upset that raygun didn't register higher.

nah, reagan is always overrated in these things, especially by conservatives just as FDR (and Kennedy) are lionized and overrrated by academics from Siena. It all depends on who's doing the list. Is it economists? Is it historians? Is it feminists? Nutroots? Alex P. Keaton? etc.

[JJJ]

Here is my top 5

1. Abe - stuck to his guns in an unpopular war. No one on the planet could have kept this as one nation but him.

2. George - First and last president without a party affiliation. Oh the good old days.

3. Mr. Jefferson - Sweet deal on the Lousiana Purchase. Gets big props for his work ahead of his presidency.

4. TR - Some of his ecnomic policies I can quibble with but a real stud during a difficult time. Looks good on Mr. Rushmore.

5. Grover Cleveland - Honest and very hard working. Stomped out corruption, lowered tariffs, busted unions. A conservatives wet dream rolled up in a democrat package. He was not on the $1000 bill for nothing.

[barryr]

Liberals, oh I mean "scholars", putting FDR #1? I'm shocked LOL

[mhgaffney]

My neighbor -- whom I regard as a good friend -- has been collecting social security for years -- in fact by his own admission has collected far more than he ever paid into the fund.

Yet when the name FDR comes up he boils over with invective about "that damn socialist president..."


Just goes to show how crazy Americans are.

We know the right hates FDR to this day because he was a traitor to his class (i.e. rich banksters)

I give FDR high marks for standing up to Wall Street. The last president who did the same was JFK -- a man who saw himself as carrying on in the tradition of FDR.

We all know what happened to JFK. What few Americans understand is that the same fate almost befell FDR. In the 1930s the banksters hatched a coup to overthrow FDR -- and if the CIA had existed at the time it probably would have succeeded.

Google two-time medal of honor winner Smedley Butler for the details. Or check out Butler's best selling book at amazon: WAR IS A RACKET.

[Rohirrim]

nah, reagan is always overrated in these things, especially by conservatives just as FDR (and Kennedy) are lionized and overrrated by academics from Siena. It all depends on who's doing the list. Is it economists? Is it historians? Is it feminists? Nutroots? Alex P. Keaton? etc.

Here's a pretty good breakdown, including a chart showing every survey since 1948. FDR has the most #1 ratings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_St ates

[Smiling Assassin27]

My neighbor -- whom I regard as a good friend -- has been collecting social security for years -- in fact by his own admission has collected far more than he ever paid into the fund.

Yet when the name FDR comes up he boils over with invective about "that damn socialist president..."


Just goes to show how crazy Americans are.

We know the right hates FDR to this day because he was a traitor to his class (i.e. rich banksters)

I give FDR high marks for standing up to Wall Street. The last president who did the same was JFK -- a man who saw himself as carrying on in the tradition of FDR.

We all know what happened to JFK. What few Americans understand is that the same fate almost befell FDR. In the 1930s the banksters hatched a coup to overthrow FDR -- and if the CIA had existed at the time it probably would have succeeded.

Google two-time medal of honor winner Smedley Butler for the details. Or check out Butler's best selling book at amazon: WAR IS A RACKET.

So how do you explain people in what you'd deem 'the Right' who are NOT upper class, but lower-middle class calling FDR out for tripling the size of government and, if they want to work, being forced into stealing the future earnings of their grandkids while discouraging people from personal savings? Class has zilch to do with it, IMO. It's more about one's fundamental belief about the role of government, the role of the citizen, and the role of the market.

Presupposing that the cannibalistic market players of Wall Street caused the Great Depression will obviously lead you to the conclusion (false, though it may be) that FDR reigned them in.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Here's a pretty good breakdown, including a chart showing every survey since 1948. FDR has the most #1 ratings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_St ates

Ranking systems are usually based on surveys of academic historians and political scientists or popular opinion.

As I said, economists might diverge from those who make up the bulk of those surveys.

[mhgaffney]

Tripling the size of government? You must be joking. This happened during WW II. To blame FDR for this is totally disingenuous. The guilty party is the war machine - those who benefit from war.

What continues to amaze me is that guys like you invariably vote against your own interests.

Things have changed since the 1930s. Today there is no way an FDR could be elected in the first place. Both parties are under the thumb of Wall Street.

Obama is as much a tool as GW Bush, Clinton, HW Bush, Reagan and Carter.

The only thing that can save us is a people's revolution that unites left and right --

Unfortunately, I don't see it happening.

[mhgaffney]

It won't happen because Americans have become couch potatoes.

Too many are overweight and complacent -- totally programmed to be passive.

Most are walking zombies -- zonked out from too much TV, too much consumerism, too much media glitz and celeb infotainment.

Americans are so out of touch with nature and themselves -- that they compensate by watching "reality TV."

Sorry. The words make me nauseous.

[TheReverend]

I'm a Thomas Jefferson man

[mhgaffney]

Me too Rev.

A revolution every 20 years!

[Meck77]

It won't happen because Americans have become couch potatoes.

Too many are overweight and complacent -- totally programmed to be passive.

Most are walking zombies -- zonked out from too much TV, too much consumerism, too much media glitz and celeb infotainment.

Americans are so out of touch with nature and themselves -- that they compensate by watching "reality TV."

Sorry. The words make me nauseous.

Might I add too incompetent/lazy to grow a damn tomato plant. I sprouted way too many and have been trying to give 1 gallon plants away. The response "I don't have time for tomatoes" or "I don't know hot to grow tomatoes".

Well that's great FDR was such a good president. Maybe he can come back from the dead.

[spdirty]

Im surprised they didnt rate Obama as the #1 President.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is being ranked the top president in U.S. history by 238 scholars surveyed by Siena College.



Well, that would go a long way in explaining why so many willfully ignorant rightards despise FDR while worshiping criminals and reverse Robin Hoods like Reagan and Bush (I and II.)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dry your tears JJ. I'm sure Bush will be top 5 sometime soon:rofl:

Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious! Hilarious!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Academics putting this kind of list together is like Aryan skinheads putting together a list of great German chancellors.

Academics = Aryan skinheads?

Now there's an equation only a full-fledged member of the anti-intellectual, radical right could dream up. ROFL!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Great war president.

And his economic policy legacy can still be felt today:

The federal debt will represent 62% of the nation's economy by the end of this year, the highest percentage since just after World War II, according to a long-term budget outlook released today by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

:oyvey:

That's just idiotic, nutty revisionist bullsh_t.

Fact:

After the Republican Great Depression, FDR put this nation back to work, in part by raising taxes on income above $3 to $4 million a year (in today’s dollars) to 91 percent, and corporate taxes to over 50% of profits. The revenue from those income taxes built dams, roads, bridges, sewers, water systems, schools, hospitals, train stations, railways, an interstate highway system, and airports. It educated a generation returning from World War II. It acted as a cap on the rare but occasional obsessively greedy person taking so much out of the economy that it impoverished the rest of us.

- Thom Hartmann, "Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts."

[BroncoBuff]

Lincoln, Washington way ahead imo.

All depends on the criteria though.

[JJJ]

:oyvey:

That's just idiotic, nutty revisionist bullsh_t.

Fact:

We are in a one way debt sprial not because of wars but because of social security system and medicare costs. He is the father and founder of social security and the inspiration for LBJ for medicare.

1935 was the pivotal year when Americans stopped relying on themselves and friends and family for their own well being and started becoming dependent on the state. His actions prolonged the depression and are bankrupting the country decades past his death. Nice economic record.

And I guess we can also blame FDR as well for all those war babies but perhaps that is overreaching a bit.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

We are in a one way debt sprial not because of wars but because of social security system and medicare costs.

Can't believe the right is still peddling this ridiculous canard after all these years.

When your hero Red Ink Ron took office, those programs were fully funded.

Red Ink then slashed taxes on the super-rich and was consequently forced to loot SS and every other public trust in order to stem the resulting tide of red ink.

The right's strategy has always been to sack and pillage public trusts like SS and then argue that the resulting problems are evidence that the program was flawed in its conception.

[JJJ]

Can't believe the right is still peddling this ridiculous canard after all these years.

When your hero Red Ink Ron took office, those programs were fully funded.

Red Ink then slashed taxes on the super-rich and was consequently forced to loot SS and every other public trust in order to stem the resulting tide of red ink.

The right's strategy has always been to sack and pillage public trusts like SS and then argue that the resulting problems are evidence that the program was flawed in its conception.

You are so loose with your facts it is unbelievable.

In 1982, projections indicated that the Social Security Trust Fund would run out of money by 1983, and there was talk of the system being unable to pay benefits.[51] The National Commission on Social Security Reform, chaired by Alan Greenspan, was created to address the crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You are so loose with your facts it is unbelievable.

In 1982, projections indicated that the Social Security Trust Fund would run out of money by 1983, and there was talk of the system being unable to pay benefits.[51] The National Commission on Social Security Reform, chaired by Alan Greenspan, was created to address the crisis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_(United_States)

Ha ha ha!

Alan Greenspan - there's an unbaised and trustworthy source.

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

But the rich fought back, and won big-time in 1980 when Reagan, until then the fringe "Voodoo economics" candidate who was heading into the election trailing far behind Jimmy Carter, was swept into the White House on a wave of public concern of the Iranians taking US hostages. Reagan promptly cut income taxes on the very rich from 70% down to 27%. Corporate tax rates were also cut so severely that they went from representing over 33% of total federal tax receipts in 1951 to less than 9% in 1983 (they're still in that neighborhood, the lowest in the industrialized world).

The result was devastating. Our government was suddenly so badly awash in red ink that Reagan doubled the tax paid only by people earning less than $40,000/year (FICA), and then began borrowing from the huge surplus this new tax was accumulating in the Social Security Trust Fund. Even with that, Reagan had to borrow more money in his 8 years than the sum total of all presidents from George Washington to Jimmy Carter combined.

In addition to badly throwing the nation into debt, Reagan's tax cut blew out the ceiling on the accumulation of wealth, leading to a new Gilded Age and the rise of a generation of super-wealthy that hadn't been seen since the Robber Baron era of the 1890s or the Roaring 20s.

And, most tragically, Reagan's tax cuts caused America to stop investing in infrastructure. As a nation, we've been coasting since the early 1980s, living on borrowed money while we burn through (in some cases literally) the hospitals, roads, bridges, steam tunnels, and other infrastructure we built in the Golden Age of the Middle Class between the 1940s and the 1980s.

- Thom Hartmann

[Rohirrim]

Someday, hopefully, America will get its head out of its ass and realize that the great and powerful country left to us by FDR's policies was dismantled, destroyed, and left in smoking ruin by Reagan and the greedy bastards who's only interest was their own wealth.

Last year, while more and more Americans sank into poverty, the ranks of billionaires went up by 19%. Explain that, in this economy.

This is Reagan's legacy. He returned this country to the pre-FDR (some would say, the pre-TR) world.
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-25-10inc-f1.jpg
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3220

Keep in mind, the social programs devised as a safety net for the poor did not destroy this economy or our government, it was the gutting of our tax policies that did that. That's like blaming the ruin of our economy by the greedy bastards who turned us into an out of control casino on the poor suckers who they talked into buying houses they couldn't afford.

Watch Lewis Black's reaction to that. One of the funniest things I've seen him do. - So, here's this guy who can't afford an apartment, and you go up to him and say, "You want to own a house?" And of course, the guy says, "**** yeah!" Then, you run around placing a million dollars worth of bets on whether that guy is going pay the mortgage, right up until the day he gets foreclosed. And now you're going to blame that guy for the economic crash? What are you, ****ing stupid?

[peacepipe]

Academics putting this kind of list together is like Aryan skinheads putting together a list of great German chancellors. Amusing but not newsworthy.

I go with George Washington.Only with you & other teabaggers would having an education be a negative.

[cutthemdown]

Hard for me to say. I chose Lincoln but really I wasn't around and haven't studied that stuff so what do I know.

Seems like Jefferson/washington/lincoln would be the top ones though.

[DenverBrit]

There have been several excellent Presidents.

Why is picking #1 important?
That kind of ranking should be left to College sports and their polls......and they don't get it right either.


My top five would be:

FDR was a great president during WW2.....Jefferson and Washington were important in the founding of the country. Ike warned against one of the biggest threats Americans face....the Military Industrial Complex. Add Lincoln and that's my top five.

In no particular order. ;D

[DenverBrit]

Academics putting this kind of list together is like Aryan skinheads putting together a list of great German chancellors. Amusing but not newsworthy.

I go with George Washington.

Was your pick without the assistance of any academic consideration? ;)

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2009/03/garden_darts_3.jpg

[JJJ]

Ha ha ha!

Alan Greenspan - there's an unbaised and trustworthy source.

Meanwhile, here in the real world...

Now there is a reputable source.

Thom Hartmann is the nation's #1 progressive radio talk show host (also simulcast as TV in 40 million homes by Dish Network/Free Speech TV), and the New York Times bestselling, 4-times project Censored winning author of 21 books in print.

[mhgaffney]

We are in a one way debt sprial not because of wars but because of social security system and medicare costs. He is the father and founder of social security and the inspiration for LBJ for medicare.

1935 was the pivotal year when Americans stopped relying on themselves and friends and family for their own well being and started becoming dependent on the state. His actions prolonged the depression and are bankrupting the country decades past his death. Nice economic record.

And I guess we can also blame FDR as well for all those war babies but perhaps that is overreaching a bit.

FYI, social security does not contribute to the debt. It's a dedicated fund. The money is taken straight from wages and is earmarked.

The only reason SS is in trouble is because the **** politicians stole money out of the SS fund for other uses.

As for your other stupid remark that wars are not the problem, ask yourself how anyone could flush a trillion $$$ down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and NOT be in debt trouble?

It's a no brainer. Which is your problem. You ain't got one.

[Play2win]

only with you & other teabaggers would having an education be a negative.

"Who knows only his own generation remains always a child"

[JJJ]

FYI, social security does not contribute to the debt. It's a dedicated fund. The money is taken straight from wages and is earmarked.

The only reason SS is in trouble is because the **** politicians stole money out of the SS fund for other uses.

As for your other stupid remark that wars are not the problem, ask yourself how anyone could flush a trillion $$$ down the toilet in Iraq and Afghanistan -- and NOT be in debt trouble?

It's a no brainer. Which is your problem. You ain't got one.

Sorry Charlie.

Paid-in contributions that exceed the amount required to fully fund current payments to beneficiaries are invested in securities issued by the federal government. The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt.


Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government". The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

In other words the trust basically only holds IOUs from the federal government. The government has to treat these issued securities as debt.

We are 13T in debt and this is going to double rather soon. The war, though a contributor, is not the driving factor in our debt accumulation. Social security is the main driver. That is simply the fact.

[Play2win]

Lincoln, for many obvious reasons, But there certainly is a very strong argument for FDR.

FDR's strongest challenge might not necessarily have been the Nazis and WWII, but the Industrial Revolution, and the mass exodus to the cities. It was a brave, new world, with new rules, and SOPs did no longer apply.

Because of the Industrial Revolution, and the mass exodus to the cities, as well as the size of our great nation, there had to be some sort of economical socialism for the country to survive.

[JJJ]

FDR struggles to make the top 10.

Had he manned up in 1939 tens of millions of lives could have been saved.

Economic record is abysmal. Started the social machine that can't be switched off until the bankruptcy button is pushed.

4 terms. What is he a king? We had to alter the constitution just because of his regal behaviour.

Fire side chats though were pretty cool. And you have to love the top hat and sweet cigarette holder. Could hang with the big boys Stalin and Churchill and not get spanked around. Executed the war very well.

[Rohirrim]

Sorry Charlie.

Paid-in contributions that exceed the amount required to fully fund current payments to beneficiaries are invested in securities issued by the federal government. The securities issued under this scheme constitute the assets of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because under current federal law these securities represent future obligations that must be repaid, the federal government includes these securities within the overall national debt.


Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government". The Office of Management and Budget has described the distinction as follows:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

In other words the trust basically only holds IOUs from the federal government. The government has to treat these issued securities as debt.

We are 13T in debt and this is going to double rather soon. The war, though a contributor, is not the driving factor in our debt accumulation. Social security is the main driver. That is simply the fact.

Hmmm. This is interesting:


Social Security is Short of Funds Because Politicians Spent It

March 21, 2005 – The reason the Social Security Trust Fund is expected to start showing a deficit in about 2018, rather than a surplus, is because the money paid in – primarily by the baby boomers – has been spent by the politicians. When Al Gore proposed in his campaign for President to create a “lock box” to protect these funds only for Social Security, George W. Bush countered that he would do the same. It did not happen. Like his father and President Clinton, he used the funds for other government expenses.

"The baby boomers have contributed more to Social Security than any other generation," says economist Allen W. Smith. "They have prepaid the cost of their own retirement, in addition to paying the cost of the generation that preceded them."

Smith points out that the baby boomers have kept their end of the bargain, which was proposed by the Greenspan Commission and enacted into law in 1983. "The higher taxes that were part of the 1983 'solution' to the baby boomer problem have generated the annual Social Security surpluses anticipated so far, and they will continue to do so until 2018," Smith said.

According to Smith, by 2018, the baby boomers will have paid enough extra taxes to have generated a $3.7 trillion reserve in the trust fund, which would be sufficient to pay full benefits until 2042 when the youngest of the boomers would be 78 years old.

"Our government should be thanking the baby boomers for their extra sacrifice and special contributions," Smith continued. "But instead, President Bush is trying to use them as scapegoats for the government's failure to save and invest the Social Security surplus."

Smith says that when it became public knowledge in 2000 that President George H.W. Bush had initiated the practice of spending Social Security surpluses for other programs, and that Clinton had continued that practice, protecting the Social Security surplus became a major campaign issue.



According to Smith, Al Gore promised to put all future Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to be used only for the payment of Social Security benefits, and candidate George W. Bush promised to do the same.

"More than $600 billion of Social Security surplus has been generated since the 'lockbox promise' went into effect," Smith said, "so there should be at least that much in the trust fund today. But President Bush says the lockbox holds nothing but empty promises."

"How can this be?" Smith asked. "Bush's promises to protect Social Security were clear and specific."

According to Smith, Bush stated in his radio address to the nation on February 3, 2001, "My plan will keep all Social Security money in the Social Security system where it belongs." And, in his February 27, 2001 State of the Union address, Bush said, "To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone."

"Despite these promises, President Bush has been raiding the trust fund since he took office," Smith said, "and he no longer tries to conceal what he has done. In an effort to muster support for his privatization proposal, he has been openly admitting to the raiding of the fund."

Smith said that President Bush first publicly acknowledged misusing Social Security money in a Washington speech on February 9, 2005, in which he said, "The money-payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust."

"There may be 'no trust' when it comes to Bush's handling of Social Security money," Smith argued, "but there most certainly is a trust fund. That fund is empty today because President Bush has used the money to pay for tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and many other programs. So, instead of trying to blame the baby boomers for Social Security's current problems, Bush should stop spending Social Security money on other programs and repay the money he has already spent."
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/5-03-21SSFundsSpent.htm

[JJJ]

Hmmm. This is interesting:

Social Security is Short of Funds Because Politicians Spent It

March 21, 2005 – The reason the Social Security Trust Fund is expected to start showing a deficit in about 2018, rather than a surplus, is because the money paid in – primarily by the baby boomers – has been spent by the politicians. When Al Gore proposed in his campaign for President to create a “lock box” to protect these funds only for Social Security, George W. Bush countered that he would do the same. It did not happen. Like his father and President Clinton, he used the funds for other government expenses.

"The baby boomers have contributed more to Social Security than any other generation," says economist Allen W. Smith. "They have prepaid the cost of their own retirement, in addition to paying the cost of the generation that preceded them."

Smith points out that the baby boomers have kept their end of the bargain, which was proposed by the Greenspan Commission and enacted into law in 1983. "The higher taxes that were part of the 1983 'solution' to the baby boomer problem have generated the annual Social Security surpluses anticipated so far, and they will continue to do so until 2018," Smith said.

According to Smith, by 2018, the baby boomers will have paid enough extra taxes to have generated a $3.7 trillion reserve in the trust fund, which would be sufficient to pay full benefits until 2042 when the youngest of the boomers would be 78 years old.

"Our government should be thanking the baby boomers for their extra sacrifice and special contributions," Smith continued. "But instead, President Bush is trying to use them as scapegoats for the government's failure to save and invest the Social Security surplus."

Smith says that when it became public knowledge in 2000 that President George H.W. Bush had initiated the practice of spending Social Security surpluses for other programs, and that Clinton had continued that practice, protecting the Social Security surplus became a major campaign issue.



According to Smith, Al Gore promised to put all future Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to be used only for the payment of Social Security benefits, and candidate George W. Bush promised to do the same.

"More than $600 billion of Social Security surplus has been generated since the 'lockbox promise' went into effect," Smith said, "so there should be at least that much in the trust fund today. But President Bush says the lockbox holds nothing but empty promises."

"How can this be?" Smith asked. "Bush's promises to protect Social Security were clear and specific."

According to Smith, Bush stated in his radio address to the nation on February 3, 2001, "My plan will keep all Social Security money in the Social Security system where it belongs." And, in his February 27, 2001 State of the Union address, Bush said, "To make sure the retirement savings of America's seniors are not diverted in any other program, my budget protects all $2.6 trillion of the Social Security surplus for Social Security, and for Social Security alone."

"Despite these promises, President Bush has been raiding the trust fund since he took office," Smith said, "and he no longer tries to conceal what he has done. In an effort to muster support for his privatization proposal, he has been openly admitting to the raiding of the fund."

Smith said that President Bush first publicly acknowledged misusing Social Security money in a Washington speech on February 9, 2005, in which he said, "The money-payroll taxes going into the Social Security are spent. They're spent on benefits and they're spent on government programs. There is no trust."

"There may be 'no trust' when it comes to Bush's handling of Social Security money," Smith argued, "but there most certainly is a trust fund. That fund is empty today because President Bush has used the money to pay for tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and many other programs. So, instead of trying to blame the baby boomers for Social Security's current problems, Bush should stop spending Social Security money on other programs and repay the money he has already spent."
http://seniorjournal.com/NEWS/SocialSecurity/5-03-21SSFundsSpent.htm

But don't worry about. Per Gaffney it doesn't contribute to the debt. :rofl:

[mhgaffney]

JJJ merely re[eats the babble coming from Wall Street. He apparently doesn't give a hoot how the people's fund was looted.

Here is the low down on Social Security -- from someone who knows what he's talking about -- a former assistant Treasury secretary.

Of course, JJJ will probably vomit forth some throw away line about how SS is welfare.

MHG

Weekend Edition
February 19 - 21, 2010

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02192010.html

Wall Street Targets the Elderly

Looting Social Security

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Years ago with stagflation defeated and a rising stock market, I favored privatizing Social Security as a way of creating a funded retirement system and producing greater savings and larger incomes for retirees. At that time Wall Street was interested, not for my reasons, but in order to collect the fees from managing the funds.

Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.

After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Street’s dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyone’s old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables--a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror--are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

[mhgaffney]

As for the debt -- we could fix the problem in two swipes.

1. Abolish the Federal Reserve Banks -- by rescinding the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Henceforth the US Treasury will print money at zero interest. This would cancel the banksters perpetual money machine. Voila!

2. Revive an ancient biblical custom by declaring a national jubilee year -- meaning debt foregiveness. All debts to banks would be canceled at a stroke. This was a tradition in the ancient world -- every 49th year.

Problem over.

[Hogan11]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sK8gytvGf_Y&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sK8gytvGf_Y&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[JJJ]

JJJ merely re[eats the babble coming from Wall Street. He apparently doesn't give a hoot how the people's fund was looted.

Here is the low down on Social Security -- from someone who knows what he's talking about -- a former assistant Treasury secretary.

Of course, JJJ will probably vomit forth some throw away line about how SS is welfare.



Medicaid is welfare. SS and Medicare are not. I have said this more than once in mulitple threads. I could be wrong but I have never heard a righty on this board say a single time that SS is welfare.

If you guys keep repeating that the right thinks SS is welfare enough times even you might start to believe your only silly allegation.

As to whether SS adds to the debt or not it indeed does not matter who has looted it. You have been bitch slapped back on that one pretty soundly.

As to who created this problem, however, we know all the pigs have been feeding at the trough as your article clearly points out despite its anti-GOP slant.

[TheReverend]

As for the debt -- we could fix the problem in two swipes.

1. Abolish the Federal Reserve Banks -- by rescinding the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. Henceforth the US Treasury will print money at zero interest. This would cancel the banksters perpetual money machine. Voila!

2. Revive an ancient biblical custom by declaring a national jubilee year -- meaning debt foregiveness. All debts to banks would be canceled at a stroke. This was a tradition in the ancient world -- every 49th year.

Problem over.

lol you really think that #2 wouldnt just create significantly larger MASSIVE problems?

[cutthemdown]

If they wiped out debt ever 49 yrs then no one would loan money out ever again. Why pay anything back yr 39 when in 10 yrs it gets forgiven? or any yr for that matter.

You are officially a loon Gaff.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

JJJ merely re[eats the babble coming from Wall Street. He apparently doesn't give a hoot how the people's fund was looted.

Here is the low down on Social Security -- from someone who knows what he's talking about -- a former assistant Treasury secretary.

Of course, JJJ will probably vomit forth some throw away line about how SS is welfare.

MHG

Weekend Edition
February 19 - 21, 2010

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts02192010.html

Wall Street Targets the Elderly

Looting Social Security

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Hank Paulson, the Gold Sacks bankster/US Treasury Secretary, who deregulated the financial system, caused a world crisis that wrecked the prospects of foreign banks and governments, caused millions of Americans to lose retirement savings, homes, and jobs, and left taxpayers burdened with multi-trillions of dollars of new US debt, is still not in jail. He is writing in the New York Times urging that the mess he caused be fixed by taking away from working Americans the Social Security and Medicare for which they have paid in earmarked taxes all their working lives.

Wall Street’s approach to the poor has always been to drive them deeper into the ground.

As there is no money to be made from the poor, Wall Street fleeces them by yanking away their entitlements. It has always been thus. During the Reagan administration, Wall Street decided to boost the values of its bond and stock portfolios by using Social Security revenues to lower budget deficits. Wall Street figured that lower deficits would mean lower interest rates and higher bond and stock prices.

Two Wall Street henchmen, Alan Greenspan and David Stockman, set up the Social Security raid in this way: The Carter administration had put Social Security in the black for the foreseeable future by establishing a schedule for future Social Security payroll tax increases. Greenspan and Stockman conspired to phase in the payroll tax increases earlier than was needed in order to gain surplus Social Security revenues that could be used to finance other government spending, thus reducing the budget deficit. They sold it to President Reagan as “putting Social Security on a sound basis.”

Along the way Americans were told that the surplus revenues were going into a special Social Security trust fund at the U.S. Treasury. But what is in the fund is Treasury IOUs for the spent revenues. When the “trust funds” are needed to pay Social Security benefits, the Treasury will have to sell more debt in order to redeem the IOUs.

Social Security was mugged again during the Clinton administration when the Boskin Commission jimmied the Consumer Price Index in order to reduce the inflation adjustments that Social Security recipients receive, thus diverting money from Social Security retirees to other uses.

We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we can’t afford, an “unfunded liability.” This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.

Currently these systems are not in deficit. The problem is that government is using earmarked revenues for other purposes. Indeed, since the 1980s Social Security revenues have been used to fund general government. Today Social Security revenues are being used to fund trillion dollar bailouts for Wall Street and to fund the Bush/Obama wars of aggression against Muslims.

Having diverted Social Security revenues to war and Wall Street, Paulson says there is no alternative but to take the promised benefits away from those who have paid for them.

Republicans have extraordinary animosity toward the poor. In an effort to talk retirees out of their support systems, Republicans frequently describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme and “unsustainable.” They ought to know. The phony trust fund, which they set up to hide the fact that Wall Street and the Pentagon are running off with Social Security revenues, is a Ponzi scheme. Social Security itself has been with us since the 1930s and has yet to wreck our lives and budget. But it only took Hank Paulson’s derivative Ponzi scheme and its bailout a few years to inflict irreparable damage on our lives and budget.

Years ago with stagflation defeated and a rising stock market, I favored privatizing Social Security as a way of creating a funded retirement system and producing greater savings and larger incomes for retirees. At that time Wall Street was interested, not for my reasons, but in order to collect the fees from managing the funds.

Had Social Security been privatized, I doubt that Wall Street would have been permitted to deregulate the financial system. Too much would have been at stake.

After the latest crisis brought on by Wall Street’s dishonesty and greed, trusting Wall Street to manage anyone’s old age pension requires a leap of faith that no intelligent person can make.

Wall Street has got away with its raid on the public treasury. Now, pockets full, it wants to pay for the heist by curtailing Social Security and Medicare. Having deprived the working population of homes, jobs, and health care, Wall Street is now after the elderly’s old age security.

Social Security, formerly an untouchable “third rail of politics,” is now “unsustainable,” while the real unsustainables--a pre-1929 unregulated financial system and open-ended multi-trillion dollar Global War Against Terror--are the new untouchables. This transformation signals the complete capture of American democracy by an oligarchy of special interests.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury. His latest book, HOW THE ECONOMY WAS LOST, has just been published by CounterPunch/AK Press. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

JJJ = pwned (again.) :thumbsup:

[JJJ]

JJJ = pwned (again.) :thumbsup:

Lets recap.

You claimed SS was fully funded at the beginning of Reagan's term. I proved that was completely false.

Gaffney claimed SS doesn't add to the national debt. I proved that was completely false.

He then switches topics and claims that SS was raided by the right but shows and article where that proves it was raided by both sides and somehow that is a pawning.

When you guys talk about raiding you really need to understand a little bit more about the mechanics at work here.

The fact is the excesses in the SS "trust fund" (the culmulated SS taxes collected plus interest minus the culmulative payout), about $2.2T currently, was always spent by the trust on special nontradeable US treasury bonds and the government used the cash to fund daily operations. Therefore there was no real trust fund as the government was simply borrowing from itself and spending the receipts.

The trust fund is simply an accounting gimmick right from the start, not beginning with Reagan.

If the government has any negative net debt at all by definition the trust is "raided" because the government can't fund an immediate call of these obligations except by printing money or raising revenue from other types of taxes. This has been the case for a very long time. Before Reagan and after. When Bush said there is no trust he was basically the only person man enough to tell you the truth that had existing since the very beginning.

Right now we still run an annual surplus on SS. There are enough workers such that SS taxes collected exceed the payments made so the SS Administration can make all it payments. But that will change as the boomers age and at some point SS has to ask for federal government for actual cash to make immediate payments instead of using the excess receipts to buy securities from the government.

This is why people talk of a true lock box for SS where the the trust fund has to own marketable securities or assets not issued by the federal government. But the trust has to invest somewhere otherwise inflation will eat away at the locked funds like you simply putting the money under your bed. It won't be worth much 30 years down the road otherwise.

The trust is currently required by law to buy US securities. Therefore the SS Administration is completely dependent on the government to be able to make good on the bonds it has issued to the trust.

The idea that the trust should be allowed to invest on the open market as Bush suggested sent howls of protests as being too risky. In reality it was a plan to diversify away the assets of the trust from it current sole debtor, the federal government, as that debtor looks more risky over time. Allowing the SS Administration to buy gold or invest in other markeable securities is not a bad idea in principle and something you must do if you want to "lock away" the funds from the federal government.

SS has $15T of unfunded obligations. You hear that a lot but what does that mean? That means future costs of SS, i.e. the projected future payout cash flows when discounted back into today's dollars, exceeds the present value of the assets plus the expected future SS tax revenues currently in the trust by $15T.

This unfunded obligation has nothing to do with raiding of the fund or anything like that as it assumes the government can make due on its bonds. This is a result of the demographics and the SS tax rate not producing enough revenue to cover the costs. It is an inherent design flaw in the SS system as a result of lots of old people and not enough workers that will hit the system in about 15 years. This can only be fixed by the federal government funding the trust directly from other tax sources, raising the SS tax rate, reducing benefits, killing lots of old people, or letting people work longer.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Lets recap.

You claimed SS was fully funded at the beginning of Reagan's term. I proved that was completely false.


:bs:

You proved nothing of the kind.

You merely provided a link to an article that attempted to make the case that SS was projected to become insolvent by such-and-such a date.

[JJJ]

:bs:

You proved nothing of the kind.

You merely provided a link to an article that attempted to make the case that SS was projected to become insolvent by such-and-such a date.

You don't want to learn anything.

You guys actually believe that at some point the money was safe and secure and wasn't being spent by that politician there or that other one over there. The whole time it was being spent, from the very beginning.

It is only when the debt gets large enough to believe the government can't meet its obligations is this a real issue. But like most crises, as we have seen, it is absolutely fine until the crash hits and then all hell breaks loose. Hell is about 15 to 20 years away.

[mhgaffney]

hey JJJ,

The federal reserve bank creates money out of thin air -- then charges the American people for the privilege.

Yet, under the Constitution, the US government has all the authority necessary to make money for the American people -- interest free. So why do we need a private bank to do this?

Why should the American people pay interest to a private bank?

This is a perpetual money machine that has one purpose -- to make a class of men immensely wealthy -- and to turn the rest of us into paupers.

This is the real issue. Too bad you have been brainwashed to think the debt is the issue. In fact, the debt itself is secondary.

The deeper root issue is how all of this came to pass. Fact is, the banksters began to enslave America when they finagled the 1913 Federal Reserve Act through Congress.

Those are the facts.
MHG

[mhgaffney]

The debt is merely a symptom of the real problem.

[JJJ]

hey JJJ,

The federal reserve bank creates money out of thin air -- then charges the American people for the privilege.

Yet, under the Constitution, the US government has all the authority necessary to make money for the American people -- interest free. So why do we need a private bank to do this?

Why should the American people pay interest to a private bank?

This is a perpetual money machine that has one purpose -- to make a class of men immensely wealthy -- and to turn the rest of us into paupers.

This is the real issue. Too bad you have been brainwashed to think the debt is the issue. In fact, the debt itself is secondary.

The deeper root issue is how all of this came to pass. Fact is, the banksters began to enslave America when they finagled the 1913 Federal Reserve Act through Congress.

Those are the facts.
MHG

You may think the Fed was created out of thin air in 1913 but we had many government run national banking systems prior to the Federal Reserve System beginning with the First Bank of the United States in 1791 authorized by none other than George Washington.

Actually the Fed is the brainchild of one of our founding fathers and one of the most brilliant men to ever walked the planet. Alexander Hamilton proposed the concept of the fed 140 years before we even had the Fed and the one who urged Washington to form the bank.

Hamilton's criteria for success of such a national bank would be to provide incentives for the rich to invest, ownership of the people of bonds and shares, and provide a stable monetary system. It was opposed by those who thought it put too much power in the central government, like Jefferson. This is likely your line of thinking and it has some merit. But I think period prior to the Fed, especially the banking crisis of 1907 proves Hamilton was probably right.

The fed is not there just to print money for free for the people. (In fact it is not authorized at all to print money, but is only authorized to destroy used currency.) The only way the Fed can create money is by extending larger amounts of credit to its member banks.

The Fed exists to provide an orderly regulation of the banking system. It is basically the bank's bank and through the interest rates and credit limits it provides it can influence the money supply. It is designed to be a shock absorber creating an elastic and liquid supply of money.

Interest is absolutely necessary. Without interest you cannot exchange cash today for the promise of a return of more cash in the future. No one would loan anyone anything without it and anything you did loan would would decrease in value over time for the one who issued the loan due to a little thing known as inflation. Fed rates are designed to stay slightly above inflation rates. If you don't understand why there must be interest rate on Fed borrowings you really have no point discussing this topic.

Any profit the Fed makes (about 45B last year which would make it just about the most profitable company in the country) is turned over to the US Treasury. So it is a 45B tax essentially on the American people to keep the banking system orderly. Too much? Perhaps. But I for one think it is one of the best taxes we pay as an American people and can actually see the benefit of the money spent with this tax.

[mhgaffney]

No, we did not have "many government run national banking systems," as you write.

It is true that the banking lobby succeeded a couple of times in creating a centralized private bank in the US. But each time the license was limited to x number of years - and each previous time the license eventually expired.

In those days we had presidents who actively opposed a centralized bank because they knew how dangerous it was.

Jefferson was not the only one. Andrew Jackson vigorously opposed a central bank-- and succeeded in blocking the central bank from renewing its charter in 1835.

You are not just wrong but crazy when you argue we need a private central bank to "provide an orderly regulation of the banking system..."

This is nuts. The federal government has all the authority needed to print money and make monetary policy. In fact, monetary policy should be made by the White House in consultation with Congress.

Monetary policy should be made in the best interests of the nation as a whole. What we have now is a private club of banksters looking after their own narrow interests -- not the best interests of the nation.

One example should suffice.

It was the banksters who orchestrated the Viet Nam War starting in the early 1950s. The CIA provided the storm troops. The War in SE Asia was never in the best interests of the US. The only people who benefited were the bankers and industrialists. Everyone else lost.

They repeated the same disaster in Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003 -- and also in Afghanistan - and now in Yemen and Pakistan.

Your argument is as bogus as a $3 bill.

[JJJ]

No, we did not have "many government run national banking systems," as you write.

It is true that the banking lobby succeeded a couple of times in creating a centralized private bank in the US. But each time the license was limited to x number of years - and each previous time the license eventually expired.

In those days we had presidents who actively opposed a centralized bank because they knew how dangerous it was.

Jefferson was not the only one. Andrew Jackson vigorously opposed a central bank-- and succeeded in blocking the central bank from renewing its charter in 1835.

You are not just wrong but crazy when you argue we need a private central bank to "provide an orderly regulation of the banking system..."

This is nuts. The federal government has all the authority needed to print money and make monetary policy. In fact, monetary policy should be made by the White House in consultation with Congress.

Monetary policy should be made in the best interests of the nation as a whole. What we have now is a private club of banksters looking after their own narrow interests -- not the best interests of the nation.

One example should suffice.

It was the banksters who orchestrated the Viet Nam War starting in the early 1950s. The CIA provided the storm troops. The War in SE Asia was never in the best interests of the US. The only people who benefited were the bankers and industrialists. Everyone else lost.

They repeated the same disaster in Iraq in 1991 and again in 2003 -- and also in Afghanistan - and now in Yemen and Pakistan.

Your argument is as bogus as a $3 bill.

Actually we have already tried exactly what you proposed, from 1846 to 1921 to be exact. After Andrew Jackson shutdown the First Bank of the US he transferred the funds to his pet banks. Unfortunately they speculated most of the money away. Sound familiar.

So in 1846 they formed the Independent Treasury System that was isolated from all private banks. This ran into problems especially when the Civil War broke out and this heavily increased the banking demands. Some of the problems are desribed below

Although the independent Treasury did restrict the reckless speculative expansion of credit, it also tended to create a new set of economic problems. In periods of prosperity, revenue surpluses accumulated in the Treasury, reducing hard money circulation, tightening credit, and restraining even legitimate expansion of trade and production. In periods of depression and panic, when banks suspended specie payments and hard money was hoarded, the government’s insistence on being paid in specie tended to aggravate economic difficulties by limiting the amount of specie available for private credit.

The most serious weaknesses in the system were revealed during the Civil War; under the pressures created by wartime expenditures, Congress passed the acts of 1863 and 1864 creating national banks. Exceptions were made to the prohibition against depositing government funds in private banks, and in certain cases payments to the government could be made in national bank notes.

After the Civil War, the independent Treasury continued in modified form, as each administration tried to cope with its weaknesses in various ways. Secretary of the Treasury Leslie M. Shaw (1902–7) made many innovations; he attempted to use Treasury funds to expand and contract the money supply according to the nation’s credit needs. The Panic of 1907, however, finally revealed the inability of the system to stabilize the money market; this led to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, which allowed the Federal Reserve System to issue Federal Reserve Notes (the powers of coining money and regulating its value were retained by the U.S. Mint and the Congress, respectively). Government funds were gradually transferred from subtreasuries to district banks, and an act of Congress in 1920 mandated the closing of the last subtreasuries in the following year, thus bringing the Independent Treasury System to an end.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Treasury_System

All your crazy ideas have been tried before. The Fed for all its flaws is about the best I think one can do within such a dynamic economy as the US.

[mhgaffney]

You fail to understand that the panics were caused by manipulation -- by the bankers -- no less.

In other words -- these are early examples of the Shock Doctrine as documented by Naomi Klein in her terrific best selling book.

Here's how it works. Bankers use their immense resources to create a run on the banks -- an artificial panic.

One goal is to scare people into supporting the wrong-headed conclusion that our democratic system is incapable of managing financial matters -- and we therefor should surrender this power to private bankers.

During the Civil War President Lincoln wrote that his worst enemy was not the Confederacy but the bankers who wanted to bring him to heel -- and gain control over the US government.

[mhgaffney]

It is mind boggling that in 2010 you still don't understand the grave danger to Constitutional government posed by the private bankers.

You have been dumbed down to oblivion.

[JJJ]

So I understand your proposal is elimination of all private banks?

[mhgaffney]

No -- not the elimination of private banks. We need private banks.

However, the size is crucial. The too big to fail concept is wrong.

The optimal size limit for banks is around $100 billion. When they get bigger than that they cannot effectively manage themselves.

It's the problem with monopolies -- and why Teddy Roosevelt broke up Standard Oil way back when.

We also need to restore the firewall between investment banks and ordinary banks -- to protect citizens from the kinds of abuses we have had since 1999. Investment banks can speculate with their own money if they want -- but not with my money and your money, nor with pension funds etc

The die was cast when Greenspan convinced Clinton to support repeal of the Glass Steagal Act in I think 1998. After that -- things went to hell very quickly.

Glass Steagal needs to be restored.

I am not an expert -- but all of this seems self evident -- and common sense.

[JJJ]

No -- not the elimination of private banks. We need private banks.

However, the size is crucial. The too big to fail concept is wrong.

The optimal size limit for banks is around $100 billion. When they get bigger than that they cannot effectively manage themselves.

It's the problem with monopolies -- and why Teddy Roosevelt broke up Standard Oil way back when.

We also need to restore the firewall between investment banks and ordinary banks -- to protect citizens from the kinds of abuses we have had since 1999. Investment banks can speculate with their own money if they want -- but not with my money and your money, nor with pension funds etc

The die was cast when Greenspan convinced Clinton to support repeal of the Glass Steagal Act in I think 1998. After that -- things went to hell very quickly.

Glass Steagal needs to be restored.

I am not an expert -- but all of this seems self evident -- and common sense.

I am on board with reinstating Glass Steagal. Banks should be banks.

We have anti-trust regulations on the books and these should be sufficient to manage this too big to fail issue. If the government wasn't so worried about operating businesses they could focus on regulating them like they are supposed to. We will need some large banks to be able to compete on a worldwide basis.

[mhgaffney]

If the US shows leadership and downsizes the banking industry -- the world will follow.

We still have some influence. Let's use it.

The mere fact that anti trust laws are on the books is meaningless -- unless they are inforced.

There were credible reports that SEC regulators were watching porn on their computers instead of enforcing the law. This is why Madoff was not reigned in -- and the hedge find traders. The SEC had warning. They simply did not act.

Why not? Because direction comes from above. The guilty individuals are at the top of the food chain.

[Rigs11]

Im surprised they didnt rate Obama as the #1 President.

Actually obama ranked 15th, raygun..18th,bush...39th:rofl:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

I am on board with reinstating Glass Steagal. Banks should be banks.



Socialist!

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You don't want to learn anything.


ROFL!

This from a purveyor of nutty right-wing disinfo who isn't even old enough to remember life in America before the Reagan Revolution?

That's rich! :D

[Taco John]

I'm a Thomas Jefferson man

:welcome:

I think FDR was a goon. I'm a Thomas Jefferson man myself.

[Spider]

;) still chaps alot of ass FDR is still #1 ............

[Requiem]

Jefferson is up there for me, just hate his views and actions regarding the Native Americans.