Should Alan Greenspan be executed or imprisoned for life?

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1


Greenspan: Aging to strain U.S.

Fed chief says quick fix for social safety net programs vital to avoid more painful steps later.
August 27, 2004: 11:11 AM EDT

JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. (Reuters) - Rising pressure on U.S. finances from an aging population makes it vital to fix the social safety net soon with steps such as raising the age for full retirement benefits, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said Friday.



If we have promised more than our economy has the ability to deliver to retirees without unduly diminishing real income gains of workers, as I fear we may have, we must recalibrate our public programs so that pending retirees have time to adjust through other channels," Greenspan said in prepared remarks at an annual symposium.

"If we delay, the adjustments could be abrupt and painful."



Wading back into a politically sensitive issue that he's addressed before -- only this time on the eve of the Republican National Convention in New York -- Greenspan said raising payroll taxes to fund shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare might only worsen the situation by imposing an extra burden on workers.

He said altering policy to encourage a longer working life for Americans would help.

Earlier this year, Greenspan urged Congress to cut the growth of Social Security and Medicare, warning that without immediate measures, the U.S. will face unsustainable deficits, rising long-term interest rates and slower growth in living standards.

In Friday's speech, the Fed chief made no mention of current economic conditions or interest-rate policy in his address to the group of central bankers, academics and economists gathered in at a mountain retreat in Wyoming.

This year's topic for the annual Jackson Hole symposium is the impact of demographics -- specifically aging populations -- on the global economy.

Greenspan said the United States, which has been relatively open to immigration, is in a better position than some other countries, particularly if American policy-makers and politicians face the need to reform entitlement programs.

"Though the challenges of prospective increasingly stark choices for the United States seem great, the necessary adjustments will likely be smaller than those required in most other developed nations," Greenspan said.

He said falling birth rates mean population growth in Europe and Japan has "fallen far short of the replacement rate" -- the birth rate needed to keep the population constant in the absence of immigration or changes in lifespans.

A potential doubling of the over-65 U.S. population by 2035 will put substantial pressure on U.S. budget deficits and it is important to consider how to deal with the issue to protect the overall economy.

"Financing expected future shortfalls in entitlement trust funds solely through increased payroll taxes would likely exacerbate the problem of reductions in labor supply by diminishing returns to work," Greenspan warned. He said it would be preferable for Americans to work longer.

"Changes to the age for receiving full retirement benefits or initiatives to slow the growth of Medicare spending could affect retirement decisions, the size of the labor force and saving behavior," Greenspan said, leaving no doubt that was his preferred option.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2004 Reuters All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/27/news/economy/greenspan.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes
 
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#3
Average life Expectancy for a white man in america is 74.
Average life Expectancy for a black man in america is 68.

What the fuck they want us to do? Work 'till we are 71?

Greenspan doesn't give a shit 'cuz he's already 219 years old.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#4
Greenspan has not been the stabilizing force in our economy for nearly 20-some odd years because he is an ideologist. The issues he addressed must be considered. Rising life expectancy and the baby boom generation becomes retirees will put strain on our economy.

The choices are: 1. Increase Medicaire and Social Security at the risk of bludgeoning the developing economy, still somewhat weak from 9/11 and the ensuing climate, or

2. Raise the retirement age, possibly cut medicaire and social security benefits, etc.

Me, yourself 206, and others on this board would advocate radical change in Government as a means to fixing the current crisis. Greenspan, however, can't postulate a new age of corporate accountability, a boost in revenue suddenly being diverted to social programs, or any new radical change in the status quote that would facilitate the resources and funds necessary to guarantee the security of retirement benefits, social programs and services, etc.

In short, Greenspan can only work with what he has. He cannot usher in a new area of corporate and high-end financial taxation, nor can he propose legislation or make sweeping changes to the economic structure. While he does often advise on matters that would be efficacious to our economic interests, the real salvation of our government-provded welfare servies lies in our elected politicians.
 
Sep 9, 2003
355
0
0
46
#5
I respect all of yalls opinions and im not even a novice on this subject. but their is not 1 person on this site that can even come close to understanding the job that man has.
for gods sake the man is a god damn genius. the ins and outs and complexisty of that shit is 150 times to much for any of us to understand.

im not knocking any of yall. you got your opinions and thats cool. but if you could even scratch the surface of how fuckin hard that job must be than you wouldnt be on this board postin threads. youd be in some big ass office makeing scratch.

if i had to guess id say theirs less than 100 people in the united states that could even try to do that job. maybe thats why hes been their so long.

just my take on it.

im not gonna debate yall on your views. but im gonna take his word over yalls. the mans so smart he has to dumb down his speeches so really smart people can follow them.
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#6
It's bad enough that barely anybody will live to see their social security checks, but retirement benefits? Come the fuck on. My mom has worked @ Kaiser Permanente for 30 years, she is only 48, she hates her job, but she can't retire because she won't get full benefits for another 15 years or so, so what's the point? Why does this 167 year old man want to fuck with peoples money like that?

I think the people in the government need to live like the average Joe in America for just ONE YEAR, making our wages and working our bullshit jobs, then go back to office and tell the American Public that they still feel the same way about all of these issues.
 
Apr 25, 2002
15,044
157
0
#9
Maybe there would be some social security money left if republicans and democrats weren't raiding the fund to "borrow" money for whatever crap ass tax break or war they come up with.

Fuck em all.

Greenspan would get the rope cuz bullets will be too precious, they're needed for real fighting.
String him and the rest up so we can start fresh.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#10
maybe social security should be OPTIONAL. maybe people should be ALLOWED to privately invest THEIR money CONFISCATED by the govt.
 
Jan 2, 2003
1,439
6
0
#11
America as a whole needs to be taxed more. America is one of the LEAST taxed countries and i have UNDISPUTABLE evidence to back that up. social security and medicare going to shit has been i the wind for a while. With the whole baby boomer generation getting to that point of social security,etc. we do not have a plan to handle it. It also doesn't help that unemployment went up and the GDP went down.
 
Apr 25, 2002
7,232
170
63
42
www.idealsentertainment.com
#12
2-0-Sixx said:
^^^Or better yet ALL government officials should get paid as much as the average american.
There you go, another good idea. I would like to see that happen. I would like to see those folks have most of their checks jacked every 2 weeks, and then have them try to figure out their bills, knowing they may not have enough to pay everything and face debt and collectors.
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#13
Sydal said:
There you go, another good idea. I would like to see that happen. I would like to see those folks have most of their checks jacked every 2 weeks, and then have them try to figure out their bills, knowing they may not have enough to pay everything and face debt and collectors.
You say this Sydal, yet you continue to support Republican$ and con$ervatives. Strange.
 

phil

Sicc OG
Apr 25, 2002
7,311
27
0
115
#14
AGENT 707, YOU AND YOUR KIND NEED TO GO TO ANOTHER PLACE TO INSTITUTE YOUR TOTAL TAX GOVERNMENT. WE NEED TO PAY MORE TAXES????? WHY???? WHO IS TO SAY THAT MONEY IS GONNA DO ANY BETTER THAN THE TRILLIONS ALREADY WASTED? WAKE THE FUCK UP!
 
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
41
#17
WHITE DEVIL said:
You say this Sydal, yet you continue to support Republican$ and con$ervatives. Strange.
so what?

you act like it's all black and white and no grey. you seem to think you have to be ultra-conservative or ultra-liberal (like you). what about being in the middle such as myself? what about making decisions yourself without checking to see where your political affiliation stands on that issue?
 
Dec 25, 2003
12,356
218
0
69
#18
Psycho Logic said:
so what?

you act like it's all black and white and no grey.
It is black and white in the case of Bush. Anyone interested in a fake ass, bullshit-ass, doubletalk mothafuckin chickenhawk government, feel free to vote for Bush. Psycho, you voted global warming as your greatest concern yet you prefer Bush. Political affiliation, anyone?

I'm ultra-liberal? What am I supposed to be, fair and balanced? If you say I am 6 feet, and I say I am 10 feet, does that make me eight feet? Does this retarded Fox News focus on supposed "neutrality" or "middle-of-the-road" appeal really mean shit in the real world?

I'd love to see how you can prove I'm blinded by ideology. If anyone, you take evidence placed directly in front of you, on a silver platter, knock it on the ground, and say, "Well I just don't agree." Why? Because you just dont. Why? Because you're an ideologue.

You said "Michael Moore hates America" would be an interesting movie to see. Why? Because Moore is a "far-left libbie libbie socialist" who hates Bush. Is Fahrenheit 9/11 completely factual? Fuck no. Is the 10 or 20 percent of it that does ring true worth looking into? Of course...but you don't want to see or hear that, because Michael Moore is a "far left libbie liberal lib liberton". If you look back on the board, most of the "far-left liberals" on this board took that movie with a serious grain of salt...many didn't see it, and many simply didn't give a shit.

Would I care if someone made a documentary called "Sean Hannity is an idiot and a hack"? I'd laugh, but no, I wouldn't give two shits. Why? Because I am actually in the pursuit of knowledge, not little stickfight politics about whose dad can beat up the other person, or whose fort is cooler, or who makes the best play-doh house. The whole "I am so independant" facade is a joke. Why? Because If Kerry says "The world is made out of apples", and Bush says "The world is made out of oranges", the truth is not that half of the world is apples, and the other half is oranges.

Just like when I told people to check out Al Franken's book simply because of the humor and comedy in it, I added that "Franken is a simplistic ideologue in which Democrat = Good and everything else = Bad". But you wouldn't read long enough to see that, you would just see "Oh my god Al Franken" and immediately talk out loud to your computer screen about what a "Lib libby liberton liberal" Franken is, and completely discard the post/book/etc. So please, don't tell me about who is and is not the "ideologues". I give two shits for Democrats and Republicans. I would vote for John McCain, the Green party, or an independant anyday.

Unfortunately, Bush took McCain out of the equation in the 2000 elections by circulating "news" about him fathering an "interracial child", and also letting slip rumors tat he might be "a little crazy' from those years in the POW camp. Viva Bush, and Viva independants for Bush, the obvious best choice. :siccness:
 
May 2, 2002
9,580
17
0
41
#19
WHITE DEVIL said:
It is black and white in the case of Bush. Anyone interested in a fake ass, bullshit-ass, doubletalk mothafuckin chickenhawk government, feel free to vote for Bush. Psycho, you voted global warming as your greatest concern yet you prefer Bush. Political affiliation, anyone?
NO I DONT!!!! I dont prefer bush over anyone. I just dont like kerry either. but I do not support bush in any way, shape, or form. I just support my country.

WHITE DEVIL said:
I'm ultra-liberal? What am I supposed to be, fair and balanced? If you say I am 6 feet, and I say I am 10 feet, does that make me eight feet? Does this retarded Fox News focus on supposed "neutrality" or "middle-of-the-road" appeal really mean shit in the real world?

I'd love to see how you can prove I'm blinded by ideology. If anyone, you take evidence placed directly in front of you, on a silver platter, knock it on the ground, and say, "Well I just don't agree." Why? Because you just dont. Why? Because you're an ideologue.?
I dont see what fox news has anything to do with this. and I never said you were blinded by your ideology. I said you were ultra-liberal.. cuz YOU ARE! but thats all I said.

WHITE DEVIL said:
You said "Michael Moore hates America" would be an interesting movie to see. Why? Because Moore is a "far-left libbie libbie socialist" who hates Bush. Is Fahrenheit 9/11 completely factual? Fuck no. Is the 10 or 20 percent of it that does ring true worth looking into? Of course...but you don't want to see or hear that, because Michael Moore is a "far left libbie liberal lib liberton". If you look back on the board, most of the "far-left liberals" on this board took that movie with a serious grain of salt...many didn't see it, and many simply didn't give a shit.?
So I said it looks like an interesting movie.. so what? I actually went to the theatres and sat through most of f9/11. the documentary I posted looked interesting because it's like the exact opposite of michael moore. and this guys beating moore at his own game, stalking moore at speeches, walking to his car, on the radio etc. JUST like moore did with all the politicians. I guess he doesnt like how it feels.

WHITE DEVIL said:
Would I care if someone made a documentary called "Sean Hannity is an idiot and a hack"? I'd laugh, but no, I wouldn't give two shits. Why? Because I am actually in the pursuit of knowledge, not little stickfight politics about whose dad can beat up the other person, or whose fort is cooler, or who makes the best play-doh house. The whole "I am so independant" facade is a joke. Why? Because If Kerry says "The world is made out of apples", and Bush says "The world is made out of oranges", the truth is not that half of the world is apples, and the other half is oranges.

Just like when I told people to check out Al Franken's book simply because of the humor and comedy in it, I added that "Franken is a simplistic ideologue in which Democrat = Good and everything else = Bad". But you wouldn't read long enough to see that, you would just see "Oh my god Al Franken" and immediately talk out loud to your computer screen about what a "Lib libby liberton liberal" Franken is, and completely discard the post/book/etc. So please, don't tell me about who is and is not the "ideologues". I give two shits for Democrats and Republicans. I would vote for John McCain, the Green party, or an independant anyday.

Unfortunately, Bush took McCain out of the equation in the 2000 elections by circulating "news" about him fathering an "interracial child", and also letting slip rumors tat he might be "a little crazy' from those years in the POW camp. Viva Bush, and Viva independants for Bush, the obvious best choice. :siccness:
again you're defending yourself like I attacked you. but I was more than less attacking your opinions/views on the conservatives on this forum. you know damn well you consider/considered me some super bill oreilly conservative... but that couldnt be more far from the truth.
 
Jul 10, 2002
2,180
18
0
45
#20
A little off topic, but still relevent, here's and email I got a couple of months ago...

GET A BILL STARTED TO PLACE ALL POLITICIANS ON SOC. SEC.

This must be an issue in "2004". Please! Keep it going.

----------------------------------

SOCIAL SECURITY:

(This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.)

Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. !

Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own
benefit plan. In more recent years, no congressperson has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments.
For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw, 7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing 275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two ignitaries. Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of heir lives. Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH.... This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds; "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement.
Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits! Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it.