On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 08:32:12PM -0800, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Are you saying that the government should not be obligated to pay what they borrowed from Social Security?
No. I did not say that. Not even close. What the hell?
Sorry, I misunderstood you.
Perhaps you could help me to understand the problem a little better. You and Gary seem to be talking around each others assertions. He said at one point (Re: our steep slide, 12/21/04):
"On Social Security I see the talking points today in the media is how the Prez wants to cut benefits 25% relatively soon to set up the stock accounts. According to the same CBO report if the Prez does nothing benefits would possibly have to be cut 19% in 2052. Will they try to make the case that an additional 5-6% cut years sooner adds stock accounts to the Social Security mix? I also see that the projections pundits use have a 1.9% GDP growth but 5-8% stock market growth. Why would the stock valuations go up in this low-growth and insane government debt environment?
To fully fund this 2052 shortfall would require additional revenue of 0.54 percent of GDP, less than we are currently spending in Iraq. Or, as Paul Krugman noted in The New York Times, about one quarter of the revenue lost each year by President Bush's tax cuts, "roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes of $500,000 a year."
I gather you disagree strongly with this statement?
-- Doug _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
