* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If it were, then we wouldn't have fixed things in the early '80s.
We did not fix things in the early 80's. > But, I...as I think others do....reserve the word crisis for something > that may collapse on us if we don't address it soon. I think our > balance of payments problem has the potential to be an explosive > crisis within the nex t 4 years. So what is your proposal to fix the current account? That was obviously a rhetorical question. The best economists in the world don't have a clue how to fix the current account. It is basically cross-fingers time. On the other hand, there are a number of good plans to improve SS. > I think they should be addressed by rescinding Bush's tax cuts. Maybe > they have to be phased out to keep from jarring the economy. So do I. But I'm also realistic. Its not going to happen in the next 4 years. Maybe there is a slim chance they will be allowed to expire, but I doubt it. Bush won the vote. That limits the opportunities on the table. Take what you can get. > I think Social Security could become a crisis in 30-40 years. We > can take modest steps now to make sure that SS will be maintainable > virtually forever. Indeed, given your economic assumptions, we should > be able to start cutting SS taxes as a fraction of GDP within 40 years > by implementing some rather modest changes. No, you're not listening. That is NOT "given my economic assumptions". My economic assumptions are that history will repeat itself. It usually does. That means benefits will keep going up if the pay-as-you-go unnaccountable broken system is not fixed. > So, by all means, lets actually solve a problem before it is a crisis. > But, we still need to remember that we have several real time fiscal > crisises on our hands right now. The word is that tax reform will be on the table in 2006 or 2007. Now is the time to work on SS. -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
