Krugman: Social security in crisis
- Thread starter charrison
- Start date
Keep spinning it, charrison.
As Krugman points out, SS is only as strong as the general fund, and Taxcut zealots are driving that into the ground, running up huge deficits and debt to create the illusion of well being.
There IS a looming fiscal crisis, but the health of SS is merely a symptom of a much deeper issue, a party and an administration talking out of both sides of their mouths... and those susceptible to myopic greed and the appeal of ideological dogma all too eager to bend over for it...
Borrowing can't go on forever, so we'll have to cut benefits, raise taxes or some combination of the two in order for the full faith and credit of the govt to remain intact. Or we can just contiue down the primrose path towards the edge, where fiscal collapse and insurmountable debt will consume extremely large amounts of tax dollars... $330B/yr+, and going up fast, very fast indeed..
As Krugman points out, SS is only as strong as the general fund, and Taxcut zealots are driving that into the ground, running up huge deficits and debt to create the illusion of well being.
There IS a looming fiscal crisis, but the health of SS is merely a symptom of a much deeper issue, a party and an administration talking out of both sides of their mouths... and those susceptible to myopic greed and the appeal of ideological dogma all too eager to bend over for it...
Borrowing can't go on forever, so we'll have to cut benefits, raise taxes or some combination of the two in order for the full faith and credit of the govt to remain intact. Or we can just contiue down the primrose path towards the edge, where fiscal collapse and insurmountable debt will consume extremely large amounts of tax dollars... $330B/yr+, and going up fast, very fast indeed..
Why are you going after Krugman? Had you read your own link, he has for years been saying that there is no SS crisis, something agreed upon by most including Republicans.
Tax receipts are one again strong and private accounts should be a good idea..as he thought back then....
Uhm that's not Krugman. That's the Times Editorial board, it doesn't carry a Krugman byline and was not written by him.
As near as I can tell the quoted material is Krugman, as he is the only editorialist listed at that point.
Ok checking the NY TImes Archive, the 07-07-01 editorial has a editorial byline.
Here it is.
The 09-09-01 editorial has the same byline, but I can't find the whole article online, and I'm not ponying up the 2.95 for the archive.
If you click on the link recent editorial in the paragraph before the quote it links to an NY Times editorial attributed to the Editorial Desk, not Krugman. David Hogberg then begins referring to the writer as "it".
I can't find a Krugman article from 7.7.01. But he did write one on 7.11.01.
Krugman did write on 9.9.01 but I couldn't find any of Hogberg's quoted material in that piece.
Unless someone can find those quotes clearly attributed to Krugman it looks as though Hogberg may be attempting to intentionally deceive readers.
I can't find a Krugman article from 7.7.01. But he did write one on 7.11.01.
Krugman did write on 9.9.01 but I couldn't find any of Hogberg's quoted material in that piece.
Unless someone can find those quotes clearly attributed to Krugman it looks as though Hogberg may be attempting to intentionally deceive readers.
Who cares if it is Krugman. He is probably one of the worst people to look at in this situation. Krugman is the classic experienceless elite liberal. He has never held a real career other than teaching. As most people know, it takes life experience to really develop a clear view of the world. I don't know about you, but my worst professors were the ones that never worked in the real world. It destroys all qualifications that they may have.
Furthermore, he has taken more sides on single issues that he would make Kerry and Gore look mild.
"Before deconstructing Krugman's economic views, let me also say that at least when it comes to his columns, he is more of a political operative than he is an economist. (That being said, many "public intellectuals" also are little more than shills for political parties, both left and right.) If all we read on economics were Krugman's columns, we would learn that Bill Clinton gave us prosperity because his administration pushed a tax increase through Congress in 1993. That tax increase, says Krugman, enabled us to "balance" the federal budget, which magically created a good economy. (That the federal budget actually was never "balanced" in conventional accounting terms, and that the alleged balanced budgets occurred late in Clinton's term during the Fed-created unsustainable boom, and not when taxes were increased seems to be off Krugman's radar screen.)
Furthermore, his columns claim that Clinton's government was the model of "fiscal responsibility," and is always full of praise for the former president's policies. My guess is that if the Clinton Administration were in power now and following basically the same budgetary and legal priorities as the Bush Administration is currently doing, he would be writing excuses for Clinton.
However, let me say that since my own writings have been extremely critical of the Bush Administration and both political parties, it does not bother me to read Krugman's anti-Republican rants. What does bother me is that the man pretends to be something he clearly is not: an economist.
That is correct. Let me say it again. Paul Krugman is not an economist. His colleagues in the economics profession and the editorial board of the Times may call him an economist, but that does not make him one.
This is harsh criticism, I realize, so I must explain my views in full. Yes, Krugman has a Ph.D. from MIT in economics, but his writings, both popular and academic, demonstrate that he does not believe in laws of economics. Instead, like most folks with socialist leanings, he believes that the state is both omniscient and omnipotent and simply by fiat can eliminate those pesky little problems caused by scarcity." - http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1318
Furthermore, he has taken more sides on single issues that he would make Kerry and Gore look mild.
"Before deconstructing Krugman's economic views, let me also say that at least when it comes to his columns, he is more of a political operative than he is an economist. (That being said, many "public intellectuals" also are little more than shills for political parties, both left and right.) If all we read on economics were Krugman's columns, we would learn that Bill Clinton gave us prosperity because his administration pushed a tax increase through Congress in 1993. That tax increase, says Krugman, enabled us to "balance" the federal budget, which magically created a good economy. (That the federal budget actually was never "balanced" in conventional accounting terms, and that the alleged balanced budgets occurred late in Clinton's term during the Fed-created unsustainable boom, and not when taxes were increased seems to be off Krugman's radar screen.)
Furthermore, his columns claim that Clinton's government was the model of "fiscal responsibility," and is always full of praise for the former president's policies. My guess is that if the Clinton Administration were in power now and following basically the same budgetary and legal priorities as the Bush Administration is currently doing, he would be writing excuses for Clinton.
However, let me say that since my own writings have been extremely critical of the Bush Administration and both political parties, it does not bother me to read Krugman's anti-Republican rants. What does bother me is that the man pretends to be something he clearly is not: an economist.
That is correct. Let me say it again. Paul Krugman is not an economist. His colleagues in the economics profession and the editorial board of the Times may call him an economist, but that does not make him one.
This is harsh criticism, I realize, so I must explain my views in full. Yes, Krugman has a Ph.D. from MIT in economics, but his writings, both popular and academic, demonstrate that he does not believe in laws of economics. Instead, like most folks with socialist leanings, he believes that the state is both omniscient and omnipotent and simply by fiat can eliminate those pesky little problems caused by scarcity." - http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1318
From Iwincur, wrt Krugman-
"My guess is that if the Clinton Administration were in power now and following basically the same budgetary and legal priorities as the Bush Administration is currently doing, he would be writing excuses for Clinton. "
That's generally referred to as "projection", Inwincur, something often done by the rightwing, of which you're obviously a member- believing that what you'd do is what somebody else in the same situation would do, too...
And the claim that you've been critical of the Bush Admin is extremely disingenuous, as well. Your only criticism I recall is that they're not far enough to the rightwing, which is difficult to even imagine as comparable to your criticism of the Clinton regime...
And I'm no economist, never claimed to be, but I'm quite sure that even the Mises institute would agree that we can't borrow our way out of debt, which is precisely what the bush admin proposes wrt SS...
"My guess is that if the Clinton Administration were in power now and following basically the same budgetary and legal priorities as the Bush Administration is currently doing, he would be writing excuses for Clinton. "
That's generally referred to as "projection", Inwincur, something often done by the rightwing, of which you're obviously a member- believing that what you'd do is what somebody else in the same situation would do, too...
And the claim that you've been critical of the Bush Admin is extremely disingenuous, as well. Your only criticism I recall is that they're not far enough to the rightwing, which is difficult to even imagine as comparable to your criticism of the Clinton regime...
And I'm no economist, never claimed to be, but I'm quite sure that even the Mises institute would agree that we can't borrow our way out of debt, which is precisely what the bush admin proposes wrt SS...
Maybe if we did not have a $400 billion deficit. We could do many things if not for Dub's tax handouts to the rich. We can not afford private accounts any more.
they werent both written by krugman. he is very careful about his language. in that article posted, everything attributed to krugman is still the same way he feels today.
this is amazing, by the by:
"Krugman is the classic experienceless elite liberal. He has never held a real career other than teaching. As most people know, it takes life experience to really develop a clear view of the world. I don't know about you, but my worst professors were the ones that never worked in the real world. It destroys all qualifications that they may have. "
this is amazing, by the by:
"Krugman is the classic experienceless elite liberal. He has never held a real career other than teaching. As most people know, it takes life experience to really develop a clear view of the world. I don't know about you, but my worst professors were the ones that never worked in the real world. It destroys all qualifications that they may have. "
Hmm, it was a quote. I didn't write it, no need to attack me. I have just taken the stance of the leftists here.
How about coming up with a reasonable attack on the source, it is listed. If you would have read carefully you would have seen the quotations and cites. However, in your blind rage against me for daring to challenge the leftist sentiment of this board you ignored everything, thinking you could take me down.
Better luck next time. Open you eyes.
i like it when teachers and writers are called the elites...
not the people who were born into family cash/companies/legacy
not the people who were born into family cash/companies/legacy
You take yourself down without anyone's help.
You just said in a previous post --
-- prior to your attack on him. Yet you're asking not to be attacked for a quote you didn't write while you're attacking Krugman for a quote he didn't write.
Also, since the quotes in the OP are misrepresented as Krugman's but clearly aren't, he obviously didn't take different sides of the issue. All we have so far is the intentionally misleading OP and your word that, although the quotes aren't his, Krugman is on several sides of the issues.
Proof please, and try to make sure the quotes being attributed are from the source you claim.
Spearing the Beast
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 8, 2005
President Bush isn't trying to reform Social Security. He isn't even trying to "partially privatize" it. His plan is, in essence, to dismantle the program, replacing it with a system that may be social but doesn't provide security. And the goal, as with his tax cuts, is to undermine the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt.
Why do I say that the Bush plan would dismantle Social Security? Because for Americans who entered the work force after the plan went into effect and who chose to open private accounts, guaranteed benefits - income you receive after retirement even if everything else goes wrong - would be nearly eliminated.
Here's how it would work. First, workers with private accounts would be subject to a "clawback": in effect, they would have to mortgage their future benefits in order to put money into their accounts.
Second, since private accounts would do nothing to improve Social Security's finances - something the administration has finally admitted - there would be large benefit cuts in addition to the clawback.
Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the guaranteed benefits left to an average worker born in 1990, after the clawback and the additional cuts, would be only 8 percent of that worker's prior earnings, compared with 35 percent today. This means that under Mr. Bush's plan, workers with private accounts that fared poorly would find themselves destitute.
Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."
By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932.
Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.
The attempt to "jab a spear" through Social Security complements the strategy of "starve the beast," long advocated by right-wing intellectuals: cut taxes, then use the resulting deficits as an excuse for cuts in social spending. The spearing doesn't seem to be going too well at the moment, but the starving was on full display in the budget released yesterday.
To put that budget into perspective, let's look at the causes of the federal budget deficit. In spite of the expense of the Iraq war, federal spending as a share of G.D.P. isn't high by historical standards - in fact, it's slightly below its average over the past 20 years. But federal revenue as a share of G.D.P. has plunged to levels not seen since the 1950's.
Almost all of this plunge came from a sharp decline in receipts from the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These are the taxes that fall primarily on people with high incomes - and in 2003 and 2004, their combined take as a share of G.D.P. was at its lowest level since 1942. On the other hand, the payroll tax, which is the main federal tax paid by middle-class and working-class Americans, remains at near-record levels.
You might think, given these facts, that a plan to reduce the deficit would include major efforts to increase revenue, starting with a rollback of recent huge tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, the budget contains new upper-income tax breaks.
Any deficit reduction will come from spending cuts. Many of those cuts won't make it through Congress, but Mr. Bush may well succeed in imposing cuts in child care assistance and food stamps for low-income workers. He may also succeed in severely squeezing Medicaid - the only one of the three great social insurance programs specifically intended for the poor and near-poor, and therefore the most politically vulnerable.
All of this explains why it's foolish to imagine some sort of widely acceptable compromise with Mr. Bush about Social Security. Moderates and liberals want to preserve the America F.D.R. built. Mr. Bush and the ideological movement he leads, although they may use F.D.R.'s image in ads, want to destroy it.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 8, 2005
President Bush isn't trying to reform Social Security. He isn't even trying to "partially privatize" it. His plan is, in essence, to dismantle the program, replacing it with a system that may be social but doesn't provide security. And the goal, as with his tax cuts, is to undermine the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt.
Why do I say that the Bush plan would dismantle Social Security? Because for Americans who entered the work force after the plan went into effect and who chose to open private accounts, guaranteed benefits - income you receive after retirement even if everything else goes wrong - would be nearly eliminated.
Here's how it would work. First, workers with private accounts would be subject to a "clawback": in effect, they would have to mortgage their future benefits in order to put money into their accounts.
Second, since private accounts would do nothing to improve Social Security's finances - something the administration has finally admitted - there would be large benefit cuts in addition to the clawback.
Jason Furman of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that the guaranteed benefits left to an average worker born in 1990, after the clawback and the additional cuts, would be only 8 percent of that worker's prior earnings, compared with 35 percent today. This means that under Mr. Bush's plan, workers with private accounts that fared poorly would find themselves destitute.
Why expose workers to that much risk? Ideology. "Social Security is the soft underbelly of the welfare state," declares Stephen Moore of the Club for Growth and the Cato Institute. "If you can jab your spear through that, you can undermine the whole welfare state."
By the welfare state, Mr. Moore means Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid - social insurance programs whose purpose, above all, is to protect Americans against the extreme economic insecurity that prevailed before the New Deal. The hard right has never forgiven F.D.R. (and later L.B.J.) for his efforts to reduce that insecurity, and now that the right is running Washington, it's trying to turn the clock back to 1932.
Medicaid is also in the cross hairs. And if Mr. Bush can take down Social Security, Medicare will be next.
The attempt to "jab a spear" through Social Security complements the strategy of "starve the beast," long advocated by right-wing intellectuals: cut taxes, then use the resulting deficits as an excuse for cuts in social spending. The spearing doesn't seem to be going too well at the moment, but the starving was on full display in the budget released yesterday.
To put that budget into perspective, let's look at the causes of the federal budget deficit. In spite of the expense of the Iraq war, federal spending as a share of G.D.P. isn't high by historical standards - in fact, it's slightly below its average over the past 20 years. But federal revenue as a share of G.D.P. has plunged to levels not seen since the 1950's.
Almost all of this plunge came from a sharp decline in receipts from the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. These are the taxes that fall primarily on people with high incomes - and in 2003 and 2004, their combined take as a share of G.D.P. was at its lowest level since 1942. On the other hand, the payroll tax, which is the main federal tax paid by middle-class and working-class Americans, remains at near-record levels.
You might think, given these facts, that a plan to reduce the deficit would include major efforts to increase revenue, starting with a rollback of recent huge tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, the budget contains new upper-income tax breaks.
Any deficit reduction will come from spending cuts. Many of those cuts won't make it through Congress, but Mr. Bush may well succeed in imposing cuts in child care assistance and food stamps for low-income workers. He may also succeed in severely squeezing Medicaid - the only one of the three great social insurance programs specifically intended for the poor and near-poor, and therefore the most politically vulnerable.
All of this explains why it's foolish to imagine some sort of widely acceptable compromise with Mr. Bush about Social Security. Moderates and liberals want to preserve the America F.D.R. built. Mr. Bush and the ideological movement he leads, although they may use F.D.R.'s image in ads, want to destroy it.
The level of denial among the Rightwing Believers about the subject of SS is truly staggering, reminiscent of the followers of Kali in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". Nothing matters but the chant, the mantra, and the visions of Glory...
I suspect that the whole thing comes down to an issue of belief. Rightwingers have some very self righteous delusional notions of the nature of wealth and its accumulation, anyway, induced by very effective propaganda from their leadership. Somehow, in a society of inheritance and inequality, they firmly believe that hard work and intelligence are the road to success, and possessing such qualities means they'll always do well. Far from it.
If anything, the workings of the New Deal, which they desperately and irrationally despise, are an attempt to allow those positive qualities to bear fruit despite the underlying fundamentals of capitalism. Wealth begets wealth, not necessarily in any rational way, and the accumulation of such in the hands of a very, very few effectively limits opportunity for the rest.
The Harvard business school defines the situation rather well-
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2906&t=finance
Pareto's distribution curve, to put it in the short form...
The current trend of taxcuts and excess spending simply exacerbates the situation, creating a situation where virtually all real "growth" is channelled to the top. As the distribution on the curve changes, as more and more wealth is concentrated at the top, programs like SS bear down harder on those in the wrong end of the curve, simply because they have relatively less to support them with, and greater debt maintenance demands on their tax dollars... federal debt being merely a symptom and a disguise for the underlying wealth transfer scenario.
It's not just SS facing a crisis, it's our whole society, given that a seemingly large % is more than willing to dance to a self destructive tune in compliance with an ideology specifically designed to bring about their financial doom...
I suspect that the whole thing comes down to an issue of belief. Rightwingers have some very self righteous delusional notions of the nature of wealth and its accumulation, anyway, induced by very effective propaganda from their leadership. Somehow, in a society of inheritance and inequality, they firmly believe that hard work and intelligence are the road to success, and possessing such qualities means they'll always do well. Far from it.
If anything, the workings of the New Deal, which they desperately and irrationally despise, are an attempt to allow those positive qualities to bear fruit despite the underlying fundamentals of capitalism. Wealth begets wealth, not necessarily in any rational way, and the accumulation of such in the hands of a very, very few effectively limits opportunity for the rest.
The Harvard business school defines the situation rather well-
http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item.jhtml?id=2906&t=finance
Pareto's distribution curve, to put it in the short form...
The current trend of taxcuts and excess spending simply exacerbates the situation, creating a situation where virtually all real "growth" is channelled to the top. As the distribution on the curve changes, as more and more wealth is concentrated at the top, programs like SS bear down harder on those in the wrong end of the curve, simply because they have relatively less to support them with, and greater debt maintenance demands on their tax dollars... federal debt being merely a symptom and a disguise for the underlying wealth transfer scenario.
It's not just SS facing a crisis, it's our whole society, given that a seemingly large % is more than willing to dance to a self destructive tune in compliance with an ideology specifically designed to bring about their financial doom...
" Anybody who thinks there isnt a SS crisis looming is a fool."
How about "anyone who thinks Bush's private accounts plan is the solution is a fool" ?
Feel free to call Krugman a liberal, but the man knows more about economics than all of us put together.
Let me see if I understand some of the reasoning given here - because he's "only" been a teacher, his views on economics aren't accurate or valid?
So by that logic, someone who has "only" been a researcher for their entire career couldn't have valid views on scientific issues?
Also, "Shoring up Social Security" is far from saying the "impending destruction" of SS. Char, it sounds like you don't have a very good understanding of the entire situation, you are just looking to take shots at a well-known liberal who isn't afraid to criticize your side - even if you don't fully understand the issue - and it comes off as a very shallow attack.
How about "anyone who thinks Bush's private accounts plan is the solution is a fool" ?
Feel free to call Krugman a liberal, but the man knows more about economics than all of us put together.
Let me see if I understand some of the reasoning given here - because he's "only" been a teacher, his views on economics aren't accurate or valid?
So by that logic, someone who has "only" been a researcher for their entire career couldn't have valid views on scientific issues?
Also, "Shoring up Social Security" is far from saying the "impending destruction" of SS. Char, it sounds like you don't have a very good understanding of the entire situation, you are just looking to take shots at a well-known liberal who isn't afraid to criticize your side - even if you don't fully understand the issue - and it comes off as a very shallow attack.
That is an excellent article, Jhhnn. While reading it I couldn't help but think of the board game Monolopy.
You could say that. I however never said once it is the solution. The only solution is a solution which either gets rid of SS completely or makes it solvent. But at a point where we are not paying 30% payroll taxes to keep it solvent. That isnt a solution but a bandaid.
I am however in favor or allowing us to put our SS tax into a savings account instead of letting it rot away within the federal govt.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter