OT - Social Security

Page 8 of 8  
On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 16:08:22 -0800, Larry Blanchard

When I see a man going down the wrong road, I don't call him an asshole for trying to go that way.
I just talk to him about the road he should be on.
Thomas J. Watson - Cabinetmaker (ret.) (Real Email is tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet) http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1 /
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Social Security funds are designed so that no politition can get their hands on them. Just imagine what would happen if President Bush or some other politition got their hands on SS funds thinking that they could invest them better and lost it all. This is what an IRA is for and it still allows the SS funds to grow.
According to the SSA, there will be plenty of funds until the year 2030 at least. No doubt long after I'm gone and maybe even you. Last year the increase was 2.1% not the 1.6 or 1.8% you spoke of in your post.
I do believe the SSA also predicted the funds to last until 2030 with an average 2.0% increase each year. This stillisn't enough money to live on and for most, a part time job willbe needed until you die.
--

OT - Social Security

Group: rec.woodworking Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2004, 9:49am (MST-1) From:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
...you guys hash it out.....
I've got 8 curved drawer fronts (bubinga/maple) that need over 200 handcut dovetails....
Cheers,
aw
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think this put's it in the best perspective:
Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Economic outlook and current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives February 25, 2004
(see full text here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/testimony/2004/20040225/default.htm )
excerpt:
"Today, federal outlays under Social Security and Medicare amount to less than 7 percent of GDP. In December, the CBO projected that these outlays would increase to 12 percent of GDP by 2030 under current law, using assumptions about the growth of health-care costs similar to the intermediate assumptions of the Medicare trustees; when spending on Medicaid is added in, the rise in the ratio is even steeper. To be sure, the rise in these outlays relative to GDP could be financed by tax increases, but the CBO results suggest that, even if other non-interest spending is constrained fairly tightly, ensuring fiscal stability would require an overall federal tax burden well above its long-term average.
Most experts believe that the best baseline for planning purposes is to assume that the demographic shift associated with the retirement of the baby-boom generation will be permanent--that is, it will not reverse when that cohort passes away. Indeed, so long as longevity continues to increase--and assuming no significant changes in immigration or fertility rates--the proportion of elderly in the population will only rise. If this fundamental change in the age distribution materializes, we will eventually have no choice but to make significant structural adjustments in the major retirement programs. "
One other statistic I read recently but can't find the source is that the ratio of national debt to GDP is about 30% at this time. Using the latest CBO report for estimates, by 2050 the ratio will be about 200% (debt:GDP)!!!! Basically, this says that we're running an unsustainable model and have no choice but to increase the income:costs ratio substationally. I think Greenspan's suggestion to cut social security and increase the retirement age is by far the most sensible approach. If the tax and spend Democrats get their way we'll be living in a socialist state and have a 50% tax rate. God help us.
Mike

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
SNIP

As a long time Republican who will for lack of a better choice vote for GWB this fall, I must say I would rather have "tax and spend" than the current "don't tax but still spend". The best would be a "tax until it hurts and still don't spend until that hurts too" until ALL the national debt was paid off. I detest the fact that my two little grandsons (as well as hoped for other grandkids and their progeny) will have to pay for things that my generation bought and consumed. We have no pride or self respect in leaving debt to our kids, grandkids and future generations. I detest that Bush is spending at a deficit but the Democrats just gave me the choice of him or the most liberal Democrat in the Senate. Where is Ross when we need him ;)
Dave Hall
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in messagenews:<b_m1c.30694

I essentially agree with you. Something noone in the news has stated or recognized is that thus far the Bush policies have been precisely what was needed at the time and fully meet most economists expectations for what should have been done during a recession. Deficit spending IS a good thing in this situations and it is having exactly the effect that it should. Increases in productivity are entirely ignored by the press, yet they keep harping on the lack of job creation. I admit this is relevant, but it is taken out of context in terms of overall economic growth. Anyway, I want the debt to be eliminated as well, but I think it has to be addressed in terms of the economy as a whole. Simply saying "no deficit spending" is naive and not good economic policy. Protectionist trade policies are also BAD for our economy as a whole. Sure, some people will lose jobs in the US, but if you look at the overall benefits to our consumers (i.e. lower prices, etc.) and the entire economic picture, free trade is a very good thing for us. I have a 6-month old son, so the concerns you state are mine, too. Anyway, my main point is you shouldn't detest Bush for his deficit spending policies - they are appropriate and a good thing. His PROJECTIONS, however, ARE scary. The weak dollar and dependence on foreign capital to prop up our bond market is very troubling. If the Asian bond-holders cash out, we could be heading for the worst recession since the early 80's with mortgage rates in the teens, etc. Getting the debt down in these terms becomes a big priority, one that it seems Bush needs to focus on a bit more very soon. The thing about Bush is that he seems to do what his advisors suggest, and I'm sure his economic team is aware of these factors and will make the appropriate suggestions. But, you never know. But, as you said, there's no way I'm voting for a two-faced "patriot" that has flames coming out of his drawers.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.