NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan told Congress that the mounting financial pressure of a wave of retiring baby boomers is so great that cuts in future government retirement benefits are all but inevitable.
The Fed chairman told the Senate Special Committee on Aging that the nation has about three years to work out a fix. "In 2008, the leading edge of what must surely be the largest shift from retirement in our nation's history will become evident as some baby boomers become eligible for Social Security," he said in his prepared remarks.
Greenspan gives a 3 year warning on Social Security
-
- Grand Inspector Inquisitor Commander
- Posts: 3158
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:18 pm
Greenspan gives a 3 year warning on Social Security
http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/15/comment ... tm?cnn=yes
Vaulos
Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay
Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay
Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
-
- The Dark Lord of Felwithe
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 5:25 pm
-
- Sublime Prince of teh Royal Sekrut Strat
- Posts: 4315
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:17 am
- Location: Minneapolis MN
Funny, he seems to have forgotten the plan he and Saint Reagan of Geeopi came up with in 1983. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=& ... +greenspan
-
- Soverign Grand Postmaster General
- Posts: 5365
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:47 am
- Location: Gukta
Seeing how the tax cuts did not effect the collection of Social Security funds what does that have to do with anything?Amazing he didn't see this coming when he was championing tax cuts, even though he knows revenue generation from tax cuts never pays for the size of the cut.
End the hypocrisy!
Card's Law:No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, and no action has just the intended effect.
Card's Law:No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, and no action has just the intended effect.
-
- Der Fuhrer
- Posts: 15871
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:16 am
- Location: Eagan, MN
-
- Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
- Posts: 11322
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
- Location: Rockford, IL
Re:
Because they use Social Security funds to supplement their budget. Surpluses have been used to hide the true size of the yearly deficit for at least a decade now.Rsak wrote:Seeing how the tax cuts did not effect the collection of Social Security funds what does that have to do with anything?Amazing he didn't see this coming when he was championing tax cuts, even though he knows revenue generation from tax cuts never pays for the size of the cut.
-
- Der Fuhrer
- Posts: 15871
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:16 am
- Location: Eagan, MN
-
- Soverign Grand Postmaster General
- Posts: 7185
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am
"In 2008, the leading edge of what must surely be the largest shift from retirement in our nation's history will become evident as some baby boomers become eligible for Social Security." - Alan Greenspan
That's his quote. I don't dout it's veracity. Surely it will not put a major strain on the system but all he is saying is that it will begin at that point and progressivly get worse. So he is encouraging a change prior to the onset of the problem.
That's his quote. I don't dout it's veracity. Surely it will not put a major strain on the system but all he is saying is that it will begin at that point and progressivly get worse. So he is encouraging a change prior to the onset of the problem.
-
- President: Rsak Fan Club
- Posts: 11674
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
- Location: Top of the food chain
And the Democrats response....
Eight hundred pound gorilla? What eight hundred pound gorilla? OH.... you mean that big, furry, mean looking thing in the living room? Well... I guess it all depends on your definition of gorilla.
That thing in the living room may LOOK like an eight hundred pound gorilla, and it may eat as much as an eight hundred pound gorilla, and it may tear the arms off you like an eight hundred pound gorilla, but it really isn't an eight hundred pound gorilla, because it all depends on how one defines what an eight hundred pound gorila is, and whether or not one chooses to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla, exists which of course is impossible, since we don't really define it as an eight hundred pound gorilla, and we can't accept that existence of an eight hundred pound gorilla.
We feel the best solution to addressing eight hundred pound gorillas, which don't really exist anyway, is just to ignore them, or, if they really do exist, to redefine them as ten pound cuddly koalas, and that solves the issue of eight hundred pound gorillas, which don't exist anyway, regardless of that big black thing in your living room.
Eight hundred pound gorilla? What eight hundred pound gorilla? OH.... you mean that big, furry, mean looking thing in the living room? Well... I guess it all depends on your definition of gorilla.
That thing in the living room may LOOK like an eight hundred pound gorilla, and it may eat as much as an eight hundred pound gorilla, and it may tear the arms off you like an eight hundred pound gorilla, but it really isn't an eight hundred pound gorilla, because it all depends on how one defines what an eight hundred pound gorila is, and whether or not one chooses to acknowledge the eight hundred pound gorilla, exists which of course is impossible, since we don't really define it as an eight hundred pound gorilla, and we can't accept that existence of an eight hundred pound gorilla.
We feel the best solution to addressing eight hundred pound gorillas, which don't really exist anyway, is just to ignore them, or, if they really do exist, to redefine them as ten pound cuddly koalas, and that solves the issue of eight hundred pound gorillas, which don't exist anyway, regardless of that big black thing in your living room.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar
Alarius
Embar
Alarius
-
- Knight of the Brazen Hussy
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 3:47 pm
- Location: St. George, UT golf capital o th' world.
Sad problem.
It needs reform badly.
No one wants to touch it, because the other side will scream fear inducing statements.
You need someone with a clear workable vision, time for the changes to work (our government is notorious for quick fixes) and a supermajority willing to make hard decisions. (a moaning smurf: "We're doomed")
I keep trying and can't imagine a probable realistic senario that will see this fixed with minimal losses. And I'm a very optimistic person.
It's like a super oil tanker loaded with people, cruising toward shore at full speed and when someone sees the shoreline 20ft from the bow they finally decide to change directions. Too little too late and the crash won't be a simple one second smack. It will be long, grinding and loud. As the infrastructure warps and colapses on inself. A real mess to clean up and lots of bodys in the wreckage.
This is probably the biggest problem I am aware of, I can see the path and there is nothing I can do that will make a difference, just cover my own butt and watch in horror. As the government/people play politics. Which, sadly, is all I honestly expect them to do.
Then a tinfoil hat appears on my head and I wonder what benefit either party has by letting this occur. They both must see some gain in it or they woulldn't keep it in the air like this. Both partys could have done something serious if they really wanted(sold their political souls if needed for the good of the people), I don't buy the finger pointing either way.
I am painfully aware the people on the hill have a clearer vision than I that this is happening. And it "annoys me greatly". (pisses me off.) (please don't piss me off further by trying to make a case your party is on higher ground on this issue than the other; because they both have been sucking it dry with added programs for a long time.)
It needs reform badly.
No one wants to touch it, because the other side will scream fear inducing statements.
You need someone with a clear workable vision, time for the changes to work (our government is notorious for quick fixes) and a supermajority willing to make hard decisions. (a moaning smurf: "We're doomed")
I keep trying and can't imagine a probable realistic senario that will see this fixed with minimal losses. And I'm a very optimistic person.
It's like a super oil tanker loaded with people, cruising toward shore at full speed and when someone sees the shoreline 20ft from the bow they finally decide to change directions. Too little too late and the crash won't be a simple one second smack. It will be long, grinding and loud. As the infrastructure warps and colapses on inself. A real mess to clean up and lots of bodys in the wreckage.
This is probably the biggest problem I am aware of, I can see the path and there is nothing I can do that will make a difference, just cover my own butt and watch in horror. As the government/people play politics. Which, sadly, is all I honestly expect them to do.
Then a tinfoil hat appears on my head and I wonder what benefit either party has by letting this occur. They both must see some gain in it or they woulldn't keep it in the air like this. Both partys could have done something serious if they really wanted(sold their political souls if needed for the good of the people), I don't buy the finger pointing either way.
I am painfully aware the people on the hill have a clearer vision than I that this is happening. And it "annoys me greatly". (pisses me off.) (please don't piss me off further by trying to make a case your party is on higher ground on this issue than the other; because they both have been sucking it dry with added programs for a long time.)
-
- Soverign Grand Postmaster General
- Posts: 5365
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:47 am
- Location: Gukta
That is irrelevant. By law they are unable to just put the money in the bank so they have to make treasury bonds with the SS surplus.Because they use Social Security funds to supplement their budget. Surpluses have been used to hide the true size of the yearly deficit for at least a decade now.
Greenspan is talking about the crisis that there will no longer be a SS surplus. That fact is uneffected by any tax cuts and whether they regain the loss in revenue.
The surplus is going away and the only thing that can change that is taxation for SS or changes in benifits.
End the hypocrisy!
Card's Law:No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, and no action has just the intended effect.
Card's Law:No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, and no action has just the intended effect.
-
- Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
- Posts: 11322
- Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
- Location: Rockford, IL
Re:
Perhaps with a larger advertised government shortfall he doesn't get those tax cuts. Perhaps without the ability to siphon off extra SS money for another decade he doesn't get those tax cuts.Rsak wrote:That is irrelevant. By law they are unable to just put the money in the bank so they have to make treasury bonds with the SS surplus.Because they use Social Security funds to supplement their budget. Surpluses have been used to hide the true size of the yearly deficit for at least a decade now.
Greenspan is talking about the crisis that there will no longer be a SS surplus. That fact is uneffected by any tax cuts and whether they regain the loss in revenue.
The surplus is going away and the only thing that can change that is taxation for SS or changes in benifits.
-
- President: Rsak Fan Club
- Posts: 11674
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
- Location: Top of the food chain
Re:
Fixed it for you.Partha wrote:Unfortunately, I'm not equipped.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
Embar
Alarius
Embar
Alarius
-
- Der Fuhrer
- Posts: 15871
- Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:16 am
- Location: Eagan, MN
-
- Soverign Grand Postmaster General
- Posts: 5365
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:47 am
- Location: Gukta
Fine we have discussed the effect of the surplus on the ability to get tax cuts. You still have yet to respond to how the tax cut is going to effect the SS revenue.Perhaps with a larger advertised government shortfall he doesn't get those tax cuts. Perhaps without the ability to siphon off extra SS money for another decade he doesn't get those tax cuts.
You need to prove how a tax cut in non-Social Security taxes has decreased the revenue brought in by the Social Security taxes.
End the hypocrisy!
Card's Law:No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, and no action has just the intended effect.
Card's Law:No event has just one cause, no person has just one motive, and no action has just the intended effect.