Greenspan says cut Social Security payments
- Thread starter zanket
- Start date
It is truly pathetic, selfish ppl who think that these tax cuts actually do good (somehow) don't seem to realize that a nations economic stability rests in the hands of the governments finances not that of the individual. The US will go deeper and deeper into the red, and eventually the world will not invest anymore in the US like she is now. Once the Euro becomes the standard, the US better hope that it is in Surplus!
It will be interesting to see how the administration attempts to spin outfrom under someone like Greenspan saying that the only way we can remedy the deficit is to cut social security now. Not to raise taxes, but to do something incredibly drastic because we need such an immediate infusion of cash... while the cash keeps pouring into our nation building/killing.
:m: Peace.
:m: Peace.
Well already all candidates for Pres. have already said no to Mr.Greenspans proposal, simply it is political suicide for the party that says they will give less to the most powerful voting bloc in the US...the retired, and bored. But this is not surprising this should serve as a very stern warning that the deficit does count, and you simply cannot expect it to be there and languish and having no affects. Quite the opposite the deficit causes real problems, and puts the US in a very volatile situation, more debt, current account deficit, and dependence on other states to fund your own. Japan can only invest so much...
I'm in a personal defecit right now. The mortgage on my house, minus equity, is almost twice my yearly salary. Oh for the halcyon days of living in a shitty apartment.
I think greenspan and the ecconomic people try to be as unpolitical as possible. But their words get twisted in political debate by both parties to their advantage. One thing that does stand out is that social security is going to beging to have to grow in necessary funding every few years after 2006 or so ergo from 4% to 6 gdp every few years which something neither party wants to remedy right now. I like the model the australians have in place they can put their reitrement into high grade stocks and high grade debt + matching funds of 9% contributed by employers.
also wasn't clinton pres for 8 years? so he gets 4 red years too and those 4 green ones are just before the internet buble went ka-blooey!
also wasn't clinton pres for 8 years? so he gets 4 red years too and those 4 green ones are just before the internet buble went ka-blooey!
Because the American public always make the mistake of associating economic prosperity with the incumbent president. You know, because Gore invented the internet.Eluminate said:
Because the American public always make the mistake of associating economic prosperity with the incumbent president. You know, because Gore invented the internet.
That's American democratic politics, if you don't like it reform it. But the question that you did not answer was, did Bush do anything to help the economy? The answer is no, from massive corporate scandals (where he did very little), to huge and unnecessary tax cuts (which have not made him popular), and huge current account deficits, the US' basic indicators have gone from ok to horrid. Clinton was a good president, and it was his economic policies that created the 90's boom. Indeed it was also during his reign that the economy started to show its true colours. But at least the fundamentals are good. What I hear from Repubniks all the time is the "stock market is doing fine and so is America", that is the great farce in American economic logic. The Stock Market is indicative of the companies not the American ppl. It seems the more and more profit these companies make, the more and more jobs are exported, and the more and more the US digs deeper into a trade deficit. With the Bush administration believing that exporting jobs is a good thing (which I personally don't disagree with), but politically it is moronic at best. The US is going to pay for this; the economy simply cannot sustain this pace.
That's American democratic politics, if you don't like it reform it. But the question that you did not answer was, did Bush do anything to help the economy? The answer is no, from massive corporate scandals (where he did very little), to huge and unnecessary tax cuts (which have not made him popular), and huge current account deficits, the US' basic indicators have gone from ok to horrid. Clinton was a good president, and it was his economic policies that created the 90's boom. Indeed it was also during his reign that the economy started to show its true colours. But at least the fundamentals are good. What I hear from Repubniks all the time is the "stock market is doing fine and so is America", that is the great farce in American economic logic. The Stock Market is indicative of the companies not the American ppl. It seems the more and more profit these companies make, the more and more jobs are exported, and the more and more the US digs deeper into a trade deficit. With the Bush administration believing that exporting jobs is a good thing (which I personally don't disagree with), but politically it is moronic at best. The US is going to pay for this; the economy simply cannot sustain this pace.
Eluminate said:
He wasn’t a miracle worker. It takes time to fix inane policies. It takes no time at all to implement inane policies, which is why the surplus disappeared fast with Bush Jr.
Stokes Pennwalt said:
Obviously (really point blank obviously) the president is overwhelmingly the #1 affecter of the economy and the effect can be immediate. If the president says the market will crash, it will. You don’t measure a president’s performance so much on where the economy is (because it takes time to fix inane policies), but where it’s going. In Clinton’s case the economy was going great for all 8 years despite 4 years of deficits.
AvatarOfWoe
Registered Senior Member
Economics isn't affected by the president that currently inhabits the white house but by the one that was there two or three years ago.
False. The president’s effect on the economy is almost immediate. If the president says we are going to war with Iraq, for example, the stock market will immediately react and the outcome will be mostly clear within minutes. Remember, where the economy is going is a better indicator of a president's performance than where the economy is. It’s more important whether it’s improving or worsening. The president has an immediate effect on that. It’s a lot easier to worsen the economy than it is to improve it. That’s how Bush Jr. was able to ruin the economy so fast. The smart money knew Bush Jr. would ruin the economy while making his supporters wealthier (that's what Republicans do); that's why the peak of the economy was Election Day 2000. The next day it was known that Bush Jr. might win, so the smart investors started pulling their money out of the market in anticipation of a recession.
Last edited:
Too early to tell.Undecided said:
Not really, the economy has not gone anywhere. The tax cuts were enacted 3 years ago, the impetus should be there...not seeing it. But I do lie in this context, the Bush tax cuts have created one of the best growth periods in a long a time, arguably the recession of Bush never happened. Jobs were be created, good paying American jobs at that, in China and India. The tax cuts allowed for these TNC's to export their capital, and workforce overseas so they can make a killing back home. Sure the Stock Market is up, but I highly doubt any of us here can really appreciate that upswing. Surely most of the American ppl have not; frankly the "growth" in the Markets are a reflection of the new American economy. Growth without jobs and growth without positive effects on the American ppl. It is not too early to tell, of course Bush has done his damage, from 2001-2002 alone the US exported $223 billion worth of capital (jobs) overseas, I really want to see figures for 2003-04. It should be very interesting indeed.
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2463616
Too early to tell
Indeed, what will have to go?
Too early to tell if Bush is the cause. Reading comprehension is not your forte, apparently.