Mke c. I have never said that GW was responsible for everything, but I did say that he is an awhol coward,a dullard and never has run a solvent business........but I don't think he is reponsible for the mold on your windows or mine....

Wednesday was Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address.

As Air America Radio pointed out, it is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little
intelligence for prognostication and the other involves a groundhog.

------------------------------------------------------------
I guess we just identified one of the seven people in the entire country that actually listens to Stuart Smally's 'Air America'.

Ah yes... a gem yet uncovered by so many.

February 16, 2005
Greenspan Urges Caution on Social Security Overhaul
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 - The Federal Reserve's chairman, Alan Greenspan, said today that he favored private accounts within Social Security, a pillar of President Bush's plan to revamp the retirement system. But Mr. Greenspan also signaled that he wanted to change Social Security more gradually than the president does.

"If you're going to move to private accounts, which I approve of, I think you have to do it in a cautious, gradual way," Mr. Greenspan said in an appearance before the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. He expressed concerns about the transition costs and borrowing that would be required to overhaul Social Security and he did not rule out the possibility of raising payroll taxes, an idea the president has rejected.

In his semi-annual testimony before Congress, Mr. Greenspan also said the American economy remained sound, with inflation in check, and he gave indications that the Fed would continue to raise short-term interest rates, which he called "fairly low."

Mr. Greenspan agreed with President Bush that Social Security, if not necessarily in crisis, faced significant problems, and that they should be addressed sooner rather than later.

"Beyond the near term, benefits promised to a burgeoning retirement-age population under mandatory entitlement programs, most notably Social Security and Medicare, threaten to strain the resources of the working-age population in the years ahead," Mr. Greenspan said in his opening remarks. "Real progress on these issues will unavoidably entail many difficult choices."

"But the demographics are inexorable, and call for action before the leading edge of baby boomer retirement becomes evident in 2008," he added pointedly.

Mr. Greenspan spoke as President Bush was in New Hampshire for what the White House billed as a conversation on strengthening Social Security. He was accompanied by Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, whose support will be important to Mr. Bush.

Mr. Bush has urged Congress to move quickly on Social Security, but several prominent lawmakers have called for a slower approach. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert is among those advocating caution. "You can't jam change down the American people's throat," Mr. Hastert, an Illinois Republican, said last week in an interview with The Chicago Tribune.

Mr. Hastert agreed with the president that what worked in the 1930's will not work a few decades from now, a point that Mr. Greenspan emphasized today.

"Social Security as a pay-as-you-go system worked remarkably well for 50, 60, 70 years, largely because a pay-as-you-go system works if population is growing sufficiently quickly and longevity is growing only modestly," Mr. Greenspan said. But with more people living longer, he said, there is "a very major problem for a pay-as-you-go system."

Social Security now takes in considerably more money from workers than it pays out to retirees. But under current projections, in 2018 it will begin to take in less than it pays out and will have to begin drawing on its huge reserves, which are expected to be exhausted as early as 2042. After that, Social Security benefits could be paid at only about three-fourths of their projected rate, unless the system is changed.

President Bush has proposed that younger workers be allowed to divert some of their Social Security payroll taxes into carefully monitored private investment accounts, a concept that Mr. Greenspan said he favored in principle.

Senator Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican who heads the Banking Committee, said President Bush "has shown a lot of courage and leadership in highlighting the need to deal with Social Security."

But a Democrat on the committee, Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, disagreed. "The president would have us believe that Social Security in 13 years is going to be bankrupt, even though we know that it's not accurate," she said. "We do know that there is a gap 40 or 50 years down the road, and I'm confident that working with my colleagues we will address that."

Opponents of Mr. Bush's proposals say that diverting some payroll taxes into private accounts would undermine the foundation of Social Security, and that it would necessitate huge borrowing to pay current benefits during a long transition period. That point came up today in an exchange between Mr. Shelby and Mr. Greenspan.

"Could we create the personal accounts without any substantial borrowing for the transition?" the senator asked. "And if so, how?"

"Well," Mr. Greenspan replied, "obviously if you raise taxes, you could."

"What about cutting benefits?" Mr. Shelby asked.

"You could certainly do it that way, too," the chairman said.

Mr. Bush has ruled out an increase in Social Security taxes, and any talk about reducing benefits would create political problems.

Although most of the senators' questions centered on Social Security, Mr. Greenspan's prepared testimony dealt mainly with the state of the American economy, and the Fed chairman was generally optimistic.

"All told, the economy seems to have entered 2005 expanding at a reasonably good pace, with inflation and inflation expectations well anchored," he said. "On the whole, financial markets appear to share this view. In particular, a broad array of financial indicators convey a pervasive sense of confidence among investors and an associated greater willingness to bear risk than is yet evident among business managers."

Mr. Greenspan noted that the economy did face some longer-term challenges, including the budget and trade deficits, and he said it was imperative for the federal government to restore fiscal discipline.

"History cautions that people experiencing long periods of relative stability are prone to excess," Mr. Greenspan said. "We must thus remain vigilant against complacency, especially since several important economic challenges confront policymakers in the years ahead."

Mr. Greenspan made no direct statement in his testimony about the Fed's future monetary policy, although he noted that the central bank "has significantly raised measures of the real federal funds rate, but by most measures, it remains fairly low."

The bond market took Mr. Greenspan's comment as a signal that the Fed would continue to raise short-term interest rates at a "measured" pace, and prices of Treasury securities fell. This afternoon, the 10-year Treasury note was down nearly half a point in price, pushing its yield up to 4.15 percent, from 4.10 percent late Tuesday.

The Fed began its current campaign of raising the federal funds rate on overnight bank loans in June, pushing up that benchmark short-term rate from a 46-year low of 1 percent to the current 2.5 percent. The central bank is expected to raise the federal funds rate by another quarter point at its next meeting on March 22.

Mr. Greenspan also said he could not easily explain why longer-term interest rates had fallen since June even as the Fed raised short-term rates six times. "For the moment, the broadly unanticipated behavior of world bond markets remains a conundrum," he said. "Bond price movements may be a short-term aberration, but it will be some time before we are able to better judge the forces underlying recent experience."

Mr. Greenspan is scheduled to appear before the House Financial Services Committee on Thursday, where he is expected to give substantially the same prepared testimony that he gave today.


Jack Lynch contributed reporting from New York for this article.

GW's flying a lead kite on this one.

Should be fun to watch, though.

At least he is tring to fly something. He is open to suggestions. If I was 25 years old and had the opportunity to put away a little for my future in my own little lock box I would jump at the chance.

Nothing is stopping people from putting money away now.

Instead of taking away from social security to gamble in the market, people should be using their own discretionary income to do so; secure their own future. Today's generation saves virtually 0% of their income compared to two generations before us that saved upwards of 20% of their income for their future.

Social security is not the problem -- our lifestyle is.

If Bush is so sure that investing in the market is the answer, then why not devise a way to reap those benefits for the entire nation by investing the SS pool? Move it out of bonds and into stocks.

Pretty interesting that Bush is even uttering the "T" word these days. It's fun to watch "the other shoe drop" ever since he was elected.

IT'S MY MONEY!!! And personally I most likely will never see a dime of it..........

"You made your own bed....."

Unless, of course, you voted Democrat, which I doubt.

And, technically, it's not your money. It's the government's money to provide a safety net for your FELLOW Americans. A pool of money the gov't has been borrowing from to provide other services so taxes aren't raised in other areas. Money held in bonds that legally must be paid back in full plus interest.

Of course there's WMDs, Iraq will be a piece of cake, and the sky's falling ....


... according to the Whitehouse.

We all know what is most likely to happen....

Bushs' efforts will not be successful and the Dems with take control again, when it is their turn.. Then they will go after more of the money that the poor working shmucks earn not realizing that is really not their money it belongs to the govenment..to take care of even poorer shmucks....All of the while our money is safely invested in the US Government earning .07%

Yes, since you always seem to take these discussions to the personal level, I did vote democrat....until I grew up

If you listen to what Bush said about raising the cap above 90k he said he was open to ideas. He does not want to close the door on any idea and get accused by the other side. Exactly what several on the dems side have done. I tust greenspan a heck of alot more than any Dem in the house or senate.

Just thought I would post this


Dear Brian:

I would like to invite you to an upcoming forum I am holding in
Snohomish County to discuss the future of Social Security.

As you know, Social Security is a popular topic these days. But there
is a great deal of information, several theories, and conflicting
numbers swirling around regarding Social Security privatization. I hope to
use this forum to discuss the possible impacts that private accounts will
have on current and future generations of retirees as well as for those
who receive disability, widow and survivor benefits. In addition, I
would like to hear your thoughts and answer any questions you may have.

I look forward to this opportunity to conduct an open and honest
discussion regarding Social Security and hope you will be able to join your
neighbors as we talk about this very important topic.

Everett Senior Center

Saturday, February 26, 2005

10:30 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.

3025 Lombard Avenue

Everett, WA

Please call 1-800-562-1385 with any questions.

Sincerely,
Rick Larsen

U.S. Representative
Washington State - 2nd District
http://www.house.gov/larsen

The big gorilla in the room on SS reform is who's going to pay the taxes to fund the "gap" that would exist when the personal accounts went into effect. It can't and/or won't be done without raising taxes somewhere, in some form.

There's talk of raising the cap on income subject to SS taxes. We might see a deal made where the Dems. roll for Bush on keeping his tax cuts and creating personal accounts, while Bush would roll for the Dems on raising the cap on income subject to SS above 90,000. How far above 90,000? Probably just high enough to stiff those making lower six figures so that those making upper six figures (or seven) don't have to shoulder much burden.

Gotta love a deal like that.

Or maybe, they'll just snivel, whine, point fingers, make accusations, lay blame, create new catch phrases, and get nothing done at all.

It's frustrating that raising the tax cap on salary is the easiest, quickest, and safest way to "fix" social security, but neither side wants to support the idea for fear of political reprecussion.

" It's frustrating that raising the tax cap on salary is the easiest, quickest, and safest way to "fix" social security, but neither side wants to support the idea for fear of political reprecussion."

Hey I agree with that. Feels like I need to take a long hot shower now

"Bush has a plan for social security?'

Sure... payback time for corparate America. Need any new money folks? Get some here... we'll call it Social security reform.

Gimme a break!

Papaslap,you keep saying that the Dems would raise taxes on everything and give it to the poorer(your words) but have you consider'd that GW is borrowing money to contiue the war in Iraq.Billions are being poured into this mess, and billions more are being sent over-seas to "our" allies. Before we "fix" SS, maybe we should stop sending so much of our money out ot the country and stop borrowing money from SS and invest that money instead.

Yes it makes sense to cut one of the only constitutioanlly authorized reasons to tax the citizens ,defense in favor of a socialist program that cannot be contitutionally defended as an action of the federal govt SS.

I think you mean OFFENSE, not defense.