Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Nonsuch · Jul 14, 2003, 10:05 AM

Very interesting article in Slate. The section about Social Security was especially enlightening:

Another administration trick is playing with the length of its economic forecast periods, which puts the best possible face on bad news while exaggerating the projected benefits of its own initiatives. For example, to heighten the impression that Social Security is running out of money (thereby strengthening the case for allowing workers to divert money from the system into private retirement accounts), the administration has predicted shortfalls far in the future by relying on preposterously long forecast periods. In a superb analysis of the budget in the June Harper's, Thomas Frank noted that in 2002 the administration declared an $18 trillion shortfall in Social Security and Medicare�about five times the current national debt. Frank notes that in order to arrive at the $18 trillion figure--since Social Security is currently in surplus--the administration used a "cumulative seventy-five-year estimate [Frank's itals] based on extreme long-term projections ... ." Meanwhile, even as it relies on 75-year projections for Social Security, the same document replaces traditional 10-year budget projections with five-year ones, claiming the longer-term numbers were unreliable.

Spliffdaddy · Jul 14, 2003, 10:38 AM

Social Security IS in trouble. Don't see any way to lie about that.

Private retirement accounts are a much better idea than depending on the government for your retirement.

Gangrene · Jul 14, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Social Security IS in trouble. Don't see any way to lie about that.

Private retirement accounts are a much better idea than depending on the government for your retirement.

wow, dude. I guess I'm beginning to realize that the Bush administration is incapable of anything except sanctified perfection, in your eyes.

What would it take for them to do before you stopped brownnosing Bush's @ss?

Spliffdaddy · Jul 14, 2003, 10:51 AM

Clinton said Social Security was in trouble, too.

I believed him.

Jacket · Jul 14, 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Social Security IS in trouble. Don't see any way to lie about that.

Private retirement accounts are a much better idea than depending on the government for your retirement.

correct.

social security was only meant to be a temporary solution during the depression. somehow it stuck...

BasketofPuppies · Jul 14, 2003, 10:55 AM

Ahhh, but did you believe Reagan when he said that Social Security was saved?

Gangrene · Jul 14, 2003, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Clinton said Social Security was in trouble, too.

I believed him.

doesn't answer my question, dude

Spliffdaddy · Jul 14, 2003, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
Ahhh, but did you believe Reagan when he said that Social Security was saved?

Leave Ronnie outta this.

Gangrene · Jul 14, 2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Leave Ronnie outta this.

sure..dude, how about you leave Clinton out of it?

you didn't answer my question,

What would it take for them to do before you stopped brownnosing Bush's @ss?

I guess I need to also ask:

What would it take for them to do before you stopped brownnosing Reagan's @ss?

Spliffdaddy · Jul 14, 2003, 11:17 AM

Same thing it would take for you to stop hating Dubya.

Phanguye · 11:47 AM

the move from 10 year forcasts to 5 year forcasts was a good move since forcasts outside of 5 years are very unreliable... the 75 year forcast is extremely fishy...

Gangrene · Jul 14, 2003, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Same thing it would take for you to stop hating Dubya.

you mean his cold, dead corpse? because I don't think I'll stop hating him till then.

theolein · Jul 14, 2003, 12:42 PM

75 years ????

Not bad. Sounds like Rumsfeld's office of "realistic future projections(tm)" is now also involved in the economy of the US.

bewebste · Jul 14, 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by theolein:
75 years ????

Not bad. Sounds like Rumsfeld's office of "realistic future projections(tm)" is now also involved in the economy of the US.

Yeah, and maybe we'll actually have pulled out of Iraq by then too.

MacGorilla · Jul 15, 2003, 10:12 AM

They can hide anything they want but just look around you and see the signs on the ground. The help wanteds are bleak, plant closings, no one is spending and there is a general air of gloom about.

vmarks · Jul 15, 2003, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by Gangrene:
you mean his cold, dead corpse? because I don't think I'll stop hating him till then.

Whoa. that's serious business. I don't think I know anyone who could keep that serious a hate-grudge festering inside them without it acting like cancer and eating the good in them.

Even with your smiley, it doesn't sound pleasant.

Gangrene · Jul 15, 2003, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by vmarks:
Whoa. that's serious business. I don't think I know anyone who could keep that serious a hate-grudge festering inside them without it acting like cancer and eating the good in them.

Even with your smiley, it doesn't sound pleasant.

sorry, that came across in print worse than it sounded in my mind. Twas meant a great deal more humorously.

win some, lose some.

at any rate, it was posted before demonhood's reprimand.