The Iceberg Cometh

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: 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?

For the sake of truth, I'll repost what Bowfinger keeps trying to ignore.

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

Now about that premise again Bow...

CsG

 

[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.

One good turn deserves another. Here's what Sir RoboCad keeps dodging while he attempts to hijack the thread with his own duhversion.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: 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.

One good turn deserves another. Here's what Sir RoboCad keeps dodging while he attempts to hijack the thread with his own duhversion.

No, its called cut spending. Theres so much government waste. But no one has the balls to cut spending.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 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?

For the sake of truth, I'll repost what Bowfinger keeps trying to ignore.

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

Now about that premise again Bow...

CsG

Bow?

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: 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.

One good turn deserves another. Here's what Sir RoboCad keeps dodging while he attempts to hijack the thread with his own duhversion.

No, its called cut spending. Theres so much government waste. But no one has the balls to cut spending.

Please read all the words. I said that already (as I highlighted above).

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Bow?

CsG

I already addressed it, but I'll be happy to repeat it for you since it seems to challenge your reading comprehension:

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?

Your quotes haven't become more on-topic with age. They remain a duhversion. They do not address my points (as I've clearly set out many times), nor the substance of the OP.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Bow?

CsG

I already addressed it, but I'll be happy to repeat it for you since it seems to challenge your reading comprehension:

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?

Your quotes haven't become more on-topic with age. They remain a duhversion. They do not address my points (as I've clearly set out many times), nor the substance of the OP.

Actually Bow, they do. This premise that it's a fake crisis invented by Bush is utter tripe. I'm not sure why you keep trying to ignore that FACT. I addressed your post which contained the premise that Bush invented the crisis and the OP's tripe is also premised on that lie.

Come on Bow, it's staring your right in the face.

*shrug* Whatever, like I said, ignoring the truth is your M.O.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually Bow, they do. This premise that it's a fake crisis invented by Bush is utter tripe.

Yet another dishonest straw man from Sir RoboCad. Kindly show me where I said this was invented by Bush. He is hyping it to no end, and he has contrived a scam to gut Social Security to exploit this fake crisis, and he is using the fake crisis to divert attention from the far more serious federal budget problems caused by his reckless spending and irresponsible tax cuts ... but I never said he invented it.

Another lie to put on your tab.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to ignore that FACT.

Straw man != "FACT". Nice try.

I addressed your post which contained the premise that Bush invented the crisis and the OP's tripe is also premised on that lie.

Come on Bow, it's staring your right in the face.

What's staring me in the face is your dishonesty and duhversions. See above.

*shrug* Whatever, like I said, ignoring the truth is your M.O.

CsG

STFU you pathetic hypocrite. 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.

See Cad. The part below "Jason". That's what you keep dodging in favor of your incessant straw men.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually Bow, they do. This premise that it's a fake crisis invented by Bush is utter tripe.

Yet another dishonest straw man from Sir RoboCad. Kindly show me where I said this was invented by Bush. He is hyping it to no end, and he has contrived a scam to gut Social Security to exploit this fake crisis, and he is using the fake crisis to divert attention from the far more serious federal budget problems caused by his reckless spending and irresponsible tax cuts ... but I never said he invented it.

Another lie to put on your tab.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to ignore that FACT.

Straw man != "FACT". Nice try.

I addressed your post which contained the premise that Bush invented the crisis and the OP's tripe is also premised on that lie.

Come on Bow, it's staring your right in the face.

What's staring me in the face is your dishonesty and duhversions. See above.

*shrug* Whatever, like I said, ignoring the truth is your M.O.

CsG

STFU you pathetic hypocrite. Get well soon.

And know what?

Elected democrats, other than former Congressmen Stenholm, havent offered up any plans to fix social security that dont screw over future generations.

The only truely reposnsible way is to pay back everyone what they are owed, and end the system.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
And know what?

Elected democrats, other than former Congressmen Stenholm, havent offered up any plans to fix social security that dont screw over future generations.

You're probably right. I don't see how that justifies using a phony crisis to gut the current system, however. It needs to be fixed, and it can be fixed through a combination of SS withholding increases and benefit reductions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually Bow, they do. This premise that it's a fake crisis invented by Bush is utter tripe.

Yet another dishonest straw man from Sir RoboCad. Kindly show me where I said this was invented by Bush. He is hyping it to no end, and he has contrived a scam to gut Social Security to exploit this fake crisis, and he is using the fake crisis to divert attention from the far more serious federal budget problems caused by his reckless spending and irresponsible tax cuts ... but I never said he invented it.

Another lie to put on your tab.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to ignore that FACT.

Straw man != "FACT". Nice try.

I addressed your post which contained the premise that Bush invented the crisis and the OP's tripe is also premised on that lie.

Come on Bow, it's staring your right in the face.

What's staring me in the face is your dishonesty and duhversions. See above.

*shrug* Whatever, like I said, ignoring the truth is your M.O.

CsG

STFU you pathetic hypocrite. Get well soon.

HAHAHAHA thanks for yet again proving my point. From your post:

he is using the fake crisis

OH, lookie what I found(from your other post that I quoted when putting the Clinton quotes in):

By duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis, they hope ...

so-called Social Security "crisis"

More"(from a different post):

Cutting SS is simply a Bush scam

And then from the OP:

It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis

Now again Bow, who is being dishonest? OH that's right - that'd be YOU.
Yep, pathetic alright - can't even see past your own hatred of Bush to see the truth. Play word games if you wish but your suckling from Krugman is blatant.

Someday Bow I hope you can atleast be honest with yourself if you can't succeed in being honest with us.

CsG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
See Cad. The part below "Jason". That's what you keep dodging in favor of your incessant straw men.

See Bow, you keep ignoring the FACT that I quoted a different post of yours. So keep trying to stuff your "dodging" strawman if you wish.

CsG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually Bow, they do. This premise that it's a fake crisis invented by Bush is utter tripe.

Yet another dishonest straw man from Sir RoboCad. Kindly show me where I said this was invented by Bush. He is hyping it to no end, and he has contrived a scam to gut Social Security to exploit this fake crisis, and he is using the fake crisis to divert attention from the far more serious federal budget problems caused by his reckless spending and irresponsible tax cuts ... but I never said he invented it.

Another lie to put on your tab.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to ignore that FACT.

Straw man != "FACT". Nice try.

I addressed your post which contained the premise that Bush invented the crisis and the OP's tripe is also premised on that lie.

Come on Bow, it's staring your right in the face.

What's staring me in the face is your dishonesty and duhversions. See above.

*shrug* Whatever, like I said, ignoring the truth is your M.O.

CsG

STFU you pathetic hypocrite. Get well soon.

HAHAHAHA thanks for yet again proving my point. From your post:

he is using the fake crisis

OH, lookie what I found(from your other post that I quoted when putting the Clinton quotes in):

By duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis, they hope ...

so-called Social Security "crisis"

More"(from a different post):

Cutting SS is simply a Bush scam

And then from the OP:

It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis

Now again Bow, who is being dishonest? OH that's right - that'd be YOU.
Yep, pathetic alright - can't even see past your own hatred of Bush to see the truth. Play word games if you wish but your suckling from Krugman is blatant.

Someday Bow I hope you can atleast be honest with yourself if you can't succeed in being honest with us.

CsG

Good God, you are incapable of honest, intelligent argument. Two points:

1. One, please point out which of my quotes above contradict what I said in my previous post:
   

   He is hyping it to no end, and he has contrived a scam to gut Social Security to exploit this fake crisis, and he is using the fake crisis to divert attention from the far more serious federal budget problems caused by his reckless spending and irresponsible tax cuts ... but I never said he invented it.

   Everything you quoted is consistent with this comment.
   
2. You continue to duhvert from my points, this time by fixating on the word "invent".

I've quoted my position several times for you. Do you have the cajones and the integrity to address it our not? I'm guessing not.

 

[Bowfinger]

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.

Yes, Sir RoboCad, this is my "different post" you replied to. As I pointed out, however, your reply was a duhversion. You'll also note I do not say Bush "invented" the crisis in this post either. It's still just your straw man, and you continue to fixate on it rather than address my points.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Actually Bow, they do. This premise that it's a fake crisis invented by Bush is utter tripe.

Yet another dishonest straw man from Sir RoboCad. Kindly show me where I said this was invented by Bush. He is hyping it to no end, and he has contrived a scam to gut Social Security to exploit this fake crisis, and he is using the fake crisis to divert attention from the far more serious federal budget problems caused by his reckless spending and irresponsible tax cuts ... but I never said he invented it.

Another lie to put on your tab.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to ignore that FACT.

Straw man != "FACT". Nice try.

I addressed your post which contained the premise that Bush invented the crisis and the OP's tripe is also premised on that lie.

Come on Bow, it's staring your right in the face.

What's staring me in the face is your dishonesty and duhversions. See above.

*shrug* Whatever, like I said, ignoring the truth is your M.O.

CsG

STFU you pathetic hypocrite. Get well soon.

HAHAHAHA thanks for yet again proving my point. From your post:

he is using the fake crisis

OH, lookie what I found(from your other post that I quoted when putting the Clinton quotes in):

By duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis, they hope ...

so-called Social Security "crisis"

More"(from a different post):

Cutting SS is simply a Bush scam

And then from the OP:

It's the standard Bush administration tactic: invent a fake crisis

Now again Bow, who is being dishonest? OH that's right - that'd be YOU.
Yep, pathetic alright - can't even see past your own hatred of Bush to see the truth. Play word games if you wish but your suckling from Krugman is blatant.

Someday Bow I hope you can atleast be honest with yourself if you can't succeed in being honest with us.

CsG

Good God, you are incapable of honest, intelligent argument. Two points:

1. One, please point out which of my quotes above contradict what I said in my previous post:
   

   He is hyping it to no end, and he has contrived a scam to gut Social Security to exploit this fake crisis, and he is using the fake crisis to divert attention from the far more serious federal budget problems caused by his reckless spending and irresponsible tax cuts ... but I never said he invented it.

   Everything you quoted is consistent with this comment.
   
2. You continue to duhvert from my points, this time by fixating on the word "invent".

I've quoted my position several times for you. Do you have the cajones and the integrity to address it our not? I'm guessing not.

Ah yes, and now hides behind word games. Whodda thunk it. Bowfinger? Nah - never.:roll:

Invent: To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse

Now again, Bow - How can you continue to stare the truth in the face and deny it exists? From your quotes:
"fake crisis"
"duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis"
"so-called Social Security 'crisis'"

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

Again, this is all about your premise being flawed Bow, the crisis is real. It was real back when Clinton and the rest of the Democrats were saying it was a crisis -and it is a crisis now. It must be addressed before the crisis becomes destruction.

Anyway Bow, it's been fun and all but I tire of your disingenuous attacks and unwillingness to grasp the truth. Please do come back when you can be honest with us but please work on being honest with yourself first - it provides a better foundation for truth that way.

CsG

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: digitalsm
And know what?

Elected democrats, other than former Congressmen Stenholm, havent offered up any plans to fix social security that dont screw over future generations.

You're probably right. I don't see how that justifies using a phony crisis to gut the current system, however. It needs to be fixed, and it can be fixed through a combination of SS withholding increases and benefit reductions.

And how is that exactly fair to future generations that have to pay for your and previous generations retirements. Im against an increase in payroll taxes because it lets the baby boomer generation get off relatively scott free from a financial standpoint. Babyboomers should have to pay the majority of the social security defiect, not future generations.

I personally like the Stenholm plan, because it provides private accounts for future generations, and makes the babyboomers pays most of the social security costs over the next 10 yearsinstead of making future generations pay through the nose for it.

This is why its a "crisis", because if we dont fix it now, future generations will be the ones paying for it, and will get a negative return on it.

And sure they babyboomers could say well we paid for our parents generations social security, to which I say, you parents generation is not nearly the financial burden the babyboomer generation is. Because your generation will be upwards of a $50trillion burden if social security and medicad arent fixed in a way that doesnt pass the buck on to future generations.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah yes, and now hides behind word games. Whodda thunk it. Bowfinger? Nah - never.:roll:

Invent: To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse

Now again, Bow - How can you continue to stare the truth in the face and deny it exists? From your quotes:
"fake crisis"
"duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis"
"so-called Social Security 'crisis'"

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

Again, this is all about your premise being flawed Bow, the crisis is real. It was real back when Clinton and the rest of the Democrats were saying it was a crisis -and it is a crisis now. It must be addressed before the crisis becomes destruction.

One of the challenges of trying to discuss something with you is trying to tell when you're being evasive, and when you're simply failing reading comprehension. Yes, I do believe the Social Security crisis is a sham, a fake, a gross exaggeration of a real, but solvable problem. I have explicitly and repeatedly said so. No, I did not say that Bush was the first to raise the claim of a SS crisis, that he "invented" it. Others invented the "crisis" claim; Bush merely embraces and exploits it.

In short, the problem is real. It is not a crisis.

Anyway Bow, it's been fun and all but I tire of your disingenuous attacks and unwillingness to grasp the truth. Please do come back when you can be honest with us but please work on being honest with yourself first - it provides a better foundation for truth that way.

CsG

Stuff it. Honesty begins at home, Cad.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: digitalsm
And know what?

Elected democrats, other than former Congressmen Stenholm, havent offered up any plans to fix social security that dont screw over future generations.

You're probably right. I don't see how that justifies using a phony crisis to gut the current system, however. It needs to be fixed, and it can be fixed through a combination of SS withholding increases and benefit reductions.

And how is that exactly fair to future generations that have to pay for your and previous generations retirements. Im against an increase in payroll taxes because it lets the baby boomer generation get off relatively scott free from a financial standpoint. Babyboomers should have to pay the majority of the social security defiect, not future generations.

I personally like the Stenholm plan, because it provides private accounts for future generations, and makes the babyboomers pays most of the social security costs over the next 10 yearsinstead of making future generations pay through the nose for it.

This is why its a "crisis", because if we dont fix it now, future generations will be the ones paying for it, and will get a negative return on it.

And sure they babyboomers could say well we paid for our parents generations social security, to which I say, you parents generation is not nearly the financial burden the babyboomer generation is. Because your generation will be upwards of a $50trillion burden if social security and medicad arent fixed in a way that doesnt pass the buck on to future generations.

Life isn't fair, but I recognize the validity of your issue. I agree it is reasonable to try to reduce the amount of baby boomer retirement costs shifted to future generations. It's a good reason to act now. One quick change that would help is removing the income cap. Since this primarily benefits older workers, i.e., those who have worked their way up the ladder, it would reduce the costs for future generations.

Increasing retirement age will also help. It's not going to be popular, but people need to recognize the significant increase in longevity since SS was introduced.

I firmly believe privatzation is a bad idea. It assumes the market will continue to show healthy gains over the long term. I don't think we can count on that being true. Indeed, the initial surge of billions of dollars into the market will cause another bubble, a boon to Wall Street and major investors, but a problem for those hoping for a good return when they retire. I think the risk is much higher than Bush & Co. acknowledge.

The other issue is the trillions Uncle Sam will have to borrow to fund privatization. Aside from further eroding the United States' financial stability, those borrowed trillions will have to be repaid, with interest, by, guess who? Yep, future generations. It doesn't solve the problem.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah yes, and now hides behind word games. Whodda thunk it. Bowfinger? Nah - never.:roll:

Invent: To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse

Now again, Bow - How can you continue to stare the truth in the face and deny it exists? From your quotes:
"fake crisis"
"duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis"
"so-called Social Security 'crisis'"

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

Again, this is all about your premise being flawed Bow, the crisis is real. It was real back when Clinton and the rest of the Democrats were saying it was a crisis -and it is a crisis now. It must be addressed before the crisis becomes destruction.

One of the challenges of trying to discuss something with you is trying to tell when you're being evasive, and when you're simply failing reading comprehension. Yes, I do believe the Social Security crisis is a sham, a fake, a gross exaggeration of a real, but solvable problem. I have explicitly and repeatedly said so. No, I did not say that Bush was the first to raise the claim of a SS crisis, that he "invented" it. Others invented the "crisis" claim; Bush merely embraces and exploits it.

In short, the problem is real. It is not a crisis.

Anyway Bow, it's been fun and all but I tire of your disingenuous attacks and unwillingness to grasp the truth. Please do come back when you can be honest with us but please work on being honest with yourself first - it provides a better foundation for truth that way.

CsG

Stuff it. Honesty begins at home, Cad.

Ah yes, nice try Bow but do you really think Krugman was trying to suggest Bush was the "first" or rather did he mean invent like I quoted the definition as? Context suggests that Krugman thinks Bush is making up this crisis, or another way of saying it is - Bush is fabricating it.
You can stop with the games Bow - nobody is buying your BS.

Yes, actually it is a crisis Bow. Both parties agree that it is a crisis(well some now are two faced because they have become the opposition party). Clinton lead the charge and his minions followed. Bush picked up the ball Clinton couldn't score with(/me resists snide remark) and is going to do something with it before the crisis turns to devestation.

Yes, Bow - I know it starts at home. That's why I suggested you work on it before you come back here.

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

???

CsG

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: digitalsm
And know what?

Elected democrats, other than former Congressmen Stenholm, havent offered up any plans to fix social security that dont screw over future generations.

You're probably right. I don't see how that justifies using a phony crisis to gut the current system, however. It needs to be fixed, and it can be fixed through a combination of SS withholding increases and benefit reductions.

And how is that exactly fair to future generations that have to pay for your and previous generations retirements. Im against an increase in payroll taxes because it lets the baby boomer generation get off relatively scott free from a financial standpoint. Babyboomers should have to pay the majority of the social security defiect, not future generations.

I personally like the Stenholm plan, because it provides private accounts for future generations, and makes the babyboomers pays most of the social security costs over the next 10 yearsinstead of making future generations pay through the nose for it.

This is why its a "crisis", because if we dont fix it now, future generations will be the ones paying for it, and will get a negative return on it.

And sure they babyboomers could say well we paid for our parents generations social security, to which I say, you parents generation is not nearly the financial burden the babyboomer generation is. Because your generation will be upwards of a $50trillion burden if social security and medicad arent fixed in a way that doesnt pass the buck on to future generations.

Life isn't fair, but I recognize the validity of your issue. I agree it is reasonable to try to reduce the amount of baby boomer retirement costs shifted to future generations. It's a good reason to act now. One quick change that would help is removing the income cap. Since this primarily benefits older workers, i.e., those who have worked their way up the ladder, it would reduce the costs for future generations.

Increasing retirement age will also help. It's not going to be popular, but people need to recognize the significant increase in longevity since SS was introduced.

I firmly believe privatzation is a bad idea. It assumes the market will continue to show healthy gains over the long term. I don't think we can count on that being true. Indeed, the initial surge of billions of dollars into the market will cause another bubble, a boon to Wall Street and major investors, but a problem for those hoping for a good return when they retire. I think the risk is much higher than Bush & Co. acknowledge.

The other issue is the trillions Uncle Sam will have to borrow to fund privatization. Aside from further eroding the United States' financial stability, those borrowed trillions will have to be repaid, with interest, by, guess who? Yep, future generations. It doesn't solve the problem.

Thats under Bush's plan. I never said I supported Bush's plan. Congressional republicans dont support Bush's plan.

I support a serious debate and fixing the problems, something most elected democrats want nothing of as they are bleeting this whole line of thought that nothing serious is wrong. Im not in favor of borrowing trillions. Im in favor of something more unpopular than raising the retirement age, which neither the democrats or republicans openly support.

Thats spending cuts first, and then tax increases coupled with tax reform, and no not Bush's tax reform either.

Cut spending
Raise taxes and reform the tax system so everyone pays their fair and equitable share
Funnel money into making social security solvent through the babyboomers
Funnel money into making medicad solvent through the babyboomers
Phase in private social security accounts for everyone over the next 25 years
Phase in medical savings accounts for everyone over the next 25 years

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Thats under Bush's plan. I never said I supported Bush's plan. Congressional republicans dont support Bush's plan.

I support a serious debate and fixing the problems, something most elected democrats want nothing of as they are bleeting this whole line of thought that nothing serious is wrong. Im not in favor of borrowing trillions. Im in favor of something more unpopular than raising the retirement age, which neither the democrats or republicans openly support.

Thats spending cuts first, and then tax increases coupled with tax reform, and no not Bush's tax reform either.

Then I think you and I may be more in agreement than either of us realized, at least in concept. It is Bush's gutting of Social Security I object to, NOT fixing it in a reasoned and prudent manner.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah yes, and now hides behind word games. Whodda thunk it. Bowfinger? Nah - never.:roll:

Invent: To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse

Now again, Bow - How can you continue to stare the truth in the face and deny it exists? From your quotes:
"fake crisis"
"duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis"
"so-called Social Security 'crisis'"

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

Again, this is all about your premise being flawed Bow, the crisis is real. It was real back when Clinton and the rest of the Democrats were saying it was a crisis -and it is a crisis now. It must be addressed before the crisis becomes destruction.

One of the challenges of trying to discuss something with you is trying to tell when you're being evasive, and when you're simply failing reading comprehension. Yes, I do believe the Social Security crisis is a sham, a fake, a gross exaggeration of a real, but solvable problem. I have explicitly and repeatedly said so. No, I did not say that Bush was the first to raise the claim of a SS crisis, that he "invented" it. Others invented the "crisis" claim; Bush merely embraces and exploits it.

In short, the problem is real. It is not a crisis.

Anyway Bow, it's been fun and all but I tire of your disingenuous attacks and unwillingness to grasp the truth. Please do come back when you can be honest with us but please work on being honest with yourself first - it provides a better foundation for truth that way.

CsG

Stuff it. Honesty begins at home, Cad.

Ah yes, nice try Bow but do you really think Krugman was trying to suggest Bush was the "first" or rather did he mean invent like I quoted the definition as? Context suggests that Krugman thinks Bush is making up this crisis, or another way of saying it is - Bush is fabricating it.
You can stop with the games Bow - nobody is buying your BS.

Yes, actually it is a crisis Bow. Both parties agree that it is a crisis(well some now are two faced because they have become the opposition party). Clinton lead the charge and his minions followed. Bush picked up the ball Clinton couldn't score with(/me resists snide remark) and is going to do something with it before the crisis turns to devestation.

Yes, Bow - I know it starts at home. That's why I suggested you work on it before you come back here.

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

???

CsG

This has become boring, and I am tired. I can only repeat myself so many times. I cannot help it that you cannot or will not try to comprehend it:

• "Yes, I do believe the Social Security crisis is a sham, a fake, a gross exaggeration of a real, but solvable problem. I have explicitly and repeatedly said so. No, I did not say that Bush was the first to raise the claim of a SS crisis, that he "invented" it. Others invented the "crisis" claim; Bush merely embraces and exploits it."

Then there's this:

• "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."

Finally there's this, my early post which you so doggedly evade:

• "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."

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer for you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Speaking of "the Truth", CsG, it seems to me that you and the bushies view SS as an ideological problem, rather than as a practical matter, as the memo referenced in the OP rather clearly points out. SS has that socialist tinge that you all seem to despise so much. Nevermind that it has actually worked as intended, or that the only real midterm threat to the program is insolvency in the general fund, which the Admin with their proposed "solution" only seeks to hasten. Nevermind the numbers, either, just keep hammering away about a "crisis"... and a "solution" that doesn't really solve anything at all...

How does borrowing at least $100B/yr for 20 years, starting now, with no planned repayment mechanism work out better than than waiting 15 years to begin paying out or borrowing $3.7T over the following 60 years? Shee-it, Sherlock, we'll have paid over $1T in interest before we finish borrowing that $2T, and will face interest payments of at least $100B/yr at 5% interest thereafter, forever... The $3.7T over 60 years only works out to ~$62B/yr.... and we don't have to make the first payment for 15 years, either... it'll be a small one, at that...

Your arguments only make sense in the "we hate SS and will do anything to kill it" mindset... the proposed cure being worse than the malady.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Ah yes, and now hides behind word games. Whodda thunk it. Bowfinger? Nah - never.:roll:

Invent: To make up; fabricate: invent a likely excuse

Now again, Bow - How can you continue to stare the truth in the face and deny it exists? From your quotes:
"fake crisis"
"duping Americans into thinking there's an "imminent" Social Security crisis"
"so-called Social Security 'crisis'"

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

Again, this is all about your premise being flawed Bow, the crisis is real. It was real back when Clinton and the rest of the Democrats were saying it was a crisis -and it is a crisis now. It must be addressed before the crisis becomes destruction.

One of the challenges of trying to discuss something with you is trying to tell when you're being evasive, and when you're simply failing reading comprehension. Yes, I do believe the Social Security crisis is a sham, a fake, a gross exaggeration of a real, but solvable problem. I have explicitly and repeatedly said so. No, I did not say that Bush was the first to raise the claim of a SS crisis, that he "invented" it. Others invented the "crisis" claim; Bush merely embraces and exploits it.

In short, the problem is real. It is not a crisis.

Anyway Bow, it's been fun and all but I tire of your disingenuous attacks and unwillingness to grasp the truth. Please do come back when you can be honest with us but please work on being honest with yourself first - it provides a better foundation for truth that way.

CsG

Stuff it. Honesty begins at home, Cad.

Ah yes, nice try Bow but do you really think Krugman was trying to suggest Bush was the "first" or rather did he mean invent like I quoted the definition as? Context suggests that Krugman thinks Bush is making up this crisis, or another way of saying it is - Bush is fabricating it.
You can stop with the games Bow - nobody is buying your BS.

Yes, actually it is a crisis Bow. Both parties agree that it is a crisis(well some now are two faced because they have become the opposition party). Clinton lead the charge and his minions followed. Bush picked up the ball Clinton couldn't score with(/me resists snide remark) and is going to do something with it before the crisis turns to devestation.

Yes, Bow - I know it starts at home. That's why I suggested you work on it before you come back here.

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

???

CsG

This has become boring, and I am tired. I can only repeat myself so many times. I cannot help it that you cannot or will not try to comprehend it:

• "Yes, I do believe the Social Security crisis is a sham, a fake, a gross exaggeration of a real, but solvable problem. I have explicitly and repeatedly said so. No, I did not say that Bush was the first to raise the claim of a SS crisis, that he "invented" it. Others invented the "crisis" claim; Bush merely embraces and exploits it."

Then there's this:

• "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."

Finally there's this, my early post which you so doggedly evade:

• "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."

I'm not sure how to make it any clearer for you.

Again you don't understand(or just plain refuse) that SScam is in crisis. It is a crisis that will soon spell disaster as noted by not only Bush, but the Democrats led by Clinton.

So do you or do you not think Bush is making up this SS crisis?
Do you or do you not think Bush is fabricating this SS crisis?

Now please address the questions so we can close the door on that chapter of your dishonesty and move on fully to the crisis portion.

Also note Bowfinger - there are posts of mine at the beginning of this thread(responses to your buddy Jhhnn) that do address what you keep trying to inject as a "duhversion". Yes, that's right - I wasn't addressing that post with the quotes from Clinton - you just couldn't get that through your head. Now try going back and reading what I said before you started throwing a tantrum.

CsG