Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Wouldn't the trillions needed to engage Bushit's SS plan

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
MsMagnificent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 04:22 PM
Original message
Wouldn't the trillions needed to engage Bushit's SS plan
largely help out (if not completely wipe out) the deficit Social Security is supposed to accrue decades down the road?

Or am I missing something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
stray cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
1. Only with massive benefit reductions
Edited on Sat Mar-19-05 04:31 PM by dmordue
The hope is that the economy will grow sufficiently to make up for the estimated 50% loss in benefits.

Sorry - I misread your statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bryant69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 04:24 PM
Response to Original message
2. Ah. But you see that wouldn't solve the problem permenantly
It might extend the life of Social Security for the next several hundred years, but it wouldn't solve it forever. Not the way ending social security would. I mean you can't have a social security problem if there is no social security.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 04:34 PM
Response to Original message
3. That was Greenspan's point.
Currently there's a huge "unfunded liability"; he was in favor of making it "funded", i.e., actually on the books.

I don't think it would solve the long-term problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
applegrove Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Mar-19-05 07:22 PM
Response to Original message
4. Yup. But we cannot actually say because Bush refuses to put it
down on paper. So we cannot actually effectively oppose or have a position. We do not know his assumptions, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:58 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC