Skip to comments.
Greenspan warns against deficits (says to cut social security)
CNN ^
| 02/24/04
Posted on 02/25/2004 7:29:07 AM PST by hoosierboy
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned Congress Wednesday to take quick action to fix the nation's swollen budget deficit, saying it could impair the ability to pay Social Security benefits and weigh on the broader economy.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
TOPICS: Breaking News; Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: deficits; greenspan; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-176 next last
To: drypowder
At around the same time, the retirement age was raised, also.
41
posted on
02/25/2004 8:19:41 AM PST
by
expatpat
To: wirestripper
While I recall several Economists saying that this connection exists, it has never happened and Greenspan, to my knowledge has never stated it in this way.About the only link you could draw is that long term interest rates declined as the deficit fell in the mid 1990's.
But our deficits are still fairly low compared with the size of the economy, so the impact is minimal. However, if we are running trillion dollar deficits in the next few years then you would likely see an impact in interest rates. What is more disconcerting is the fact that over half of our annual deficit is being bought by the governments of China and Japan. China could cripple our economy if it were to decide to float a large chunk of our debt and instead buy debt in other countries. To continue to sell more debt we'd have to jack up the interest rates that we offer on Treasury bills.
To: familyofman
Someone has to inform Greenspan about the fact that "deficits don't matter".
Really? Can you give me references? That's really a counter-inituitive concept. If government incurs a big debt, and then must service that debt, less is spent on programs, and more is spent on servicing the debt. So, in order to feed it's ever growing hunger, the government will raise taxes. At least that's my understanding.
43
posted on
02/25/2004 8:20:09 AM PST
by
brownsfan
(I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me.)
To: Methos8
and slashing benefits Won't happen.
The benefits will continue to increase with the economy. The way that it is pegged, may change.
44
posted on
02/25/2004 8:21:14 AM PST
by
Cold Heat
(In politics stupidity is not a handicap. --Napoleon Bonapart)
To: Grampa Dave
You're wrong, Gramps. Adjusting the retirement age upwards cuts Social Security payments.
45
posted on
02/25/2004 8:22:27 AM PST
by
expatpat
To: SierraWasp
Just for old times sake, I'm recycling the YTD chart of the Gold Index versus my investment into DVY, new dividend share ETF. DVY continues to outperform Gold, ytd.
46
posted on
02/25/2004 8:25:53 AM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(John F'onda Kerry has been a Benedict Arnold and legislative terrorist since Nam!)
To: CaptainLou
SS taxes are 12.4%; Medicare 2.9% for a combined total of 15.3%. There are limits on Social Security income, which are raised periodically - about every two years it seems. For Medicare there is no limit.
The focus of this article is actually wrong. Greenspan didn't advocate cuts in SS, just suggested raising the age or changing the COLA figures.
What he said is the real problem is Medicare because it is virtually impossible to detemine its cost. With an ageing population, advances in medical care, and additional entitlements (prescription drugs), this is the real culprit to our budget problems.
47
posted on
02/25/2004 8:26:03 AM PST
by
Wphile
(Keep the UN out of Iraq)
To: brownsfan
"Really? Can you give me references? "
read most of the economic related topics around here - you'll find them everywhere. It was proven during the Reagan years that "deficits don't matter". Every argument for making the recent tax cuts permanent will be rife with the statement/argument concerning deficits. Deficits kead to good times - don't worry about balancing the budget.
To: hoosierboy
Greenspan isn't supposed to get political in a presidential election year. Forcing the debate now is hugely unsettling to both candidates (Kerry and Bush).
To: wirestripper
And? You were expecting the Baby Boomers or their parents to accept lower benefits instead to save the Republic, right? Uh-huh. I can see that happening, too. /sarcasm
Boy, this thread is like fantasyland. I'm going to Disney World!
50
posted on
02/25/2004 8:28:05 AM PST
by
LibertarianInExile
(Mostly because we have to, since the other pages kind of stick together.)
To: brownsfan
Government, like a family, can incur a large amount of debt and service it without giving up the weekly movie.
There is a point that it can indeed be a problem.
We reached one of those times a few years ago when the debt load was higher than now but the interest rates on the debt were very high. The high interest debt had to be retired and new borrowing at much lower interest rates took it's place.
Kind of like refinancing the government.
That is where we are today, and that is why the debt is not a real problem now.
But it could get much worse in about ten years and needs to be controlled so that we have more room to adjust to future SS expenditures..
51
posted on
02/25/2004 8:28:39 AM PST
by
Cold Heat
(In politics stupidity is not a handicap. --Napoleon Bonapart)
To: wirestripper; Grampa Dave
11:22 Greenspan: Inflation is not permanently subdued
There he goes again!!! The DJIA could use some of his Viagra as just as it finally starts to get it up above 10.6K, he spooks it again!!!
52
posted on
02/25/2004 8:28:45 AM PST
by
SierraWasp
(EnvironMentalism is NOW beyond the point of "Diminishing Returns!" GANG-GREEN is setting in!!!)
To: hoosierboy
Oh and buy Mexican REITS. They are sending their working age folks here to work and pay taxes. We are sending our 50 plus crowd there to stretch a dollar.
To: wirestripper
If that were to actually happen, it would be because there is no government, nor a U.S.A anymore.Well, if the world went to the Euro standard and Asians stopped financing our debt, that could almost happen.
54
posted on
02/25/2004 8:29:56 AM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
(...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
To: Grampa Dave
Gold futures are at a 3 month low, this A.M.!!!
55
posted on
02/25/2004 8:30:27 AM PST
by
SierraWasp
(EnvironMentalism is NOW beyond the point of "Diminishing Returns!" GANG-GREEN is setting in!!!)
To: expatpat
I'm on social security and any adjustments as you noted will not cut my payments. If my trophy bride waits too long to go on Social Security, she will be impacted.
The headlines here are scare headlines to scare senior citizens into not voting for GW. Their current payments and mine will not be cut regardless of what anyone says.
The key is that current payments will not be cut and future payments will/may be deferred.
56
posted on
02/25/2004 8:31:33 AM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(John F'onda Kerry has been a Benedict Arnold and legislative terrorist since Nam!)
To: SierraWasp
11:22 Greenspan: Inflation is not permanently subdued LOL! Always a market hot button.
It always gets pushed.
Just mention the word..................
57
posted on
02/25/2004 8:34:06 AM PST
by
Cold Heat
(In politics stupidity is not a handicap. --Napoleon Bonapart)
To: Wphile
Thanks for your clarification of what Greenspan really said not what people assume he said from the headlines:
The focus of this article is actually wrong. Greenspan didn't advocate cuts in SS, just suggested raising the age or changing the COLA figures.
What he said is the real problem is Medicare because it is virtually impossible to determine its cost. With an ageing population, advances in medical care, and additional entitlements (prescription drugs), this is the real culprit to our budget problems.
58
posted on
02/25/2004 8:34:57 AM PST
by
Grampa Dave
(John F'onda Kerry has been a Benedict Arnold and legislative terrorist since Nam!)
To: wirestripper
The market liked the comments.LOL, are you inferring that the market reads FreeRepublic ?
Not that it would be a bad thing....
59
posted on
02/25/2004 8:36:51 AM PST
by
happygrl
To: Grampa Dave
The headlines here are scare headlines to scare senior citizens into not voting for GW. Their current payments and mine will not be cut regardless of what anyone says. Yes, you can smell the Rats a mile away.
The stench is intolerable.
60
posted on
02/25/2004 8:37:05 AM PST
by
Cold Heat
(In politics stupidity is not a handicap. --Napoleon Bonapart)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-176 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson