Post # 1

Bruce Webb's first post was on a conceptual framework for SS to serve as a basis for policy discussion http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/05/bruce-webbs-take-on-social-security-i.html . I disputed his conceptual framework and offered an alternative conceptual framework that I thought was useful http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/05/bruce-webbs-take-on-social-security-i.html#696873 . Rather than addressing my arguments, he first responded with an obvious non-answer ("Brooks point to a majoritarian position that suggests that my take is wrong and yours is right. Outside Right establishment think tanks. I am not impressed by appeals to AEI and Concord absent actual external data."), then, after I requested that we please have a substantive discussion, he refused and instead launched the first of many personal attacks and gross misrepresentations of my past comments and our past exchanges. He wrote only "Brooks I will not attempt to address your substantive points because one, they are not actually substantive and two because you are intellectually dishonest. You start from the position of espousing entitlement cuts and then work backwords through a blizzard of obfuscation. Begone!."

I requested repeatedly during his series that he please just address my arguments/questions directly and substanatively, but instead he just submitted comment after comment after comment (some lengthy) saying why he refuse to do so, based on lies, gross distortions, straw men and other evasive tactics.

MY COMMENTS WERE RELEVANT (initial comment relevant to the post, and subsequent comments responding to comments directed at me in response).

Post # 2

http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/05/bw-on-soc-sec-ii-shape-of-low-cost.html#696981

AGAIN, MY COMMENTS WERE RELEVANT.

Post # 3 (Note: Both my comments were deleted, but as usual I saved a copy. MY first comment is below. Bruce did responded but did not really answer, so I explained in my second comment that he did not really answer, and explained the purpose of my question (it had nothing to do with that conceptual point of mine). Here's my first comment (which was deleted).

I'm not nearly familar enough with Social Security-related data to assess the validity of your analysis and conclusions regarding Intermediate Cost vs. Low Cost, but I have a question from a different perspective, (which hopefully you'll actually answer, but I'm not holding my breath).

My understanding from statements you've made elsewhere is that you think the SS Trustees are wrong in their assumption of the Intermediate Cost projection (as the most likely projection under current law) and you think that the Low Cost projection is more valid (more likely). Is that your view? If so, do you have any belief on why the Trustees would be making such a critical error? The options would seem to be:
a) They are not as well-informed as you.
b) They are not as competent analytically as you.
c) They are not as objective as you are (they are biased).
d) They are not as honest as you.
e) Some combination of the above.

Which do you think it is? (If "e", please specify)

AGAIN, MY COMMENTS WERE RELEVANT.

Post # 4 re: Intermediate vs. Low Cost. As "Cosi" (admittedly bad form to pose as someone else), I asked what the purpose was of determining which is the more valid projection, meaning what the policy implications would be. In an exchange with Coberly, I made a comment containing the fundamental elements of my conceptual point here http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/05/bw-on-soc-sec-iv-history-lesson.html#697528 and Bruce said "Cosi I think you have it quite right." (his comment was posted 29 minutes after mine, so I assume he was referring to the comment at that link). Downthread a bit, "Stormy" (who was NOT me nor anyone with whom I had had any contact) said "Cosi, Thanks for asking your questions. For me, at least, they helped focus the discussion--clarifying exactly what is being asserted." And Bruce opened his next post (# 5) with "Cosi made some excellent analysis of the budget implications in the last comment thread..."

Perhaps the problem is that Bruce just won't concede to ME that my point is correct. Geez, that would be very immature, and would mean he's been throwing out numerous disingenuous evasive tactics. 

AGAIN, MY COMMENTS WERE RELEVANT.

Post # 5

(I don't think I posted a comment on that one. No comment from me appears and I don't have my own copy of the thread so I don't know if I commented and comments were deleted. I think probably not. Nice hat tip from Bruce in the first line of the post, though.)

Post # 6 (Some of my comments were deleted. If anyone wants me to email them a copy of the thread in Word, I'll be glad to do so. I generally keep copies for research purposes, since comment deletion is unfortunately a common practice on partisan blogs).

As "Cosi", I made a counter-argument to your argument against use of an infinite horizon. It looked at first like we might get through a substantive discussion on THAT topic (NOT my conceptual point re: "solvency" and overall fiscal balance) in which we each responded directly to each others points and questions, but you abandoned that approach. I didn't make my conceptual point re: "solvency"/overall fiscal balance until Lysistrata said to me:

SSI is 70 years old, has billions of $$ in TF... Why should anything be changed? If it ain't broke don't fix it is still good advise.

to which I replied (excerpting) "to address your broader rhetorical question, what is "broke" as far as America's future is our total budget, which is projected to have deficits through the roof, so any policy change that would increase total revenues or lower total spending can be part of a "fix" that we need sooner or later (and the later, the uglier it will be)... we can't simply look at Social Security revenues and Social Security spending as if they have nothing to do with the huge problem we have of projected enormous deficits over the next 20, 30 years and beyond. Social Security is not "broke", but our total fiscal outlook is "broke", and all spending and all revenues are part of that total fiscal outlook. So "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't apply, particularly because one implication of that statement is that there is no reason to even consider reducing projected Social Security spending."

My point was relevant and important to make in that context, for reasons that should be obvious.

Lysistrata responded with

Cosi, it is a fact: SOCIAL SECURITY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NATIONS DEFICIT.

Bruce responded with an argument that "What privatizers and entitlement crisis-mongers need to explain and consistently refuse to is why Social Security first" and an argument that, after supposedly using other arguements that were supposedly refuted, a few of those people turned "in desperation" to the argument that "In the overall context of governmental finance in relation to borrowing needs, and holding all other spending constant, cutting any program costs improve the fiscal balance."

I replied requesting that you address my arguments, not those of others, and that I never said "Social Security first", only that SS "solvency" does not imply (conceptually) that cutting projected Spending should be off the table, and that the projected growth of entitlements, and more broadly, in overalls spending, was a very valid concern.

I returned a few hours later (as "Rosnec Tonod" -- "Do Not Censor" backwards) with a comment related ONLY to the debate over infinite horizon http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2008/05/bw-on-soc-sec-vi-lms-and-infinite.html#697926 . Rdan immediately advised everyone that that was me, I guess to signal to others not to respond to me (although it's possible I'm wrong on his motive).

AGAIN, MY COMMENTS WERE RELEVANT. (My comments re: infinite horizon were relevant to the post. My comments re: SS vis a vis overall fiscal imbalance were direct responses to arguments directed at me).