About Me

Name: Brooks
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Uncensored Angry Bear: Soc Sec XIII: 'Crisis' at Shortfall; or Show me the Money

Posted by Brooks on Wednesday, May 28, 2008 8:44:28 PM

Angry Bear moderator Rdan is heavily censoring one side of a debate yet again. Here we go with another thread. Deleted comments shown, followed by note highlighted in red.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Soc Sec XIII: 'Crisis' at Shortfall; or Show me the Money

Social Security 'crisis' is normally discussed in terms of Trust Fund Depletion. But given that this event has been pushed back to at least 2041 and boils down to a benefit in real terms 25% better than the one my Mom gets today (78% of 160% = 125%), and that some awareness of this leaked out during the 'There is no crisis' campaign of 2005, opponents of Social Security had to retool and redefine crisis at Shortfall, which is to say the time that receipts from taxation fall behind Social Security cost and so require the General Fund to start paying back the money it borrowed. Since no serious argument can be made that the debt is not real, because after all they continue to borrow the current surplus presumedly in good faith, instead 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. But as almost always they never actually put a price tag on this. So lets price Shortfall in inflation adjusted Constant Dollars. Source data here: Table VI.F7.—Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, in Constant 2008 Dollars, Calendar Years 2008-85" [In billions]

Now generally when people talk about the Social Security surplus they include the accrued interest and talk about the General Fund borrowing $200 billion a year. And viewed from the standpoint of legacy debt this is fair enough, they are assuming future obligations for that amount. But that interest is not in fact financed, the only real cash extracted from the economy and so the only real dollars that can be used to pay for real current spending are the actual excess tax dollars over current costs. Lots and lots of nummy numbers below the fold.

Between 2008 and 2017 the system is projected to run surpluses, but how much of that is actually cash? In this case the first column represents total surplus, the second cash flow (all under Intermediate Cost assumptions, dollars in billions)
2008 $196 $79
2009 $208 $86
2010 $214 $84
2011 $216 $76
2012 $214 $66
2013 $209 $52
2014 $200 $35
2015 $190 $18
2016 $180 $2
2017 $164 -$19 {oops, had to edit from -$21, which is the net change from 2016 and not the actual transfer for 2017}
In light of this we can see how misplaced the hysteria really is. These are not particularly big dollars to start with and over the next ten years the General Fund will be gently weaned off what is in context a pretty meager flow, the idea that a transition from a $2 billion cash surplus in 2016 to a $19 billion dollar cash deficit in 2017 roiling the world credit markets or demanding huge slashes in spending or ruinous tax increase is in numeric context simple nonsense, particularly as here if you adjust the numbers for inflation. But doesn't it just get worse going forwards? Well lets see. At this point the table shifts to five year periods meaning we have to interpolate for 2023, the date the total surplus is being tapped and principal has to be repaid. These figures represent total transfers from the General Fund, once again adjusted for inflation. {Oops had to edit, got 2017 and 2023 mixed up the first time around}.

2017 $19
2020 $77
2023 ~$150
2025 $172
2030 $258
2035 $313
2040 $335
2042 $0

In short financing Social Security through 2041 means deficits in real terms less than the typical ones run by this Bush Administration and in context much smaller than those run in Reagan/Bush I days. If we exercise even a little restraint on the General Fund side this gap is easily digestible, especially if we note that it is in principle temporary, there is no positive legal obligation for the General Fund to backfill any income/cost gap after 2041. Once you put the numbers in context any real content to 'crisis' simply melts away. Which is why privatizers never put the numbers in context.

Posted by Bruce Webb at 10:24 AM   Labels: social security

Comment (0) | Trackback (0)

 

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 | #

NOTE: Comment above was deleted by moderator (rdan)

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 | #

NOTE: Comment above was deleted by moderator (rdan)

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 | #

rdan,

I noticed that you also deleted JMOHR's comment. If that was because you once again erroneously thought another commenter was me, I'm telling you right now, JMOHR is NOT me.

If you know JMOHR is not me, please let him/her know why in the world you deleted his/her comment, if not simply because he/she acknowledged the correctness of my point.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 8:52 pm | #

rdan and EVERYONE,

Anyone who wants to see BOTH sides of the exchanges on this thread rather than just the half rdan does not delete, see "The Uncensored Angry Bear" at http://brooksblogging.blogtownha...the_money.thtml

I'll be updating that post as this thread (and further deletion by rdan) proceeds.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 9:00 pm | #
ANYONE AND EVERYONE who has been telling me that my conceptual point has long ago been accepted by all:

Not only was that demonstrably UNTRUE before this thread, but take a look at Bruce Webb's comment here: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...-or.html#700353
and my reply here:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...-or.html#700366

PROOF that he SOMEHOW STILL doesn't get it.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 9:11 pm | #
 
NOTE: All the re-posted comments above were deleted again by Rdan
 

Bush floated the idea that the trust fund wasn't real when he made the trip to the little PA office and stood next to a printout. The interagency IOU's in the fund could be declared not a real debt carrying the full faith and credit of the US Government by a group of Supreme Court Justices of the Roberts Alito ilk. Not saying it will happen, just that it could.

If you ever want to throw a rhetorical bomb in SS arguments just ask if the Treasury should pay off Grandma with the $2 trillion wage earners loaned the Treasury or if we instead should pay off the Central Bank of communist China who will hold one or two trillion in Treasury bonds come the day,if it's a choice of one or the other.

Game, set, match.
rapier | 05.28.08 - 9:59 pm | #

Hi Bruce,

I understand the logic of targeting (e.g. adjusting payroll tax to stay within an accepted range of TF ratios, at least if I understand your proposal correctly) but...

Imagine the TF depletion date moves in for a few years in a row, we all get nervous, and we add a few points to payroll tax. Then the economy heats up and we're on the road to an unbounded surplus (e.g. the "low" scenario now). Why not rebate some of the surplus to those who paid in (assuming they are still alive) as a tax rebate, effectively attempting to lower their payroll tax after the fact?

This is of course less ideal than getting the payroll tax numbers right the first time, and I wouldn't say that such a rebate makes immediate payroll tax hikes okay.

But it does seem to me that if we over-collect due to pessimistic planning, it doesn't seem fair to make the pay-in lower only for future cohorts (in the form of lower taxes) - it would seem that back-dating the rebate for all participants would be more equitable.

Central to the fear that makes SS such a hot issue is every individual's fear of getting screwed over...we don't want to be the ones who pay higher payroll tax and then get less benefits. A system that retro-actively rebates the effects of tax hikes that proved to be unnecessary could help smooth them out.
bsupnik | 05.28.08 - 10:11 pm | #

bsupnik

you may have identified the problem. everyone is afraid they will get screwed.

but the fact is that the paramaters of social security are not going to change fast enough to require more than about a one tenth of one percent change in the tax, one way or the other.

why should social security be the only thing in life where your costs never change as a percent of your income?

you could just relax and know that a small fraction of your income will pay for your retirement, death, or disability, for as long as you or your survivors need it. very very hard to tell in advance who is getting screwed in a deal like that.
coberly | 05.28.08 - 10:16 pm | #

JMOHR,
If you'd like, email me at BrooksBud@aol.com. I'd like to discuss a couple of topics with you (related to fiscal policy and related to your experience with partisan blogs).
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 10:17 pm | #
________________________________________________________________
 
Whoops! Looks like Rdan deleted all my comments on this thread. I guess he?s running for Lame Partisan Moderator of the Year. Here they are again, folks (unfortunately, I they are all lumped together into two consecutive comments now). Is Rdan right that you need to be so sheltered from rational discussion/debate? Or is the goal only to protect Bruce from being exposed as a serial liar and utter idiot?
[NOTE: I ("Brooks") re-posted the deleted comments here]

Brooks | 05.29.08 - 12:00 am | #
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Uncensored Angry Bear: BW on Soc Sec Index: the Baker's Dozen

Posted by Brooks on Tuesday, May 27, 2008 3:38:33 PM
Rdan, moderator at Angry Bear, has engaged in a great degree of one-sided censorship on several threads, deleting many of my comments while allowing the comments of others to which I was responding to remain. Below is the almost completely uncensored version of one such thread. I offer it for (1) anyone interested in the actual discussion/debate that transpired, rather than the censored, deliberately skewed perversion of it that remains on Angry Bear, and (2) anyone interested in the dynamics of partisan blogs, and of the role that moderator censorship plays. I am currently researching the latter, along with, more generally, the downward trend in political discourse due to hyperpartisanship, and will eventually publish on this topic. For now, I'll just post examples for convenient reference (for myself and others). 
Note: Due to TownHall's profanity prohibition, I have had to substitute hyphens into profanity in some comments by others.
Note: In the 05.25.08 - 9:51 pm comment by "tj & the bear", the line "this is brooks" is from moderator Rdan, NOT from "tj". Rdan falsely claimed that "tj" was me (Brooks) and claimed to have clear proof ("same ip address"), an error he later admitted.
Note: Deleted comments as of 10/27 10:24pm are labeled as such (note highlighted in red). Prior to that point Rdan deleted several of my comments, but those deletions are not noted. To get a sense of the scale and nature of the deletions, visit the thread on Angry Bear by clicking on the thread title ("BW on Soc Sec...") below.
Below is the almost completely uncensored thread, copied prior to the multiple deletions by Rdan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, May 25, 2008

BW on Soc Sec Index: the Baker's Dozen

By semi-popular demand (or maybe to satisfy my monomania) I created a links list to my thirteen recent posts at my site under the title (BW's) Social Security Posts on Angry Bear. This is more or less a convenience for me, allowing me to see at a glance what I have covered, but it might be useful for those who came along about installment X.

Unless I get some specific requests or questions, I expect to pull back some on this, and go back to a more bloggy thing of monitoring what people like Andrew Samwick and Andrew Biggs are saying and then as appropriate post on it here. But if you just have to have more of me I am sure the siteowners will forward on any and all story suggestions.


 
But if you just have to have more of me...

Sure! I'll bite...

Mr. Webb,

IMHO all the tortured analysis regarding SS finances strikes me as ivory tower BS, therefore I'd highly appreciate you setting me straight.

To wit: The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/was...icit-usat_x.htm

If the government truly intended SS to be an inviolable obligation then they would have stuffed that cabinet full of real T-Bills. They did not.

Very soon the government will find it difficult (if not impossible) to spend more than it receives on a cash basis. At that time, SS will be just one of a million different government programs -- all with their own vociferous constituencies -- subject to fiscal realities, promises be damned.

This is brooks.

Edited By Siteowner
tj & the bear | 05.25.08 - 9:51 pm | #
USA Today is the least reliable reporter on this topic over the last ten years or so. If a you know about this topic was derived from the Op-Ed pages of USA Today it is fair to say that your information base is at this point negative. They quite literally don't know what they are talking about.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.25.08 - 10:12 pm | #
So what are you saying, tjatb? That the good faith and trust of the US government is no good? That the US government is gonna repudiate the debt it owes retiring boomers?

LOL!

Smarter concern trolls, please.
Joel | 05.25.08 - 10:13 pm | #
hah!

Bruce that reminds me..

If I say opposing counsel has an ugly nose, that is ad hominem and out of court.

but if i say opposing counsel's argument has an ugly nose, that is not ad hominem and is as good a description of his argument as any.

in the case of some posters i can see why the distinction would be hard to maintain.
coberly | 05.25.08 - 10:30 pm | #
tj

i am glad you and USA discovered that. Now we can stop worrying about that "44 Trillion Dollar Unfunded Deficit!"

which is just as well, since it was phony anyway.

but as usual with the privatizers arguments if they don't work one way, they can always turn them around and see if they work better backwards.
coberly | 05.25.08 - 10:33 pm | #
tj

you might have noted that i commented on the substance.

Soc Sec will be just one of a very few government programs which are "off budget" with their own dedicated funding source.

and with a little luck i will be able to educate the people to understand it is their own money saved for their own retirement.

unless of course they are all as clever as you.
coberly | 05.26.08 - 12:19 am | #
tj

what is it about intellectual, or honest, that you don't understand?

how about "Soc Sec is just fine forever, whatever happens to the Trust Fund"

and yes, printing those iou's involved collecting taxes from workers to borrow the money from. so i suppose redeeming them which will involve collecting taxes from the people who borrowed the money will be "just as easy."

it's a little hard for me to understand how you find the unfunded obligation figures optimistic when your president just said he doesn't have to pay them.
coberly | 05.26.08 - 1:13 am | #


TJ. Social Security is a worker funded pay as you go insurance plan. It does not fundamentally rely on the Special Treasuries in the Trust Fund, at no point in the future are they counted on to pay for more than 25% of benefits to start with, and that under pessimistic assumptions, your argument depends on a total misconception of how Social Security finance actually operates.

Two the notion that there is any fundamental distinction between 'real' T-Bills and the Special Treasuries is just a bogus talking point made up by people who woke up in the nineties to find out that under reasonable assumptions Social Security Trust Fund Depletion might never actually happen, which led them to pivot to Shortfall in 2017 and the 'phony IOU' narrative. Well it is all bullsh-t and more serious opponents of Social Security like Andrew Samwick and Andrew Biggs freely admit as much, the Special Treasuries are as real as the Benjamin in your wallet and for all the same reasons, it is called Full Faith and Credit of the United States.

I don't care whether the original source of your information was USA Today or not, if all you know was drawn from the MSM then you are simply the victim of a very successful twenty five year propaganda campaign, one I discuss in the fifth part of this series What does Lenin have to do with this?

A little more study of the actual numbers and mechanisms in question and a lot less snark would serve you well here.

Edited By Siteowner
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 11:35 am | #
No double binds here...
rdan | 05.26.08 - 3:05 pm | #
same ip address...sock puppets.
rdan | 05.26.08 - 3:08 pm | #
tj,

I haven't been following angry bear recently or the soc sec debates, although I am an old hand at them. I shall mostly just reinforce points made by Bruce W.

So, for starters, there is no difference between the different kinds of US securities. A US government security is a US government security is a US government security, whether it is owned by you, the Chinese central bank, or the Social Security Administration.

The more serious questions have to do with whether or not they will have to be cashed in and just how bad are the forecasts and what, if anything, should be done about it. I am in general agreement with Bruce that there has been a massive overhyping of how bad the forecasts are by a whole lot of people, some of them with ideological agendas, some of them simply shilling for big Wall Street investment firms that would love to have the public mandated to deal with them, some just being overly cautious ("better to err on the side of caution"), this latter not necessarily being so bad, as long as people are willing to fess up that this is what they are doing.

So, in the last decade the low cost projection has beaten the other projections more often than not, but it is almost never reported in the media. But it says we never get to 2017, no deficit, no cashing in of the SSA's securities, not ever. The SSA just keeps on piling them up forever, lending money to the rest of the budget. Yes, we are now in a more or less recession and we are doing worse than the LC, but I agree with Bruce that there is plenty of time to wait and see whether or not we need to make adjustments or not.

Now, there is the further argument of Brooks, and let me stick to what I think is the substantive part of it rather than his now very old carrying on with Bruce and coberly (and me). He is concerned with the overall budget balance, and I agree that this is a concern. I would describe a defensible version of his position as being that any and all moves to improve the budget should be on the table, including social security. So, that argument says the actual projections and balances of social security do not matter, it is an area where by cutting benefits or increasing taxes we can improve the broader problem.

I have two responses to that. One is that if the projections about social security are overly pessimistic, then the overall balance situation is also being projected overly pessimistically (by that amount). The other is that I see other areas that should be more the focus of any efforts to improve overall balances, namely getting rising medical care costs under control, reducing military spending (on unnecessary and stupid wars), and raising taxes on the wealthy and higher income.

BTW, as of now, the surplus if the SSA is still actually increasing. This should change, maybe this year, maybe next, which in some perspectives means we have a problem. When that turnaround comes, the SSA will be lending the rest of the government less money each year rather than more as it has been for the last quarter of a century or so. If one wants to call this a crisis, fine, but it is a rather peculiar crisis. Nevertheless, it will mean some extra pressure in reality on the rest of the budget, irrespective of what the actual TF balance is.

Again, I prefer to leave SS alone and see what happens and work on other parts of the budget to deal with the broader balance issues that I think are of ultimate concern to Brooks.

Barkley Rosser
Barkley Rosser | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 3:10 pm | #
Hmmm, thought I posted something and it has disappeared. Will try once more, given that I have not been watching here closely and have not commented on Bruces ss postings.

So, tj,

A US government security is a US government security is a US government security, whether owned by you, the Social Security Administration, or the Chinese central bank. Not the issue.

More seriously an issue is whether the forecasts have been overly pessimistic, which is very much a major part of Bruce Webb's line of argument, with which I am largely in agreement. So, the low cost projection has beaten the intermediate cost one more often than not in the last decade, a fact almost never mentioned in the MSM or most discussions. The low cost projection has 2017 never arriving, no deficit ever, no cashing in bonds or anything, the SS TF lending money to the rest of the federal government forever and piling up those securitiese, whatever they are.

Now, the serious argument of Brooks, aside from his long running personal feuds with various folks, is that what matters is the overall budget balance, and anything that can be done to reduce the deficit should be done from any and every part of the budget, including social security.

My response to that is twofold. One is that if the social security forecasts are overly pessimistic, then so are the general budgetary forecasts, and by the same amount.

The other is that when we get down to doing something about deficits, I would prefer to see controlling rising medical care costs (with medicare and medicaid projected to be much worse problems than social security, even under the pessimistic ss forecasts), cut war spending by the DOD for stupid wars, and raise taxes on the wealthy.

Finally, the SS TF surplus is still actually rising. Now I do accept that probably in the next year or so that will cease and go the other way. So, rather than lending ever larger amounts of money to the rest of the budget as has been the case for the last quarter of a century or so, the SS TF will start lending smaller and smaller amounts of money. This will in fact put pressure on the rest of the system, even though I would call this a joke of a crisis.

In any case, I argue for "wait and see," as the system can be jiggered well before we are in any actual SS crisis, if in fact the more pessimistic forecasts do come to pass.

Barkley Rosser
Barkley Rosser | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 4:01 pm | #
Barkley Rosser,
Haloscan has been odd all week. Thanks.
rdan | 05.26.08 - 4:11 pm | #
Rosser

yes it is a strange crisis indeed.

when you have been borrowing money and the time is coming to pay it back.

what to do, what to do?

clearly the answer is to put a bag over granny's head and convince her she owes US the money
and we'll be doing her a big favor if we cut her benefits.


that way we can use the money to invest in those flying saucers the young are so sure they are more likely to see than their Social Security benefits.

maybe they are smarter than we think.
coberly | 05.26.08 - 4:14 pm | #
Brooks I have never deleted a comment and am not sure so even have the ability to do so but admitedly plan to explore the comment moderation powers.

You are not going to get anywhere or impress any one by addressing me as 'Brucey' which where it is not faintly pejorative implies a degree of intimacy you have not earned.

This is the blogosphere, if you extend courtesy you tend to receive courtesy, if you extend snark you tend to draw snark, if you start out on a note of rudeness you can expect some shove back. You started some months ago by advancing a particular point on several blogs and demanding a response. When the answers ranging from nationally recognized experts like Dean and Barkley down to plain folk like me and Dale didn't endorse your argument you frankly went into a months long snit that has now descended into something that from the outside cannot be distinguished from paranoid obsession and cyberstalking. In the course of that you have crosses over not only ethical lines but also some legal ones. You are free to call me a liar, telling third parties that I am a liar in an effort to disrupt the dialogue is in fact an actionable tort. I have neither the resources or the inclination to pursue legal action or except within very narrow limits any public reputation to defend but in the past your rhetoric towards people have both has verged on reckless.

You present yourself as victim and think that even if true that that fact would matter a rat's -ss to anyone but you. The first is a stretch, the second is laughable. Do you really think anyone was outraged when we slaggged on PRS? Or the various incarnations of Anon/FA/FFA? Or Marek?Your attempts to present yourself as a veddy, veddy serious thinker persecuited by the modern equivalent of book burners is falling flat. If your posts were not so long, so tedious, and so repetitive your presence might rise to the level of Marek style inadvertent comedy, but Christ even UF Marek has learned the lesson of brevity (though perhaps not civility).

In recent days HaloScan has been kind of shaky. Which led you immediately to jump to censorship/persecution accusations. Which is cruelly ironic because the site controller and me are in discussions about the possible ways and means of making effective moderation happen. Although I know you won't believe it, I have been arguing that you can be controlled by push back as opposed to banning or direct censorship. But then again I can be convinced.

Signed, Brucey
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 6:02 pm | #
rdan,

You are lying or just incorrect. TJ is NOT me! There is a way it is possible that his IP address is the same as one I used in the past (I won't tell you how that's possible), but I am telling you flat out that not only is TJ NOT me, but I have no idea who TJ is.

You owe me a retraction and correction if you have any decency and integrity whatsoever. And next time be sure you're right before you make a false accusation like that.
Brooks | 05.26.08 - 6:13 pm | #
rdan,

THIS is Brooks. I'm now submitting via a different IP since my comments are not appearing (I don't know if it's blocking or a halo problem).

You are lying or just incorrect. TJ is NOT me! There is a way it is possible that his IP address is the same as one I used in the past (I won't tell you how that's possible), but I am telling you flat out that not only is TJ NOT me, but I have no idea who TJ is.

You owe me a retraction and correction if you have any decency and integrity whatsoever. And next time be sure you're right before you make a false accusation like that.
Anonymous | 05.26.08 - 6:18 pm | #
Dan while I understand and to some degree appreciate the edit, the deliberate vulgarism had a point, one that hopefully registered before it vanished.

Brooks has deliberately raised a dispute over a particular point of fiscal policy into continual attacks on my integrity and honesty not just here to my face (which is just part of the push and shove of the blogosphere) but to third parties here and elsewhere. He made this personal and my initial retort was just meant to show that it was personal. That this came in the form of language not generally associated with a graduate seminar was to that degree fully intended. I assume Halo will release my direct response shortly, but from this point on Brooks should understand that rhetorically we have entered onto pistols at dawn territory. Any collateral damage from stray bullets is regretted.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 6:19 pm | #
rdan,

Since you falsely claimed that TJ was me, I'm sure (ahem) that you'll have the decency and integrity to delete your statements to that effect, and I'm sure you'll allow the re-posts of my comments below to stand.

Below are the comments you deleted.
----------------------------
I took Bruce up on his offer and suggested a topic -- and surprise, surprise: my comment was deleted. My guess: Bruce saw himself challenged and went crying to rdan about it, leading to deletion. Or maybe rdan just decided to be overly protective of little Brucey.

I'll try again.

BRUCE, here's a whacky idea: How about SUBSTANTIVELY addressing my conceptual point about SS "solvency" vis a vis our overall long-term fiscal imbalance ...FOR THE FIRST TIME (your false claims to have addressed it previously notwithstanding).

State what you THINK my point is, then if you think it's invalid...pay attention now...REFUTE IT. You know, like, with an actual argument. Or if you think it's valid but "trivial"...still with me, Bruce?...EXPLAIN why you think it's trivial, given my explanation for its purpose and importance.

I doubt you'll take me up on that suggestion. Heck, rdan will probably delete my suggestion again. Because suggesting a topic to you after your post invited suggestions for topics is clearly off-topic (ahem).

OK, Bruce, time for one of your patented evasions, since you've demonstrated that you'll do just about anything to avoid engaging me substantively on that point. Go ahead, throw out another baseless personal attack, or falsely claim once again that you've previously addressed my point, or simply call it "trivial" with no supporting argument whatsoever, or throw out yet another gross mischaracterization of my past comments or exchanges of ours, etc., etc., but by all means, DON'T have the integrity, guts and decency to actually engage in substantive, rational discussion/debate with me on that point.
Brooks | 05.26.08 - 1:27 am | #
------------------------------
tj,

Let me let you in on a little secret in case you're new to this blog or to Bruce Webb anywhere: Bruce sees himself as under no obligation whatsoever to address the substance of anyone's argument. He thinks it's just fine to reject someone's argument with no refutation at all, and he has a whole bag of tricks for doing so: straw men; personal attacks; claiming you are being disingenuous and just hiding some sinister, conspiratorial motive; claiming he's already refuted your argument at some supposed time in the past; etc., etc.

And you can point out to him and explain time after time that he has not addressed your argument substantively and request repeatedly that he do so, but he won't if he has no sensible refutation but does not want to admit that your argument is valid (and I'm not saying whether or not yours is -- I'll stay out of this one because that's beside the point I'm making here).

But perhaps you'll have better luck with him than I have, particularly if he feels more confident that he can refute your point than he has regarding an important point I've made tried many times to get him to address.

Oh, and if he keeps responding to you with just evasive tactics and you request a couple more times that he offer a substantive response, rdan will probably delete your comments and perhaps ban you.

In fact, if you happen to catch this comment before rdan deletes it, and then see it gone (deleted) -- something I'd give about a 75% probability -- you'll get a taste for how the game is played here, just as it is on most partisan blogs.
Brooks | 05.26.08 - 1:39 am | #
Anonymous | 05.26.08 - 6:24 pm | #
Bruce Webb,

You really are a piece of work. From the start -- and I mean from the first time I commented on the topic last year on Thoma's site -- all I've sought is substantive discussion/debate. You responded only with obvious straw men, attacks on my integrity, etc. When you posted as guest contributor on AB I saw an opportunity to possibly get you to engage substantively for once, thinking that perhaps as a guest contributor you'd feel some obligation (or even desire) to respond substantively for once. I responded to your post substantively, yet you once again refused to engage substantively, and instead once again accused me of being disingenuous, among other things. Repeated requests of mine that you engage substantively instead were met with more of the same from you, along with other evasive tactics, including gross mischaracterizations of my past comments and past exchanges of ours, as I've proven to anyone who took the time to see via the links I provided.

Anyone wishing to check the facts regarding the exchange on Bruce's first post, just start at these links:
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...y-i.html#696873
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...y-i.html#696875
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...y-i.html#696876
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...y-i.html#696926

And you just keep going, here on AB and recently on Andrew Biggs' blog, where, after I presented an argument addressing both Bruce's comment and Andrew Biggs' post, instead of responding substantively Bruce just accused me of bringing a "grievance" against him over to Biggs' site and actually accused ME of being rude.

Bruce, I have never encountered someone willing to put in so much time and effort, and sink to such depths, just to avoid acknowledging the validity of an obviously valid point. You are exceptionally pathetic.

Brooks
Anonymous | 05.26.08 - 6:41 pm | #
Barkley,

Thanks for that sensible comment regarding what my point has been -- and it's the same now as it was back when you and I had our exchanges.

And yes, my point is that it is WRONG to suggest -- as some do -- that SS "solvency" means that SS spending is unrelated to our overall long-term fiscal imbalance and that therefore we should take off the table, a priori, consideration of reducing projected SS spending as we seek to reduce that overall long-term fiscal imbalance. Even if, arguendo, under current policies SS would be fully "solvent" forever, we could still reduce projected overall deficits by reducing projected SS spending. If that generated undesirably high SS surpluses, we could just lower SS FICA taxation, offset the lost revenues with increases in other taxes, and the result would be lower projected overall spending, unchanged projected overall revenues, and therefore lower projected deficits. It's really just very basic algebra. Why it has been so fiercely resisted by the likes of Bruce Webb and company is quite a case study in the psychology of partisanship.

As for your responses:

One is that if the social security forecasts are overly pessimistic, then so are the general budgetary forecasts, and by the same amount

Yes, and I long ago said as much. What matters is the OVERALL fiscal balance (or imbalance). SS "solvency" per se is irrelevant to our decision of whether or not to reduce projected SS spending. SS revenues and SS spending are only relevant inasmuch as they are part of overall revenues and overall spending. So, as I said long ago, by all means it is important to get SS projections right (and to debate which projections are best), but from the standpoint of the policy question, the reason to get SS projections right is to get overall projections of fiscal balance/imbalance right.

The other is that when we get down to doing something about deficits, I would prefer to see controlling rising medical care costs (with medicare and medicaid projected to be much worse problems than social security, even under the pessimistic ss forecasts), cut war spending by the DOD for stupid wars, and raise taxes on the wealthy.

That's a statement of policy preference. It has nothing to do with my conceptual/analytical point discussed above. You see that, right?

But regarding policy preferences, I also favor tax increases, and yes, projected entitlement spending (Medicare and Medicaid) is an even greater contributor to our long-term fiscal imbalance, and I assume will take longer to impact, so if I had to pick the more urgent of the two (vs. SS), I'd pick Medicare/Medicaid to focus on. But having said that, I don't think that that prioritization means we should just put aside SS as a potential means of reducing projected deficits. There is lead time there, too, since we would want to phase in any reductions in SS benefits or eligibility to give people time to plan and adjust.
Brooks | 05.26.08 - 7:10 pm | #
Well Dan you talked me into it. If this post shows up after the last two I put up then great, otherwise Halo has just introduced a big disconnect this weekend.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 7:14 pm | #
coberly,

Actually, the irony here is that the benefits that will get cut will not be Granny's but those of the future generations, the Gen-X-ers and whatever we are calling the one after them. That is what makes their support for this stuff so ridiculous. When I oppose changing the benefit schedule of social security, I am thinking of my grandchildren. My bennies will not get cut nearly as much as theirs.
Barkley Rosser | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 7:19 pm | #
I AM not COSI.

Ignore the Wizard behind the Curtain!
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.26.08 - 8:10 pm | #
Rosser

you are right of course.

but in the minds of those who believe in flying saucers, they will never get old, and it is granny who is greeding on them.
coberly | 05.26.08 - 9:45 pm | #
Bruce Webb lies yet again! I guess he assumes (perhaps correctly) that no one will ever notice.

Bruce writes:
I AM not COSI.

Interesting. He presents a statement obviously designed to seem like a quote -- something I supposedly said that makes my claim not to be TJ not credible -- but he doesn't put it in quotation marks, presumably so he can deny he intended to create that impression. Why does he do this? Because he's deliberately putting words into my mouth. He can't provide a link to my ever denying that I was Cosi, because...you guessed it...I never denied I was Cosi. And eventually, after I was no longer commenting as Cosi and after others had rightly identified Cosi as me, I made a joking reference to something Cosi said (I said something like "As Cosi pointed out so brilliantly the other day..."), making it obvious to anyone with more than one brain cell that Cosi was me, and I said so explicitly later.

Ignore the Wizard behind the Curtain!

Ignore a serial liar.
Brooks | 05.26.08 - 10:25 pm | #
Bruce Webb,

(rdan, this comment is long, but given that Bruce has once again made baseless personal attacks, I think I'm entitled to set the record straight...yet again).

Bruce,

It gets tiresome to correct you on all sorts of things (and perhaps a battle of attrition is your strategy – lie, lie, lie, evade, evade, evade, attack, attack, etc. – because perhaps you see that as a way you can “win” regarding my conceptual point that you obviously can’t refute because it’s irrefutable).

Brooks I have never deleted a comment

If that’s supposed to be a response to some claim of mine, thanks for adding to your straw man list. Other than several of your posts ago, I have assumed that rdan is the one doing any deleting, or at least that you are not one doing deleting, and I’ve addressed rdan, not you, on deletion matters. and am not sure so even have the ability to do so but admitedly plan to explore the comment moderation powers.

You are not going to get anywhere or impress any one by addressing me as 'Brucey' which where it is not faintly pejorative implies a degree of intimacy you have not earned.

No one who has followed any of our exchanges would think I was implying “a degree of intimacy”. At least no one with more than one or two brain cells. Which is to say, I understand your confusion.

This is the blogosphere, if you extend courtesy you tend to receive courtesy, if you extend snark you tend to draw snark, if you start out on a note of rudeness you can expect some shove back. You started some months ago by advancing a particular point on several blogs and demanding a response. When the answers ranging from nationally recognized experts like Dean and Barkley down to plain folk like me and Dale didn't endorse your argument you frankly went into a months long snit that has now descended into something that from the outside cannot be distinguished from paranoid obsession and cyberstalking.

Bruce, I’ve provided an extensive set of links and commentary in past comments on AB that provide the facts to anyone interested in knowing which of us is correctly characterizing my past comments and my past exchanges with you. Anyone who checks the comments/exchanges at those links, which start from my very first comment anywhere in the blogosphere in which I made my conceptual point, will see that you are grossly mischaracterizing just about everything. No doubt your fellow partisan Coberly will concur with your version, for obvious reasons. The only element of truth to your paragraph above is that, in the face of repeated straw men, non sequiturs, and other non-response responses, I have been persistent in requesting direct, rational responses to my actual arguments and questions related to my conceptual point.

As for “cyberstalking”, please explain. The only unusual thing I did was to copy and post onto a new blog (that just about no one will see other than those whom I direct there) a thread from your web site that you deleted (because it was the one place you finally admitted that I was right – so you hastily erased the evidence, not knowing that I had made a copy). And I gave it a fitting name, but one that I’m sure you found irritating, “The Bruce Web of Lies”. Oh and I gave myself a goofy name on that blog, “Bruce Webb Watcher” (or something like that). Other than that, all I’ve done is comment on econ blogs that I visit and comment on anyway, and when you have presented a comment with which I disagree in some way, I refute your argument. Is that what you call “cyberstalking”. Oh, and over the past month or month and a half, I’ve sent you a grand total of two emails, and upon your replies I replied back, otherwise known as a conversation, even if unpleasant ones. And just the other day you comment on Biggs’ blog, and I point out what I see as a major flaw in your argument, and instead of responding substantively you complain that I’m just bringing a “grievance” against you to Biggs’ site and say that my supposedly doing so is “rude”. Bruce, it’s not the first signs of paranoia I’ve seen in you – the first came almost immediately, when, after I first made my conceptual point (which is obviously valid as a matter of basic algebra) you essentially accused me of being dishonest and hiding my part in a sinister, right-wing conspiracy. But you really should get a grip, IF, that is, you really believe your own bullsh*t. It is just as likely that you know you’re full of it, but as always, you can’t refute my point, you don’t want to admit I’m right, so substantive discussion/debate is something you wish to avoid by any means necessary while APPEARING to have some legitimate reason for ducking and dodging. So all the lies, gross mischaracterizations, baseless attacks, etc. are just some of your tools in that evasive effort.

In the course of that you have crosses over not only ethical lines but also some legal ones. You are free to call me a liar, telling third parties that I am a liar in an effort to disrupt the dialogue is in fact an actionable tort.

Big Time LOL!!! First, I don’t know what’s funnier, the thick irony that comes from you, or your utter obliviousness to it. Do you actually not remember, despite the several times recently that I’ve linked to our very first exchange and to our first exchange on the thread of your first guest contributor post here on AB, that while I repeatedly requested that you engage substantively, you refused and made baseless accusations that I was being “dishonest”?? Need yet another reminder? Here ya’ go: http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...y-i.html#696926

As for your silly quasi-threat to take legal action, go for it, Brucey. I’d end up with you covering my legal fees (and probably more), if the case even went that far. I doubt any attorney would even take such a case for a plaintiff. And by the way, as I’ve told you, you are a walking (or typing) case study in research I’m doing on political discourse in America today (and no, I don’t have to “stalk” you at all to collect an abundance of material), so you’ll eventually have more from me to feed your fantasies of legal action.

Your attempts to present yourself as a veddy, veddy serious thinker persecuited by the modern equivalent of book burners is falling flat.

Falling flat in the eyes of the book-burning mob, sure. But your partisan blinders and the insular, echo-chamber world you live in lead you to think that the consensus view on partisan blogs represents objective truth.

If your posts were not so long, so tedious, and so repetitive

Usually when my posts are long it’s either because, as I say, it often takes longer to clean up bullsh*t off the floor than it took for the bull to drop it there (e.g., your comment and this reply of mine), or because people are disputing or misunderstanding obviously valid points that I’ve already made, so I break it down further to try to get them to understand. And when my comments are repetitive it’s because I’m responding to repetitions of the same errors or lies (the latter generally coming from you), and again, because people are not getting a point I’m making, so I try again to explain.

In recent days HaloScan has been kind of shaky. Which led you immediately to jump to censorship/persecution accusations.

I have not always made the assumption of censorship, but rdan has censored me quite a bit (both proactively and retroactively), so I think the level and frequency of suspicion I’ve expressed is quite reasonable in the situations in question.

Which is cruelly ironic because the site controller and me are in discussions about the possible ways and means of making effective moderation happen.

Bruce, of all the people in the blogging world, you are the one who should be kept the farthest from any powers of censorship. You have clearly demonstrated that nothing is beneath you if you are intent upon avoiding substantive debate on some point that someone made.
Anonymous | 05.26.08 - 11:19 pm | #
What is this, deja vu all over again? This precisely the same argument being propagated by Brooks is being repeated like a broken record on each and every thread having anything to do with social security or the budget deficit. Brooks claims that he gets no answers, but when he does he argues that he is being conceptual rather then arguing policy.
His remarkable insight is that if we reduce SS benefits we can reduce payroll taxes and then raise general taxes so as to reduce the general budget deficit. That is truly creative budgetary thinking. The issue was answered repeatedly. I'll reiterate exactly what I said previously. Brooks, pay attention. Your conceptual point is just so much hash without the beef. As I said previously:
Brooks,
Why on earth would any sane worker want to see his/her SS benefits cut so that the SS payroll tax could be cut so that some other form of revenue could be raised in its place? Lower projected deficits can be achieved by cutting spending on a variety of government activities. Why SS, which has been a successful program for about seventy years. It has its own funding stream. It isn't supposed to be counted as a part of the general budget. You insist that you are right, when in fact your suggestion is only right wing.

We could achieve a more balanced budget by stopping the asinine war in Iraq. We could achieve a more balanced budget by reducing military spending in general. We could achieve a more balanced budget by raising the top marginal rates. People earning millions of dollars each year could be far more patriotic and show their appreciation for what the economy, with a good deal of government engineering, has done for them. We could include all forms of earnings at those top marginal rates since government activities protect all forms of capital. Why just pick on SS funds? Balance the budget on someone else's back. The working class have been contributing through out their working lives for the right to benefit from SS in their twilight years.

Who the devil are you to suggest that your scheme is better than any other budget balancing scheme? You offer no evidence whatever to support your point of view. Yes, it is logical that if you take from one very large sector of the population and redirect funds intended to benefit that sector you can achieve some form of budgetary change. So what. That's not the point. Taking from any source of funds will achieve that goal. I repeat, your focus on using SS funds for that purpose is only an opinion of what is best to do. Your opinion sucks, and cannot be justified any more so than any other opinion. That's the nature of opinions. They only have value or strength if they are shared by many, and its pretty clear that very few here share your opinion.
Jack | 05.19.08 - 1:08 am | #

You see Brooks. That was said almost a full week past and it still stands. If you want to pursue a concept and really hope to make it a policy, run for elective office. For pity sake, give it a brake already. We know the general budget is being destroyed by the current snakes in the current administration, but we don't want it balanced on the backs of the very people that have been working a life time and paying more than their fair share of the tax burden. Find another funding stream to promote on infinitum.
Jack | 05.26.08 - 11:20 pm | #
Bruce,
Please, if the time comes that you can convince Brooks to me you on the Great Lawn at twenty paces I beg to be your second. Trust me, I shoot better than Hamilton.
Jack | 05.26.08 - 11:22 pm | #
Above "Anonymous" was me.

Also, RDAN AND ALL,

Again, let me state in no uncertain terms:
I am not TJ.
I do not know who TJ is.
I have never communicated with anyone I know to be TJ anywhere other than on this thread.

I don't know how I can prove the above, but if I can do so without losing anonymity, I'll be glad to do so.

There may be a way that two people who have no connection to each other could be using the same IP address, but I'm not going to explain because that could take away a research tool of mine. In any case, the odds are somewhat low, so I am skeptical of rdan's claim that TJ and I were using the same IP address.

rdan, regardless of whatever your opinion of me is, the decent thing to do is to acknowledge your error and let people know that TJ was NOT me, as you falsely claimed.
Brooks | 05.26.08 - 11:26 pm | #
Jack,

His remarkable insight is that if we reduce SS benefits we can reduce payroll taxes and then raise general taxes so as to reduce the general budget deficit.

Here's what you're not getting. I NEVER claimed my conceptual point was "remarkable". To the contrary, I've repeatedly said that is just a matter of basic algebra, and is obviously valid. The genesis of all this was that several bloggers and commenters were stating or strongly implying otherwise, and continue to do so (for just one recent example, http://angrybear.blogspot.com/20...cal.html#698667 ), and since then I've sought to correct them on the fundamental conceptual/analytical error they are making. It's not at all a trivial point; it's fundamental to the debate over whether or not to reduce projected SS spending as we seek to reduce our overall long-term fiscal imbalance. Those who say that SS "solvency" means that SS has nothing to do with overall deficits, that SS spending does not contribute to overall deficits, and that ON THAT BASIS we should, a priori, take off the table any consideration of reducing projected SS spending are allowing a fundamental conceptual/analytical error guide their policy preference on an extremely important issue.

And yes, I've always said that my point is obviously valid -- not at all "remarkable" -- but instead of people acknowledging its validity (or trying to refute it) I was met only with straw men, non sequiturs, personal attacks, etc., with Bruce Webb epitomizing this reaction. They didn't say, "well, yes, Brooks, you're right, but now let's talk about if cutting projected SS spending is something that we SHOULD do". Instead it's been just garbage all the way.

Take Bruce, for example. Just look at all the time and space he's devoting to NOT engaging me substantively on this point, and all the dirty tactics he's employed to try to create the impression that there's a legitimate reason for him not to. And of course, one of his claims is that he HAS responded directly, substantively and rationally at some fuzzy time in the past, not that he can offer any link proving it, because he never has. Equally interesting (and sad) is that no one says "Hey Bruce, instead of comment after comment giving reasons why you refuse to respond to Brooks substantively, why don't you...well, just respond to Bruce substantively. Then we can all see that you've done so and we'll know that you really have." Instead, rdan censors me to protect Bruce (and by extension, their "side's" talking points).

You, jack, have responded directly. You've essentially said that my point is correct. Your read on everything else (e.g., the nature of my comments and exchanges) is way off. But you have answered and said my point is correct. Coberly once (perhaps twice) in the past did so, too (on Beat the Press), but apparently has backtracked. And Bruce finally admitted it as well once (on his own blog, then promptly deleteing the thread to erase the evidence), and sometimes shifts to calling my point true but "trivial" with absolutely no argument to support that label, and despite the obvious importance of my correction of this pervasive, fundamental conceptual error, as I've explained.

Jack, HOW we should reduce our long-term fiscal imbalance is obviously something we all need to discuss and debate, and I'm glad to engage in such discussion/debate and I have, but (if I can help it) I'm not going to let people confuse and conflate a purely conceptual/analytical point with that policy debate, and reject that conceptual/analytical point on the irrelevant grounds of some policy argument. Because rejecting that conceptual/analytical point PRECLUDES rational policy debate. It decides it in one direction a priori, based on a fundamental conceptual/analytical error. Do you get that?

The worst I can be accused of, Jack, is trying to teach pigs to sing. As they say, "Never try to teach a pig to sing. It just wastes your time and annoys the pig". But my eventual audience (readership) is much wider than those of partisan blogs or right and left on which I am currently participating.
Brooks | 05.26.08 - 11:57 pm | #
Bruce,

On the whole "pistol" thing, let me know when you want to stop shooting blanks, and I'll be glad to engage.

Real Bullets = Direct, responsive, rational, substantive debate.

You should try it sometime. And anytime you're game, just let me know. You know my conceptual point. If you can refute it, go ahead. If you think it's valid but "trivial", acknowledge its validity and provide an actual argument as to why it's trivial, given the importance I've explained in my comment upthread.

I doubt you will. Shooting blanks (personal attacks, straw men, non sequiturs, claims that you've already answered at some time in the past, etc, etc.) are all ya' got in that pistol.
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 12:01 am | #
Here I am -- TJ is TJ, period.

Bruce, I'm sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. No, I'm not an MSM zombie, and I never meant anything I stated as any kind of personal attack. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

That said, the ensuing debate has been more in line with what I was hoping to be a party to. Rosser in particular made some great points.

I'll concede "special issue" because it's only tangentially germane to my argument. Suffice to they're conveniently non-negotiable...

OMB: These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense.... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits. (from FY 2000 Budget, Analytical Perspectives, p. 337)

My primary point of contention is this fiction -- again, my words -- that somehow SS can be separated from the overall federal budget.

As we all know, SSA's projecting they'll need to start redeeming bonds in 2017 (which I also find quite optimistic). Given that the Federal Budget is so far into the red *with* SS surpluses, where's the money supposed to come from to redeem any of those bonds (let alone cover those programs currently funded with borrowed SS cash)?

The last time SS outlays threatened to exceed receipts they raised the SS tax (1983). However, there's a practical limit to raising taxes on a declining worker base. It's extremely doubtful that the U.S. will be able to continue deficit funding another decade, either. [Hell, even another few years.]

In the end, SS is just another government program subject to the political winds that blow through DC. Barring Weimar-style printing, it seems (IMHO) highly unlikely those bonds will ever be redeemed. Instead, benefits & taxes will be juggled to make SS continue to pay for itself on a strict cash basis.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying the bonds aren't legitimate claims on the Treasury. It's just that those claims will never be allowed out of that cabinet (and again, you can't sell them to anyone else).

Therefore, any discussion of SS that treats the trust fund as some kind of huge, ready cash reserve is -- to put it politely -- highly questionable.
tj & the bear | 05.27.08 - 12:12 am | #
TJ,

While I'll let you debate with others, and your general point seems valid to me, just one note:

Although you acknowledge that the Trust Fund bonds are legitimate claims, you write: "it seems (IMHO) highly unlikely those bonds will ever be redeemed."

You may be falling into a technical trap that some here will use to assert (erroneously) that your entire point is invalid. If the Trust Fund bonds are as legit as any other Treasuries, IMHO the assumption must be that the overwhelming likelihood is that they will be honored, at least technically, if not in practical effect. Jim Glass gave some explanations that seem useful on a different thread. See his comments starting here http://angrybear.blogspot.com/ 20...ork.html#699776

But regardless of the above, you seem to be on the right general track. I just don't want your point to get side-tracked by an extraneous technicality.

Ultimately, all projected revenues are fungible even with our dedicated tax structure for SS. We can shift revenues around by changing relative levels of taxation from different types of taxes -- in this case SS FICA vs. other taxes). And the Trust Fund is only around $2 trillion, just enough in itself for a couple of years of SS spending. And that $2 trillion is all we're legally obligated to spend on SS in the future. The bulk of future SS spending is funded via future SS FICA taxation. Obviously projected SS spending over the next several decades is far, far, far higher than that $2 trillion, so we could reduce projected SS spending enormously (if we wanted to) without defaulting on Trust Fund bonds. We just might have to lower SS FICA taxation.
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 12:39 am | #
 

Brooks,
Again, tedium is beginning to turn to boredom regarding this concept that you're pushing. Yes, I get it. It has always been possible to rob Peter in order to pay Paul. What you fail to come to grips with is that your concept is being rejected as unacceptable. The budgets way out of balance and it's due to the current administration spending worse than a drunken sailor. The profligate spending has nothing to do with entitlement programs unless you are suggesting that Halliburton, KBR, Blackwater and the rest are entitled to skim off the top of the Treasury.
That the Trust Fund resources are available to squander in this manner is a political problem that will hopefully begin a corrective process in the very near future. As I have said in response to your repetitious conceptualizing, working people in this country have been contributing to two budgets through out their working lives. On the one hand through FICA, with the assumption that they too as workers will receive their SS benefits in their senior years. On the other hand through federal, state and municipal income,and other, taxes, with the understanding that they have a responsibility as citizens to support the activities that their government deems necessary. It's time for you to move ahead and find a different ax to grind.
Jack | 05.27.08 - 12:44 am | #

Brooks,

Interesting!

Just to be absolutely clear, I wasn't stating that the bonds wouldn't be honored per se. Instead, I was positing that the circumstances wherein they would have to be honored will never be allowed to occur. IOW, it isn't a question of whether they *can* be redeemed as much as whether they *will* (ever) be redeemed.

For example, many states have constitutionally dedicated funding for specific purposes, all within a constitutionally mandated balanced budget. However, they easily subvert these "restrictions" by simply leaving a "surplus" in the program with the dedicated funding and running an equivalent "deficit" elsewhere.

However, if I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that the fund can be redeemed as easily as it was built -- through budgetary legerdemain. Pretty devious (and therefore entirely plausible), if I do say so myself.
tj & the bear | 05.27.08 - 1:19 am | #

Brooks,

*I* get your conceptual point. If I may ask, what's your position on the direction of the economy overall (especially as it pertains to government finances)?

IMHO very soon DC will not have the luxury of debating fiscal imbalances; they'll be forced to live completely within their means, and those means will be seriously curtailed. There's no way SS will remain unaffected, trust fund or not, because cash and cash alone will be DC's lifeblood.
tj & the bear | 05.27.08 - 2:01 am | #

Trivially true in that following bruce around since October from site to site appears insane, when the point as an abstraction was allowed months ago.
rdan | 05.27.08 - 7:08 am | #

TJ,
My apologies. The haloscan listing was confusing.
rdan | 05.27.08 - 8:20 am | #

Brooks what you don't get is that you have allowed yourself to get obsessed by a sense of grievance that you won't let go.

Nobody cares. That you think I am deliberately ducking your valid argument matters to nobody. I am not that important and you are not that important. Your setting up a veritable brucewebb.watch at TownHall is a sign that you have seriously lost it. Get a grip, convince yourself that I am an evil, stupid, liar and MOVE ON.

One last time. Your concept is simply wrong. Cutting Social Security benefits does not in fact improve overall fiscal results for the US government. I know it makes intuitive sense to you, I know it seems so blindingly obvious. But the end result is that you have allowed yourself to be blinded. I have explained this to you in many ways in many places for many months. You don't have to accept my analysis but you do need to know that nobody cares about the fact that you personally reject it. Your sense of grievance is far out of proportion to what is in the end a disagreement about the value of a particular concept.

Get a life dude.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.27.08 - 9:49 am | #

Well TJ my apologies back at you.

But I think you are wrong on several counts.

First Social Security was traditionally called the Third Rail of American Politics for a reason. To touch it was political death. A group of people around Cato deliberately designed a campaign in 1983 to drain the juice out of that Third Rail by selling a totally distorted version of 'Crisis'. That campaign was largely successful but didn't survive encounter with the numbers as they developed. Once people realize that the system is actually on course for solvency I think that juice will be restored. If some of that means redeeming some or all of the excess in the Trust Funds then it will happen, wage workers and retirees simply constitute too much of the voting population and though special interests can go really, really far in buying government, they can only go so far in getting people to vote against their own material interests. Social Security and its Trust Fund are as sound as 80 million voting Boomers plus their parents make it be.

Second I do not believe current levels of deficit spending are unsustainable, the fact that they pulled $150 billion out of nowhere for the stimulus package proves that as does the fact that massive war spending hasn't been any real speed bump. In real terms the deficit is just not that big a share of the total economy.

Third the dollars needed in 2017 for Social Security are in context tiny and the whole notion that much of government is being currently financed out of Social Security surpluses is also seriously off the mark. In fact much of the belief that either is true is just part of the phony crisis narrative, they are ginning up some vision of apocalypse that is totally out of proportion to the actual numbers in question.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.27.08 - 10:05 am | #

tj, that the Special Treasuries are non-negotiable is neither here nor there. They do represent valid claims against the government by a group that represents a very large majority of voters.

I am still mulling the subject and timing of my next post but think it will cover the rather curious narratology of Social Security. Because the story requires the very same group of people to be powerless at one point in the story and all powerful at another.

Under Intermediate Cost assumptions the Trust Fund goes deplete in 2041 and benefits automatically reset to 78% of their 2040 levels. Since as Professor Rosser has taught us in the past these means 78% of a benefit in real terms 160% of what a similarly situated retiree gets today those future retirees will still get a 25% better return than their parents did. In order for this to be a 'Crisis' you have to imagine all of us Boomers storming the gates. Absent that we will just have to take our medicine. Well whichever side you come down on for 2041, crisis/no crisis, you have a mostly overlapping population come 2017 or 2023 and the same political dynamic will be in play.

If tj is right and the political players are so strong that they can simply act against the material interests of workers come 2017 then equally they could simply force workers to take the reset in 2041. Instead the implied narrative has Boomers going from current sheep to future Lions in Winter. It is all logically inconsistent.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.27.08 - 10:26 am | #

"The Bush administration opposes including Social Security and Medicare in the audited deficit. Its reason: Congress can cancel or cut the retirement programs at any time, so they should not be considered a government liability for accounting purposes."

Their conclusion is right but their reason is wrong. Social Security has no unfunded future liability. None, zip, nada. Certainly the Trustees talk about the gap between scheduled benefits and projected income over both the 75 year and Infinite Future Horizon time periods and use the term 'unfunded liability' but legally it isn't. Under the law benefits reset to then current income once accumulated claims to General Funding are exhausted. Congress doesn't have to act because it already did. (The situation is quite parallel with the sunsetting of Bush tax cuts. Republicans set it up in a way that Congress doesn't have to do anything and are so in kind of a bind. They can prevent Democrats from selectively renewing whatever cuts they like but trying to block say child tax credits on the basis that billionaires need their income sheltered may not be a winner politically.)

Would we LIKE to pay out the full scheduled benefit? Well other things being equal of course. But that doesn't mean it will become THE societal imperative if and when. We are talking a voluntary liability here, which kind of drains all meaning out of 'liability' to start with.

Because an alternative way of looking at Trust Fund Depletion is to see it as a huge tax cut. The federal government is legally required to redeem the Special Treasuries by transfers from the General Fund and under Intermediate Cost projections that means a very significant (and not unbearable) burden on taxpayers in the years between about 2035 and 2040. That is if we adjust for inflation and use Constant Dollar projections we are talking a peak transfer of about $200 billion in 2040, (which is still much less than the combined impact of the current stimulus package and Iraq). But then that $200 billion a year obligation simply stops sometime in 2041. Will we use that freed up money for a tax cut? Or maybe to start a war of choice? Or shift it over to health care? Who knows, but the point is it opens up options that go beyond simply subsidizing Social Security.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.27.08 - 10:49 am | #

and of course you don't need the full reset all at once in 2040

you could start in 2030 with a one tenth of one percent recent, and add another tenth in 2031 and so on. this would extend the life of the trust fund and everything would come out even in about 2050

with the trust fund paid off and the new tax level sufficient to meet SS pay as you go needs for a long long time.

the total SS tax increase being on the order of one tenth the increase in wages at the same time.

there are ways this can be demagogued and confuse probably most people. but if it were just allowed to happen, most people wouldn't even notice.
coberly | 05.27.08 - 10:53 am | #
 

Wow, unless there was some massive, rather selective technical glitch, rdan really pulled a censorama on me. He makes bogus charges, and allows Bruce Webb to do so as well, then deletes my responses refuting those charges. Plus he deleted several other comments of mine, while others around them (and those prompting them and responding to them) remain. How do you spell L-A-M-E?

I'll re-post. Maybe he'll get a surge of decency, integrity, and the courage to allow his charges to be refuted rather than taking the coward's way out by abusing his authority as moderator just to shield himself from such refutations.
----------------------
rdan,

Trivially true in that following bruce around since October from site to site appears insane

What the heck are you talking about?? I was participating on Thoma's site and on Baker's, and more recently I started commenting on AB. It wasn't "following Bruce". Where the heck do you get crap like that, and why do you have the nerve, particularly as a moderator here, to spew such bullsh*t about someone? Tell me: what do you mean by "following Bruce around since October from site to site?" If you can't back up a charge like that -- and you can't -- you really should hang up your moderator's shoes, and perhaps not speak at all for a while about anyone's commenting behavior.

when the point as an abstraction was allowed months ago.

Baloney. You don't know what you're talking about. As I said, if people had acknowledged the validity of the point months ago (and not backtracked, as is the case with Coberly and Bruce Webb), I wouldn't still be pressing people today on it. And by "people" I mean folks like Bruce Webb with whom I had exchanges back then, and people like Howard who I encountered recently and who brought up to me his nonsensical point that SS, he contended, has absolutely nothing to do with our overall deficits (and, he charged, anyone who says otherwise is being dishonest).

As for "trivial" you still haven't presented an argument for why my conceptual point, offered as it was (and still is) as a correction of a fundamental conceptual error on which people were basing their position on a very important issue, is "trivial". Feel free to do so if you can. Applying the label "trivial" with no supporting argument was just Bruce's fall back after months of rejecting my point but being unable to refute it (and unwilling to even try, not counting obvious straw men).

And as for TJ, I see you apologized TO HIM, but not to the guy you accused of misrepresenting himself -- ME. Real mature. And how about having the decency to delete your false "this is Brooks" and "sock puppet" edits/comments?
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 8:43 am | #
-------------------------

UPDATE 5/27 1:55pm

rdan writes: "the point as an abstraction was allowed months ago"

Well, "as an abstraction" seems deliberately vague if what rdan means is that my point was acknowledged as valid. My point was a conceptual point. That IS an abstraction.

Yet look what Bruce Webb has since written (upthread)

One last time. Your concept is simply wrong. Cutting Social Security benefits does not in fact improve overall fiscal results for the US government. I know it makes intuitive sense to you, I know it seems so blindingly obvious. But the end result is that you have allowed yourself to be blinded. I have explained this to you in many ways in many places for many months.

So:
- rdan, maybe you and Bruce should coordinate a little better so you don't contradict each other.

- Bruce, no you haven't "explained this". You posted your silly, misleading argument in #9 of you series, and I explained why it was silly and misleading. Rdan initially deleted my explanations, but then allowed my re-posts of them to remain http://angrybear.blogspot.com/ 20...fit.html#698930 You offered NO REFUTATION of my arguments. You conceded that my "math" was correct but rejected the conceptual point and it's implications for a rational framework for policy decisions, yet you offer no refutatation and never have. (By the way, it gets unnecessarily messy to use references to past threads when rdan does his comment deletion thing a la Stalin's photo airbrushing)

Look, several people were -- and several still are -- basing their (strong) opposition to even considering reducing projected SS spending on a fundamental conceptual error: the nonsensical belief that SS "solvency" means that SS has nothing to do with our overall fiscal imbalance, that SS spending is not contributing to this overall fiscal imbalance, and that reducing projected SS spending could not reduce this fiscal imbalance. These obviously erroneous beliefs lead them to insist, on that basis alone, that we should, a priori, take off the table the option of reducing projected SS spending as one (of many) means of reducing our overall long-term fiscal imbalance. Heck, Bruce insists that reducing projected SS spending would WORSEN our long-term fiscal imbalance. If you guys really think that a correction of this fundamental conceptual error is "trivial" then you are really out to lunch. If you realize it's not at all trivial, but just want to keep saying it, you are dishonest.
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 3:29 pm | #

 

EVERYONE,

Here's what rdan does not want you to see:

The UNCUT, UNCENSORED Angry Bear!

http://brooksblogging.blogtownha...ers_dozen.thtml
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 3:57 pm | #

This has reached pathological levels.
Whatever | 05.27.08 - 4:00 pm | #

Barkley,

For some reason rdan saw it fit to delete my response to you, unless there was some technical glitch (less likely, since he's deleted about a half dozen of my comments on this thread alone).

Anyway, I'll re-post it below, and if rdan doesn't mind, I'd like to continue discussing with you.
-------------------
Barkley,

Thanks for that sensible comment regarding what my point has been -- and it's the same now as it was back when you and I had our exchanges.

And yes, my point is that it is WRONG to suggest -- as some do -- that SS "solvency" means that SS spending is unrelated to our overall long-term fiscal imbalance and that therefore we should take off the table, a priori, consideration of reducing projected SS spending as we seek to reduce that overall long-term fiscal imbalance. Even if, arguendo, under current policies SS would be fully "solvent" forever, we could still reduce projected overall deficits by reducing projected SS spending. If that generated undesirably high SS surpluses, we could just lower SS FICA taxation, offset the lost revenues with increases in other taxes, and the result would be lower projected overall spending, unchanged projected overall revenues, and therefore lower projected deficits. It's really just very basic algebra. Why it has been so fiercely resisted by the likes of Bruce Webb and company is quite a case study in the psychology of partisanship.

As for your responses:

One is that if the social security forecasts are overly pessimistic, then so are the general budgetary forecasts, and by the same amount

Yes, and I long ago said as much, and have continued to say so all along, including recently here on AB. What matters is the OVERALL fiscal balance (or imbalance). SS "solvency" per se is irrelevant to our decision of whether or not to reduce projected SS spending. SS revenues and SS spending are only relevant inasmuch as they are part of overall revenues and overall spending. So, as I said long ago, by all means it is important to get SS projections right (and to debate which projections are best), but from the standpoint of the policy question, the reason to get SS projections right is to get overall projections of fiscal balance/imbalance right.

The other is that when we get down to doing something about deficits, I would prefer to see controlling rising medical care costs (with medicare and medicaid projected to be much worse problems than social security, even under the pessimistic ss forecasts), cut war spending by the DOD for stupid wars, and raise taxes on the wealthy.

That's a statement of policy preference. It has nothing to do with my conceptual/analytical point discussed above. You see that, right?

But regarding policy preferences, I also favor tax increases, and yes, projected entitlement spending (Medicare and Medicaid) is an even greater contributor to our long-term fiscal imbalance, and I assume will take longer to impact, so if I had to pick the more urgent of the two (vs. SS), I'd pick Medicare/Medicaid to focus on. But having said that, I don't think that that prioritization means we should just put aside SS as a potential means of reducing projected deficits. There is lead time there, too, since we would want to phase in any reductions in SS benefits or eligibility to give people time to plan and adjust.
Brooks | 05.26.08 - 7:10 pm | #
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 4:05 pm | #

Whatever,

Yes, the level of efforts and the depths to which some will go to suppress honest, legitimate discussion/debate and to deny obviously valid (but uncomfortable) points, is indeed pathological. Believe me; I'm researching it.
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 4:07 pm | #

Whatever can you clarify on the pathological front? You and I have disagreed on substance which of course is a feature and not a bug of the blogosphere. Do you really think that in the context at hand that the pathology falls on my side? If so why? Brooks automatically jumped to the conlusion that you have his back and will second him at our recreation of Burr/Hamilton, me I think you are wrong yet rational. Some clarity would be useful here.
Bruce Webb | Homepage | 05.27.08 - 6:59 pm | #

Oh Bruce,

More of your classic irony.

Brooks automatically jumped to the conlusion that you have his back

No, Bruce, YOU automatically jumped to THAT conclusion. I made no such assumption regarding Whatever's perspective. In fact, I was assuming that he was probably referring to ME -- saying that MY posting of the uncensored version of this thread (on top of my other efforts to get folks to engage substantively and to get rdan to allow -- let alone encourage -- substantive engagement) was pathological, in the sense of devoting too much time and effort to these matters.

As for your pathology, some form of pathology is quite apparent to anyone familiar with our exchanges from Day 1 who has even an ounce of objectivity, based on your determination to avoid substantive discussion/debate with me on that conceptual point of mine and to avoid acknowledging its obvious validity, and your level of effort toward that end and the depths to which you have sunk in terms of gross misrepresentations of past exchanges, outright lies, baseless personal attacks (including paranoic accusations), obvious straw men, etc., etc.
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 8:02 pm | #

Mr. Webb,

Thanks for the long and thoughtful reply. I still do not agree, but I've come to the conclusion that our divergence stems not so much from SS per se as from our apparent differences over the state of the U.S. economy going forward.

IMHO the government will face a *severe* budget crunch in coming years exacerbated by a greatly diminished ability to borrow (i.e., deficit spend). At that time, SS will be competing for funds with even the most basic government functions.

Again, barring hyperinflation I just don't see any way SS (let alone Medicare) makes it another decade without serious changes.
tj & the bear | 05.27.08 - 9:41 pm | #

TJ,

You are correct. In fact, your premise that we are headed for a "severe budget crunch" is not at all controversial, at least not among anyone with a clue. It is the strong consensus among experts across the political spectrum. Only the most head-in-the-sand non-expert extremists (of right and left) would contend otherwise.

And yes, when the crunch hits, SS will compete for funds with everything else. And those who disagree by pointing out that SS FICA revenues can only be used for SS are missing the point that ultimately future revenues are fungible because we can raise and lower tax rates (SS and non-SS) as we see fit.
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 10:24 pm | #

NOTE: ABOVE COMMENT WAS DELETED BY EDITOR (rdan)

TJ,
If so, can you show us how it might happen, this huge crunch?

If such happens, it appears that normal debates about the econonomy become less relevant, which can be explored hpothetically. One might even base one's personal finances on such. But a forgone conclusion. How so?

But then so goes the wars and other such items.
rdan | 05.27.08 - 10:32 pm | #

TJ and rdan,

rdan -- my comment appeared, then disappeared. Is that a Halo problem, or you up to your censorship routine again?

I'll re-post:

TJ,You are correct. In fact, your premise that we are headed for a "severe budget crunch" is not at all controversial, at least not among anyone with a clue. It is the strong consensus among experts across the political spectrum. Only the most head-in-the-sand non-expert extremists (of right and left) would contend otherwise. And yes, when the crunch hits, SS will compete for funds with everything else. And those who disagree by pointing out that SS FICA revenues can only be used for SS are missing the point that ultimately future revenues are fungible because we can raise and lower tax rates (SS and non-SS) as we see fit.Brooks | 05.27.08 - 10:24 pm | #
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 10:48 pm | #

NOTE: ABOVE COMMENT WAS DELETED BY EDITOR (rdan)

rdan,

If you're willing to engage in discussion, are you actually saying that, on our current fiscal policy course, we are not heading toward a budget crunch? And if that's what you are saying, are you aware of how contrarian that view is?
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 10:50 pm | #

NOTE: ABOVE COMMENT WAS DELETED BY EDITOR (rdan)

 

tj

you are still thinking of soc sec as the government's money.

this is wrong.

the government could go bankrupt... whatever that means... and social securty could go on paying for itself forever.

anything else is theft.
coberly | 05.27.08 - 11:02 pm | #

TJ and rdan,

Rdan – hmm, either halo is being strangely selective, or you’re being a real lame fella, censoring anything I say that I guess you fear will challenge some premise of yours or of your “side”. I really don’t see anything delete-worthy in the “disappeared” comments of mine. Must be some really, really, really strange halo problem. Couldn’t be that you’re just throwing out the window even the pretense of allowing legitimate debate. I’ll re-post (again).
------------------------------
TJ and rdan,

rdan -- my comment appeared, then disappeared. Is that a Halo problem, or you up to your censorship routine again?
I'll re-post:

TJ,You are correct. In fact, your premise that we are headed for a "severe budget crunch" is not at all controversial, at least not among anyone with a clue. It is the strong consensus among experts across the political spectrum. Only the most head-in-the-sand non-expert extremists (of right and left) would contend otherwise. And yes, when the crunch hits, SS will compete for funds with everything else. And those who disagree by pointing out that SS FICA revenues can only be used for SS are missing the point that ultimately future revenues are fungible because we can raise and lower tax rates (SS and non-SS) as we see fit.Brooks | 05.27.08 - 10:24 pm | #
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 10:48 pm | #
-------------------------------
rdan,

If you're willing to engage in discussion, are you actually saying that, on our current fiscal policy course, we are not heading toward a budget crunch? And if that's what you are saying, are you aware of how contrarian that view is?
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 10:50 pm | #
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 11:13 pm | #

Coberly,

You're not getting it.

First, even what you are calling "theft" (and I'm not disputing that label) is a possibility, and I'm NOT talking about defaulting on bonds, just about providing lower benefits than were promised per current policy based on SS FICA taxes already paid.

Second, future SS spending could be lowered vs. current projections by changing the policy/formula for promised benefits based on FUTURE SS FICA taxation. That would not be theft, just possibly not as good a deal (and not necessarily even that if SS FICA taxation were lowered in conjunction with the reduced projected SS spending).

Lastly, as I said -- well, rdan apparently deleted it for some lame reason -- ultimately all future revenues are fungible. For any given level of total taxation, we can change relative tax rates such that a SS revenues constitute a greater or lesser portion of total revenues. So aside from the $2 trillion we're obligated to spend on SS eventually because of the Trust Fund balance (and that's only a couple of year's worth of SS spending in itself -- i.e., without future SS FICA taxation), our long-term SS spending obligation is entirely up to us, and reducing projected SS spending would not necessarily involve reneging on past benefits promises made based on past SS FICA taxes paid (the part that is arguably "theft").

So SS in the future will indeed end up competing for funding vs. other budget items. (and please, spare me the extraneous "on-budget", "off-budget" stuff).

I've tried to explain this to you before, so I'm assuming you won't get it this time either, but I tried.
Brooks | 05.27.08 - 11:29 pm | #

Brooks

right you are. i don't get it. just as you don't seem to have gotten what i said about stealing the program to deprive the people of a way to save their own money for their own retirement so you can tax it to buy beautiful new submarines.

we could leave it at that.
coberly | 05.28.08 - 12:08 am | #

SS now and in the future does not compete for funds. This is getting tedious that you, Brooks, continuously disregard the fact that the SS system is the result of law passed by Congress and structured in such a way as to have a discrete funding stream. In the event that the general budget becomes so severely unbalanced as to cause some greater economic dysfunction there are various forms of taxation that could be put in place by the Congress that would restore balance. It has happened before and it will happen again. This concept is so simple as to defy your inability to comprehend the purpose of the Congress to determine the need for and the sources of revenue. On the other hand the same Congress could stop pissing away revenue on many alternative wasteful activities. SS is probably the least wasteful way to distribute funds as it goes directly to the general elder population and immediately gets spent back into the economy. That's a far better use of funds than blowing up bombs, which only benefits bomb manufacturers.

These points are so simple as to raise the question regarding Brook's intentions when he continuously bring up his fallacious arguments. Maybe Brooks simply enjoys the attention. Maybe Brooks gets paid by some thoughtless think tank to troll the blogosphere and obfuscate reasonable discussions concerning social issues.
Jack | 05.28.08 - 12:15 am | #

Coberly,

I get that you want to keep SS benefits and eligibility as is.

I get that you would consider it "theft" if future retirees received lower benefits than current policy would provide. I have said that I don't consider the term "theft" unreasonable if it refers to reneging on promises ALREADY made based on SS FICA taxes ALREADY paid, but that it doesn't apply to future promises made based on future taxes paid (if the government changes the formula), and also that we could also simply lower SS FICA taxation in conjunction with lower promised benefits.

I understand that you wouldn't want benefits reduced under any of the above scenarios. I would only ask that you acknowledge (in your own mind, if not to me) that NOT reducing projected SS spending means more sacrifices elsewhere than if we do, and those sacrifices will NOT all be what you would consider painless (e.g., foregoing unnecessary Defense spending). The size of our long-term fiscal imbalance under current policies is simply too great to be solved in a way you'd consider painless (tax increases, Defense cuts, painless healthcare reform, elimination of "waste" and "fraud", etc.)

It may be that even after considering all that you still wish to preserve benefit levels per current policy, but at least that would be rational because you would have realistically considered the trade-offs associated with alternative policies, and then made a moral judgment based on those alternative trade-offs. That's at the heart of my point here http://swordscrossed.org/node/2192
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 12:29 am | #
NOTE: ABOVE COMMENT WAS DELETED BY EDITOR (rdan)

Jack,

Your comment is utterly ridiculous on five counts: You are not getting it, you are erroneously certain that I’M not getting it, you are oblivious to these facts, you’ve made baseless personal attacks, and you sound paranoid in the process. All that is a pretty pathetic combination. Maybe next time you should just try having a civil discussion in case you’re the one not getting it (because chances are, you’re NOT, if my experience with you is any indication).

If you don’t get it by now, I don’t think there’s much chance you will, and if you suddenly did get it you probably wouldn’t admit it, but here goes another try.

SS now and in the future does not compete for funds. This is getting tedious that you, Brooks, continuously disregard the fact that the SS system is the result of law passed by Congress and structured in such a way as to have a discrete funding stream.

I have said many times on AB and elsewhere that SS FICA revenues can be spent (ultimately) ONLY on SS benefits. Ok? Not only have I never denied that, I have stated it clearly and explicitly. What you don’t seem to get is that, because we can adjust SS FICA taxation up or down, we control how much we add to this legal obligation going forward, which means that ultimately all future revenues are, in effect, fungible through such tax policy changes. SS FICA revenues that have ALREADY been collected are NOT fungible. Again, ultimately (even if loaned to the general fund in the meantime) they must be spent on SS benefits. But I’m talking about FUTURE revenues. Are you getting this now??? If we want to spend less on SS in the future, we can either change the formula (lower benefits per dollar taxed via SS FICA) or we could lower SS FICA taxation (the tax rate or the applicable income). Get it?

In the event that the general budget becomes so severely unbalanced as to cause some greater economic dysfunction there are various forms of taxation that could be put in place by the Congress that would restore balance. It has happened before and it will happen again.

And your point is what? What point of mine does that statement of yours refute? Yeah, if SS FICA revenues don’t cover spending (or are anticipated not to cover projected spending) we can increase SS FICA taxation, supplement it with other taxes (if we change the system), and/or reduce SS spending. What’s your point? And what does it have to do with anything I’ve said?

Your discussion of “bombs” is just oversimplified, irrational talking-point rhetoric. If you want to make a serious argument, I’ll be glad to respond.

These points are so simple as to raise the question regarding Brook's intentions when he continuously bring up his fallacious arguments.

And what exactly are my “fallacious arguments”?????

Maybe Brooks simply enjoys the attention.

No, I feel a civic duty (1) to contribute to policy optimization by encouraging rational approaches, and (2) to ultimately improve the quality of political discourse in America, both for the purpose of policy optimization and to help foster an open and rational intellectual environment as a benefit, in itself, to society. That’s why I spend time on partisan blogs of left and right, researching the harmful dynamics (irrational partisan groupthink and hostility to others, moderator censorship, etc.), trying to raise awareness of these dynamics (usually something those practicing these dynamics won’t see, almost by definition), trying to promote rational approaches to policy choices, all of which I’ll ultimately use to do all of the above on a larger scale with a broader audience.

Maybe Brooks gets paid by some thoughtless think tank to troll the blogosphere and obfuscate reasonable discussions concerning social issues.

Paranoia is one of those dynamics.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 12:56 am | #
NOTE: ABOVE COMMENT WAS DELETED BY EDITOR (rdan)

And Jack,

All I've ever sought is "reasonable discussion". You should try it sometime. If you think I've made an invalid argument, by all means offer your refutation, and I'll respond. If I think your partly or completely right, I'll admit it. If not, I'll explain why I think your attempted refutation is invalid. See how that works? That's "reasonable discussion". No need to get into all sorts of garbage. Just engage substantively, discussing/debating arguments on their merits or lack thereof.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:00 am | #
NOTE: ABOVE COMMENT WAS DELETED BY EDITOR (rdan)

I vote we leave it, agree to disagree.
rdan | 05.28.08 - 2:47 am | #

rdan,

I vote we leave it, agree to disagree.

I beg your pardon???

Is that an attempt to sound reasonable and fair as you allow Jack's comment -- in which he asserts nonsensically that I'm not getting something so obbvious that it makes my integrity suspect -- to remain while deleting my clear refutation????

I'll re-post my comment to Jack, but not my response to Coberly (which I'll drop, but keep on my blog of the Uncensored Angry Bear). Maybe you'll exercise better judgment this time. Here's a moderating tip: If Person #1 is obviously confused and due to that confusion, asserts erroneously that person #2 is pretending not to get something and that person #2's integrity is therefore suspect, ya' might not want to delete Person #2's reply that explain why Person #1's charges are invalid and inappropriate, let alone do so while pretending to be the reasonable guy in the room.

Below is re-post.
------------------------------
Jack,

Your comment is utterly ridiculous on five counts: You are not getting it, you are erroneously certain that I’M not getting it, you are oblivious to these facts, you’ve made baseless personal attacks, and you sound paranoid in the process. All that is a pretty pathetic combination. Maybe next time you should just try having a civil discussion in case you’re the one not getting it (because chances are, you’re NOT, if my experience with you is any indication).

If you don’t get it by now, I don’t think there’s much chance you will, and if you suddenly did get it you probably wouldn’t admit it, but here goes another try.

SS now and in the future does not compete for funds. This is getting tedious that you, Brooks, continuously disregard the fact that the SS system is the result of law passed by Congress and structured in such a way as to have a discrete funding stream.

I have said many times on AB and elsewhere that SS FICA revenues can be spent (ultimately) ONLY on SS benefits. Ok? Not only have I never denied that, I have stated it clearly and explicitly. What you don’t seem to get is that, because we can adjust SS FICA taxation up or down, we control how much we add to this legal obligation going forward, which means that ultimately all future revenues are, in effect, fungible through such tax policy changes. SS FICA revenues that have ALREADY been collected are NOT fungible. Again, ultimately (even if loaned to the general fund in the meantime) they must be spent on SS benefits. But I’m talking about FUTURE revenues. Are you getting this now??? If we want to spend less on SS in the future, we can either change the formula (lower benefits per dollar taxed via SS FICA) or we could lower SS FICA taxation (the tax rate or the applicable income). Get it?

In the event that the general budget becomes so severely unbalanced as to cause some greater economic dysfunction there are various forms of taxation that could be put in place by the Congress that would restore balance. It has happened before and it will happen again.

And your point is what? What point of mine does that statement of yours refute? Yeah, if SS FICA revenues don’t cover spending (or are anticipated not to cover projected spending) we can increase SS FICA taxation, supplement it with other taxes (if we change the system), and/or reduce SS spending. What’s your point? And what does it have to do with anything I’ve said?

Your discussion of “bombs” is just oversimplified, irrational talking-point rhetoric. If you want to make a serious argument, I’ll be glad to respond.

These points are so simple as to raise the question regarding Brook's intentions when he continuously bring up his fallacious arguments.

And what exactly are my “fallacious arguments”?????

Maybe Brooks simply enjoys the attention.

No, I feel a civic duty (1) to contribute to policy optimization by encouraging rational approaches, and (2) to ultimately improve the quality of political discourse in America, both for the purpose of policy optimization and to help foster an open and rational intellectual environment as a benefit, in itself, to society. That’s why I spend time on partisan blogs of left and right, researching the harmful dynamics (irrational partisan groupthink and hostility to others, moderator censorship, etc.), trying to raise awareness of these dynamics (usually something those practicing these dynamics won’t see, almost by definition), trying to promote rational approaches to policy choices, all of which I’ll ultimately use to do all of the above on a larger scale with a broader audience.

Maybe Brooks gets paid by some thoughtless think tank to troll the blogosphere and obfuscate reasonable discussions concerning social issues.

Paranoia is one of those dynamics.

Brooks | 05.28.08 - 12:56 am | #

And Jack,All I've ever sought is "reasonable discussion". You should try it sometime. If you think I've made an invalid argument, by all means offer your refutation, and I'll respond. If I think your partly or completely right, I'll admit it. If not, I'll explain why I think your attempted refutation is invalid. See how that works? That's "reasonable discussion". No need to get into all sorts of garbage. Just engage substantively, discussing/debating arguments on their merits or lack thereof.Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:00 am | #
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 8:48 am | #
NOTE: ABOVE COMMENT WAS DELETED BY EDITOR (rdan)

Brooks,
I stated I would simply delete until you cooled it. I have not time to edit. When you re-gain control, I will turn my attention elsewhere, and gladly. But you have to maintain control...others will follow.
rdan | 05.28.08 - 1:29 pm | #

rdan,

If you "have not time to edit", don't err on the side of censorship, and don't be so blatantly biased that you say that I need to "cool it" and "regain control" when I am merely setting the record straight in response to a bogus personal attack. If you don't have time to read and see what's going on, don't be so presumptuous, let alone so one-sidedly presumptuous.

If you're going to delete someone's refutation of false personal charges/attacks, you should have the decency to delete the comment with false charges, too (Duh!).

If you wish, define "control", tell me why my response to Jack shows a lack of it, and tell me why you allow Jack's ridiculous charges to remain while deleting my refutation of them? You need not do so for my benefit, though; I know a blatant double-standard-style moderator pretext when I see one.

I'll re-post, and maybe you should read what's going on (when you have the chance) and try to apply at least a bit of objectivity and fairness (whatever you can muster) rather than reflexively deleting. Great "moderation" there, rdan.
-----------------------
rdan,

I vote we leave it, agree to disagree.

I beg your pardon???

Is that an attempt to sound reasonable and fair as you allow Jack's comment -- in which he asserts nonsensically that I'm not getting something so obbvious that it makes my integrity suspect -- to remain while deleting my clear refutation????

I'll re-post my comment to Jack, but not my response to Coberly (which I'll drop, but keep on my blog of the Uncensored Angry Bear). Maybe you'll exercise better judgment this time. Here's a moderating tip: If Person #1 is obviously confused and due to that confusion, asserts erroneously that person #2 is pretending not to get something and that person #2's integrity is therefore suspect, ya' might not want to delete Person #2's reply that explain why Person #1's charges are invalid and inappropriate, let alone do so while pretending to be the reasonable guy in the room.

Below is re-post.
------------------------------
Jack,

Your comment is utterly ridiculous on five counts: You are not getting it, you are erroneously certain that I’M not getting it, you are oblivious to these facts, you’ve made baseless personal attacks, and you sound paranoid in the process. All that is a pretty pathetic combination. Maybe next time you should just try having a civil discussion in case you’re the one not getting it (because chances are, you’re NOT, if my experience with you is any indication).

If you don’t get it by now, I don’t think there’s much chance you will, and if you suddenly did get it you probably wouldn’t admit it, but here goes another try.

SS now and in the future does not compete for funds. This is getting tedious that you, Brooks, continuously disregard the fact that the SS system is the result of law passed by Congress and structured in such a way as to have a discrete funding stream.

I have said many times on AB and elsewhere that SS FICA revenues can be spent (ultimately) ONLY on SS benefits. Ok? Not only have I never denied that, I have stated it clearly and explicitly. What you don’t seem to get is that, because we can adjust SS FICA taxation up or down, we control how much we add to this legal obligation going forward, which means that ultimately all future revenues are, in effect, fungible through such tax policy changes. SS FICA revenues that have ALREADY been collected are NOT fungible. Again, ultimately (even if loaned to the general fund in the meantime) they must be spent on SS benefits. But I’m talking about FUTURE revenues. Are you getting this now??? If we want to spend less on SS in the future, we can either change the formula (lower benefits per dollar taxed via SS FICA) or we could lower SS FICA taxation (the tax rate or the applicable income). Get it?

In the event that the general budget becomes so severely unbalanced as to cause some greater economic dysfunction there are various forms of taxation that could be put in place by the Congress that would restore balance. It has happened before and it will happen again.

And your point is what? What point of mine does that statement of yours refute? Yeah, if SS FICA revenues don’t cover spending (or are anticipated not to cover projected spending) we can increase SS FICA taxation, supplement it with other taxes (if we change the system), and/or reduce SS spending. What’s your point? And what does it have to do with anything I’ve said?

Your discussion of “bombs” is just oversimplified, irrational talking-point rhetoric. If you want to make a serious argument, I’ll be glad to respond.

These points are so simple as to raise the question regarding Brook's intentions when he continuously bring up his fallacious arguments.

And what exactly are my “fallacious arguments”?????

Maybe Brooks simply enjoys the attention.

No, I feel a civic duty (1) to contribute to policy optimization by encouraging rational approaches, and (2) to ultimately improve the quality of political discourse in America, both for the purpose of policy optimization and to help foster an open and rational intellectual environment as a benefit, in itself, to society. That’s why I spend time on partisan blogs of left and right, researching the harmful dynamics (irrational partisan groupthink and hostility to others, moderator censorship, etc.), trying to raise awareness of these dynamics (usually something those practicing these dynamics won’t see, almost by definition), trying to promote rational approaches to policy choices, all of which I’ll ultimately use to do all of the above on a larger scale with a broader audience.

Maybe Brooks gets paid by some thoughtless think tank to troll the blogosphere and obfuscate reasonable discussions concerning social issues.

Paranoia is one of those dynamics.

Brooks | 05.28.08 - 12:56 am | #

And Jack,All I've ever sought is "reasonable discussion". You should try it sometime. If you think I've made an invalid argument, by all means offer your refutation, and I'll respond. If I think your partly or completely right, I'll admit it. If not, I'll explain why I think your attempted refutation is invalid. See how that works? That's "reasonable discussion". No need to get into all sorts of garbage. Just engage substantively, discussing/debating arguments on their merits or lack thereof.
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 1:00 am | #
Brooks | 05.28.08 - 5:51 pm | #

 


 
Stay informed, get connected and more with AOL on your phone.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Angry Bear: Were Brooks' Comments Relevant?

Posted by Brooks on Friday, May 23, 2008 12:21:18 AM
[This post is not yet finished. Introduction and further examples to follow.] 

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).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »