The Iceberg Cometh

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Has Bush ever started a private company ( that did not get taxpayer money) which did not go bankrupt?

Have you?

***********

"...the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth is a government program." -RR

I hope someday we as Americans prove the Gipper wrong by ridding ourselves of SS.:)

***********

charrison is correct - Krugman is a hack. "modest shortfall" :roll: Yeah, a real great program we got there - lets wait until we get to the shortfall part to realize there is a problem:roll:

CsG

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Yeh, guess I apologized too soon. I suppose, however, that an utterly unqualified partisan hack might be able to recognize another who actually has credentials...

So, CsG, now that you're here, when would you suppose that the SS shortfall will even approach the current general fund shortfalls induced by your "conservative" leaders in Congress and the White House?

If that particular problem isn't solved, SS won't amount to a pimple on Uncle Sam's ass compared to what we'll be paying to cover the republican sponsored looting taking place today...

You're griping about the money that might be going out of the teller cage in the future while they're emptying the safe in the back, today...

The Bush version of SS"reform" is just a distraction, and a way to hasten the ultimate bankrupting of the federal govt... The IRS will become merely a conduit straight from the taxpayers to the debtholders, the financial elite of the world at large, and the political/military/security apparatus necessary to sustain such an arrangement...
 

Geardo

Banned
Jan 7, 2005
51
0
0
Just eliminate social security, and give me my $150k I paid in, and the 12% interest rate, I would have earned in the stock market.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Yeh, guess I apologized too soon. I suppose, however, that an utterly unqualified partisan hack might be able to recognize another who actually has credentials...

So, CsG, now that you're here, when would you suppose that the SS shortfall will even approach the current general fund shortfalls induced by your "conservative" leaders in Congress and the White House?

If that particular problem isn't solved, SS won't amount to a pimple on Uncle Sam's ass compared to what we'll be paying to cover the republican sponsored looting taking place today...

You're griping about the money that might be going out of the teller cage in the future while they're emptying the safe in the back, today...

The Bush version of SS"reform" is just a distraction, and a way to hasten the ultimate bankrupting of the federal govt... The IRS will become merely a conduit straight from the taxpayers to the debtholders, the financial elite of the world at large, and the political/military/security apparatus necessary to sustain such an arrangement...

First off, the spending problems our gov't has is not unique to this administration or the recent Congress and it sure as hell isn't just a "Conservative" problem. You on the left go nuts when your social programs don't get increases - hell, you call smaller increases "cuts" for goodness sakes :roll:

SS will cause problems in the future and needs to be eliminated IMO. However, since certain types of people love their socialist security blanket - we had better address the issue sooner than later. Do you really think waiting until it's insolvent is the right decision? Do you really think we and our kids deserve to be saddled with the extra burden of an insolvent SScam?
Now as to your insinuation that I'm ignoring current fiscal problems you would be wholly incorrect. I don't like our current level of spending and have stated such here many many times. There needs to be a wholesale reduction in spending AND we need to rid ourselves of problem programs like SS and other involuntary wealth transfers.
You can continue to be disingenuous if you wish but just because I am addressing SS does not mean I'm ignoring the current overspending. I hope you won't continue to suggest such untruths in the future.

CsG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
He is also a partisan hack.
Is there anyone who contradicts Bush you don't consider a "partisan hack"? (Perhaps I'm thinking of CsG). Either way, I'm sure gratuitous personal attacks are much easier than refuting his case with facts.

 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
He is also a partisan hack.
Is there anyone who contradicts Bush you don't consider a "partisan hack"? (Perhaps I'm thinking of CsG). Either way, I'm sure gratuitous personal attacks are much easier than refuting his case with facts.

No, but Krugman does qualify as the partisan hack.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
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.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
He is also a partisan hack.
Is there anyone who contradicts Bush you don't consider a "partisan hack"? (Perhaps I'm thinking of CsG). Either way, I'm sure gratuitous personal attacks are much easier than refuting his case with facts.
No, but Krugman does qualify as the partisan hack.
Surely you can do better than that. If you think he is wrong, back it up. Until you offer something factual with which to refute Krugman, I'm afraid you fall under the same label.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
History will look back at the American Sheeple falling to Bush and his minions.

The U.S. may irrepairably harmed by him.

This latest sham and scam will have millions of Americans die without Health Care while pillaging all the money they sank into Social Security.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Sure, CsG, you bet. So, uhh, when do you suppose that the SS shortfall will equal the current budget shortfall, and how will borrowing a few trillion more actually solve any problem at all, other than ones contrived to suit a particular ideology?

And you should also realize at this point that I regard your usual return to the idea of overspending alone being the cause of our fiscal woes as more of the usual disinformation. Same challenge, different day- give us the outlines of a balanced budget that doesn't raise taxes or indicate politically suicidal tendencies among its advocates... remembering that 1/3 of all non SS federal expenditures are on borrowed money, some of it from SS-

Cut military spending? Nooooo!

DHS? Oh Noes!

WOI? No!

Farm and Corporate pork? Heavens, nooooo!

NMD? The commie NKoreans will kill us all!

Default on the monstrous and explosive debt maintenance requirements? I think we both know that people will be starving in the streets before that happens...

Honest answers to SS and General Fund solvency are utterly intertwined, and we sure as hell won't get any of those from the leadership and philosophy you support.

Contrary to their stated goals of smaller govt, they've grown that govt at the greatest rate since LBJ.

Contrary to common sense, they wage war and cut taxes at the same time...

Contrary to what you might believe, we'll all pay for their excesses down the road, unless by "we" we mean the ultra wealthy, too- by the time the repubs are done, they won't pay taxes at all...
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
History will look back at the American Sheeple falling to Bush and his minions.

The U.S. may irrepairably harmed by him.

This latest sham and scam will have millions of Americans die without Health Care while pillaging all the money they sank into Social Security.

Maybe these old people shouldn't have spent the money they sank into Social Security on themselves before they became old. ;)
They shouldn't be allowed to double dip. Their money has been spent on them - just not in the way they were conned into thinking it was(going to be).
This hasn't been a big secret - these old people should have stopped it. They didn't, and now we should stop the entire system.

/hardline mood

CsG
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
He is also a partisan hack.
Is there anyone who contradicts Bush you don't consider a "partisan hack"? (Perhaps I'm thinking of CsG). Either way, I'm sure gratuitous personal attacks are much easier than refuting his case with facts.
No, but Krugman does qualify as the partisan hack.
Surely you can do better than that. If you think he is wrong, back it up. Until you offer something factual with which to refute Krugman, I'm afraid you fall under the same label.

read here

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure, CsG, you bet. So, uhh, when do you suppose that the SS shortfall will equal the current budget shortfall, and how will borrowing a few trillion more actually solve any problem at all, other than ones contrived to suit a particular ideology?

And you should also realize at this point that I regard your usual return to the idea of overspending alone being the cause of our fiscal woes as more of the usual disinformation. Same challenge, different day- give us the outlines of a balanced budget that doesn't raise taxes or indicate politically suicidal tendencies among its advocates... remembering that 1/3 of all non SS federal expenditures are on borrowed money, some of it from SS-

Cut military spending? Nooooo!

DHS? Oh Noes!

WOI? No!

Farm and Corporate pork? Heavens, nooooo!

NMD? The commie NKoreans will kill us all!

Default on the monstrous and explosive debt maintenance requirements? I think we both know that people will be starving in the streets before that happens...

Honest answers to SS and General Fund solvency are utterly intertwined, and we sure as hell won't get any of those from the leadership and philosophy you support.

Contrary to their stated goals of smaller govt, they've grown that govt at the greatest rate since LBJ.

Contrary to common sense, they wage war and cut taxes at the same time...

Contrary to what you might believe, we'll all pay for their excesses down the road, unless by "we" we mean the ultra wealthy, too- by the time the repubs are done, they won't pay taxes at all...

Uhh first off - If you would pay attention. I'm for getting rid of SScam;)

The issue of political suicide should be of no concern if you really do care about the nature of our fiscal standing. But ofcourse here again you show your true colors. Whine and moan about something you really didn't want to address in the first place....unless you could use it to extract more money from the people for the gov't to spend.

What part of wholesale spending cuts do you not understand?

Oh, and btw - ofcourse "we" will pay - it's what you've always wanted. More of other people's money to spend. How nice of you to spend it for them and tell them you need more and more and more.:roll:

CsG
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
Back to the Tom Tomorrow vision of Conservatism, there, CsG- the deliberately obtuse part.

Incument politicians, particularly those you favor, aren't about to commit political suicide, so you reference a fantasy scenario, as usual, while avoiding the question.

Or are you actually advocating across the board spending cuts of 1/3?

Of course, that would still leave the SS "crisis" to be dealt with down the road, which means, I suspect, we'll just have to borrow more money now. Apparently that and the "senior drug benefit" are a big part of your hero's way of cutting the deficit by half in 5 years, along with all of the stuff mentioned above...

Or should we just make those cuts deeper, say 50%, so that we can pay for all of this free capitalism explosive wealth concentration ideological purity? Yeh, I can't wait for the announcement, but then, I'm not holding my breath, either....
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Back to the Tom Tomorrow vision of Conservatism, there, CsG- the deliberately obtuse part.

Incument politicians, particularly those you favor, aren't about to commit political suicide, so you reference a fantasy scenario, as usual, while avoiding the question.

Or are you actually advocating across the board spending cuts of 1/3?

Of course, that would still leave the SS "crisis" to be dealt with down the road, which means, I suspect, we'll just have to borrow more money now. Apparently that and the "senior drug benefit" are a big part of your hero's way of cutting the deficit by half in 5 years, along with all of the stuff mentioned above...

Or should we just make those cuts deeper, say 50%, so that we can pay for all of this free capitalism explosive wealth concentration ideological purity? Yeh, I can't wait for the announcement, but then, I'm not holding my breath, either....

Just because some won't end SScam doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do.
Are you purposely not understanding what I'm saying? Do you really not understand what "wholesale spending cuts" means? Sheesh.

Again, you still aren't addressing the points I bring up and are consistently ignoring my replies to you misrepresentations. Are you really for fiscal reformation or is it just a convienent tool for you to try to bash Bush and/or Republicans? Exactly - you really don't want reform - you just want more of people's money for the gov't. Well, we aren't going to sit around and ignore the SScam problem that you seem to want to pass on down the line so we all pay for it twice in the future. It needs to be ended - regardless of the other fiscal issues that face our gov't.

CsG

PS - hey Bowfinger - done reading charrison's link yet? I thought Krugman did a nice job of "pwning" himself here - you agree?
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Back to the Tom Tomorrow vision of Conservatism, there, CsG- the deliberately obtuse part.

Incument politicians, particularly those you favor, aren't about to commit political suicide, so you reference a fantasy scenario, as usual, while avoiding the question.

Or are you actually advocating across the board spending cuts of 1/3?

Of course, that would still leave the SS "crisis" to be dealt with down the road, which means, I suspect, we'll just have to borrow more money now. Apparently that and the "senior drug benefit" are a big part of your hero's way of cutting the deficit by half in 5 years, along with all of the stuff mentioned above...

Or should we just make those cuts deeper, say 50%, so that we can pay for all of this free capitalism explosive wealth concentration ideological purity? Yeh, I can't wait for the announcement, but then, I'm not holding my breath, either....

Its funny you mention the drug benefit, because the democrats wanted one that would cost the US taxpayers and govt $200billion more over the same time period.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Back to the Tom Tomorrow vision of Conservatism, there, CsG- the deliberately obtuse part.

Incument politicians, particularly those you favor, aren't about to commit political suicide, so you reference a fantasy scenario, as usual, while avoiding the question.

Or are you actually advocating across the board spending cuts of 1/3?

Of course, that would still leave the SS "crisis" to be dealt with down the road, which means, I suspect, we'll just have to borrow more money now. Apparently that and the "senior drug benefit" are a big part of your hero's way of cutting the deficit by half in 5 years, along with all of the stuff mentioned above...

Or should we just make those cuts deeper, say 50%, so that we can pay for all of this free capitalism explosive wealth concentration ideological purity? Yeh, I can't wait for the announcement, but then, I'm not holding my breath, either....

Its funny you mention the drug benefit, because the democrats wanted one that would cost the US taxpayers and govt $200billion more over the same time period.


Shhh...he doesn't like facts. He also won't like the FACT that I opposed that legislation. DOH! So much for his little rant against me - eh?

CsG
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure, CsG, you bet. So, uhh, when do you suppose that the SS shortfall will equal the current budget shortfall, and how will borrowing a few trillion more actually solve any problem at all, other than ones contrived to suit a particular ideology?

And you should also realize at this point that I regard your usual return to the idea of overspending alone being the cause of our fiscal woes as more of the usual disinformation. Same challenge, different day- give us the outlines of a balanced budget that doesn't raise taxes or indicate politically suicidal tendencies among its advocates... remembering that 1/3 of all non SS federal expenditures are on borrowed money, some of it from SS-

Cut military spending? Nooooo!

DHS? Oh Noes!

WOI? No!

Farm and Corporate pork? Heavens, nooooo!

NMD? The commie NKoreans will kill us all!

Default on the monstrous and explosive debt maintenance requirements? I think we both know that people will be starving in the streets before that happens...

Honest answers to SS and General Fund solvency are utterly intertwined, and we sure as hell won't get any of those from the leadership and philosophy you support.

Contrary to their stated goals of smaller govt, they've grown that govt at the greatest rate since LBJ.

Contrary to common sense, they wage war and cut taxes at the same time...

Contrary to what you might believe, we'll all pay for their excesses down the road, unless by "we" we mean the ultra wealthy, too- by the time the repubs are done, they won't pay taxes at all...

And where exactly have the democrats ever been one to cut spending? They are just as guilty of farm and corporate pork, and unessecary riders.

There are several reasons why govt spending has increased. 1. Sept 11 2. War in Iraq 3. Medicare bill

2 and 3 were avoidable, but the democrats pushed for a MUCH MUCH more expensive medicare bill. Im all for repealing the medicare bill, and not passing another one. Im also for fixing social security and medicad the two largest problems facing my generation.

Bottom line is, we wont get anything with any of the politicians we currently have. We could carve out so much wasteful spending in ALL areas.

Like consolidating our military bases/forces at home and overseas, which would save a HUGE amount of money as overhead would be cut dramatically. Republicans and Democrats are BOTH opposed to shutting down ANY military bases, more so the ones that fall in their districts.

Every spending area can and should be cut and restructued. No one, elected democrat, or republican, want to do that. Democrats want to decrease military spending but increase social spending. Republicans want to decrease social spending and increase military spending. Both lgive barrels and barrels of pork to farms and corporations. When what we need is cuts and restructuring everywhere.

Military reform
Subsidy reform
Welfare reform
Social Security reform
Medicad reform
Transportation reform
Postal reform
etc
etc
etc

 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[ ... ]
PS - hey Bowfinger - done reading charrison's link yet? I thought Krugman did a nice job of "pwning" himself here - you agree?
That might be an interesting link ... if it were relevent to the OP. It is not. It is an old personal attack on Krugman by Luskin. If I want to read off-topic personal attacks, I'll just do a search on "cadsortaguy".

:)

(PS. Perhaps you didn't actually follow Charrison's link. He didn't link to any one article; just a list of articles. If either of you cares to point me to the one relevent to the OP, I'll be happy to read it. I am not going to read the whole list, however.)
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[ ... ]
PS - hey Bowfinger - done reading charrison's link yet? I thought Krugman did a nice job of "pwning" himself here - you agree?
That might be an interesting link ... if it were relevent to the OP. It is not. It is an old personal attack on Krugman by Luskin. If I want to read off-topic personal attacks, I'll just do a search on "cadsortaguy".

:)

(PS. Perhaps you didn't actually follow Charrison's link. He didn't link to any one article; just a list of articles. If either of you cares to point me to the one relevent to the OP, I'll be happy to read it. I am not going to read the whole list, however.)

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.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
This is gonna backfire in the worst way on Republicans if it passes. What will happen if they kill SS and get rid of payroll taxes, it will be replaced by another program funded out of income taxes, and the rich will end up paying higher taxes.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[ ... ]
PS - hey Bowfinger - done reading charrison's link yet? I thought Krugman did a nice job of "pwning" himself here - you agree?
That might be an interesting link ... if it were relevent to the OP. It is not. It is an old personal attack on Krugman by Luskin. If I want to read off-topic personal attacks, I'll just do a search on "cadsortaguy".

:)

(PS. Perhaps you didn't actually follow Charrison's link. He didn't link to any one article; just a list of articles. If either of you cares to point me to the one relevent to the OP, I'll be happy to read it. I am not going to read the whole list, however.)
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.)
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[ ... ]
PS - hey Bowfinger - done reading charrison's link yet? I thought Krugman did a nice job of "pwning" himself here - you agree?
That might be an interesting link ... if it were relevent to the OP. It is not. It is an old personal attack on Krugman by Luskin. If I want to read off-topic personal attacks, I'll just do a search on "cadsortaguy".

:)

(PS. Perhaps you didn't actually follow Charrison's link. He didn't link to any one article; just a list of articles. If either of you cares to point me to the one relevent to the OP, I'll be happy to read it. I am not going to read the whole list, however.)

Notice my link came from that list;) DOH!!!

Oh, and it is quite relevant to this discussion - but I guess you'd have to read it to understand how. Krugman is a partisan hack and has "pwned" himself when it comes to his economics and such. To put it in simple terms for you - He spouts off and you people eat it up like candy, but really he's a hack spewing rhetoric.

CsG
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[ ... ]
PS - hey Bowfinger - done reading charrison's link yet? I thought Krugman did a nice job of "pwning" himself here - you agree?
That might be an interesting link ... if it were relevent to the OP. It is not. It is an old personal attack on Krugman by Luskin. If I want to read off-topic personal attacks, I'll just do a search on "cadsortaguy".

:)

(PS. Perhaps you didn't actually follow Charrison's link. He didn't link to any one article; just a list of articles. If either of you cares to point me to the one relevent to the OP, I'll be happy to read it. I am not going to read the whole list, however.)
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.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
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?