« If Neil Were President | Main | USA's debt burden unchanged in ten years »


Don't take this question to be adversarial, that's not my intent. You've said in the past that spending on infrastructure will help future growth. Is there a point where any additional spending on infrastructure won't bring any added benefit? If so, where is that point?

I have no problem with wanting to grow the economy, but I don't see why some of the federal budget can't be cut.

By the way, there are some Nobel Prize winning economists who have called Social Security a Ponzi scheme, not the least among them Paul Krugman.

I agree that it's not a "real" Ponzi scheme, but there are Ponzi-like elements: each generation gets more out of it than it paid in, the recipients get paid by the participants, and it depends on the number of participants growing relative to the number of recipients to stay solvent.

Social security is not going away. Let's call it what it is: a system whereby the government transfers money from some citizens to other citizens. Viewed that way, it's similar to just about everything the government spends. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is, in my judgment, not just inaccurate, it is a major political blunder that will push a decisive block of votes towards the candidate who does NOT call it a fraudulent scheme.

Seems to me the Republicans should want to win the 2012 election; if that's the case, they should strongly prefer to nominate someone who will NOT become the Democrats' dream opponent by calling SS a "Ponzi scheme."

Well I can delete this bookmark. Anyone that doesn't know what a Ponzi scheme is and doesn't understand that social security is one isn't worth my time. Have a good life.

Thanks for visiting, Dave.

The comments to this entry are closed.