On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 23:07:39 -0500, JDG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I figure that I owe it to everyone here to briefly be as clear as possible
> about what I mean in regards to Social Security:
>
> Social Security is not an investment program. Social Security revenues
> fund current expenditures. That is welfare, not investment.
No argument there.
>Although
> the Social Security Trust Fund nominally purchases government bonds, it is
> not clear that these bonds have any economic meaning - any more than
> issuing a bond to yourself would have economic meaning.
They are as real as any unbacked government monetary instrument such
as cash and government bonds.
>
> It is pretty disingenous for so many liberals to have suddenly decided that
> Social Security isn't really in crisis now that there is actually a
> Republican plan to fix Social Security.
^destroy
>This smacks of the "Republican
> Homeless Phenomenon" in that the Main-Stream-Media seems to trot out more
> "evergreen" stories in the "Homeless Human Interest" categories when
> Republicans are in power.
I would like to see a valid study of this .
> Plain and simple, Social Security is based upon
> the concept of current workers paying for current retirees. So long as
> retirees continue to live longer, medical advances and longer live spans
> boost medical costs, and the US birth rate decline - the numbers on Social
> Security will continue to not add up.
Not quite, as the numbers about balance now as long as the government
commits to making good on the bonds it ihas issued and will continue
to issue.
>
> With that being said, there is some indication that if measured gains in US
> productivity over the past 4-6 years or so are real - and are translated
> into increases in GDP - then the US fiscal outlook could be in a lot better
> shape than any of us imagine. This is not, though, the argument that
> Krugman and Denton are making.
Actually that is part of the argument that Krugman and I have made -
that the supposed "crisis" doesn't occur until 2052 according to very
conservative CBO figure and based on productivity gains may not occur
at all.
>
> Social Security is running a "surplus" because of an increase in payroll
> taxes in the early 1980's. Anyhow who ever tells you that Republicans
> are out to screw the poor on behalf of the rich (like a certain Science
> Fiction author with fanatical opposition to Republicans) need only look at
> the list of Democrats who supported the above tax bill.
Who was President in the 80? Who launched this plan to "save" Social
Security? Reagan with the support of Greenspan and both Democrats and
Republicans.
>
> If that still hasn't convinced you, just look at the list of Democrats who
> oppose means-testing Social Security benefits, and who support the current
> cut-off of Social Security Taxes at @$100-120,000 (I forget the exact
> numbet) in income.
Grasping at straws - it is a political decision to not means test
Social Security. If it was a pure welfare program that only poor
people got it would be constantly attacked and decreased by the GOP.
By making it a program that everyone who works gets everyone feels
that it is their program and so far has been pretty untouchable. As
long as the So-Called-Liberal-Media doesn't completely just parrot the
talking point lies it will remain almost unchanged. (Latest
unchalleged lie - a meaningless $10.4 billion SS deficit, based on SS
current system last for infinite years. Based on that accounting
method Bush has racked up an infinite government debt with his tax
cuts. Ummm, I am a lot more inclined to believe that.)
>
> And then think about which Party is a) trying to change the status quo, b)
> wants to means-test Social Security benefgits, and c) has floated lifting
> that cap in a trial-baloon
A few Democrats are more likely to call for means-testing SS because
it affects fewer of their voters, ditto for the caps. Removing the
caps plus a very gradual rise in the retirement age solves your SS
"crisis."
> JDG - But I am sure that Dr. Brin will tell us that Democrats thought of
> Social Security Reform first.... ;-)
Interesting how you avoid Bush's real fiscal problems and still talk
about his SS crisis which is over four decades off. Do you deny he
has created a bigger problem in Medicare? in his general budget
deficit? in his poor tax strategies that lead to minimal public
investments? in his incredibly expensive but ineffective at the tasks
he gives military? in his total economic, fiscal, and trade policies
which have created a crisis of confidence in the dollar?
Gary Denton
http://elemming2.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
