Alexander 'Sasha' Chislenko
>Is the U.S. government, the ultimated legal entity in the country,
>responsible to any degree for its statements? I.e., would anybody
>there suffer if these projections appear to be complete bogus?
When viewing Clinton on TV, it helps to post a note to one's screen:
That puts the address in perspective. Not even Alan Greenspan can say how many layers of fraud and deceit cover the facts about the finances of Social Security. The folks who count on Social Security really do need it, especially after buying deeds to the Brooklyn Bridge.
>I would find it more likely that there will be no budget surplus
>in the next 15 years, the next 30 years will see dramatic changes
>in demographic patterns because of changes in global economy and
>health-related sciences, and that Social Security, U.S.A, and
>American dollar will not exist in their current form in 55 years.
>I am not sure humans will exist in their current form at that time,
>either, but being a responsible person, I would not make forecasts
>with a large margin of error :-)
The US has a bureaucrat surplus, not a budget surplus. Solution: Give the surplus to the out-of-work former goverment employees displaced by automation.
>Apparently, at least one of these two forecasts is seriously
>delusionary. Which one(s), do you think? And more importantly:
>does it matter?
Don't trust any forecasts, including those from the weather station. Forecasts matter to the people who make forecasts, obviously. Responsible folks such as yourself (I'll take your word for it) could probably plot the intentions of forecasters on a graph of their social engineering projections to determine just how far up the river they intend to sell us.
--J. R. Molloy