Social Security - more perspective

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 16, 2010 11:21 PM GMT
    "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.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Aug 17, 2010 4:19 PM GMT
    so, the GOP believes that it's OK to invade foreign countries, but it's NOT ok to support the citizens (senior citizens are THE biggest, most loyal voting group) who voted you into office? icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 4:23 PM GMT
    rnch saidso, the GOP believes that it's OK to invade foreign countries, but it's NOT ok to support the citizens (senior citizens are THE biggest, most loyal voting group) who voted you into office? icon_confused.gif


    Just so you know, Bush was actually the first real GOP war mongerer, all the ones in the past have been democrats initiating war, and not only that but most of the democrats voted for the war in Iraq and then distanced themselves when they realized a lot of Americans were not in favor of it.

    So war is not a GOP thing, it has mainly been something democrats in the past love to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 5:06 PM GMT
    Well SB, first, per your own past explosive rants, this isn;t your topic.

    Second, you've already clearly stated that Realjock is an unimportant place and that nothing matters here.

    So why do you care so much about what others post? O.o
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 7:52 PM GMT
    No you're not. You hate him and everyone else knows it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 8:06 PM GMT


    He didn't ask a question. He just shared info and the people most likely to reply would be those that disagree with his topic's post, like you. See? It worked.

    He's also new. His topic is only a day old.


    Now if he'd posted a bunch of veiled innuendo and blatant misinformation designed to upset people and peppered it with cold phrasing bereft of humanity, compassion and empathy, likely he'd have gotten responses like....well...your topics do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 10:53 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    meninlove said No you're not. You hate him and everyone else knows it.


    Nah... I kind of pity him....

    He's done everything to be accepted by the "in crowd" of liberals here and yet.... none of you even gave him a drop of respect by commenting (and not even reading) his post.

    Not very nice of all of you...

    Oh... and I'm still waiting for him to clarify his OP....


    Wow. Project much?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 17, 2010 11:09 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    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

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 17, 2010 11:21 PM GMT
    What a FREAKIN' CROCK .........

    We got the Federal Government invading countries and spreading around cash as if it were post-it stamps
    giving Banks and major corporations hundreds of billions of dollars

    Where do you think all that money was comin from people??????

    THEY SPENT IT ALL

    and now the accounting is coming due
    Don't let them lie to you