http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/25/news/economy/greenspan/index.htm?cnn=yes

Alan Greenspan speaks, and as usual, he speaks wisdom. Too bad he won't run for president:

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Congress Wednesday to take quick action to fix the nation's swollen budget deficit -- including cutting some future Social Security payments -- to avoid even bigger problems for the nation's economy down the road.

The central bank chairman also repeated his assertion that recent tax cuts should be made permanent and said cutting Social Security benefits and other spending was a better way to fix the deficit than tax increases.




http://money.cnn.com/2004/02/25/news/economy/greenspan/index.htm?cnn=yes

No way cutting Social Security is going to fly. It's been cut back far too many times lately to be cut back more.

Perhaps there should be an income ceiling imposed on Social Security recipients. Certainly those making over $100,000. or so from other retirements could do without their pittance from the SSA. That money could be used elsewhere.

Originally posted by es347fan
Perhaps there should be an income ceiling imposed on Social Security recipients. Certainly those making over $100,000. or so from other retirements could do without their pittance from the SSA. That money could be used elsewhere. Great idea ES...but this country only seems to protect the financial interest of those groups. The politicians would never go for this becuase it would keep them from getting thier nickles and dimes from the government. And you know rich peoples credo: Too much is not enough.

Originally posted by es347fan
Perhaps there should be an income ceiling imposed on Social Security recipients. Certainly those making over $100,000. or so from other retirements could do without their pittance from the SSA. That money could be used elsewhere.

I think we, as a country, are too quick to impose rich-discriminatory taxes. Such measures undermine the fundamental driving force of capitalism: that wealth is incentive to work.

Originally posted by Leper
I think we, as a country, are too quick to impose rich-discriminatory taxes. Such measures undermine the fundamental driving force of capitalism: that wealth is incentive to work.
But Social Security's purpose and spirit is to give retired people without an income money to live. Certainly those > $100,000/yr. would not need it to live at all.

There are times when it's nice to keep the money you earned rather than have the government hand it out to those ppl who didn't ration their money and save it for retirement. Ppl can still work when they're old, and if they're too old to work and havn't saved money for retirement then they really do deserve it.

Windwip, do you think you are not going to get old?

Do you really want to work your entire life?

I'm only 30 and I'm already tired of this whole experience.

Originally posted by WindWip
There are times when it's nice to keep the money you earned rather than have the government hand it out to those ppl who didn't ration their money and save it for retirement. Ppl can still work when they're old, and if they're too old to work and havn't saved money for retirement then they really do deserve it.

Ah! So someone gets it?! It's amazing to me how few of you see that when you punish people for earning money/getting rich (In this example, by denying them Social Security benefits), people will do less to earn money/get rich.

Just to be clear, here's the suggestion several people have supported: To take Social Security benefits away from people making over $100K and divy those benefits among the rest of the recipients. Sounds nice, right? Only if you're shortsighted.

What's the end result? People will be less likely to bust their ass after retirement age.

Let's say I'm a doctor who makes $105K a year. You know what I'd do? I'd work 6% less to bring my salary under 100K (2.5K of which would have been taxed anyways), and yet retain my Social Security benefits, so that my income would be the same while my tired body could rest.

What happens when thousands and thousands of people who consciously decide to work less and live more off the system? That's when you have a country that is less productive and worse off as a whole.

Back in 1983 Greenspan told the country not to worry about Social Security -- it's solid for 75 years.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n1-2.html

Now he says we need to cut benefits???? WTF.

Well I guess he has to say what he's told to say to keep his job which expires in a couple of months.

Dop

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Back in 1983 Greenspan told the country not to worry about Social Security -- it's solid for 75 years.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/cpr-19n1-2.html

Now he says we need to cut benefits???? WTF.

Well I guess he has to say what he's told to say to keep his job which expires in a couple of months.

Dop

Well, the answer to this is easy. Since 1983, medical costs have sky-rocketed beyond everyone's expectations.

yes dop, nothing has changed since 1983 :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Leper
What happens when thousands and thousands of people who consciously decide to work less and live more off the system? That's when you have a country that is less productive and worse off as a whole.
Someone with a brain in here! Thank you Leper, and it looks like no ones refuting it either.

Originally posted by Pepper
Windwip, do you think you are not going to get old?
Do you really want to work your entire life?

Yes, I plan on working for nearly my entire life. I plan to work on something I enjoy, which is to be in control of a project. In my case it is Real Estate Development. Other than that I have options for being a personal trainer or martial arts instructor.

I am frugal though and I plan to save some of the money I recieve for my later years. I am not going to be stupid about it and have no money when I'm old.

Yeah Trav nothing has changed and I'll tell ya one thing for sure that hasn't changed -- I still put my share into the SS fund every week just like I did back in 1983 (and 1963 :)). Bet your ass that hasn't changed but what has changed is Greenspan is now helping these thieves try to steal the monies the workers have trusted them with.

Dop

have you been reading this thread? bush ahs said he isnt going to do it, it was a suggestion by greenspan, nothing more. wake upa lready. get with the program dop. you will get your SS, dotn worry about it. I amy not, but I am prepared for that. so you can steal my money if you want, just shut it with the bush is forcing old ladies to decide between food and heat implications

Well I guess he (Greenspan) has to say what he's told to say to keep his job which expires in a couple of months.

HAHAHHHHAHAHAH!!!! You haven't seen a recession yet if you think that Kerry is going to do away with Alan Greenspan! You poor fool, Greenspan is here to stay, regardless of who is in the Oval office.