The Iceberg Cometh

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison
Most of the are dedicated to deconstructing krugmans bad economics and opinions that change based on who is in office. He really is a sad fellow. Take time to ready them any of them.

As I said, I not interested in personal attacks on Krugman. I would prefer to stay on topic and address Krugman's claims in the OP. IIRC, you have yet to offer any evidence refuting Krugman's claims here. You've offered nothing to contradict my comments. All you've done is call Krugman names.

(Since it's been a couple days since I read the whole thread, my apologies if that's not correct.)

these are not personal attacks. Take the time to read some of them.

You and Sir Cad both continue to miss the point. Your comments are all directed at discrediting Krugman personally rather than addressing the content of the OP. For the purposes of this (attempted) discussion, at least, I am not interested in Krugman personally. It is his content I support; it matches my understanding and position based on many sources. You want to attack Krugman. I want to discuss how the Bush attacks on Social Security are a diversion from the real problem: unfettered spending coupled with irresponsible tax cuts (my words, not Krugman's).

Is anyone here able to offer factual information refuting the content of the OP, or is this thread also doomed to be diverted to death?

You asked why I thought krugman was a partisan hack, then you changed the subject back to the OP. Krugman has discredited hisself by to heavily mixing his politics in his economics.

linkage

The status of SS without the spin and once again why krugman is full of it.

 

[Jhhnn]

You're quoting the National Review, Charrison, and claiming there's no spin on it?

Get Real, OK?

When SS contributions were raised in 1983, it was for the express purpose of creating a trust fund so that boomers wouldn't just be paying for their seniors' retirements, but also for part of their own. The govt would, of course, spend that money, as there's really no other way to use it within those constraints. Exercising fiscal responsibility (remember that term?) would leave us all in good shape when the day came that such was needed, as taxes could be raised or money borrowed to cover the debt... And now the NRO has the nerve to whine about how it will force the govt to borrow more from other sources down the road.

Which is precisely the problem they're trying to keep us all from noticing- huge borrowing, and an utter lack of fiscal responsibility on the part of the repub leadership. If SS is in "Crisis", then what about the General Fund? Bush's two largest initiatives of the first term, taxcuts and senior drug benefits, are projected to create deficits of $11.6T and $8.1T each over a period of time when SS would theoretically create one of $3.7T.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c..._2005_01_09.php#004373

But don't look at that, SS is in "Crisis", and something drastic must be done to solve the problem immediately, something like spending a few trillion right now, borrowing even more to cover the difference... ensuring the collapse of the govt's financial integrity sooner, rather than later...

Rescinding the taxcuts would, of course, cover both the senior drug benefit and SS rather nicely, or at least come close. Making sense of military spending, corporate subsidies, and security issues would cover the rest of the deficits, too...

Nah... no looting in that, no way to starve the beast...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
You're quoting the National Review, Charrison, and claiming there's no spin on it?

Get Real, OK?

Well, I think it is quite a fair match-up. Luskin vs. Krugman.

CsG

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Geardo

Just eliminate social security - No

, and give me my $150k I paid in When you are 65

and the 12% interest rate No

I would have earned in the stock market. No

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You and Sir Cad both continue to miss the point. Your comments are all directed at discrediting Krugman personally rather than addressing the content of the OP. For the purposes of this (attempted) discussion, at least, I am not interested in Krugman personally. It is his content I support; it matches my understanding and position based on many sources. You want to attack Krugman. I want to discuss how the Bush attacks on Social Security are a diversion from the real problem: unfettered spending coupled with irresponsible tax cuts (my words, not Krugman's).

Is anyone here able to offer factual information refuting the content of the OP, or is this thread also doomed to be diverted to death?

You asked why I thought krugman was a partisan hack, then you changed the subject back to the OP.

Not exactly, but we'll let that one go.

Krugman has discredited hisself by to heavily mixing his politics in his economics.

linkage

The status of SS without the spin and once again why krugman is full of it.

That's it? You've got to be kidding me. Did you actually read both pieces and my comments above? On matters of fact, we're all saying more or less the same things. The big difference is our opinions on the proper solution. Luskin parrots the Bush party line, suggesting we sacrifice Social Security to postpone the much bigger problem of a bloated and under-funded federal budget. By duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis, they hope to avoid making hard, responsible choices while gutting a program they hate for ideological reasons. It's a great scam if Americans fall for it.



By the way, is comparing the so-called Social Security "crisis" with global warming the latest Bush apologist talking point? I'm just wondering since I've seen it several times lately. If so, it's an especially stupid piece of political propaganda. Congress can fix Social Security essentially overnight. It simply has to pass a tax increase or budget cuts. Obviously, it's better to do this sooner rather than later, but it can be fixed quickly once we have the will to do so.

Global warming, on the other hand, cannot be fixed quickly. Even if every government in the world simultaneously agrees to legislate radical environmental restrictions, it will take years for those changes to propogate throughout polluting industries and devices, still more years for the desired effects to be achieved. It's not remotely comparable to fixing Social Security.

That Luskin chose to embrace this idiocy -- coupled with the other enlightening pointers from you and Cad -- leads me to conclude Luskin is the partisan hack.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You and Sir Cad both continue to miss the point. Your comments are all directed at discrediting Krugman personally rather than addressing the content of the OP. For the purposes of this (attempted) discussion, at least, I am not interested in Krugman personally. It is his content I support; it matches my understanding and position based on many sources. You want to attack Krugman. I want to discuss how the Bush attacks on Social Security are a diversion from the real problem: unfettered spending coupled with irresponsible tax cuts (my words, not Krugman's).

Is anyone here able to offer factual information refuting the content of the OP, or is this thread also doomed to be diverted to death?

You asked why I thought krugman was a partisan hack, then you changed the subject back to the OP.

Not exactly, but we'll let that one go.

Krugman has discredited hisself by to heavily mixing his politics in his economics.

linkage

The status of SS without the spin and once again why krugman is full of it.

That's it? You've got to be kidding me. Did you actually read both pieces and my comments above? On matters of fact, we're all saying more or less the same things. The big difference is our opinions on the proper solution. Luskin parrots the Bush party line, suggesting we sacrifice Social Security to postpone the much bigger problem of a bloated and under-funded federal budget. By duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis, they hope to avoid making hard, responsible choices while gutting a program they hate for ideological reasons. It's a great scam if Americans fall for it.



By the way, is comparing the so-called Social Security "crisis" with global warming the latest Bush apologist talking point? I'm just wondering since I've seen it several times lately. If so, it's an especially stupid piece of political propaganda. Congress can fix Social Security essentially overnight. It simply has to pass a tax increase or budget cuts. Obviously, it's better to do this sooner rather than later, but it can be fixed quickly once we have the will to do so.

Global warming, on the other hand, cannot be fixed quickly. Even if every government in the world simultaneously agrees to legislate radical environmental restrictions, it will take years for those changes to propogate throughout polluting industries and devices, still more years for the desired effects to be achieved. It's not remotely comparable to fixing Social Security.

That Luskin chose to embrace this idiocy -- coupled with the other enlightening pointers from you and Cad -- leads me to conclude Luskin is the partisan hack.

Well krugmans claims of no crisis is false. When taxes are raised or benefits cut starting in 2018, there will be a crisis for someone. You can choose to beleive whatever you want. We need to fix system as there are not enough workers to retirees to make this a practical system.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
You and Sir Cad both continue to miss the point. Your comments are all directed at discrediting Krugman personally rather than addressing the content of the OP. For the purposes of this (attempted) discussion, at least, I am not interested in Krugman personally. It is his content I support; it matches my understanding and position based on many sources. You want to attack Krugman. I want to discuss how the Bush attacks on Social Security are a diversion from the real problem: unfettered spending coupled with irresponsible tax cuts (my words, not Krugman's).

Is anyone here able to offer factual information refuting the content of the OP, or is this thread also doomed to be diverted to death?

You asked why I thought krugman was a partisan hack, then you changed the subject back to the OP.

Not exactly, but we'll let that one go.

Krugman has discredited hisself by to heavily mixing his politics in his economics.

linkage

The status of SS without the spin and once again why krugman is full of it.

That's it? You've got to be kidding me. Did you actually read both pieces and my comments above? On matters of fact, we're all saying more or less the same things. The big difference is our opinions on the proper solution. Luskin parrots the Bush party line, suggesting we sacrifice Social Security to postpone the much bigger problem of a bloated and under-funded federal budget. By duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis, they hope to avoid making hard, responsible choices while gutting a program they hate for ideological reasons. It's a great scam if Americans fall for it.



By the way, is comparing the so-called Social Security "crisis" with global warming the latest Bush apologist talking point? I'm just wondering since I've seen it several times lately. If so, it's an especially stupid piece of political propaganda. Congress can fix Social Security essentially overnight. It simply has to pass a tax increase or budget cuts. Obviously, it's better to do this sooner rather than later, but it can be fixed quickly once we have the will to do so.

Global warming, on the other hand, cannot be fixed quickly. Even if every government in the world simultaneously agrees to legislate radical environmental restrictions, it will take years for those changes to propogate throughout polluting industries and devices, still more years for the desired effects to be achieved. It's not remotely comparable to fixing Social Security.

That Luskin chose to embrace this idiocy -- coupled with the other enlightening pointers from you and Cad -- leads me to conclude Luskin is the partisan hack.

And Krugman, who you and others seem to suckle from is a Partisan hack.

*********

And all of you know to a greater or lesser degree of specificity, every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements -- the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children -- all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.
...
This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.

Guess who?

CsG

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Wow...15tril additional debt?!...that's triple the current US debt!!

The purpose of the SS privatization agenda is to make the S&L scandal look like kindergarten nap time.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


Is anyone here able to offer factual information refuting the content of the OP,

"It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis to bully people into doing what you want"


So, Bow, why do you figure that Clinton and his cronies invented this crisis?

Seeing as how you are anti- government and un-biased, I don't suppose that you would mind, in my own way, if I bring just a little truth into the thread....

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: charrison
Well krugmans claims of no crisis is false. When taxes are raised or benefits cut starting in 2018, there will be a crisis for someone. You can choose to beleive whatever you want. We need to fix system as there are not enough workers to retirees to make this a practical system.

Forgive my frustration, but have you read anything besides Luskin? I've agreed multiple times that Social Security needs to be fixed, including in the comments to which you just replied. The point is that "needs to be fixed" and "crisis" are not the same thing. The crisis comes only if we do nothing ... or if we let Bush succeed in his attack.

In fact, now that I think about it, there seem to be a lot of parallels between this and Bush's approach to Iraq. Once again, he's ready to disrupt countless lives and waste hundreds of billions of our children's dollars to launch a full-scale attack against a trumped-up enemy to divert attention from his failure to get the right target.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And all of you know to a greater or lesser degree of specificity, every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements -- the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children -- all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.
...
This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.

Guess who?

CsG

Need some more?

We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system...

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And all of you know to a greater or lesser degree of specificity, every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements -- the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children -- all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.
...
This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.

Guess who?

CsG

Need some more?

We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system...

CsG

Yawn. Are you going to keep diverting, or would you care to address the OP's points or my points?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And all of you know to a greater or lesser degree of specificity, every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements -- the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children -- all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.
...
This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.

Guess who?

CsG

Need some more?

We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system...

CsG

Yawn. Are you going to keep diverting, or would you care to address the OP's points or my points?

I am addressing the OP and you. This isn't a fake crisis invented by Bush.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I am addressing the OP and you. ...

Get well soon.

 

[SuperTool]

This is the same administration who warned us about mushroom clouds if we don't invade Iraq.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I am addressing the OP and you. ...

Get well soon.

Have you ever thought that it was you who was sick? What part of those quotes did you not understand? Yet you continue to believe this is a fake crisis invented by Bush?

Again, the premise of the argument is flawed - and it was addressed.

CsG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

And all of you know to a greater or lesser degree of specificity, every one of you know that the Social Security system is not sound for the long-term, so that all of these achievements -- the economic achievements, our increasing social coherence and cohesion, our increasing efforts to reduce poverty among our youngest children -- all of them are threatened by the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security.
...
This fiscal crisis in Social Security affects every generation.

Guess who?

CsG

Need some more?

We have a great opportunity now to take action now to avert a crisis in the Social Security system...

CsG

Yawn. Are you going to keep diverting, or would you care to address the OP's points or my points?

I am addressing the OP and you. This isn't a fake crisis invented by Bush.

CsG

So, I am guessing that rather than address the truth that Bow asked for he will probably be running off now....

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I am addressing the OP and you. ...

Get well soon.

Have you ever thought that it was you who was sick? What part of those quotes did you not understand? Yet you continue to believe this is a fake crisis invented by Bush?

Again, the premise of the argument is flawed - and it was addressed.

CsG

I don't give a rat's ass about the quotes. I've laid out my points, quite clearly, several times. You continue to evade them. Moreover, you have consistently demonstrated you have absolutely zero interest in addressing them, in this thread or any other.

I used to have fair respect for you. There was a time when you could, on occasion, actually participate in intelligent discussion. Somewhere along the line, however, you became a die-hard, where never is heard a discouraging word, bleating Bush-worshipping apologist. I think it started about the time you started working the Bush/Cheney revivals. I don't know whether you literally drank the Kool-Aid there, but you sure seemed to figuratively.

My points are there for you to read. You can either address them or continue to evade them as you see fit.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
I am addressing the OP and you. ...

Get well soon.

Have you ever thought that it was you who was sick? What part of those quotes did you not understand? Yet you continue to believe this is a fake crisis invented by Bush?

Again, the premise of the argument is flawed - and it was addressed.

CsG

I don't give a rat's ass about the quotes. I've laid out my points, quite clearly, several times. You continue to evade them. Moreover, you have consistently demonstrated you have absolutely zero interest in addressing them, in this thread or any other.

I used to have fair respect for you. There was a time when you could, on occasion, actually participate in intelligent discussion. Somewhere along the line, however, you became a die-hard, where never is heard a discouraging word, bleating Bush-worshipping apologist. I think it started about the time you started working the Bush/Cheney revivals. I don't know whether you literally drank the Kool-Aid there, but you sure seemed to figuratively.

My points are there for you to read. You can either address them or continue to evade them as you see fit.

Or, rather you have shown that you are not interested in the truth because it takes the whole premise of this rant against Bush away.
SS needs to be addressed - sooner or later. You can argue about what you think might happen with so-called "exact figures" all you want but they are little more than projections. But one thing is for sure - SScam will go bankrupt at some point. It should be addressed now before it becomes harder to address.

Keep ignoring the truth if you want...it's your M.O. after all.

CsG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: Bowfinger


Is anyone here able to offer factual information refuting the content of the OP,

"It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis to bully people into doing what you want"


So, Bow, why do you figure that Clinton and his cronies invented this crisis?

Seeing as how you are anti- government and un-biased, I don't suppose that you would mind, in my own way, if I bring just a little truth into the thread....

I am glad you did not run off bow. You must have missed this.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
I don't give a rat's ass about the quotes. I've laid out my points, quite clearly, several times. You continue to evade them. Moreover, you have consistently demonstrated you have absolutely zero interest in addressing them, in this thread or any other.

I used to have fair respect for you. There was a time when you could, on occasion, actually participate in intelligent discussion. Somewhere along the line, however, you became a die-hard, where never is heard a discouraging word, bleating Bush-worshipping apologist. I think it started about the time you started working the Bush/Cheney revivals. I don't know whether you literally drank the Kool-Aid there, but you sure seemed to figuratively.

My points are there for you to read. You can either address them or continue to evade them as you see fit.

Or, rather you have shown that you are not interested in the truth because it takes the whole premise of this rant against Bush away.
SS needs to be addressed - sooner or later. You can argue about what you think might happen with so-called "exact figures" all you want but they are little more than projections. But one thing is for sure - SScam will go bankrupt at some point. It should be addressed now before it becomes harder to address.

Keep ignoring the truth if you want...it's your M.O. after all.

CsG

Evasion it is. First, I never said anything about "exact figures". That's just another straw man. Second, I have clearly and repeatedly stated I recognize the need to fix Social Security. That you continue to invent phony positions to attack clearly demonstrates your fundamental dishonesty.

Get well soon.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
And of course, we have yet ANOTHER thread where some idiot who ISN'T an economist tells us not to worry, his favorite little Socialist program will continue just fine for eons to come.

Some of you might enjoy a READ of something that is ANALYTICAL instead of BIASED IMBECILE reporting: Summary of SSA 2004 Annual Reports

Public concern about the financial status of Medicare and Social Security tends to focus exclusively on the HI and OASDI Trust Fund exhaustion dates when benefits scheduled under current law can no longer be paid in full. But there are more immediate and fundamental reasons why Medicare and Social Security financing reform is needed: namely, the two programs together will place rapidly mounting draws on Federal general fund revenues long before trust fund exhaustion, and their financing in the long term is far more problematic than suggested by the 75-year actuarial deficits for HI and OASDI.

The rapidly mounting financial shortfall in these programs is illustrated in Chart E. It shows, as a percentage of GDP, the gap between annual HI and OASDI tax income and the cost of scheduled benefits, plus the 75-percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI's Part B and Part D. The initial negative amounts for OASDI in 2004 and for more than a decade thereafter represent net revenues to the Treasury that result in the issuance of Treasury bonds to the trust funds in years of annual cash flow surpluses. Conversely, the positive amounts for OASDI and HI initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the funds to supplement tax income to help pay benefits in the years leading up to exhaustion of these trust funds, then their widening financing gap thereafter.

The Social Security tax income surplus in 2004 is projected to be more than offset by the shortfall in tax and premium income for Medicare, resulting in a small overall cash shortfall that must be covered by transfers from general fund revenues. This combined shortfall is projected to grow each year--such that by 2018 net revenue flows from the general fund to the trust funds will total $577 billion, or 2.6 percent of GDP. Since neither the interest paid on the Treasury bonds held in the HI and OASDI Trust Funds, nor their redemption, provides any net new income to the Treasury, the full amount of the required Treasury payments to these trust funds must be financed by increased taxation, increased Federal borrowing and debt, and/or a reduction in other government expenditures. Thus, these payments--along with the 75- percent general fund revenue contributions to SMI--will add greatly to pressures on Federal general fund revenues much sooner than is generally appreciated.

You'll have to go to the link to get the chart, sorry. Anyway, it's plain enough from this ONE paragraph, much less the rest of the document (which you should READ!) that Socialist Security is, in fact, in trouble, and 2078 ain't the only relevant date anymore than the HI and OASDI figures are the only issues.

You wanna save money on Social Security and NOT have to borrow any or transition to a new system? OK, I'm all for that option! Let's phase out Social Security: Let those currently collecting grow old and die still on the system, and THAT'S IT--no more. Take care of your own damn retirement, like you should have been doing all along!

Jason

I find this argument disingenuous. The simple fact is that Social Secuirty is solvent through ~2042 or later. The real problem is that the federal government is drowing in red ink already, and this will only get worse once Social Security starts reclaiming money hijacked from SS to keep Uncle Sam afloat. In response, the federal government will have no choice except to cut spending and/or raise taxes.

There is no inherent reason why Social Security should be the target of cuts. It did not cause the problem. On the contrary, it is currently subsidizing the federal government. Cutting SS is simply a Bush scam, an attack on one of the most successful government programs ever. Why? Because it serves their political agenda and it diverts attention from the fundamental problems: unfettered spending and reckless tax cuts. He wants to cut SS because, as long as he can sell it to a gullible public, it's an easy way to pretend to do something without affecting his wealthy patrons.

The responsible solution would be to separate Social Security from the federal budget and make each of them balance individually. Yes, over the next 20 years or so, we need to increase social security taxes and/or reduce benefits to keep SS solvent. This will require comparitively mild changes, e.g., increasing the retirement age and removing the annual cap on contributions. It needs to be done, but it is NOT a crisis.

As a separate issue, we have an urgent need to get the federal budget in check. This means Bush and his followers are going to have to put ther egos and ideologies aside and admit Bush's tax loans were unsupportable. At the same time, all of the special interest whores in Washington -- both sides of the aisle -- are going to have to accept that the federal purse is not bottomless. They will have to make hard choices about how to cut federal spending. This must include sacred cows like the Pentagon; the plain truth is we have to cut where the money is. They need to start being honest with America.

This will obviously not be easy. Unfortunately, I do not see George W. Bush having the integrity or the leadership skills to make this happen. Instead, we get Social Security privatization scams.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Evasion it is.

Yep, you are evading and still ignoring the truth. Oh well, I didn't really expect you to grasp it anyway.

CsG

 

[Ozoned]

You win some and you loose some, Bow. Don't take it so personal.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Evasion it is. First, I never said anything about "exact figures". That's just another straw man. Second, I have clearly and repeatedly stated I recognize the need to fix Social Security. That you continue to invent phony positions to attack clearly demonstrates your fundamental dishonesty.

Get well soon.

Yep, you are evading and still ignoring the truth. Oh well, I didn't really expect you to grasp it anyway.

CsG

For everyone's amusement (or at least for my own), I've restored and highlighted the part Sir RoboCad deleted before he launched his latest little demonstration of hypocrisy. Note how he brazenly lies, then intentionally avoids addressing it when challenged. Does anyone else remember when old-fashioned values like honesty and integrity were endorsed by the right? When did they fall so low?