Greenspan gives a 3 year warning on Social Security

[Partha]

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.

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.

You need to prove how a tax cut in non-Social Security taxes has decreased the revenue brought in by the Social Security taxes.

Except, of course, that I never linked the two. You did.

[vaulos]

The Democrats' response is that the 800 pound gorilla's death is greatly exaggerated, based on anemic growth projections. At best it needs some tweaking like what we did under Clinton.

Are you really advocating long term policy based on the "best possible scenario" or even the "better possible scenario"?

[Rsak]

Partha,

Incorrect of course. You did that very thing in your first post:

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.

What else can you be referring to that Greenspan didn't see coming then the topic of the article:

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.

You have yet to show how they are related or why Greenspan should have seen this coming when he championed tax cuts as you put it.

Now stop dodging the question and answer it.

[Relbeek Einre]

Sorry, Vaulos, I meant 'at worst' - meaning if the anemic growth projections are true.

Bush's plan, of course, counts on growth of twice that anemic growth projection for the Social Security estimates. Which is quite reasonable - we've grown at that rate on average since WWII. (3.6%)

[Kulaf]

Here is where they are linked:

Greenspan also stressed that rising spending on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is one more reason why the federal budget "is on an unsustainable path, in which large deficits result in rising interest rates and ever-growing interest payments that augment deficits in future years."

Partha is not saying anything new. He is parroting Hilary.

[Relbeek Einre]

No more than you're parroting Limbaugh.

In related news, the Medicaid cuts were stripped from Bush's budget on a close vote. A few Republicans crossed lines.

[Rsak]

That is nice Kulaf, but Partha has still not covered the topic of how the SS revenue was affected by the tax cuts which is what he implied in his original statement. That knowledge of revenue generation from tax cuts never pays for the size of the cut somehow has relevence to SS tax revenue which was not effected by the cut.

[Kulaf]

No more than you're parroting Limbaugh.

In related news, the Medicaid cuts were stripped from Bush's budget on a close vote. A few Republicans crossed lines.

That would be aweful hard to do since I never listed to Rush at all.......ever. And really Beek it's not hard to see Partha's paroting......it's a direct paraphrase of comments attributed to Hilary in the article.

[vaulos]

Kebbler- Ahh, that makes a bit more sense.

Et al- There seems to be some discussion about how excess from the Social Security intake is used up in the budgetary system. The general bent on this seems to be that it is that it is unhelpful at best. I would like to take on that notion. I'm not sure that many of you are considering that taking money out of the economy to put into savings (i.e., not invested, but put in a "lockbox") would have a negative effect on the economy. This is because for every dollar put into the economy (either invested or spent) it is multiplied by approximately a facor of 4. In other words, $250 billion invested results in $1 trillion in GDP. But the reverse is also true, if you remove $250 billion you will shrink the GDP by $1 trillion. (Mind you, it doesn't matter if this money is being spent/invested by the government, or whether it is being spent/invested by individuals.)

Anyway, that's way "pay as you go" social security schemas or private account investment schemas are better than the "hold money until people retire" schema.

[Kulaf]

Aren't you concerned though that large influxes of monies into the market can cause inflationary preasures on already inflated stocks.

[vaulos]

They can, but we aren't talking about 'influxes' of monies. The money being referred to is already being put back into the economy. What some people are advocating is 'removing' that money from the economy.