Greenspan wants to cut SS benefits to reduce debt...

[rasputin1952]

MSNBC reporting that Alan Greenspan wants to cut SS benefits in order to cover a part of the national debt. This ought to be the final nail in the coffin for this administration if the WH backs this little gem.

Let me be clear, Greenspan is talking about future SS recipients, that means most of us, and Gen X. If they would have left the funds alone in the first place, there would be plenty of money to keep SS solvent for an incredible amount of time. But, with all of the tapping into the fund to cover debt and tax cuts, the fund is constantly in peril.

I realize that one of the planks of the GOP is to either do away with SS outright, or, more likely make it insolvent by privatizing it, then losing the whole thing in the market and making some people unbelievably wealthy while others would literally starve to death. But to just outright say that benefits should be cut in the future, is surreal.

Those of us that have worked and counted on SS for part of our retirement, will have put cash into the fund for nothing. If this doesn't cross all ideological barriers, I have no idea what will.

O8)

[ProfessorGAC]

1. Nothing Like Reneging On A Promise. . .

. . .when it becomes convenient. I'm starting to worry that Al might be going senile. He says something stupid every day!
The Professor

[Must_B_Free]

89. So, Al Gore was a liar, huh?

Once again Al Gore proves that he really was the rightful president.

I love to see Bush sopporters taking their well deserved kicks in the ass fom George W! SUCKERS! TOld Ya!

[RedEarth]

108. I think he was referring to Alan Greenspan, not Al Gore....nt

[loudnclear]

129. But i thought the deficit didn't matter...only lower taxes?

Most people who will never have to rely on SS to survive think it should be reduced or eliminated. I would like to see those making over $200,000 per year in unearned income eliminated from collecting SS. There are many wealthy people collecting SS who count it as pocket change. If they don't like SS they should turn their checks in to help out the fund. These same people raise hell if the cost of living increase for SS is lowered. Meanwhile, the millions of people who need SS to survive are just merely grateful to have the little bit they collect. My neighbor gets $675 per month to live on. Goes without medicines except in dire circumstances. A most pleasant person who rarely complains about anything. It makes me want to cry to see wealthy bastards like Greenspan and all rest talk about cutting back on SS or even eliminating it in favor of privatization.

[ugarte]

2. Always extra $$ for the Pentagon, though

When someone starts talking about cutting the war machine, maybe then I'll think they're serious about a debt crisis.

[skippysmom]

3. The Repukes blew it

They could have shored up SS, but instead they had to give millionaires their tax cuts. But I guess that;s all in their plan.

[ugarte]

4. You bet, that was their plan

Drive it into the ground, then claim it's broke and can't be fixed.

[HootieMcBoob]

18. it's called "starve the beast" n/t

[SharonAnn]

116. They didn't give them tax cuts, they gave them OUR money.

They gave them OUR Social Security money to pay their share of taxes.

They STOLE it from us. they literally robbed the poor to give to the rich.

[Beetwasher]

5. SS Lock Box Being Looted

Can't wait to hear what the Chimp has to say about that...Talk about waffling...

[rasputin1952]

12. After disgusting his base w/mentions of illegal...

immigration and amnesty; even hard core pugs can't stand the idea of losing out on a gov't program that benefits them.

Funny how I NEVER hear that those that are opposed to SS return their checks every month. They take the money, but the hell w/everyone else.
Typically repug thought process.

O8)

[salin]

27. ask them how they like paying for other folks tax cuts

because the surplus in ss dollars today (what we pay in, vs what goes out) - is paid for general gov spending -and allows the bushteam to lower their deficit numbers (which are astronomical!)...

and for fun... ask them to reconcile these two bush points, that he often makes simultaneously...

1) His plan halves the deficit in five years... (however those numbers only work out when the tax cuts are phased OUT - and that is how the difference is made)

AND

2) Congress needs to make the tax cuts permanent... (in which case the huge deficits would not shrink, but would continue to grow exponentially).

Now go back to how some of what they are currently paying in to social security is going directly to lower the overall (huge) deficit... while the admin plans to keep us paying in at the same rate but expects us to receive more limited benefits.

What is this about republicans being "good for the economy".... ask like what company does this sort of fiscal policy most resemble (World Com ... anyone? Enron ... anyone?)

[rasputin1952]

38. Precisely...

they cannot deal w/reality.

There is only one way to get out of debt, increase revenue while getting rid of waste and fraud.

I find it hard to believe this admin would do that.

O8)

[sadiesworld]

6. Truly, Greenspan needs to go.

[John BigBootay]

29. I disagree...

Greenspan's economic policy of reducing interest rates early in the recession and keeping them low has spurred tremendous growth in the housing market-- the ONLY sector of the economy that has done very well since 1999. A lot of jobs were created and saved by keeping the housing market solid and the recession was not nearly as bad as it could have been.

Greenspan is not a menace.

[BillZBubb]

41. Greenspan IS a menace

You somehow forgot to mention Greenspan's unnecessary RAISING of rates prior to the 2000 election to help Shrub get elected. He wanted to slow the economy down before November to help the Repugs.

Since he overplayed his hand so badly, he's had to hold rates artificially low to help get Shrub out of the mess he helped create. Shrub made matters worse by wasting the government suplusses on tax cuts for his well to do cronies instead of targeted cuts aimed at generating immediate capital spending.

In addition, Greenspan has little control over mortgage rates, which are longer term. The weak economy has kept mortgage rates low, not Greenspan.

Greenspan is a Repug turd and needs to go.

[John BigBootay]

56. It's pretty common fiscal policy...

to attempt to put the brakes onto an economy that is growing too fast. Greenspan spoke of "irrational exuberance" back in the late 90's boom. Do you now doubt the wisdom of those words?

He was right.

His effort to attempt to cool the wildly over-inflated market by raising interest rates, thereby bringing money out of the market and into safer investments like bonds, real estate, cash, gold, whatever, might have actually saved Americans billions and billions of dollars that otherwise would have been lost in the crash.

But all you see is a typical repuke strategy to try to make Clinton look bad before the election. I prefer to look at the results rather than the motives.

[BillZBubb]

100. It's not FISCAL policy! For Pete's sake.

The Fed does MONETARY policy. Geez.

When Greenspin spoke of "irrational exuberance" he was WRONG. The only sector of the market that was irrational was the dot-coms. Most all of the rest had reasonable PE ratios for that point in an expansion. For most of the market there was reasonable exuberance.

You claim to look at the results, yet you overlook the fact that Greenspin has a history of manipulating rates to help Repug election chances. More significantly, you overlook the recession brought on by his unnecessary raising of rates in 2000. That's what cost people billions in losses in the markets--the Greenspin/Bush* recession.

Greenspin is almost worthless. His support of the disasterous Bush* tax cuts for the rich and the huge deficits should be enough to convince even the most out of touch that that is the case.

[Kazak]

7. You just knew this was coming...

The proof is in the pudding.

[Mari333]

8. So my widows benefits I was supposed to get in 2013

are not going to be there, and my husband paid into SS for nothing. Lets all pick out the cardboard boxes we are going to be living in.

[Bandit]

9. Also suggested Congress may increase payroll taxes

Greenspan said policy-makers face a range of options, such as raising the retirement age or cutting benefits to fix the funding problems for Social Security and Medicare. He said that early decisions on these choices would help prepare future retirees for changes in the system.
<snip>
If Congress decides to make up the funding gap by increasing payroll taxes on workers, that could cause employees to decide to hire fewer workers because of the increased tax burden.

"Reductions in benefits, through changes to the age for receiving the full retirement benefits or through reforms to slow the growth of Medicare spending or through other means can affect retirement, the labor force and saving behavior," Greenspan said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/27/national/main542219.shtml

[rasputin1952]

14. Medicare could save billions...

just by aggressively tracking down White Collar fraud. Some Dr's and many hospitals pad a patients account to squeeze as much as they can.

I worked in a hospital, and the fraud is well known. Fraud does not limit itself to Medicare, private insurance is caught up in it too.

Strange how if I make a $10 error on my 1040, I get chastised by the IRS; but another gov't entity lets all of the fraud continue as if it were the norm.

Toss some hospital CEO'/CFO's into prison for fraud, and voila', there is a ton of money to take care of people. Hit a few MD's w/fraud, and the system would correct itself. Just because a person is a physician, does not make them automatically pristine.

O8)

[Must_B_Free]

84. in pharmeceudicals

you have to exceed a %16 rate of fraud to be investigated.

[rasputin1952]

114. I find that ludicrous, fraud is fraud...

I am not talking about a minor mistake here, I am talking about major fraud. Seems to me the pharmacuticals would be a high profile target, 16% not withstanding.

How do they know when the 16& threshold is passed anyway? If no one is catching anyone, how can they get statistics together?

O8)

[SharonAnn]

117. The Frist family business was fines more than $1 billion for fraud

to Medicare. His father was chairman and his brother was/is president. Father has since retired.

The company is HCA - Hospital Corporation of America. They settled with Medicare for fines of more than $1 billion.

Have a Chattanooga doctor here recently charged with defrauding Medicare of over $3 million. They're not done investigating yet.

Are these people Democrats? No, they're Republicans and they believe in funneling all tax payer money into their personal pockets.

[rasputin1952]

124. That's right...

I forgot about Frist!

I knew of a Dr in AZ that constantly padded his bill w/extraneous procedures and tests. My next door neighbor never had an EKG done by him, but every 6 mos. like clockwork, the charges for an EKG & a chest X-Ray were there. Too bad my neighbor died of lung cancer. It might have been caught before it went malignant, if any of those previous radiological exams were actually done.

I had called the SS/Medicare/IRS and got...noyhing. As far as I know, this guy is still in practice.

O8)

[SoCalDem]

10. We need to file a class action suit against the bastards

for theft and fraud..

There has to be an accounting of what was paid in vs what was taken out...and the percentage of previous retirees vs what we are likely to receive...

I am afraid that the whole social security system will have turned out to be a "payback" for the greatest generation and the rest of us get screwed.. I know they made a huge sacrifice, but no other generation was repaid so well.. cheap houses..Moms who could afford to stay home and raise their own children....free college...unionized jobs....good pay (for their era)...pensions (with health care)... It appears that they milked the system for every last drop, and now their descendants will get zippo....

and in addition to the "zippo" we also have the "extra added feature" of continuing to support our own adult children whose $50,000 college degree guarantees them nothing except "loan repayment" and many years in Mom & Dad's spare room....

and probably the care and feeding of an elderly parent or two in the other spare bedroom, as they live well into their 90's.

The boomers will probably NOT live to those ripe old ages, because the stress of all this extra work, with little or no help will probably kill most of us first..

[bluedog]

11. make your voices be heard on this ask pugs....

I guess when you're old and digging through ash-cans looking for something to eat, you'll realize gay marriage was the least of your concerns, eh, you republican asses!!!

would make a great campaign ad though

[skippysmom]

15. Right on!

I'm sick and tired of working hard and playing by the rules, yet being screwed by a bunch of people who won't need SS.

Personally, I'm not planning on retirement. I'll probably die at my desk.

[Galley_Queen]

21. As Jon Stewart would say: Whaaaa?

<but no other generation was repaid so well.. cheap houses..Moms who could afford to stay home and raise their own children....free college...unionized jobs....good pay (for their era)...pensions (with health care)... It appears that they milked the system for every last drop, and now their descendants will get zippo....>

Cheap houses? What cheap houses and compared to what or when? Houses ain't cheap. Moms who could afford to say home with their kids? Let me tell you something...and I blame this on Ronnie Raygun...the 'family value' Repukes during that time made it just about impossible for a family to continue relying on one income. Women HAD to go to work in many, many instances. Good pay? If you are a highly educated worker, yes good pay. But for the minimum wage earners? You can't survive on it nor could you ever. Pensions with health care? For some, for some time but not now. And free college? When? Where?

I take offense at the statement that 'it seems they milked the system' for every last drop. If you replace 'they' with 'corporations' you may have a point. The percentage of those who 'milked' the system cmpared to white collar criminals is very small.

I've worked for 32 years so far and have almost 20 years to go until I can retire. I never got cheap housing, I never was able to say home, I seldom had a pension plan with health benefits (at least not in the past 20 years), and I certainly never milked any system.

Like my mother once said, "I should have taught you kids how to lie, cheat and steal because that is apparently what is needed these days to get ahead'. I'm not alone and probably represent the vast number of citizens.

[SoCalDem]

24. You must have missed my point..

I am 54.. The "greatest generation" were wthe ones to benefit fully from the social benefits we "used" to have.. The people I was talking about are the ones who are in their 70's & 80's NOW...and the ones a bit before them..

Reagan's whole reason for BEING president was to dismantle the infrastructure, but he was afraid to touch SS (or he would have)..

The people who were his contemporaries ARE the very ones who benefitted...and they are likely to be the last.. THAT was my point..

I started paying social security when I was 12... that was 1961... I am now 54... My husband started paying in 1959.. Neither of us will probably get "our fair share" .. The money WE paid in, is gone..

Be thankful that you have 20 years ... we don't have that long .. :(

People who are 60 or under, are the ones who will be SCREWED everywhich way to Sunday..


Vets returning from WWII could buy a brand new house for $1.00 down.. Only ONE income was enough to live very well..The GI Bill gave them a very nice re-entry into the normal world..

I don't know how old you are, but we had a car payment of $83.00 a month for a new 1968 GTO..(car loans were 3 yrs) my husband-to-be paid $75.00 a month for a very nice two bedroom apartment...

[Galley_Queen]

28. Damn, I Thought WE were the greatest

generation! ;)

I'm 50, and yes, I remember in 1974 I earned a whole $11,000! I had a brand new car, a nice apartment, paid for insurance, etc., and had money left over! Amazing!

I just don't know about the greatest generation getting so many benefits from social programs. I'm just ticked that we've put so much into social security and it looks as though we'll get zip from it.

I've been arguing for years to use the surplus to shore up social security. I still don't phucking understand why that didn't happen - even during the Clinton years.

On another note, but along the same line, reading O'Neills book now. I don't know what's happened to Greenspan but according to O'Neill, he sure as hell wasn't for cutting SS benefits or deficit spending.

[SoCalDem]

34. Greenspan knows how broke we really are..

He reminds me of the wife who silently cuts corners while hubby keeps throwing parties even though they cannot afford it..

Eventually the family is broke, and he cannot understand how they got there.. Starring GWB as Hubby :)

It boggles my mind why no democratic leader has ever been able to make the case for WHY this crap HAS to stop..

I have handled the money in our family and I can (and DID) explain this to my kids , years ago..

It's so easy to put it into "family budget terms" and then everyone would understand it, but they just spout "policy talking points" and everyone's eyes glaze over...and they go on robbinig us :(

[Bridget Burke]

70. Don't turn the generations against each other....

My parents grew up during the Depression, he served in WWII & met my mother while she was working at her wartime job. After he left the service, she continued to work until I was on the way. When I was 6 weeks old he was called back to active duty & my mother became an Air Force wife again, traveling from base to base. Several years and 2 more children later, he was killed in a service-connected plane crash--he'd never owned any real estate. My mother returned to work as soon we were all in school. "Ozzie & Harriet" & "Father Knows Best" were just TV shows--not everybody's reality in those days.

Should I apologize for the fact that the 4 of us collected Social Security (we kids until we were 18)? Don't worry--my mother isn't still taking "your" money--she died a few years ago. She didn't make it to her 90's--didn't even make it out of her 70's.

This is not a fight between generations. It's a fight against the people who want to take what we are ALL owed.

[SharonAnn]

131. Well, it's turning into one. Born in 1945, my father is still voting

and he's voting against his children.

He's voting for himself and says we'll just have to take care of ourselves like he did. Of course he has Social Security and Medicare to take care of himself. But he's not worried about us having it.

Jeez, I'm 59 and the go****mn "greatest generation" is still controlling my future.

[Jose Diablo]

Well, actually not quite

You see, most of the 'laws' we operate under are not constitutional laws, rather they are Contractual laws enforced by "Admiralty Courts".

We are obligated when we sign up to get a social security number to be under what is called "invisible contracts". The holder of the other end of this invisible contract is the Secretary of the Treasury operating as the trustee for the Federal Government (the king).

Strange thing about contractual laws though is this, if one party to the contract attempts to change the condition of the contract, then the other party can sue for breach of contract.

If you ever have to go in front of an Admiralty Judge (you know them when there is a gold fringe around the flag) for something like income tax issues and you attempt some form of defense under constitutional law, you get nowhere. This is due to most of federal law is now under 'invisible contract' law. Two different forms of law.

Under breach of contract forms of resolution, it could be argued successfully that the assets of the entire Federal Government are forfeited to pay for the breach.

Say for example, to solve the breach, the Feds would have to give up all the commons to private lien holders, us. Oil field rights, timber, water in Great lakes, federal highways, bridges, military bases, air wave leasing, it all would be subject to seizure. The king would be stripped and the assets go to the lien holders.

Contractual law has been used by the Feds to undercut Constitutional law, but that knife cuts both ways.

[dae]

13. Aren't we approaching a "storm the Bastille" moment. n/t

:kick:

[barbaraann]

17. Yahoo posters are going nuts!

http://post.news.messages.yahoo.com/bbs?.mm=NEWS&action=l&ft=1&board=37138456&sid=37138456&title=Greenspan%20Urges%20Congress%20on%20Deficit%0A&tid=apgreenspanbudget&date=02-25-2004&url=story.news.yahoo.com%2Fnews%3Ftmpl%3Dstory%26u%3D%2Fap%2F20040225%2Fap_on_bi_ge%2Fgreenspan_budget_1&.sig=nF0k7_u6vz2ol0wBxbEDTg--

Please rate this story, everyone! Thanks.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

16. A whole new front in the class war

this is a big one folks, if they kill SS we are back to the robber barron days. Don't let them get away with it.

Has the DLC supported this idea yet? Al From would love it.

[Cat Atomic]

19. This is fiscal conservativism, make no mistake.

Whenever someone gives you the "I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative" line, you need to explain what fiscal conservatism actually is.

It's NOT about reducing government spending, and it never has been. It's about shifting the tax burden towards the middle and lower classes, reducing every benefit they receive, and handing massive amounts of money out to corporations via "defense spending" and corporate welfare.

[Galley_Queen]

23. I Consider Myself A Social Liberal

and a Fiscal Conservative and have said so many times...but ALWAYS with this caveat: "I'm not talking about the present so-called conservatives, I'm talking about being conservative with income and spending." I balance my checkbook every month. I pay all my bills on time. No one ever has to call me looking for money. I consider that being fiscally conservative. I don't know what these neo-cons call it, but that's what I call it.

[Cat Atomic]

33. That's fine for personal finances.

But our national economy is largely fueled and stabilized by government spending. The last time we had anything close to real capitalism was 1929, and it didn't end well. The Republicans know that just as well as the Democrats.

Republicans just want to direct that spending towards their corporate cronies, rather than social spending. The neocons aren't really anything new in terms of spending. They're just like Reagan. Just more so.

[Dees]

20. The GOP 's plan to spend the fed out of existence

is going along as scheduled. Just not enough $$ to keep these bloated fed programs going. Sure I love taking a drastic cut in SS benefits so that the ultra well off can enjoy not paying their fair share of taxes.
I'll bet there will always be enough scratch to keep the GOP's war machine running in order to satisfy the fat GOP pigs at the trough. EVIL BASTARDS.

[Beaker]

22. try removing the wage cap.

I was over at a friend's house yesterday, to walk her dog for her(i have a key to their house), and i couldn't help but notice all the stuff laid out to do the taxes, and I couldn't help myself- I had to look at her husband's w2 on top of the pile- he's a mid/upper level manager for a large chicago-area company, and his paid wages last year from his job was $185,000.00, but his FICA wages were $87,000...meaning that more than half his pay was not subject to FICA, and i think that's BULLSHIT!

[Galley_Queen]

25. Ahahahhaha!

Remind me never to let you have the keys to my house!

;)

[Beaker]

31. I have the key for walking the dog--

and i didn't go snooping, the w2 was sitting on top of a pile, right next to the box of dog treats...all i did was glance over- i never touched the pile...

(what really surprised me tho, was the amount of sex-toys they have in the box in the back of the bedroom closet, under all those shoe boxes...)

[rasputin1952]

45. LOL....

get us a pic! :P

And don't forget to check the medicine cabinet! :7

O8)

[MISSDem]

51. "in the back of the closet" - which reminds me, maybe I should

move all of that stuff somewhere more secure,

[Tyler Durden]

26. Response to Greenspan; Two words:

FUCK YOU.

[John BigBootay]

40. That's going to help....

Here are the choices, at some point we'll need to make it:

1. Raise the SS taxes.
2. Lower the benefits.
3. Privatize the system.

[SoCalDem]

44. Remove the cap

and perhaps..... means test benefits at some point..

I know that the "richies" will howl, but their measly "donation" made through the years could be considered a samll price to pay for the benefits they enjoyed in the top 5% for all those years, and they probably never missed a payment on the Rolls because they were so "overtaxed"..:eyes:

I would set that "means test" at $150,000 a year for retired people ..

Any oldster who has their home paid for and who makes that much from pensions and investments, probably does not "need" social security..

and NO they could not opt out of the "paying in part"..:evilgrin:

[John BigBootay]

57. No... that's stealing...

SS is not supposed to be a "Robin Hood" contrivance. You should at least get out of it what you pay into it. Otherwise you are saying you are fine with the government stealing from some and giving to others.

Where does that policy end?

Is it now okay for the government to take my land because I have too much, so that they can build houses on it?

How about taking your car collection so they can drive kids to school?

How about taking... you fill in the blank.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

77. No, it's not stealing, try again

If you don't want to pay your share of US taxes, you're free to live in some Libertarian capitalist paradise with no taxes.

"Otherwise you are saying you are fine with the government stealing from some and giving to others."

What, you mean like all the corporate welfare, contracts to Halliburton, etc? Yeah, I have a problem with that.

"Where does that policy end? ....."

The Libertarian Party, and most Republicans, would agree with you.

[John BigBootay]

83. SS is not a tax, my friend...

it is a retirement account.

You please try again.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

90. FICA is a tax, Social Security is INSURANCE

try again!

[John BigBootay]

94. Try again??? Didn't you just prove my point?

Call it an insurance policy against being poor in your old age-- or a retirement savings account if you will. These are essentially the same concepts. Federal income tax is supposed to go into a general account to pay for the "general Welfare" of the nation, and so a convincing argument can be made that this money is indeed subject to whatever "Robin Hood" policies we choose to enable.

But the SS money is enforced savings for all working people to be paid back to them after retirement with a modicum of interest.

If you want to change the rules or change the concept of the SS witholding-- that's your business, but it was not the original intention of the system.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

118. Of course, federal income tax does NOT go to Social Security

In fact, it's the opposite - they've been using SS revenue to pay for tax cuts for the rich for a long time now.

"Call it an insurance policy against being poor in your old age-- or a retirement savings account if you will. These are essentially the same concepts."

Of course, they are NOT essentially the same concept. Insurance can pay out more than you paid into it if whatever you're insuring against happens, so, keep trying!

Then again, I've already heard the GOP arguments against Social Security, so I'm not really sure of the point...

[cryofan]

133. SS is whatever we define it as

We can call it "Yankee Doodle Dandy".

I say STICK IT TO THE RICH PEOPLE.

And if they don't like, take all their money and send them to Africa....

[PA Democrat]

95. The Truth of the matter is

that the government has been playing Robin Hood in reverse with Social Security taxes for YEARS. The middle class has been paying an increasingly larger share of all taxes (include state, local, property, sales, excise taxes) for years now.

The real winners have been corporations and the wealthy.

[HootieMcBoob]

96. since you brought it up

Is it now OK for the government to take my land because I have too much, so that they can build houses on it?

That's exactly what * did with the building of the ballpark at Arlington. Not only did he take over the privately owned land/businesses/houses to build the ballpark but while they were at it they took over the privately owned land/houses/businesses of lots of land surrounding the park that they didn't even need or use for the purpose of the park. And the people who they took it from were paid way below market value! They had to go fight it in court to even get market value for their property!

Then, after the park was built * and his partners sold the left over property to developers for a huge profit.

LOL ain't that grand? This is what * and republicans in general think about private property That is all BS that they spout. All they want is money for themselves, they don't give a rats ass about anything or anybody else, they want to get richer and they will help corporations who donate huge amounts of money to them to get richer at the expense of everybody else.

Don't be fooled by these criminal bastards. They hate you with every fiber of their being and they would kill you and your whole family if it would make them wealthier.

[John BigBootay]

101. Beacuse Bush stole property--

DOES NOT make it RIGHT for others to do it! Even out of a belief in "fairness" or righting a wrong.

Stealing is stealing. That is a VERY SIMPLE concept. And it is always wrong.

[Beaker]

105. "Stealing" my ass!

what about all the blue-collar workers who die before, or shortly after they become eligble for benefits? They get nuthin' for all their years of contributions on their entire annual earnings.

Removing the cap is the first thing that should be tried.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

68. false

The tax level is fine. The benefits level is fine. No way in hell will we allow the system to be "privatized" - i.e., allow corporations to skim off the top. The system works, it will continue to work long into the future - as long as they stop taking SS money to fund other things.

[John BigBootay]

73. What if the investments were all government instruments?

such as bonds, t-bills and the like?

[PA Democrat]

92. Reagan raised Social Security Taxes in 1983

effectively succeeding in carrying out the largest shift in the tax burden to the middle class in history. He told the country that it was necessary to raise social security taxes (a REGRESSIVE tax) in order to secure social security for future retirees.

But he really needed the extra revenue to partially offset the reduction in PROGRESSIVE income taxes which disproportionately benefited the wealthy.

I don't think a lot of people will fall for the same old Republican shell game again.

Interesting article on Reagan's SS tax increase:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Corporate_Welfare/Social_Security_Inequities.html

[Ganja Ninja]

47. Here's two more. Your Fired!

[YNGW]

30. SS is going broke.

I'm working my finances with no anticipation of ever seeing a SS check.

[John BigBootay]

36. SMART ....

so am I.

[lapislzi]

32. FUJIOK*

It's been their mantra from day one. If God had favored you, you would be wealthy and not need social security. The poor are poor because of their own wickedness.

I thought I had lost the ability to be surprised. Seems not.

*FUJIOK: F*** you, Jack, I'm OK!

[John BigBootay]

35. I for one am open to the idea of OPTIONAL privatization...

Make it non-compulsary, make it possible to invest only a small fraction of your assets as a hedge. Let's start off with just 5%.

Make it possible to conduct this operation as an experiment with those who are willing to try it and see where it goes. I can't condemn an idea before I see proof of it's failure.

For me, there is more evidence that such a scheme would be a net benefit to the taxpayer, and possibly to the economy as a whole.

I am an investor with about 15 years in the market and even with the downturn of 1999-2003, I am still ahead. The secret? Diversification, plain and simple. It's no secret. It's not magic. Those that were hit hardest by the recent downturn were generally not diversified. By the way-- I am a long term buy and holder and have actually held most of my mutual funds and stocks THROUGH the downturn.

[Beetwasher]

39. It already exists

They are called 401k's.

Do you realize how much it would cost to institute the system you propose as part of the SS system? If people want to opt to privatize their retirment savings, they can open a 401k. SS exists because it's GUARANTEED. That's the whole point.

[rasputin1952]

49. Exactly...

401 k's exist primarily to allow people to invest a part of their income, and try to make a small fortune to retire on.

If the SS system was to allow partial or full use of the funds collected, many people would go broke. Being the kind hearted people we are, we would wind up supporting them in another way. So they would NOT starve, or be eaten by wolves. They would gamble, lose, and we would still pick up the tab.

Now THAT is really bad financial planning.

O8)

[John BigBootay]

67. You seem to think that...

the only investments that would be allowed under a privatization would be bad ones.

In reality, the only ones that would be allowed would be the safest, most secure ones. Bonds, T-bills and perhaps very conservative mutual funds like Ginny-Mays.

It is a giant misconception of the privatization plan that holds that the user would be saddled with deciding amidst a vast myriad of junk stocks, funds etc. You will probably have only a handful of very safe "government approved" instruments to choose from.

These conservative instruments will yield perhaps 6% as opposed to the 2-3% you can expect from SS.

[rasputin1952]

76. What good are Treasury Bonds, ...

when there is NO guarantee that the Treasury will ever get on its feet again.

History is replete with references of treasuries being depleted, and the faith in the currency falling so swiftly that there is little left to trust. Who pays for the interest on T bonds? The taxpayer. Since the highest %age of those that bear the burden of taxation has declined, the money must come from the pockets of the middle and lower classes.

Many people, I would suppose to say, most people would invest in high risk stocks w/a big cash rollover. Not a lot of people want to, or have the time to wait 20 yrs for a bond to mature. Failure in many aspects is bound to happen.

As for SS; when my parents first started putting into SS it was about 25 cents a week. Of course, their portion, as well as that of the employer rose. My widowed mom now picks up the max check, not bad for those that were in at the beginning.

Not everyone is as conservative in their financial dealings as you would suppose. I still hold that individuals who want to can invest all of the money they want too; but w/o that safety net called Social Security, they, and in the long run WE, would be in serious shape.

O8)

[John BigBootay]

87. History is replete with MANY examples--

one of them is that conservative investments have never failed to yield a better return than SS.

Is it possible that this history may not hold-- absolutely.

I for one, am willing to bet WITH the historical trend on this matter in favor of better returns. I have seen this work, I have direct experience with it. It is something that I know and understand and have evidence to support it.

[rasputin1952]

104. First, who, at 50+ can expect to invest in long term invewtments?...

I am telling you, quite simply, that there would be huge gaff's and the American people would feel the responsibility of taking care of those that lost it all. So, they 'win' at the expense of others.

If you work in this field, undoubtedly you want to ensure more cash flows into the system...that's what make you money. Most of us do not work in the field, and we are the ones that would be burned.

Like I said before, NOBODY returns their SS checks to the Treasury, whether they are poor, or rich enough to not need it; NOBODY!

People like the idea, that if they survive long enough, or if they die before they can collect, they, or their survivors will have a small income. I have no problem with people that have liquid assets investing in whatever they want. But to be sure, the sharks will rip to shreds peoples investments. Just look at the S&L fiasco. Greed is a driving force.

O8)

[Beaker]

107. I'd rather have the 2-3% GUARANTEED return...

call me conservative.

[John BigBootay]

60. Obviously 401K's are not SS...

so it isn't exactly the same thing. I question how many middle class or lower income folks are able to own or contribute into a 401k.

There are NO guarantees in life that are ironclad. There is no guarantee that I will see a single penny of the tens of thousands of dollars that I have paid into SS. If SS is in such desperate trouble as we are being led to believe, I find that extraordinary measures may be needed to correct the problem.

The cost of privatizing a small portion of SS would not kill the program same as the cost of refinancing a mortagage requires an up front cost in order to reap longer term benefits.

I am not sure why people oppose a small, partial privatization at this stage of the crisis-- if nothing else than as a test to see if it works.

[Beetwasher]

65. You're Totally Wrong

SS IS SUPPOSED TO BE GUARANTEED. That's the whole damn point. Of course it's not the same thing, it's completely different. THAT'S THE FRIGGIN' POINT. Lot's of middle income people do invest in 401k's. Poor people can't afford it, that's why a guaranteed SS benefit is GOOD BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD TO TAKE A CHANCE BY GAMBLING THEIR SAVINGS. Yeesh, you miss the entire point.

It will cost a TRILLION dollars to privatize SS, even a "small" portion, whatever that means. How the hell do you privatize a small portion? Do you know what you're talking about? If you're going to let people invest their SS, you have to be prepared for EVERYONE to do it. You can't just privatize a small portion, that's absurd. If I decide I'm going to invest half of my SS into private accounts, the costs are the same if I only wanted to privatize 25%. They system has to be changed and the costs would be enormous.

Privatization is NOT fixing the problem. Not at all. It's exacerbating the problem.

You want to fix SS? Remove the cap. It's not fair that people stop paying after a certain cut off point.

[John BigBootay]

71. Are you prepared to tell me...

That my SS account is GUARANTEED? Are you prepared to tell me that I will see every penny I have put into the system back in my pocket with interest? I am 37 years old-- I have maybe 30 more years to go before I will be eligible to collect. Are you telling me that 30 years from now I am GUARANTEED to get my money back?

I didn't think so.

You see, guarantees are fool's concepts. There is NO SUCH THING. If you believe in a guarantee, then pardon me, you are a fool.

We have a problem with SS. Privatization may be a solution worth exploring. Is it GUARANTEED to work?

You know the answer to that question.

[Beetwasher]

74. That's Just Plain Ignorant

What I have to say on the matter is irrelevant. It's not MY guarantee. The gov't made that guarantee and they are supposed to hold to it. Yes, they should be held to that guarantee and I expect them to stand by it. You're damn right I do. If you want to call me a fool, fine. I think it's foolish to think that giving SS to stock brokers, along w/ their fees and percentage cuts, is going to save the system. That should NOT be explored. I think it's completely idiotic to trust these morons who want to essentially shovel more money to wall street as solution to fixing the SS shortfall. That's just plain stupid.

Privatization is GUARANTEED to fail. If one person gambles and loses his SS, it failed, and they're will be more than one if it's privatized.

You want to fix the problem? Eliminate the cap.

You want a private investment account? Open up a 401k. That's why they exist.

Can we trust the Bush admin. to do the right thing? Do you think they have the people's best interest in mind when they want privatization? You know the answer to that question. How foolish...

[John BigBootay]

81. First off this goes WAAAY beyond the Bush adm...

backward AND forward through time.

No, I don't trust the Bush aministration much-- but I don't trust government much at all to be quite honest.

And I believe it is very relevant how we look at guarantees. I don't believe our government has a spotless track record when it comes to guarantees, and I can cite several examples of the government breaking it's word from day one up til present day.

So, I guess it's right that you should expect government to "guarantee" that your enforced savings are protected, but I would just not bet the farm on it. Especially in light of the apparaent fact that SS is heading rapidly toward insolvency.

I think it is a common misconception that people who have a well-founded mistrust for Wall Street believe that as soon as this plan is adopted, 100% of their SS account is going to fall into the hands of greedy and disreputable managers.

This is a falsehood. First of all, the plan is OPTIONAL. OPTIONAL. Say it again with me: "OPTIONAL."

The second thing is it will probably only allow you to move a small percentage of you account into investments based on your age. The older you are, the less is allowed.

Thirdly, in all liklihood, the only instruments that will be available for you small and OPTIONAL investment will be incredibly safe government issued bonds, treasury bills or similar instruments which generate a yield historically in the 5-6% range as opposed to the historic 2-3% range of the yield from traditional SS investment. Wall street mooks and mavens would have little to do with these holdings-- if anything.

I believe you are irrationally opposed to this plan.

[Beetwasher]

88. Too Bad

then for all the poor people who can't afford to gamble their savings then? That's youre attitude? Fuck them? SS was created as a guarantee to protect these people.

Personally, I'm NOT betting the farm on SS, but I'm lucky and I'm able to have additional investments. Many, many people are NOT that lucky. SS is a guaranteed safety net for them, that's why this issue is so important. The fact that you don't get that is telling.

As far as the optionality of the plan, it makes no difference. You would be FORCING THOSE WHO DON'T OPT FOR THE PLAN TO PAY FOR IT ANYWAY. Get it? If I don't want to opt for the plan, I would still pay to IMPLEMENT it. I have a problem w/ that and so should any poor person who is going to have to pay MORE taxes to fund the switch over.

The fact of the matter is you, I and NO ONE knows what the plan would look like. You say "probably only allow blah blah blah..." Yeah whatever. You don't have a clue and neither do I and it doesn't make a difference anyway. Everyone's gonna have to pay for the administration of the plan and for the percentages that are skimmed off the top by wallstreet execs. That's fucked up.

In all likelihood the only instruments will be incredilby safe??? Are you fucking nuts? You yourself make the argument that there are NO guarantees and then you have the audacity to suggest that the investments available will be incredibly safe and have 5% return??? Do you not seet he absurd disconnect? Holy cow, talk about cognitive dissonance. If we can't trust SS is guaranteed by your own admission, how can you even make this point? How absurd. And again, you're just making this up anyway, you don't have a clue what investments would be available. Maybe you'll only be allowed to invest in Halliburton and other hand-picked Enron-like Bush Cabal favorites. The whole thing smells like con to me, and that's because IT IS. It's merely one additional way to transfer the wealth of the US populace into the pockets of Bush's cronies.

I believe you are irrationally naive if you think this is the solution to the problems of SS.

[John BigBootay]

97. No I don't see a "cognitive disconnect"

with the concept of a "safe bet."

We take them everyday. When I drive to work on the freeway I bet that I will arrive safely at my job so that I can earn money. But people die everyday on the freeways.

Is this a safe bet? Is it a cognitive disconnect that I should be willing to gamble my life just to go to work when thousands of people die every year in automobile accidents?

What we are talking about here is simple risk assesment. I have a very vivid and realistic concept of risk versus benefit.

I am willing to risk a small percentage of my future (theoretical) SS payout in exchange for the benefit of attempting to bring it back into solvency without inordinately raising the rates or lowering the yield.

Call me a crazy, wild-eyed "risk taker" if you will.

[Beetwasher]

99. Good, then you do that and invest in a 401K

and don't force me or anyone else to PAY MORE TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM AND MORE TO ADMINISTER IT AND MORE TO PAY FOR WALL STREET TO SKIM OFF THE TOP. Why should I pay more so that you can privately invest your SS when you can open a 401K and I don't have to pay anything?

You want to invest? Go for it, but don't make me pay for it.

[John BigBootay]

102. Well that's not going fix SS, now is it? n/t

[Beetwasher]

103. Just How Will Privatization Fix It?

No one can explain that to me.

Privatization WILL COST MORE. The switch over costs money, the administration will cost more money and the fees to brokers will cost more money. How is THAT going to make it more solvent? The only thing privatization does is hand over peoples SS money to private interests and make them richer. Explain how privatization will save SS. I'm still waiting. It's like fixing a cut artery by slicing it open some more. It's just plain stupid.

Not to mention the fact that the money I'm paying in now is paying current retirees. So how would I invest that money? Where would the money come from to pay current retirees if I'm investing my current payments? Do you see the idiocy here?

[noiretextatique]

119. hey beetwasher...the same way vouchers will fix public schools

...somehow :shrug: it's that free-market panacea...fixes everything, apparently :shrug:

[Beetwasher]

121. And Whattaya Know?! The Poster Refuses to Answer My Question!

Gee, I wonder why...Maybe it's because said poster doesn't have a clue how exactly privatization is supposed to fix the problem.

Or maybe said poster is running around to other websites looking for the appropriate talking point response to the question.

Or maybe the poster is from the school of doing something is better than doing nothing, even if that something actually makes the problem worse!

I like to use the following example to illustrate the idiocy of that approach. A man severs an artery and doesn't know what to do, and instead of seeking proper medical attention he decides to take matters into his own hands and promptly slices open another artery! Hey! At least he's doing SOMETHING! :eyes:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

79. "good faith and credit of the US government"

If things get so bad that the US government is broke - your Social Security check bouncing will be the LEAST of your worries.

"We have a problem with SS."

No, we don't. That's simply Republican propaganda.

"Privatization may be a solution worth exploring"

Privatization of public resources has been tried many times over and over again - the results are CLEAR - a few people make a lot of money and everyone else is screwed. Your "solution" is worse than the "problem".

[John BigBootay]

91. No problem with SS? Interesting, elaborate please. n/t

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

120. what's the problem?

You and the Republicans are making a claim that SS is in trouble, and we must privatize. Care to prove that assertion?

[Centre_Left]

109. Guaranteed?

If you think social security or any other kind of investment is "guaranteed" just because the government says so, then I want a toke off of whatever you're smoking.

[Beetwasher]

112. Is You're Life Insurance Guaranteed?

SS is insurance. Your damn right I expect my SS to be guaranteed. If it's not, they've got lot's of 'splainin' to do.

Is your savings account protected and guaranteed? You're damn right it is and you should damn well expect it to be, same w/ your SS.

How would privatization fix SS? Can you explain that? If not, then why would support it? How does increasing the cost of administering SS make it more solvent? It doesn't. Privatization is scam. I await your explanation as to how privatization will save SS.

[YNGW]

42. Optional

I was under the impression that only those who wanted to participate in private accounts would do so. If you wanted to keep your SS money continuing to do what it has been doing for the past 60+ years, you could continue to do that, you didn't have to participate.

I agree, long term, diverse investments are the most prudent.

[John BigBootay]

69. You are correct--

It IS an optional plan.

It seems that most folks here don't believe in this option, however. I for one am concerned that there might be no other prudent option that keeps this system alive for me to collect what I've been required to put into it.

And the millions of others just like me.

[LeahMira]

113. Nothing is stopping you now...

Make it possible to conduct this operation as an experiment with those who are willing to try it and see where it goes. I can't condemn an idea before I see proof of it's failure.

You can invest in a Roth IRA, or you can put money into CDs that are your IRA fund and you can deduct the amount you invest from your taxes.

The thing that gets people is that they also have to contribute to Social Security, even if they set aside their own funds.

How come these people aren't grateful that they are earning enough to do both instead of complaining that they can't have it all?

I'd rather see people with yearly incomes over a certain amount, say $200,000 per year, not get any Social Security payments at all in their old age. If they later lose their money through some illness or whatever, then sure they should get Social Security then, but meanwhile, when they are doing well enough on their own why should they draw funds from an account that is stretched already? Let that money go to people who really depend on it to get by, and stop sending it to some rich old fart that doesn't even need it.

[cryofan]

134. Ohhh, an investor,,,,,we need to ...

....tax the HELL out of investors!

[John BigBootay]

37. By the way, I think this is a bad idea and a ploy...

I absolutely HATE the idea of the Gov not giving me my money back with interest, but I don't think that's what's really at stake here.

I think this is a somewhat stealthy move on Greenspan's part to energize the concept of partial privatization of SS, which I tend to (tentatively) support.

[MISSDem]

46. I kinda sorta support the partial privatizing of SS, too but

like myself, most folks are not savvy enough at making investment choices for this to happen. We would all be homeless after we lost our little dabs of money in the "world of high finance".

[Beetwasher]

48. See Post #39. Private investment accounts ALREADY EXIST

They are called 401k's.

SS exists for the sole reason that IT IS GUARANTEED.

[John BigBootay]

63. No you wouldn't. That's absurd!

In all liklihood the way the privatization plan would work is that you invest a tiny portion of your SS "account" in a very small set of very safe "government approved" investments-- probably bonds or T-bills, the safest of all possible investments.

These generally return about 4-6% interest. Big whoop.

Your current SS contributions generally return about 2-3%

You will not lose your money under this program unless there is a national disaster or crisis which completely destroys the American economy, and if that happens your regular SS money will be appropriated anyway.

[PA Democrat]

54. How do you pay for Privatization?

Greenspan and O'Neill discussed the cost of privatizing SS. They figured they needed $1 TRILLION (out of what were then projected SURPLUSES) to allow people under the age of 37 to participate in a fully privatized system. And these figures also assumed that the surpluses would be large enough to also allow us to pay off the entire deficit over a relatively short time period.

But now, add huge budget deficits, increasing interest payments on the debt, and more than likely an increase in interest rates. The numbers don't add up.

So who is the first generation willing to volunteer to be totally screwed out of everything they paid into the Social Security trust fund?

[John BigBootay]

64. well- something's got to happen...

Paying the 1 tril up front just pays to fix a system that will need fixing later. Typically, the sooner you fix a problem the less it costs to fix. It's GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF MONEY to settle this issue one way or the other.

[skippysmom]

72. Your answer:

"So who is the first generation willing to volunteer to be totally screwed out of everything they paid into the Social Security trust fund?"

That would be my generation. I'm 32.

[John BigBootay]

75. I don't believe there has to a generation...

that gets totally screwed.

I believe that there is a solution here, or a set of solutions that can remedy the problem. Privatization is one possible solution.

[salin]

80. might have been the case

before bushco drove our finances so far into debt - and if they succeed in making the tax cut permanent... the annual deficits will continue their explosion upwards. So any opportunity there might have been... were spent on tax cuts... two wars... nobid contracts for rebuilding iraq... more tax cuts... corporate implosions (and the dip in the market - lowering tax revenues)... more tax cuts...

[emc]

43. Greenspans reasoning

You know, maybe there is a reason for Greenspans statement---I read ONeills book also. Most of these guys in this administration are afraid to make a statement---When they do as ONeill, they get bounced and then have to write a book. Greenspan maybe making a statement in his own way, and you know as well as I do, that the statement that he just made sure is not going to help Bush get votes---if anything it will turn votes away from him---... Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Greenspan---he has made many mistakes and ruined many people with his policies---but possibly he is making a statement through the back door with out catching too much flack---Don't know, will watch the news to see how much flack he gets form his boss...and what kind of future statements are made...

[MISSDem]

50. Bush responded with something like

"I don't favor cutting benefits to those at or near retirement". In other words if you are not retiring real soon your benefits could be fair game. Also the age to retire will probably start going up quicker than it already has.

[rasputin1952]

52. When did bush ever care about anyone but himself?...

perhaps if he wasn't so busy spending other peoples money, and actually Had to work for a living he would see things differently.

bush knows he will be long gone when the stuff hits the fan. He couldn't care less, just so long as HE doesn't have to pay for it.

Typical repug deal, "I want it all, but I'll be damned if I pay for it".

O8)

[WLKjr]

59. Bearing Witness to Compassionate Conservative Reasoning

From all that I have ever seen and heard from repbulicans that call themselves compassionate conservatives are these things. Here is how I see thier thinking, pleez tell me I am wrong:

"I have a job and you don't, to hell with helping you get one so you too can help contribute to society, you lazy bum!"

"Taking care of the elderly, to hell with them they are old, what do they know about not having enough money and what I am going through!"

"Damn foreigners, get the hell out of here, your not american! If your not mexican your not leagally here so scram!"(this one goes out for those reading that heard that we are now turning hatians away but allowing mexicans that are here illeagally stay now.)

"It's all about me me me me and me. To hell with you, your not wealthy and you don't matter."

"You can't tell me how to live, btw, you need to go to church everyday or your going to hell becuase your an ATHEIST if you don't."

"I have a flag on everything since 9/11/01, so I must be patriotic, although when 4/19/96 I said nothing, did nothing. Oh well, I hate foriegners."

"You Damn librulz are tearing americans apart."

All of these kinds of comments come from a friend of mine(unbelievable right?:) ) who is die hard republican, his parents are the same "blame Clinton" for everything kind of people who think liberals are dasterdly pukes, who want to tear apart america. Yes, going to his house is like being on Rush ;) lol.

[rasputin1952]

85. Welcome to DU WLKjr....

:hi:

I have always said there is no such animal as a "compassionate conservative", the phrase is an oxymoron. I am in NE, and this place is chock full of repub's; most of them are down to earth people, but cannot relate to this "compassionate conservative" ideology.

Many of those still here have first hand accounts of the Great Depression, and they are fiscally conservative, but their passions are really progressive on most social issues. Very few here would actually vote Dem, they vote by rote; but they do care about the downtrodden and the hurting. This is farm country, and they know what it is to be beaten into the ground, ergo, they really are compassionate.

My point is though, that these people have worked hard all of their lives, and they expect the gov't to keep its promises to its citizens. I am the only progressive I know of in this area, and in Town Meetings and the local paper, i have earned the respect of these people. To be frank, they listen to, and often change their minds, after I discuss things w/them.

The admin is different. These are people that care only about themselves and what they can acquire in the immediate future. There is NOTHING compassionate about them. They would sell off the country for a quick buck.

O8)

[tokenlib]

53. Grover Norquist's wet dream

Grover must be taking the rest of the week off. He is no doubt experiencing heights of pleasure unknown because of this.

God knows--I HATE these people!!!

[Wapsie B]

55. Why not just raise the FICA cap?

Double it to 160k. But that would piss off the 1%ers.

[PA Democrat]

58. The US maintains more than 700 military bases around the world

plus another 6,000 bases in the United States and in US territories.

http://www.nationinstitute.org/tomdispatch/index.mhtml?pid=1181

We have regularly taken money out of the Social Security trust fund to pay for other expenditures, with a large percentage going to defense spending.

We can choose to remain an ever-growing military empire, or we can choose to take care of our people.

[Q]

61. The Pentagon recently 'lost' 2 trillion dollars...

...and it's been PROVEN that 'our' government wastes literally billions of dollars a year. Strange that they don't even talk about cutting pork and waste before these discussions about cutting essential social programs.

[nannygoat]

62. Yeah, how about the Defense budget being whacked in half?

I know it's the kiss of death but I wish one of the mainstream Dem candidates would talk about reducing the Defense budget. I really fear that we are going the way of the Soviet Union which wound up spending so much on defense to the detriment of its citizens' needs and its non-military infrastructure.

[area51]

66. There's a poll about what Greenspan said.

There's a CNN poll about what Greenspan said. Here's the question & choices.

"What would be the best way to deal with the swelling federal budget deficit?
- Allow some recent tax cuts to expire
- Cut federal spending
- Change inflation gauge for Social Security
- Raise age for Social Security eligibility".

Last I saw, the answers were:
"Allow some recent tax cuts to expire: 32%
Cut federal spending: 60%
Change inflation gauge for Social Security: 2%
Raise age for Social Security eligibility: 5%
total responses to this question: 37901"

[salin]

82. interesting... 60+% - cut spending

but NOT raise age or pay less (inflation change)... given that the largest budget items are, i believe, defense spending, interest on the debt and social security medicare.... folks think we should cut defense and/or default on our debt (don't invest in treasuries!), or cut social security... oh - they didn't want to do that... so I guess folks want us to cut defense and/or default on our debt obligations. (Of course this presumes that folks have given more then 10 seconds thought to the question.)

[rasputin1952]

86. Cut defense waste and duplicity...

prosecute the White collar criminals and stop 'pork'.

This nation would be fiscally viable in a few years.

I expect that NONE of those things are entered into the equation.

O8)

[salin]

93. maybe that's because

we actually THINK about policy, and its implications? Clearly a novel idea for those occupying the whitehouse.

[rasputin1952]

106. LOL...Agreed...

n/t

O8)

[PA Democrat]

98. I'd be willing to bet

that we could trim our military empire of almost 7,000 military bases quite a bit without jeopardizing national security. Those 6,000 plus bases, and trillions of dollars of military hardware didn't prevent 9-11, nor would they prevent another terrorist attack.

Military spending accounts for almost HALF of our discretionary spending. Compare our military spending to that of other industrialized countries, and you'll get your answer as to why we are the only country that doesn't provide health insurance to all of its citizens. I guess now we'll dump our old people in the streets to feed the military industrial parasite that is choking our country.

[Cleita]

78. If people are supposed to work until they are seventy,

this is what Greenspan was suggesting, then he'd better inform the MBA in the White House that those people are going to need jobs. I used to think Greeny was maybe a cut above the usual supply side economists, but it turns out without a brilliant genius like Clinton to prop him up, he's as clueless and delusional as the rest of the conservative consortium.

[LeahMira]

110. Of course.

Let me be clear, Greenspan is talking about future SS recipients

Of course. Greenspan is old and probably eligible for his own Social Security. He's also rich enough to live very comfortably without it. When he refuses his monthly check to help out with the national debt, we'll talk.

[RedEarth]

111. This is EXACTLY what Paul Krugman

said this admin would do......."starve the beast"....cut taxes, then claim there wasn't enough money to fund SS, so benefits would have to be cut. Repubs have hated SS since it's inception, so we need to get ready for massive cuts unless we can take control of the white or congress.

[nomatrix]

115. Illegal immigration and costs

http://www.theamericanresistance.com/articles/art2004jan04.html

The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the average Mexican illegal alien costs U.S. taxpayers a whopping $55,000 each.

Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.

Border guards and state park patrols being killed. There is something seriously wrong with this government.

[Kamika]

122. I don't see why this would cross the barriers

Conservatives loath wellfare

[rasputin1952]

123. Well, SS is not welfare...

and they would recipients as well! If there is anything these neo-cons know, it is that they can get cash, they are for it. It is everybody else's 'welfare' they are against.

O8)

[Cleita]

126. Well, it's your retirement they are stealing.

All that money you will have deducted from your check for old people like me, won't be there when it's your turn and you will be cheated out of it. The scam to let you invest your SS money is nothing more than that, but a scam. It's a sweetheart deal for financial planners and stock brokers, who will reap the benefits and you will end up with nothing.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

125. Grenspan just put the final nail in the bushco coffin

[NC_Nurse]

127. Then can I

have my money back? I could really use it NOW. Since social security isn't doing enough to suypport all my elderly relatives and my autistic brother!

[spanone]

128. Then maybe we should cut back on our input.

Total BS. But it does bring up the fact that the deficits are f*cking real and there are real repercussions. This is not what KKKarl Rove wanted to hear.

[Alllyourbase]

130. of course...

of course greenspan is set for the rest of his misserable life, good job there! theres other ways to get out do debt, but nah lets get rid of SS, how fun

[rasputin1952]

132. Welcome to DU Alllyourbase...

:hi:

O8)

[cryofan]

135. The SS comment by GreenSpin was mostly about stroking the investors

Greenspin has been making "investor-friendly" comments the last 2 days because the stock market has been very jittery. THey were afraid the market was going to crash. And if the market went south, well, right now that is ALL BUSH HAS.

The SS comments and others comments are just some things that investors like to hear....

As for myself, I think we need to restore the progressive taxation system, where unearned income is taxed at nearly the same rate as earned income, and where high earners may significantly more.