Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (672269)	2/15/2005 1:56:13 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

'75%' is not in the ball park....

To: Peter Dierks who wrote (672269)	2/15/2005 2:12:17 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

>>The 75% figure came from an economic analysis a summary of which was published in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago. At the time, I looked for it online, was unable to find the summary. Similar estimated have appeared in other analyses. If you discount this due to the lack of third party verification, you cannot be blamed. Your "discussion of the real shortfall numbers" is another analysis. The interesting thing about forecasting is that very few forecasts are accurate. BTW - One could not help noticing that the link you provided was to a partisan site.<< Peter - True, few forecasts are accurate. But there is a HUGE difference between a forecast of 3.7 trillion over 75 years and 75% of the federal budget. I provided a link to a page that has shortfall numbers provided by the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Trustees, the majority of whom are in Bush's cabinet. So pardon me for citing "paritisan" sources. In another post I linked to the Heritage Foundation site. Also a "partisan site", but with a conservative agenda. - Allen