Krugman interrupts his break to bring this word on Soc Sec privatization

[BurtWorm]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/opinion/07krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

My favorite example of their three-card-monte logic goes like this: first, they insist that the Social Security system's current surplus and the trust fund it has been accumulating with that surplus are meaningless. Social Security, they say, isn't really an independent entity - it's just part of the federal government.

If the trust fund is meaningless, by the way, that Greenspan-sponsored tax increase in the 1980's was nothing but an exercise in class warfare: taxes on working-class Americans went up, taxes on the affluent went down, and the workers have nothing to show for their sacrifice.

But never mind: the same people who claim that Social Security isn't an independent entity when it runs surpluses also insist that late next decade, when the benefit payments start to exceed the payroll tax receipts, this will represent a crisis - you see, Social Security has its own dedicated financing, and therefore must stand on its own.

There's no honest way anyone can hold both these positions, but very little about the privatizers' position is honest. They come to bury Social Security, not to save it. They aren't sincerely concerned about the possibility that the system will someday fail; they're disturbed by the system's historic success.

For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

[rodeodance]

1. " the right wants to destroy it. " says Krugman--He is right on!!

....For Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

[Warpy]

2. The only reason social security looks insolvent

is because Congress has been letting the rich loot it for 25 years.

What we need to do is remove the earnings cap completely and have FICA apply to ALL income, sock it to the rich and make them pay it back.

The added benefit would be to allow them to test out that flat tax they've always claimed to want.

I can hear the shrieks of outrage now.

[Seldona]

3. Agree 100%.

Not that it will ever happen.

I saw a video of Frist saying that raising the cap would only extend it's solvency by a year or 2, depending on the size.

What utter bs.

This makes me so damn mad!

They are flat out talking a cut in benefits, a raise in retirement age, and a tax increase.

I sincerely hope this backfires on them. To be honest if the media even reports part of their plans, I do not see how it cannot.

:grr:

[barb162]

5. it won't backfire because they have most people believing it

they have done a great lie program again; they are very good at this type of thing, just like their lies on how we need tort reform or caps on malpractice awards. They have no proof ever about any of this stuff because there is none. But they keep grinding those lies and people accept them as facts.

[Seldona]

14. Thing is

in the video I saw, while Frist was lying his ass off about the state of SS, he actually came out and said they are looking at everything I mentioned above.

How can people simply accept the fact that, like Frist said, they cannot 'deliver on the promises made'?

Here is to hoping that on this account, people are not drinking the kool-aid.

I mean this isn't even an entitement program.

We pay in all our working lives for this!

I have even heard 'free lunch' being tossed around.

What bs.

Free would imply, umm I don't know, actually being FREE?

God I hope people are not that stupid.

[barb162]

15. LOL, but they are that stupid, they voted for shrub with

all his tons of lies. That is why I think we are done for as a nation. The people of this nation have "dumbed down" tremendously from even 20 years ago.

"We pay in all our working lives for this!" AND THEY USE THIS (OUR OWN MONEY)IN THE GENERAL FUND AS FAST AS IT COMES IN THE DOOR FOR IRAQ and other pet programs, like defense.

[0rganism]

17. The problem with raising or eliminating the FICA cap...

...is that we have to pay out proportional SocSec benefits to these same ultra-rich folks later on. Insofar as SocSec is "pay as we go", it may seem like a great idea in the short term, but it does eventually raise the problem of "means testing" a bond payment.

Social Security is far from the worst idea the Feds ever came up with, but it's a poor stand-in for a real federal-level social safety net with truly progressive taxation.

[ogsball]

4. Bingo

The only problem with Social Security is that it's clearly regressive. Remove the salary cap and it will be fine.

If they privatize what do you bet that there will be some kind of limit as to which kind of funds you can invest in. Funds that invest in some kinds of industries--can we say defense or oil industries. Oh yea if too many people are drawing on those Social Security investments something will have to be done. The Government will have to subsidize.

This is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Hamlette]

6. those bastards

will the MSM report this?

Krugman is a lone wolf.

Shit.

Bastards.

[ComerPerro]

7. No really is no honest way anyone could hold most Republican positions

That is a great line.

So many of their positions require Doublethink. Its astounding.

[Octafish]

8. Social Security will FRY the GOP in 2006.

Can you imagine how the voters would feel knowing their for-sure retirement money has been privateered for the Wall Street hustlers? Pitchfork Time.

[BurtWorm]

9. I hope they have enough sensation left in them to realize

what's happening to their money and their children's and grandchildren's.

[Octafish]

20. It IS sad to see our guys "outmaneuvred" so often.

It's like they were "outsmarted."

That's where DU comes in. We can help "remind" them of what's what and who's who.

For example:



satan's monkey: a lower caste.

[Nikki Stone 1]

10. Krugman is the only living man I personally consider a hero

I want his vacation to be over already. I know he is publishing a book, but someone has to point out the economic lies of this administration. And I agree with the person who said that "privatizing" SS would direct a flow of money to certain neocon friendly investments.

[Robbien]

13. Krugman will be on talk radio next Sunday

In case you are interested. He is scheduled to be on Bob McChesney's show at 1p Central next Sunday.

[rman]

16. there's also

Greg Palast
www.gregpalast.com

John Perkins
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/09/1526251&mode=thread&tid=25

Mike Rupert
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/

(and some more that don't come to mind now)

[lovuian]

11. I think the Republicans are going to self destruct

and this will do it!!! They initiate this the dollar and our economy will collapse!!!

[Nikki Stone 1]

12. Sometimes I wonder if the collapse of the American economy isn't the goal

While I believe * is that stupid, I don't believe that the big money people are.

[hfojvt]

18. you might want to watch "It's a Wonderful Life"

Potter manages to profit very well from a collapse of the system.

[0rganism]

19. The "big money" people aren't so tied to the American economy

They smart ones, at least, have a very diverse set of holdings that insure their wealth against any particular set of economic mishaps. Hedge funds, gold bullion in Swiss banks, oil assets, commodities, real estate, they've got it in spades. Some of them even stand to profit handsomely if the American economy crashes. Remember the fuckers who made millions with last-minute "put options" when American Airlines stock tanked after 9/11?

To your average blue collar worker, a 40% dip in stock prices means lay-offs and lean times, dust off the resume and hit the streets.

To a well-connected "big money" person, a 40% dip in stock prices means a sale on stock, call your broker and get yourself onto another corporate board.

[KlatooBNikto]

21. By making a vulnerable part of our population to the vagaries of the

market, they will ensure that a significant number of our older citizens will be reduced to abject poverty in their golden years, their dignity stripped away.Whhate they do not want is a defined benefit plan like Social Security exist in the middle of their wild schemes to roll the dice with everyone else's money. Social Security gives the lie to their assumption that they know how to handle money ( yes, other people's money) better than the people involved. This the thron on their side they want to get rid of.

On Edit: Heck, we are all vulnerable give or take two decades.