2004 Nobel Prize Economist criticizes Democrats' S.S. argument

[kuozzman]

He criticizes the Dems in Congress argument, but I don't think it's because he supports Bush. I think he's just pointing out that judging by their choice of main points of opposition, Democrats don't genuinely oppose privatization.

An article came out today about how the winner of last year's Nobel Prize In Economics feels about Social Security. He talked about some things I've been wondering about for a while. He criticized Democratic Congressmen and media pundits for going along with the false political/economic "jargon" of the so called "transition costs" of one to two trillion dollars, which, in reality, is the amount of the "surplus" that doesn't exist because the govt. spent it. "Prescott and Hunter are two of a growing number of economists who argue that the so-called "transition costs" are actually an accounting fiction, a misrepresentation of the current status of Social Security."

Are the Dems in Congress going along with it because Clinton spent billions out of the SS "Trust Fund" as well. I know it started during Bush Sr's Presidency, but I not positive about what Clinton did with it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he spent a bunch of it, although he spent it to pay down the deficit, as opposed to tax cuts for the rich and wars. While that is certainly a better way to spend it, isn't it basically the same thing, meaning that it is going to be repaid by raising taxes or cutting benefits or something along those lines? If that's the case, it would explain why there isn't better opposition to privatization.

Article: http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200502\SPE20050221a.html

I still can't get over the fact that they refer to the $ amount of the "transition costs" as $1 to $2trillion! Do you know how big of an "estimate" that is!? $1,000,000,000,000-$2,000,000,000,000! Plus they know the amount down to the penny. Right now it's $1,686,839,???,???.??, growing at about $150Bil per year, so by the time the bill gets passed, it will be right around $2,000,000,000,000 that the taxpayers will have to repay, many for the second time.

I think it should be a law that the media has to write out $ amounts completely, instead of using rhyming words to represent numbers that will affect American living standards for decades to come. Million, billion, trillion have basically become interchangeable. I don't think enough people realize how much money that is. There are about 31.5 million seconds in a year. To spend $2Tril in one year, you would have to spend (roughly) $60,000 per second. Or $3,600,000 per minute, $216,000,000 per hour, $5,904,000,000 per day for the year. The fact that tens of millions of Americans actually think this is a good idea is truly amazing. It also shows how effectively the corporate media determines public opinion, rather than the public thinking and deciding for themselves.

SS "Trust Fund" annual balance since 1957: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html