2 thoughts on “Greenspan’s folly?”

  1. The response was only partly knee-jerk. Quite honestly, it is fueled in large part by the ridiculous proposition that “reduced spending” will solve this problem. If you take the time to parse the data in the FY2004 and FY2005 budgets, you can quickly come to a conclusion: the math doesn’t work. If all discretionary spending in both budgets were eliminated… all of it, now, not just the “pork”… we would still be over $100 million short of the deficit. Constrained spending will *not* solve the problem, and to hear the “leadership” promote it is maddening. Oh, and I disagree with your implication that the information contained in my blog entry was inaccurate. I’m 40, nowhere near retirement; I am one of the ones he’s talking about “adjusting expectations” of the benefits I will receive. I’ve been working since I was 16, and now, after a quarter-century of supporting those who have gone before me, I’m being told I will have to make do with less, while multi-billionaires get tax credits. Any wonder why the response is bitter?

  2. Who says you can only constrain discretionary spending?

    FRankly, the SS system is a pyramid scheme– it was bankrupt the day it started, and it was never designed to take into account the realities of math, etc.

    Its time to scrap it, and most of our government programms– because Social Security, and most government programs accomplish nothing but increase poverty.

    Social security– not surprisingly– has had the opposite effect intended.

    Apparently in Washington everyone forgets the broken window fallacy.

    Greenspan fails us by not using strong enough language. And the government fails us by pretending social security is anything other than a massive pyramid scheme– which it is by definition– from day one the retirees were being paid from the money recieved by people who were payingi nto their retirement.

    It is not a retirement program– which, by definition, is something that invests your money so you get it at retirmenet program.

    Any company that tried to put forth a program like social security would be shut down for fraud– and wiht good reason.

    But hey, they’re the government, fraud is their core competancy.

    Squabbling over “saving” social security is absurd– its mathematically designed to fail– it has nothing to do with the baby boom, which only accelerates its failure. The only way for it to make mathematical sense is to start murdering large segments of the population.

    Its a scam. I did the math about a year ago. Anyone retiring at that point who had taken their SS taxes and invested it in the Dow Jones Industrial Average Index instead of giving them to the government, would have something just under $3,000,000 to retire on.

    That’s enough money to easily throw off $150,000 a year after taxes with only extremely safe investments.

    Anything less than $150,000 a year that the social security program is paying people is money stolen by the government via fraud.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.