they pivot to 'explain' that paying it back will put some intolerable strain on the overall budget and so require massive spending cuts or ruinous taxation increases.

I can't speak for others who have made other arguments (whether or not your descriptions of their arguments and assessment of the validity of those arguments is correct -- something of which I am, to say the least, skeptical, given what I've seen from you), but let me speak for myself only:

First, I've never asserted that there is any SS "crisis". I've never even asserted that there is an SS "shortfall". There may be, but that's not something I've ever asserted. In fact, the points I've made regarding Social Security GRANT, just for the sake of argument, that those who contend that SS will be fully solvent (or very close to it) forever are correct, because my point is that even if that is the case, the implication many draw from such a premise is not only invalid but nonsensical -- that implication being that "solvency" means that SS has nothing to do with our overall long-term fiscal imbalance and that reducing projected SS spending could not be one way to reduce our long-term fiscal imbalance (as I've explained, it obviously could, with, if necessary, shifts in taxation from SS FICA to other taxes). The above is not a matter of opinion, but of logic and basic algebra.

I have also said explicitly many times on AB and elsewhere that the Trust Fund bonds must be honored. In fact, I think I don't even think it would make sense for someone to say that we won't or shouldn't pay back the Trust Fund bonds, even aside from the matter of default (which is enough of a reason to honor them), because the Trust Fund balance is only about $2 trillion, and no one in his right mind thinks we'll spend less than $2 trillion on SS between now and eternity (or even, I assume, between now and when bonds come due, although Jim Glass explained that they could, in effect, be rolled over forever), so anyone wishing to reduce projected SS spending need not look to defaulting on the Trust Fund bonds. I've also stated explicitly that SS revenues must (either immediately or ultimately if they are first turned into bonds) be spent only on SS benefits, but of course we can change the level of SS FICA taxation to affect how much we add to that legal obligation.

So there's no "pivot" on my part, nor is anything I've said based on an a premise of any SS "shortfall" (let alone "crisis"), nor have I suggested we default on Trust Fund bonds (to the contrary).

So what is the true "Big Picture"?

Obviously it's our unsustainably large overall long-term fiscal imbalance. There is a very strong consensus among experts across the political spectrum that, under current fiscal policies, that future is what we face. The gap is unsustainable, and it is so large that it will take real, substantial sacrifices to reduce it to anything close to a healthy level. It seems your only response to the presentation of this fiscal reality is that it is just some disingenuous "pivot". Well, your suspicions of conspiratorial deception don't constitute a refutation of that argument. If you don't think we face an unsustainably large long-term fiscal imbalance under current policies, say so, and good luck defending that assertion. If you think that we DO face such a problem but can solve it without any real sacrifices, please say that and explain, and good luck defending that one.

Otherwise, be rational and accept the obvious fact that reducing projected SS spending is ONE way we could reduce our long-term fiscal imbalance. Whether or not we SHOULD do that (in conjunction with other measures, such as tax increases and other reductions of projected spending) is an entirely different debate. But that necessary debate cannot proceed rationally if you and others insist on defying logic and basic algebra, and in so doing insist that one option be taken off the table a priori based on an obvious conceptual/analytical error.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:38 pm | #

NOTE: Comment above was deleted by moderator (rdan)

And as a note for anyone who doesn't know this and hasn't really thought about it: "Trust Fund depletion" being "pushed back" to such and such a date (e.g., 2041) is due to ONGOING SS FICA TAXATION in the interim, NOT because the Trust Fund balance covers all projected SS spending between now and that date. The Trust Fund balance is only about $2 trillion, which is only enough for a couple of years' worth of SS spending.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:42 pm | #

Bruce Webb,
Just a note, probably in vain:
If you disagree with anything I've said, I hope you'll engage substantively and address my arguments rather than just throw out more baseless personal attacks, false claims that you've already addressed my arguments, straw men, and other evasions.

It would be nice to have a direct, responsive, rational, substantive discussion/debate with you for once.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:45 pm | #

Brooks your policy argument for means testing Social Security does build in ideas of insolvency because outside that frame makes no fiscal sense. If the system as designed can pay out full insurance benefits why would we means test it?

Bill Gates and I are the exact same age and look much alike. Given equal health scores why would or should I care that he can get equivalent insurance at the same price? Your argument is incoherent.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.28.08 - 7:16 pm | #

Brooks when I talked about opponents of Social Security 'pivoting' I did not have you in mind. Because I don't regard you as a serious opponent to start with. You swerve dangerously between 'clown' and 'speed bump' in our attempt to open dialog on this. Your odd assumption that every post I put up is some reaction to your non-argument reveals more than you know. I. This argument your function to date has been frictional grit and not greasing the discussion.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.28.08 - 7:59 pm | #

Bruce Webb,

(oops, looks like my initial comment somehow ?disappeared?. Guess I?ll have to start another ?Uncensored Angry Bear? post. Anyway, here?s the re-post)

they pivot to 'explain' that paying it back will put some intolerable strain on the overall budget and so require massive spending cuts or ruinous taxation increases.

I can't speak for others who have made other arguments (whether or not your descriptions of their arguments and assessment of the validity of those arguments is correct -- something of which I am, to say the least, skeptical, given what I've seen from you), but let me speak for myself only:

First, I've never asserted that there is any SS "crisis". I've never even asserted that there is an SS "shortfall". There may be, but that's not something I've ever asserted. In fact, the points I've made regarding Social Security GRANT, just for the sake of argument, that those who contend that SS will be fully solvent (or very close to it) forever are correct, because my point is that even if that is the case, the implication many draw from such a premise is not only invalid but nonsensical -- that implication being that "solvency" means that SS has nothing to do with our overall long-term fiscal imbalance and that reducing projected SS spending could not be one way to reduce our long-term fiscal imbalance (as I've explained, it obviously could, with, if necessary, shifts in taxation from SS FICA to other taxes). The above is not a matter of opinion, but of logic and basic algebra.

I have also said explicitly many times on AB and elsewhere that the Trust Fund bonds must be honored. In fact, I think I don't even think it would make sense for someone to say that we won't or shouldn't pay back the Trust Fund bonds, even aside from the matter of default (which is enough of a reason to honor them), because the Trust Fund balance is only about $2 trillion, and no one in his right mind thinks we'll spend less than $2 trillion on SS between now and eternity (or even, I assume, between now and when bonds come due, although Jim Glass explained that they could, in effect, be rolled over forever), so anyone wishing to reduce projected SS spending need not look to defaulting on the Trust Fund bonds. I've also stated explicitly that SS revenues must (either immediately or ultimately if they are first turned into bonds) be spent only on SS benefits, but of course we can change the level of SS FICA taxation to affect how much we add to that legal obligation.

So there's no "pivot" on my part, nor is anything I've said based on an a premise of any SS "shortfall" (let alone "crisis"), nor have I suggested we default on Trust Fund bonds (to the contrary).

So what is the true "Big Picture"?

Obviously it's our unsustainably large overall long-term fiscal imbalance. There is a very strong consensus among experts across the political spectrum that, under current fiscal policies, that future is what we face. The gap is unsustainable, and it is so large that it will take real, substantial sacrifices to reduce it to anything close to a healthy level. It seems your only response to the presentation of this fiscal reality is that it is just some disingenuous "pivot". Well, your suspicions of conspiratorial deception don't constitute a refutation of that argument. If you don't think we face an unsustainably large long-term fiscal imbalance under current policies, say so, and good luck defending that assertion. If you think that we DO face such a problem but can solve it without any real sacrifices, please say that and explain, and good luck defending that one.

Otherwise, be rational and accept the obvious fact that reducing projected SS spending is ONE way we could reduce our long-term fiscal imbalance. Whether or not we SHOULD do that (in conjunction with other measures, such as tax increases and other reductions of projected spending) is an entirely different debate. But that necessary debate cannot proceed rationally if you and others insist on defying logic and basic algebra, and in so doing insist that one option be taken off the table a priori based on an obvious conceptual/analytical error.Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:38 pm | #

And as a note for anyone who doesn't know this and hasn't really thought about it: "Trust Fund depletion" being "pushed back" to such and such a date (e.g., 2041) is due to ONGOING SS FICA TAXATION in the interim, NOT because the Trust Fund balance covers all projected SS spending between now and that date. The Trust Fund balance is only about $2 trillion, which is only enough for a couple of years' worth of SS spending.Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:42 pm | #

Bruce Webb,
Just a note, probably in vain:If you disagree with anything I've said, I hope you'll engage substantively and address my arguments rather than just throw out more baseless personal attacks, false claims that you've already addressed my arguments, straw men, and other evasions.

It would be nice to have a direct, responsive, rational, substantive discussion/debate with you for once.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:45 pm | #
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 8:19 pm | #

Bruce,

Brooks your policy argument for means testing Social Security does build in ideas of insolvency because outside that frame makes no fiscal sense. If the system as designed can pay out full insurance benefits why would we means test it?

Holy Schmoly! I think you might actually STILL not get it. The answer to your question: Because means testing is one way to reduce projected SS spending, and reducing projected SS spending is one way to reduce our overall fiscal imbalance. For the millionth time, if, under current policies, SS would be fully ?solvent? forever, and if reducing projected SS spending would cause ever-expanding, excessive SS surpluses, we would just reduce SS FICA taxation (reduce projected SS revenues), and offset that revenue reduction with increases in other taxes. The result would be lower projected overall spending, unchanged projected overall revenues, and therefore lower projected overall deficits. How in the world can you not get that????
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 8:20 pm | #

Bruce Webb,

My response to your absurd assertion in your 5/28 2:09pm comment was also deleted. Here it is again.
----------------------

Bruce Webb,Why are you so insistent on NOT engaging me substantively? Why do you prefer to comment, but fill your comments only with evasions, and evasions based on lies, straw men, non sequiturs, etc.? Is it really too much to ask that on just ONE darn thread you address my actual arguments???????? Can?t you just do that????Once again I must waste time and space setting the record straight after yet another ridiculous charge by Bruce Webb. And RDAN, please note this dynamic: I make a substantive argument, Bruce responds only with non-substantive baloney, including baseless personal attacks and lies about my past comments and exchanges, and I feel (reasonably) the need to set the record straight. That?s usually the point at which you criticize ME for providing the facts that refute Bruce?s claims (and you sometimes delete these refutations), but not Bruce for the irrelevant and false charges.

Brooks in fact you have on several occasions made that assertion, at least implicitly.

Show me. Tell me what you are saying I?ve asserted, and link to where I?ve asserted it. You won?t, because you can?t, because it just doesn?t exist outside of your own mind (and it probably doesn't even exist there -- this is probably yet another diversion of yours to avoid engaging me substantively and addressing the arguments I've made).

This particularly came up when I posed the question "Why Social Security as your only example as opposed to the Agency for Mushroom Regulation?" At which point you slipped and said it was because such minor agencies didn't spend enough to matter compared to Social Security. Which implicitly moved your argument over to one of cost and affordability. A point which you have now on a regular basis denied that you were concerned at all. You lost the debate and so your credibility at that exact second.

Bruce, that really makes me wonder if you are the World?s Biggest Liar or just the World?s Biggest Idiot. More than once I have explained why your take on that exchange is idiotic. It?s hard to believe you can be so stupid as to still not get it, so you are probably just lying and counting on others not to apply reason to what you?re saying or to check the facts. I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO SEE THIS LINK
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...ost.html#697018 and you?ll see that Bruce is either an idiot or a liar. (Hopefully rdan won?t delete this comment to protect Bruce from the embarrassment, even though obviously the right thing to do in light of Bruce?s false charges is to allow this comment to remain).

All the evidence shows that you decided on a particular policy, that of cutting benefits, first then thought you had come up with a brilliant argument for proving it after. When that argument was demolished on policy and fiscal grounds, you simply started spinning that it was never about the policy to start with. Well you are not fooling anyone. At least not anyone who has been following the discussion.

Geez, Louise. Is this guy serious?? How in the world anyone let?s this guy be a guest contributor on an econ blog ? or ANY blog ? is just beyond me.

First, ZERO evidence shows that.
It is only in your paranoid mind. If you have such evidence, by all means share it (lol).

Second, what argument of mine ?was demolished on policy and fiscal grounds?, and where (or at least how)? What the heck are you TALKING about???? If you have some refutation of an argument I?ve made, why don?t you state here what you think my argument was and why you think it?s invalid. Hmmmmmm? Any chance you?ll do THAT? I suggest no one hold his/her breath. Bruce avoids such substantive debate on my conceptual point (re: SS ?solvency? vis a vis overall deficits) like the plague, as all can see.

Third, just because you cannot distinguish between a conceptual/analytical point (based on simple algebra and logic) and policy advocacy doesn?t mean no one else can (although clearly others are as conceptually-challenged as you are). And just because the person offering a conceptual point HAS a policy preference (and as I?ve expressed, I favor some eventual means testing of SS) that does NOT erase the distinction between the conceptual point and policy advocacy. I told the RedState folks they were most likely wrong when they asserted that the Bush tax cuts ?increased revenues?, but that was an analytical point. The fact that I DO favor raising taxes does not change the fact that my argument regarding the degree of revenue feedback from the Bush tax cuts was purely an analytical point, not policy advocacy. And in the case of my conceptual point re: SS, there?s not even the chance of bias in my point, because it really comes down to just basic algebra. If someone corrected you on a mathematical error would you automatically see that as policy advocacy? Apparently you would, if you saw the possible implication of that mathematical correction as threatening to your policy preference.

Bruce, enough of this nonsense. I ask you once again: If you disagree with me on any argument I offered in my initial comment on this thread, offer a direct, rational refutation. Simple request. Can you handle that for once?Brooks | 05.28.08 - 3:08 pm | #
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 8:29 pm | #