>Why not read what you quoted above your note?
>I didn't say the report was perfect.
No, you said that it's problems didn't completly distort their findings. They start with an unreasonably pessimistic figure for future growth, and then (surprise!) come out with the conclusion that the sky is falling. To me, that qualifies as "distorting their findings".
>"sub-depression growth" is an oxymoron. The report
>assumes low growth, not negative growth, much less
>"sub-depression growth." Higher growth estimates
>would reduce the shortfall or, if sufficiently high, eliminate (as in
>the Trustees' "optimistic"
My apologies for a being unclear: I was using "Depression", big "D", as in "the average growth during the decade of the Thirties, including contractions and expansions", which was, I believe, 1.9%. The trustee's "optimistic" scenario assumes a grawth rate that is STILL below the average for the last 75 years, and it shows surpluses ad infinitum.
>The political fact with which we have to work
>is that the 'middle' scenario assumes anemic
>growth, relative to the present, so the shortfall
>becomes a political fact.
This reminds me of the De Niro character in "Wag the Dog": "It must be true, I saw it on TV". Have we really reached a state where we can't simply respond to baldfaced lies with truth? Depressing.
______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com