Quantcast

Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Greenspan Urges Social Security Cuts
AP News | Feb 25, 2004 | MARTIN CRUTSINGER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan urged Congress on Wednesday to deal with the country's escalating budget deficit by cutting benefits for future Social Security retirees. Without action, he warned, long-term interest rates would rise, seriously harming the economy.

In testimony before the House Budget Committee, Greenspan said the current deficit situation, with a projected record red ink of $521 billion this year, will worsen dramatically once the baby boom generation starts becoming eligible for Social Security benefits in just four years.

He said the prospect of the retirement of 77 million baby boomers will radically change the mix of people working and paying into the Social Security retirement fund and those drawing benefits from the fund.

"This dramatic demographic change is certain to place enormous demands on our nation's resources - demands we will almost surely be unable to meet unless action is taken," Greenspan said. "For a variety of reasons, that action is better taken as soon as possible."

President Bush said he had not seen Greenspan's comments, nor spoken to him, and declined to respond directly to a reporter's question about them.

Bush said that "my position on Social Security benefits is, those benefits should not be changed for people at or near retirement."

He renewed his call for personal savings accounts for younger workers that he said "would make sure those younger workers receive benefits equal to or greater than that which is expected." And Bush repeated his promise to cut the deficit in half over five years.

While Greenspan urged urgency, Congress is unlikely to take up the controversial issue of cutting Social Security benefits in an election year.

Greenspan, who turns 78 next week, said that the benefits now received by current retirees should not be touched but he suggested trimming benefits for future retirees and doing it soon enough so that they could begin making adjustments to their own finances to better prepare for retirement.

Greenspan did not rule out using tax increases to deal with the looming crisis in Social Security, but he said that tax hikes should only be considered after every effort had been made to trim benefits.

"I am just basically saying that we are overcommitted at this stage," Greenspan said in response to committee questions. "It is important that we tell people who are about to retire what it is they will have." He warned that the government should not "promise more than we are able to deliver."

While the country is currently enjoying the lowest interest rates in more than four-decades, Greenspan warned that this situation will not last forever. He said financial markets will begin pushing long-term interest rates higher if investors do not see progress being made in dealing with the projected huge deficits that will occur once the baby boomers begin retiring.

"We are going to be confronted ... in a few years with an upward ratcheting of long-term interest rates which will be very debilitating for long-term growth," Greenspan told the committee if the deficit problem is not addressed.

Greenspan suggested two ways that benefits could be trimmed. He said that the annual cost-of-living adjustments for those receiving benefits could be made using a new version of the Consumer Price Index called the chain-weighted index, which gives lower readings on inflation.

He also said that the age for retirement should be indexed in some way to take into account longer lifespans. He noted that presently the age for being able to get full Social Security benefits is rising from 65 to 67 as one of the changes Congress adopted in the mid-1980s, based on recommendations of a commission Greenspan chaired. In his testimony, Greenspan said Congress should go further and index the retirement age so that it will keep rising.

As he has in the past, Greenspan called on Congress to reinstitute rules that require any future tax cuts to be paid for either by spending cuts or increases in other taxes.

While that would erect a high hurdle to Bush's call for making his 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, estimated to cost at least $1 trillion over a decade, Greenspan again repeated his belief that spending cuts rather than tax increases were the best way to deal with the exploding deficit.

While not ruling out totally the use of tax increases to deal with at least part of the looming surge in spending on Social Security, Medicare and other entitlement programs, Greenspan urged caution in increasing taxes.

"Tax rate increases of sufficient dimension to deal with our looming fiscal problems arguably pose significant risks to economic growth and the revenue base," Greenspan said. "The exact magnitude of such risks is very difficult to estimate, but they are of enough concern, in my judgment, to warrant aiming to close the fiscal gap primarily, if not wholly, from the outlay side."
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
There is NO WAY IN HELL that I am counting on seeing a penny of Social Security.

The whole program should be ended ASAP and replaced with a tax free investment program in which each person can decided how much to invest and where to invest.

Screw the baby boomers... they are the most ficacally irresponsible generation ever.
 

I Are Baboon

Vagina man
Aug 6, 2001
32,818
10,994
MTB New England
Originally posted by N8
There is NO WAY IN HELL that I am counting on seeing a penny of Social Security.

The whole program should be ended ASAP and replaced with a tax free investment program in which each person can decided how much to invest and where to invest.

Screw the baby boomers... they are the most ficacally irresponsible generation ever.
Agreed.

It was only a matter of time until social security got cut, so nobody should be too surprised by this. Seeing how I am almost 40 years from retirement, I am counting on only myself to save for that day.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
I can't beleive that there are actually ADULTS that think that there is a Social Security "Bank Account" with their name on it that has all the $'s they've sent in over the years...


:p:p:p
 

I Are Baboon

Vagina man
Aug 6, 2001
32,818
10,994
MTB New England
Originally posted by N8
I can't beleive that there are actually ADULTS that think that there is a Social Security "Bank Account" with their name on it that has all the $'s they've sent in over the years...


:p:p:p
Well the Fed does send out that handy little pamphlet now that shows you how much you've earned and what's you've had withheld over the years. They should rename the SS column "Here's what you will never see again." :p
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
It take something like the Social Security deductions of 2-3 workers to pay for the benifits of a single retiree.

There are less future workers than "Government handout expecting" Baby Boomers so its easy to see just where the whole entitlement program is headed....

:dead:
 

RhinofromWA

Brevity R Us
Aug 16, 2001
4,622
0
Lynnwood, WA
I saw a news blurb on the tube getting ready yesterday.

They want to cut the money received and move the qualifying age farther away...hoping they kick the bucket before taking any money. :)
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Keep in mind, these same baby boomers are big time receipients of Bush's tax cuts.

So to review: Unsustainable benefits, and they pay less tax during thier prime earning years....

If you're under 40, you're getting fvcked twice.
 

Evel Monkey

Monkey
Oct 28, 2003
329
0
PNW
Originally posted by I Are Baboon
Agreed.

It was only a matter of time until social security got cut.
It won't get "cut". You will still have to pay, the only thing getting cut is the possibilty of seeing a personal return from it.
 

Tenchiro

Attention K Mart Shoppers
Jul 19, 2002
5,407
0
New England
Soylent Green is the answer my friends, you can kill like 4 birds with one stone (pun intended) that way. :devil:

Soylent Greening everyone over retirement age should solve many problems. Florida will be less crowded, streets will be safer, Matlock can be taken off the air, and Martha can release a new cookbook to pay for her legal woes.
 

towelie

Monkey
May 14, 2003
140
0
Santa Barbara county
When I got my first job as a teenager and found out how S.S. worked, I knew I'd never see any of that money again.

Here are the problems with it.

1) It is based on expotentially expanding population growth. That is fine back in the 1930's through 1970's, but we don't have that anymore. Clearly, this expansion is unsustainable.

2) When it was enacted, the age at which you could collect benefits also happened to be the AVERAGE LIFESPAN of an American at that time. People were expected to work pretty much their entire lives. Paying retirees for a year or two until they die (if they make it there to begin with) is a lot cheaper than paying them for decades of lounging around.

3) It was never intended to be a "retirement plan". It was suppsed to be a way to keep people from totally falling on their asses due to blowing all their cash. It was suppsed to be enough to feed you and maybe provide rudimentry housing (like a trailer). People who rely on it for retirement are crazy! This was suppsed to be a safety net- not really an entitlement. I'm not counting on SS at all. My wife and I are currently saving about 40% of our income (until we have kids and she quits working, then we will probably have neutral cash flow). If we get SS, it'll be a nice suprise, but I'm not counting on it.

4) You can't continuely cut taxes and pay more benefits. Money must come from somewhere.

Of course, old people are more likely to vote than young people, so you won't see a politician say anything bad about social security. Young people today are really getting screwed. The older generations are throwing a big party with money they are STEALING from we young'ins! Not only are the racking up a HUGE credit bill (national debt), but they are making us pay into social security when we will take little or none of it back out. We will have to pay their debt, their retirements, AND feed ourselves and maintain our infrastructure. And nobody seems to care. It reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw:

"If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention"
 

jdcamb

Tool Time!
Feb 17, 2002
20,067
8,816
Nowhere Man!
Originally posted by towelie
When I got my first job as a teenager and found out how S.S. worked, I knew I'd never see any of that money again.

Here are the problems with it.

1) It is based on expotentially expanding population growth. That is fine back in the 1930's through 1970's, but we don't have that anymore. Clearly, this expansion is unsustainable.

2) When it was enacted, the age at which you could collect benefits also happened to be the AVERAGE LIFESPAN of an American at that time. People were expected to work pretty much their entire lives. Paying retirees for a year or two until they die (if they make it there to begin with) is a lot cheaper than paying them for decades of lounging around.

3) It was never intended to be a "retirement plan". It was suppsed to be a way to keep people from totally falling on their asses due to blowing all their cash. It was suppsed to be enough to feed you and maybe provide rudimentry housing (like a trailer). People who rely on it for retirement are crazy! This was suppsed to be a safety net- not really an entitlement. I'm not counting on SS at all. My wife and I are currently saving about 40% of our income (until we have kids and she quits working, then we will probably have neutral cash flow). If we get SS, it'll be a nice suprise, but I'm not counting on it.

4) You can't continuely cut taxes and pay more benefits. Money must come from somewhere.

Of course, old people are more likely to vote than young people, so you won't see a politician say anything bad about social security. Young people today are really getting screwed. The older generations are throwing a big party with money they are STEALING from we young'ins! Not only are the racking up a HUGE credit bill (national debt), but they are making us pay into social security when we will take little or none of it back out. We will have to pay their debt, their retirements, AND feed ourselves and maintain our infrastructure. And nobody seems to care. It reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw:

"If you aren't outraged, you aren't paying attention"

Exactly how I see it Brother. Well said. I wish I had the chance to save like that! All the power to you.....jdcamb
 
Jan 7, 2004
686
0
D.C. area
Originally posted by N8
The whole program should be ended ASAP and replaced with a tax free investment program in which each person can decided how much to invest and where to invest.
I know! I'm like, "Dear Uncle Sam, could you please stop taking my money for Social Security and let me just invest it myself? Thanks, pal."
 

towelie

Monkey
May 14, 2003
140
0
Santa Barbara county
Yeah, but there is a problem with that.

You see, your social security money isn't put into an account with your name on it. It is given to retirees TODAY. The SS those retirees payed when they were young was given to the generation before them.

So, in order for you to keep your money, todays retirees, many of whom have become accustomed to SS, will be left high and dry. Since old people are more likely to vote than young people, the old politicians have decided (well, we LET them decide) that we young people will be left high and dry instead. They'll be long dead by the time the problems arise, so they won't have to deal with the it.
 

$tinkle

Expert on blowing
Feb 12, 2003
14,591
6
i am quite simply gobsmacked at the number of people our age who actually factor in ss toward their later years.

a true ponzi scheme. (other good faqs here, as well)