@#$! dude, no way, like that is totally out there.!
Yep, Greenspan is a "running dog of capitalism" if anybody on this green earth is, and it's natural for him to balance the budget on the backs of the poor (who don't make enough to save, and are dependent on social security) instead of the rich (he never considered restoring the tax cuts Bush gave to the people making over $200,000 a year).
Added in edit. I now see that instead of not mentioning the tax cuts, Greenspan positively said they shouldn't be repealed. So he was an even stronger partisan of rich vs. poor.
It is insane to say that teh budget should be balanced by way of hurting the weak, instead of asking the powerful to make "sacrifices". Repealing the tax cuts for the wealthiest few won't hurt them a single bit, and will help the country in the long run.
2/3's of our economy is made of consumer spending. Tax cuts will help, despite the nay sayers. Greenspan has been listened to by both sides of the aisle for as long as he has been around.
What doesn't help, however, is bloated medicare bills (to the tune of 400 billion) and other wasteful government spending. Tax cuts and social cuts work (and are my preference) AND taxing and spending works (in it's own way). You can't half of each.
http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_porkerofthemonth_hallofshame [Broken] I like this page ;)
And an interesting aside about social security....
The retirment age in 1940(when the first monthly check went out)was 65. Avg live expectancy for a male was 62 and for woman 67.
The retirment age in 2000 was 65. Avg live expectancy for a male is 74 and for woman 79. Add to this increased benefits from social security, including partial payout earlier than 65, and you get the idea.
Social security is a burden on the federal government, but not because it was designed that way, but because it has been altered over the years (benefits, time, ability for states to opt out of the system.)
Separate names with a comma.