Rather than pop off on "entitlement reform", fucking learn something!

[Zynx]

There's a reason Obama brought in Peter Orszag at OMB. Obviously, no one here cares, but Orszag co-wrote this report on the future of Social Security:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/papers/orszag/200504security.pdf

In it he proposes modest changes. There is a long version, but I don't think DU can handle it.

He strongly opposed privatization. He only proposed modest tax and benefit changes, and I assure you they are modest.

If you had actually paid attention to positions that actually mattered, like who the head of OMB was, rather than popping off based on headlines without actually knowing a goddamn thing, maybe you all would be less upset all of the time.

[BlooInBloo]

1. Meh. It's much better to use that phrase as an Obama-hater vehicle.

[Zynx]

2. They are nothing but a bunch of drooling morons popping off on notionalism

and emotional rantings. They hear the words "tax cuts" and assume supply side. They hear the words "entitlement reform" and assume privatization. They should just all shoot themselves and do us some service.

[grasswire]

3. notionalism

Did you just coin this?

[Zynx]

16. I guess I did.

I guess I would call it a system of thinking based upon reliance on notions.

[grasswire]

110. I like it a lot, and I'm going to promote the word and the concept.

We needed this word to describe the phenomenon!

[BlooInBloo]

5. Gotta love the....

I-bitch-about-Obama-simply-because-I-like-to-hear-myself-bitch DUers.


I sweartagawd: I think 8 years of bush has severely warped people to the point where they simply don't know what to say, unless it's bitching.

Or maybe they were shitty to begin with. I'm just speculating.

[nichomachus]

106. Unlike your well-reasoned

ranting and popping off, insulting anyone who dares disagree with you. And as to your final advice, since you're so brilliant, please show the rest of us the right way to do it. Thanks.

[ellacott]

4. Thank you

It's amazing the amount of drama on this board. Obama has been talking about this throughout the campaign.

It's obvious that many of these people didn't pay attention to what his positions were during the campaign.

Also, being a hater makes you popular on this board. Many of these people act like they want him to fail so they can say, I told you so.

[ddeclue]

7. horse hockey...

any criticism of Obama automatically gets you labelled "hater" and attacked by the Obama Worshipper crowd when indeed many of us have worked longer and harder and donated far more money to the Democratic party than the worshippers who attack us.

I wish Obama well and I generally support him but I do not for one minute think he is infallible - nor does OBAMA think that he's infallible.

It is OK to criticize and discuss the issues!

Criticizing someone does NOT mean we want that person to fail. Indeed what it means is that we want them to hear and consider the alternatives and hopefully improve upon their original plan.

THE biggest problem with the Bush administration was their my way or the highway thought police mind set.

We should be better than that, better than them.

[Occam Bandage]

11. I like how your declarations of dissent

always have more to do with the principle of dissent then with the actual facts involved. Do you have anything in particular to say about the OP and/or Orszag's views on entitlement programs?

[ddeclue]

13. That's because I AM standing up for the PRINCIPLE of dissent.

I object to people trying to quash dissent.

It doesn't really matter what the OP was about - I object when people start labelling dissenters as "haters".

Doug D.

[Aloha Spirit]

15. I agree that dissent is a legitimate part of open discussions, but to get more specific,

I get annoyed when people's dissent is written in a dismissive, mocking tone, with regard to Obama's understanding of whatever issue; in addition, overly sarcastic and mocking critiques do not, by their tone, suggest that the poster is even interested in debating.

[ddeclue]

20. but labelling someone "a hater" is doing no better than the abstract example you are citing.

Point out their lack of facts or logic or the errors in them but don't use perjorative labels please.

My experience is that there are very very few people who actually do as you describe in being "dismissive" or "mocking" and almost all of them bring an actual argument and actual facts to bear on the discussion.

[Aloha Spirit]

34. Hmm--I guess my experience is that there often are facts or sources cited, but they are overshadowed

by the tone of the post. Negative keywords that extrapolate negative trends from facts for which there are several legitimate interpretations.

[Zynx]

23. Critics who blast a movie for its title rather than its acting are not worthy of discussion.

The same applies to dissenters who base their dissent on headlines rather than policy proposals.

[ddeclue]

29. Then as they say "don't say nothin'"...

Insulting people doesn't accomplish anything. You can't persuade people to your viewpoint by insulting them.

You really don't have any right to assume what people's motives or feelings towards Barack Obama are.

They may simply be misinformed or uninformed.

People in this country have a right to express their opinion even if it is misinformed or uninformed.

Instead of insulting and labelling them, try correcting their facts.

If you don't want to do this then please refrain from insulting and labelling.

[Zynx]

33. I think people who are perpetually disagreeable just for its own sake

have suspect motivations. I think their very disposition gives that away. Correcting the statements of the irrational is a fruitless exercise. I posted this piece here and there was already one incredibly stupid response to it that proves this very point. People such as that have no place in a policy discussion. Not all opinions are worth hearing.

[ddeclue]

40. Again WHO MADE YOU GOD???

WHO do you think you are that you can call someone else's point of view "not worth discussing"?

This is a DISCUSSION board, NOT an order taking board.

If you don't want to DISCUSS differing points of views with the other posters in a civil manner then WHY ARE YOU HERE?

These other people are ENTITLED to their own opinions without your insults.

If you want to engage them in a discussion of why they are wrong then DO SO and leave the insults at home.

[Zynx]

45. People are free to say what they like. I am free to say that they were a moron for saying it.

If people aren't properly corrected for saying completely untrue or baseless things, they will continue to do so. The reason why so many monarchs trended toward unrestrained behavior was because no one dared challenge their behavior.

There is too little time in a day to sort out every single B.S. argument that a person may make. I am not a post-modernist who believes that every point is equally valid. I believe in the ability of reasonable people to sort out the unreasonable and reject it flatly.

[ddeclue]

52. Labelling people perjoratively is NOT free speech, it is intimidation and peer pressure.

DEFEND your point of view or DO NOT DEFEND it but leave the insults at home.

[Zynx]

57. Who are you to say what the boundaries of free speech are?

I'll play your silly game now.

[ddeclue]

61. Someone who is sick of people trying to intimidate dissenters on this board that's who...nt

[Occam Bandage]

80. I thought you believed in the marketplace of ideas.

Surely a declaration that dissent is not especially valuable is, itself, an idea that should be allowed to stand or fail on its own merits, without you trying to force people into abandoning it by using such polarizing insults as "intimidate."

[ddeclue]

85. It was a VERB not an adjective or adverb.

Calling someone a name (labelling them with an adjective) IS intimidating them.

Again I refer you to the rules of this board particularly #3 and #4:

This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.

7. More Information: For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

[Occam Bandage]

89. So? Same impact. You're trying to intimidate people into accepting your falsehoods,

by claiming that anyone who disagrees with you is "intimidating" you, and thus implying that they are nothing but irrational bullies. How, exactly, is that helping "the free marketplace of ideas?"

[ddeclue]

96. Again I refer you to rules 3 and 4 of this board.

What part do you NOT understand?

[Occam Bandage]

101. You're the only person in this conversation with deleted messages.

Read the rules yourself.

[Occam Bandage]

25. That's nice, but is dissent for its own sake actually valuable?

I mean, at some point, aren't you just crying wolf?

[Zynx]

28. You put it better than I have so far. Thanks.

[ddeclue]

32. Yes - dissent is valuable at all times.

If the quality of the dissenters argument is poor or they are lacking in facts, this will become readily apparent to all and indeed it poses an opportunity to convince the dissenter that he or she is wrong.

Doug D.

[Zynx]

36. You put far too much faith in the ability of people to rationally sit down and examine facts.

On DU I have seen far too many poorly based arguments be summed up in a line or two and catch fire while a proper refutation of that argument takes a pages and pages and that gets no response. Because of the limited ability of people to pay attention, forums cannot be granted to the useless.

[ddeclue]

42. If you think DU is such a poor board then don't bother coming here.

and unless and until your name is Skinner you really have no business deciding to whom a forum may be granted at DU.

[Zynx]

48. I come here because there are enough reasonable people to talk with to make the idiots not

drown them out.

[ddeclue]

55. Well FINE..give people the benefit of the doubt and treat them with respect whether you feel they

deserve it or not.

[Zynx]

59. Some people, by their statements, are inherently unworthy of respect.

Not all opinions are valid. Not all arguments are worthy of debate.

[ddeclue]

62. Welcome to America... people are entitled to their own opinions

no matter how misinformed or wrong headed you may judge them to be.

If you think them unworthy of debate then don't engage such persons IN debate.

[Zynx]

66. I never said they are not free to say it, but I am saying that if someone is

making unfounded claims in a debate that actually matters, such as about Social Security, they must be put down quickly before their filth spreads. The deserve to be marginalized so no one believes their crap again.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SidneyCarton]

46. Give me a break.

Dissent for the sake of dissent is neither productive, useful, or even reasonable. The right to dissent is sacred, the reasons for one's dissent are always open to question.

Edited to place this post into conformance with board rules, as interpreted by the easily offended soul who took umbrage at them.

[ddeclue]

50. Yet another example of someone who would rather insult and label than defend his point with facts

and logic.

[Zynx]

56. That was a very logical statement.

Rights are only possible so long as people exercise restraint in their application. The right of free speech for example would be rapidly eroded if every one started being as objectionable as possible. The right to property would be eroded rapidly if everyone conducted radioactive experiments in their houses. The right of the press would be rapidly eroded if newspapers just wrote whatever they felt like, lies or not.

[ddeclue]

73. POPULAR speech does NOT need defending. It is UNPOPULAR speech which needs defending.

[SidneyCarton]

88. What facts, what logic?

You are defending the right of dissent for dissent's sake. I'm arguing that while that right is sacrosanct, the value of the dissent is based on the position which the dissenter takes. You have an absolute right to dissent wherever, whenever and on whatever subject you desire. And I have a right to view your dissention as mindless contrarianism if I wish to.

Honestly though, dissent for dissent's sake is a waste of energy. There's lots of things I disagree with, but most of them do not merit the energy to actively argue about.

[ddeclue]

97. You are entitled to value a dissenter's opinion as you see fit.

You are NOT entitled to engage in name calling.

It has no proper place in debate and is explicitly against the rules of this board #3 and #4

[SidneyCarton]

103. If you consider that name calling, I suggest you alert.

In fact, in the interests of circumspection, I wiil attempt to edit the post, and if I cannot, I will alert on it myself. But if that is considered name calling and abusive to you, then you obviously spend little time in GD, GDP, or the R/T forum, what I said about your opinion would be considered mild and milquetoast in comparison.

In essence, if you are that determined to defend the right to dissent, you should be prepared to bear the reproof of those who find your dissent annoying. If you can't stand the heat... order takeout.

[Occam Bandage]

54. But you know as well as I that people must always lack perfect information,

and as such rely on many factors to make their decisions. That, after all, is why two people with similar values can come to opposite decisions on individual issues. One of those factors is the trustworthiness of their information sources; if a source has repeatedly demonstrated that it is thoroughly and fairly investigating the issues, people will be more likely to trust it, and if a source has repeatedly demonstrated that it reacts emotionally and inappropriately to the facts, people will be less likely to trust it.

Given that, is it not fair to say that by wholeheartedly accepting and endorsing all dissenters, regardless of the validity of their points, you help to create the impression that voice of the activist left is one that generally offers emotional responses backed by bad arguments? And doesn't that, in turn, make it more likely that the activist left will lose, and not gain, credibility?

[ddeclue]

58. Ummm NO... I believe in a free market place of ideas.

Good ideas based on good information will naturally win out WITHOUT the need to insult those who have bad ideas and or bad information.

You can't convince someone they are wrong by insulting them. All you can do is polarize them and make them harden in their view point.

[Zynx]

63. Ahhh...so you are a utopian.

Now you spelled it out for me. Thanks.

The free market place of ideas is no more valid a theory than the perfect competition model is in economics. It is a nice idea that falls apart when reality hits it.

[ddeclue]

75. Or when people try to intimidate other people through insults. nt

[Occam Bandage]

76. That isn't the way things actually work. More appealing ideas win. People are not rational.

Good ideas only consistently win when enough people actually sit down and analyze the data and arguments and decide to support the idea based on the quality of the argument that they can outweigh the number of people who choose on bad criteria. In many cases, such as in the stock market, the bad choosers will pick effectively at random, making a small number of good choosers drive the whole shebang. Politics, however, is not like that. In politics, it is demonstrable that people endorse arguments emotionally. Bad choosers tend to gravitate to arguments designed to attract bad choosers. By endorsing bad arguments purely because they are arguments against the political party occupying the White House (that is to say, they are "dissent"), you perpetuate a paradigm in which arguments are accepted or rejected based on political and not pragmatic reasons.

You talk about "polarizing" people, but nothing leads to a more polarized environment more assuredly than emphatically declaring that a complaint deserves respect because of who it is directed at instead of because of what it says.

[ddeclue]

82. You are arguing AGAINST democracy (small d) and free speech.

I am arguing FOR it.

You are claiming that we shouldn't trust the people to make wise political decisions and that some elite group should make those decisions FOR the people.

WHO gets to make those decisions?

YOU?

ME?

Dick Cheney?

WHO?

NO THANKS. I trust in the collective wisdom of the people and it is the only fair and just method available to us all.

Doug D.

[Occam Bandage]

87. No, I am not. Again, you seem to believe that misrepresentation leads to better discussion.

Whether it's misrepresentation of Obama's policies, or of my ideas, I assure you that lies are even more harmful to the marketplace of ideas than insults are.

I entirely believe that the people should make political decisions. However, it is absolutely unjustified to claim that the public is infallible and therefore it's okay to lie, because the public will sort it out on their own. That demonstrably did not happen during the run-up to Iraq, did it?

[ddeclue]

94. You are assuming that someone is intentionally misrepresenting a fact.

There is a difference between being misinformed and intentionally telling a lie.

I am arguing that if someone is lying or is otherwise misinformed that it is better to correct them than to insult them.

As for Iraq, the problem was PRECISELY that no one corrected the facts in a visible public manner.

This board is not such an unequal situation however and every member has an equal voice so correcting errors of fact should be as simple as speaking up.

[Occam Bandage]

99. When a statement is a falsehood,

does it really make a difference whether you're pushing it because you're trying to trick people, or because you believe "dissent is sacred" and want to encourage more dissent? Either way you're doing the public a disservice.

And, again: people do not look at the entire picture, because nobody has perfect information. It is completely irresponsible to push falsehoods without concern for the truth, because you hope that maybe someone else will figure out that it's wrong, and then out-argue your loud, emotional cries of anger as you call them locksteppers and worshippers for doing so. All dissent for dissent's sake does is pollute the marketplace of ideas for someone else to clean, and give the activist left a reputation as polluters.

[CreekDog]

18. but knee jerk criticisms based on soundbites rather than substance are what's at issue here

people who post that Obama is going to privatize social security hear entitlement reform and without doing ANY THINKING OR RESEARCH jump on Obama as if Obama is trying to resurrect Bush's Social Security privatization.

that kind of criticism is worthless at best, misleading at worst.

[ddeclue]

22. FINE - point THAT out but lets avoid labelling people perjoratively. nt

[Zynx]

26. People who are acting beyond the pale deserve to be ostracized and exiled.

For example, seeing the term "entitlement reform" and popping off on a mindless rant is not "dissent", but rather childish lunacy.

[ddeclue]

35. And who appointed YOU the arbiter of what is right and wrong?

And AGAIN you are insulting people rather than debating facts or correcting people's understanding.

Point out WHY entitlement reform doesn't mean BUSH entitlement reform and REFRAIN from attacking people in an unwarranted manner.

[Zynx]

39. I have little faith in people to rationally sort out debate unless it is shocking to them.

The way to shock them into attention and knock them out of their little tunnels is by insult. Rational discussion doesn't get very far on DU. Yelling does.

[ddeclue]

43. Actually not true at all. People become defensive when insulted, not persuadable.

and again your name isn't Skinner and it isn't God so stop trying to decide who has a right to be here or to post. If you want to defend your post then DO it but leave the insults at home.

[Zynx]

51. That is not a uniform rule. It might apply in person where the parameters of discussion

are different, but on the internet shock is necessary to get points brought to light.

[ddeclue]

68. NO it is not. INSULT is not debate or discussion.

1. This is a moderated discussion forum with rules. We have a team of volunteer moderators who delete posts and ban disruptors. Members are strongly urged to familiarize themselves with our rules, and make an effort to become a positive member of our community. Those who do not risk having their posts deleted or their posting privileges revoked.

2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office. Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates.

3. Civility: Treat other members with respect. Do not post personal attacks against other members of this discussion forum.

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate. But please remember that this is a large and diverse community that includes a broad range of opinion. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions (including deeply personal convictions) challenged may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion forum.

5. Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

6. Forum Administration: Respect the moderators and administrators, and respect their decisions. You can help make their job easier by clicking the "Alert" link on any post that might need moderator attention. Please understand that moderating errors and inconsistencies are inevitable on a large website like this. If you have a question about DU policies, or if you have a concern about an action a moderator has taken, please contact an admin privately.

7. More Information: For a detailed explanation of how we enforce these rules, please click here.

[Zynx]

19. This debate, like 95% of them so far, is poorly based.

There is nothing to the criticisms on this one whatsoever. Just because there is criticism does not mean it was well thought out or beyond out-of-hand rejection.

[ddeclue]

24. Reject it on the facts or the logic but don't label people.

You aren't going to convince anyone you are right by insulting them.

[Zynx]

27. Not every critic is worthy of a reasoned response.

For example, if a Holocaust denier comes up to me and spews his crap, do I have to provide all documentation of the Holocaust?

[ddeclue]

47. NO it will take very little documentation to satisfy most people and I as yet have NOT seen

a holocaust denier attempt to post on this board since 2004.

You are making a giant moon leap in trying to compare someone who disagrees with you on Social Security reform with a holocaust denier don't you think?

:eyes:

[Zynx]

70. No, deniers of the truth are the same regardless of their claim.

It's also not that they disagree with me on Social Security reform. It is that they are grafting onto Obama false claims about what he intends to do and are upsetting a lot of people.

[ddeclue]

78. No "truth" isn't necessarily what you think it is.

You are no more omniscient than the rest of us and there are degrees to which something may be true or false or credible or incredible.

Being a Holocaust denier or claiming that the Earth is flat is orders of magnitude more extreme than debating Social Security policy.

Instead of insulting people, point out WHY they are wrong.

[ellacott]

69. Would you please at least read his proposal for medicare and SS refor

I am speaking specifically about his plans to look at Medicare and how so many folk have jumped to the conclusion that he plans to make cuts or privatize SS. Most of these people have not paid attention to his positions during the campaign. When his position is posted some still refuse to believe what he said. I think it's pride and the fact that most want to lose an argument on a message board(that's pretty pitiful).

It's hard for me to believe that you and others can't understand that.

I wish you all would pay attention. This is not about general criticism. My comments are specifically about the criticism he is getting regarding Medicare/SS.

Amazing..........

[ddeclue]

92. FINE... I have no problems with this...

I sincerely doubt that ANY politician would advocate privatization of SS at this point even the most suicidely frank wing nut Republican. It was an extremely unpopular idea 3 years ago when Bush was trying to shove it down our throats. I have NO belief that Obama will want to privatize SS.

I believe that realistically it may be necessary to gradually raise retirement age to 70 and raise the cap to a million dollars.

[ellacott]

98. I think they have to look at those options also

During the primaries people said he shouldn't talk about SS reform because the program is solvent for a few more years. I think it's wise to at least look at the program now while there is still time.

[Occam Bandage]

6. I consider the term "entitlement" to be fascism in action. Obama is no better than Hitler. nt

[suston96]

8. Maybe this is what has people getting "upset"......

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011504114_pf.html

President-Elect Says He'll Reshape Social Security, Medicare Programs
By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 16, 2009; A01

President-elect Barack Obama pledged yesterday to shape a new Social Security and Medicare "bargain" with the American people, saying that the nation's long-term economic recovery cannot be attained unless the government finally gets control over its most costly entitlement programs.

That discussion will begin next month, Obama said, when he convenes a "fiscal responsibility summit" before delivering his first budget to Congress. He said his administration will begin confronting the issues of entitlement reform and long-term budget deficits soon after it jump-starts job growth and the stock market.

"What we have done is kicked this can down the road. We are now at the end of the road and are not in a position to kick it any further," he said. "We have to signal seriousness in this by making sure some of the hard decisions are made under my watch, not someone else's."

******

"Reshape Social Security and Medicare"? Whatchu mean - "reshape"........?

[Occam Bandage]

10. Did you actually read the OP?

It explains what Obama most likely means by "reshape."

[suston96]

31. Did I read what? Uh, yes, and I went to the link provided in the OP......

Since Painful Choices Must Be Made, a Key Question Is, Which Ones?

The Social Security deficit can be eliminated only through different
combinations of politically painful choices: tax increases and benefit reductions.
Unfortunately, too many analysts and politicians have ignored this reality,
responding to the painful alternatives by embracing “free lunch” approaches.

That what Obama means by "reshape"?

What I don't see in that report is the real and only solution to the "sky is going to fall" disaster 30 years down the road: namely, growing the economy and creating millions of new jobs right now - get it? Right now.

Here is a bigger disaster that will make this entitlement angst pale in comparison: 25% unemployment or more in just the next 4 years.

So by all means blame Social Security and Medicare 30 years down the road for today's economic and unemployment disasters. That will surely take people's minds off their problems as they huddle together in bread and soup lines.

[Aloha Spirit]

79. I think the goal of medicare reform is not to reduce the federal debt so much as to make sure

medicare exists at all in 10 years.

[Aloha Spirit]

12. I recommend listening to the ed board interview so you can see that WaPo *shock* isn't always

accurate in their use of language.

Economic discussion starts at 10 minutes,
"Entitlement" discussion starts at 16,
healthcare starts at 23.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/audio/2009/01/16/AU2009011601671.html?sid=ST2009011504146

[Zynx]

17. Didn't I just address this?

Did you read the Orszag piece?

[Aloha Spirit]

9. I've had a total brain crush on Orszag since I saw his Senate testimony on the 2008 stimulus s

last year. I have total faith that he is the best possible person to get our federal spending and budget out of the ditch.

Thanks for this link.

Orszag's research on carbon emissions I think will also direct how we target greenhouse gas emissions reduction.

Complete contrast with Bush's OMB... so exciting.

I look forward to see how the media handles Obama's budget presentation next month.

[Jennicut]

21. He is so geeky his cool.

Loved his pocket protector in the photo of "Obama's people".

[Aloha Spirit]

30. Now THAT is a human who knows his way around an equation.

You can tell he has what I call "machine vision"--he is smart enough to know how all the equations and bottom lines and various moving parts fit together.

He would be perfect if he were a woman :hi:

[Jennicut]

38. I think he is quite cute. Actually there are lots of ridiculously attractive AND intelligent people

in the Obama administration.

[Aloha Spirit]

44. Bound to happen... Aren't Democrats stereotypically attractive and intelligent?

Or am I just biased!

[Jennicut]

67. Maybe what is on the inside makes the outside look better?

Dems for the most part (excluding a few, like Blago) usually care more about others so that makes them more attractive.

[Aloha Spirit]

60. Hee hee

My new desktop image... thank you Jennicut!

[Jennicut]

65. Enjoy it! Geeks rule the Earth, or at least they should.

:)

[Jennicut]

14. Social Security and Medicare have to be reformed

Just not the way Shrub was going to go about it which was leave everything to the free market with SS. Other cuts need to be made in military spending and we need to stop wasting money in Iraq. That will help but there is the question of how to keep Social Security solvent. The babyboomers like my 61 year old parents are going to retire soon and put a huge strain on entitlement programs. Plus, I love Peter Orzsag. He knows what he is talking about.

[suston96]

37. Reformed? Nope. Economic and job growth will solve the problem.

Entitlements like Social Security and Medicare are funded by taxes on employers and employees.

Continue losing jobs (2.5 million jobs lost in 2008 alone) and not creating them for the average 140,000 new workers each month will bring about a disaster that will make everyone forget about problems with Social Security and Medicare 30 years from now.

[Zynx]

41. Even with steady growth and low unemployment Medicare is not anywhere near solvent.

Social Security is iffy if growth is strong enough. If we average 3.5% to 4% between now and the 2040s, maybe it will be fine. That is a significant risk to take, though. Evidence is that our growth rate may be slowing.

[suston96]

53. Solvent? We can go into deficit spending for stupid wars but not for the health of our citizens? nt

[Aloha Spirit]

64. So you do not agree that the current state of the SS and Medicare budgets is an issue?

[suston96]

77. The current state of Social Security and Medicare is extremely solvent......

I do agree that unless the economy and jobs do not grow to keep up with job losses and new workers ALL government entitlements will suffer in the future.

Blaming Social Security and Medicare for our present economic problems and specifically deficits which were caused by tax cuts and needless wars is bullshit!

[Aloha Spirit]

95. I am basing my concern about Medicare and Medicaid spending on CBO analyses of

expenditure growth as a percent of GDP, as forecasted by the CBO ... it's figure one here
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8255&type=0

To me, if the rise in unemployment could account for Medicare's expenditures being greater than the amount it took in, then I would feel more comfortable drawing this conclusion(edit:your conclusion that job growth will be sufficient).
However, economists seem to be saying that the rate of growth of spending is what needs to be addressed.
Any thoughts on that report that I posted above?

[suston96]

100. I am disturbed by the loss of jobs especially during the past year......2.5 million.....

These have to be replaced. Obama had promised adding 2 million new jobs in the next few years. That won't be good enough.

As to Medicare.....It is time for a serious look at affordable health care for all. That doesn't mean free health care. Affordable health care solutions have also been promised by Obama. We shall see.

[Aloha Spirit]

102. Thinking back to "My Pet Goat" and "Now watch this swing", I can't help but feel optimistic about

our chances for better things including more jobs and healthcare reform.
You are right, we shall have to wait and see.

[Zynx]

72. Even without the wars, even of the wars we have ever fought, Medicare is not solvent.

[Jennicut]

83. Its still a problem though

By 2016, so many people will be drawing Social Security that the money needed to cover benefits will be more than what we Gen-X/Y workers will be paying in taxes. Fortunately, the program will be able to cash in the bonds that it's now buying, and will use the repaid principle and interest to keep up the benefits.

However, that can only support Social Security for a few more decades. The bonds will all be cashed in by 2038, just as we Gen-Xers (whose Social Security tax money will purchase many of those bonds and whose federal tax money will pay them off) approach retirement age. So, just as we're about to collect Social Security, there will be nothing left in the Social Security storehouse for us to collect.http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3818

I do agree that we need to do whatever we can to protect SS and Medicare. But it relies on what we put into it. The economy will eventually get better but we still have the generational problem of more boomers vs. less Gen Xrs. I am not sure what needs to be done.

[ellacott]

86. This is very true

Also, fraud is a huge problem with Medicare. They estimate that around 30 billion dollars are lost each year to fraud. There are also inefficiencies in the program. These are the types of things that need to be reshaped.

[Aloha Spirit]

49. Medicare spent more than it took in last year.

And costs will continue to balloon past the taxes that it takes in:

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/93xx/doc9316/HealthCostGrowth.shtml

[Radical Activist]

84. Exactly.

I don't want 1/3 of my paycheck going to SS tax in ten years. There needs to be reform if we're going to avoid those kind of hikes on younger workers and still keep the system solvent for retiring boomers.

[phleshdef]

74. Why bother? The "dissent" crew are too busy knee-jerk dissenting to look before they leap.

Its political attention deficit disorder at its finest.

[bottomtheweaver]

81. It's a reich-wing issue. SS is solvent, self-financing, hugely successful

and extremely popular. The war agenda on the other hand is an unfunded liability, disatrous, and extremely unpopular.

Which "problem" did Obama get elected to fix?

[DemBones DemBones]

90. Perhaps Obama wants to be a one-term president.

Benefit cuts, no matter how modest, would be extremely unpopular. Reading the paper referenced in the OP, I see that people 55 and over would be unaffected by benefit cuts so people under 55 should be concerned about this.

There is no need to cut benefits, simply remove the income cap and let the rich pay the same taxes as the rest of us. And stop the war, cut military spending, and forget that proposed domestic army.

[bottomtheweaver]

93. I think his new conservative friends would like that.

More than anything in fact.

[DemBones DemBones]

105. I think you're right. nt

[TheKentuckian]

91. I don't believe that counting on growth to fund Social Security is wise or sustainable

but I also think we'd not be in such straits if we didn't allow the fund to be pilfered into the general fund.

[suston96]

104. There has to be economic and jobs growth.......

....what would a 25% to 50% unemployed population do with their time? How would they eat? How would they live?

The Trust Funds cannot be pilfered. That is not the way the system works.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

[EraOfResponsibility]

107. This report doesn't talk about SSDI

that's what I'm most concerned with.

[Moosepoop]

108. If if helps at all...

there is this line in the linked report:

"Our three-part proposal would restore seventy-five-year actuarial balance
and ensure that the trust fund is slightly rising relative to expenditures at the end
of 75 years. It also provides sufficient resources to finance targeted
improvements for widows, workers with low earnings over a long career, workers
disabled at young ages, and young surviving children."

By "workers disabled at young ages," I'm assuming they mean any workers who qualify for SSDI prior to reaching the age of retirement.

[EraOfResponsibility]

109. oh okay, thanks for that clarification