gregography said"An aging population will eventually (over the course of the next 20 years) cause the cost of paying Social Security benefits to rise from its current 4.8 percent of G.D.P. to about 6 percent of G.D.P. To give you some perspective, that's a significantly smaller increase than the rise in defense spending since 2001, which Washington certainly didn't consider a crisis, or even a reason to rethink some of the Bush tax cuts." Paul Krugman
The righttards love to dismiss Krugman because they can't rebut him with facts.
I'll rescue your apparently failed attempt at posting a topic (7 views in 24 hours, pathetic!).
Question for you:
What does he mean by the "cost of paying Social Security benefits" in the sentence you quoted? Is it the actual raw amount of dollars output or something different... like the cost of administering SS?
I think it's reasonable to assume that "the cost" is the total cost of the program, extrapolated using a per-person cost multiplied by the number of new recipients of benefits for the monies they paid in. Is there reason to believe something different?
southbeach1500 saidSecond question for you:
How can these projections (which are 20 years out) be believed at all? Does Krugman have a crystal ball that tells him what the GDP will be in 20 years?
Given that you are repeating propaganda which asserts DISASTER in the near future, this question is sheer chuztpah.
OK, sure, we might be struck by a meteor, but then all extrapolations will become moot all over the place.
southbeach1500 saidA comment for you:
When you post stuff like this, please include a link to the source.
Right, because Krugman is so obscure and hard to find.http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/opinion/16krugman.html?_r=2&src=twt&twt=NytimesKrugman