On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:41:59 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * Gary Denton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:00:32 -0500, Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > * Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > > > I found the web link for the article which was the source of the table > > > I posted from the book (the book didn't give the URL, but a web search > > > turned it up). I'm still working through it: > > > > > > http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st260/ > > > > NCPA is a well funded tax-free institution dedicated to dismantling > > the federal government. They make the libertarian CATO look moderate. > > Gary Denton is an analytically challenged, shrill liberal who doesn't > know the difference between $10 billion and $10 trillion and has a great > deal of trouble with most facts. He makes Bush look intelligent.
I believe that qualifies for a warning about civil discourse on this list. Of course, your shrill rants and insults about other members of this list are well known. Gary D PS, in looking at the SS trustee reports again I am struck by what seems a bit optimistic assumption in increasing life expectancy. In the last 35 years life expectancy after 65 has only gone up 2 years. Just looking at this chart and comparing past and future seems a tad optismistic for their median. http://angrybear.blogspot.com/ConditionalLE.jpg Of course, the current GOP appointed trustees have slanted this last report to make the situation more dire. If you go back to the last report in 1997 the optimist case had the economy growing atr 2.2% a year. The new optimistic scenario is a growth of 1.7%. If you plug the 2.2% number back in under the SS numbers there is no deficit. Could these numbers have been chosen for political reasons? Did they not want any case shown where there is not a shortfall? Gary Denton _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
