Paul Krugman: Attacking Social Security
Frames are beginning to take clear shape for the midterms, and yes, Social Security will be under attack. While Republicans won't necessarily push privatization, they'll try to make points with the usual fear tactics about how the "Social Security Crisis" will bankrupt the country. Paul Krugman has some things to say about that.
The math is wrong and so is their attitude
Social Security’s attackers claim that they’re concerned about the program’s financial future. But their math doesn’t add up, and their hostility isn’t really about dollars and cents. Instead, it’s about ideology and posturing. And underneath it all is ignorance of or indifference to the realities of life for many Americans.
What crisis?
So where do claims of crisis come from? To a large extent they rely on bad-faith accounting. In particular, they rely on an exercise in three-card monte in which the surpluses Social Security has been running for a quarter-century don’t count — because hey, the program doesn’t have any independent existence; it’s just part of the general federal budget — while future Social Security deficits are unacceptable — because hey, the program has to stand on its own.
What's really going on here?
What’s really going on here? Conservatives hate Social Security for ideological reasons: its success undermines their claim that government is always the problem, never the solution. But they receive crucial support from Washington insiders, for whom a declared willingness to cut Social Security has long served as a badge of fiscal seriousness, never mind the arithmetic.
There's much more to Krugman's article, all worthy of attention. Bottom line is easy: Social Security should not be on the table. At all.
on SS a center piece of the midterms I'd say bring it on. Scare tactics cut both ways. Some of their key demographics aren't going to like such an attack one bit and I can't see the more progressive elements of the Democratic party letting this opportunity slide. Have at 'em.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Here is proof our government is robbing our social security. Interesting Paul failed to mention our social security is used to pay for our governments pork and annual deficits, that's right, since our deficits get added to the national debt each year in essence our social security is paying our national debt. Since we have just printed more dollars in the last two years than all the preceding printed dollars in our nations history and the FED announced it’s now buying it’s own debt we are in a hell of lot more trouble than what Krugman states, perhaps he took his happy pills before writing that load of happy joy joy hyperbole.
Read the GAO’s information for yourself.
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Social Security
REFORM Answers to Key Questions - May 2005
On Page 17 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05193sp.pdf
The numbers do add up which can read in greater detail here.
SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM Implications of Different Indexing Choices
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06804.pdf
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
The GOP going after Social Security
is another gift that will keep on
giving.
It shows how tin their ear really is.
Who is still voting GOP?
People on SS - no, Young people - no,
Unemployed - no way, minorities - no,
sane people - no.
I'm guessing the GOP will still poll in
the twenties and actual voting will depend
on geographics but I can't for the life of
me figure out what demographic the GOP is
going after? The anti-Obama, anti-liberal
thing will always work on some people but
I think the GOP is dying from self-inflicted
wounds. (it couldn't happen to a more
deserving group)
Eliminate the "cap" and all is swell.
:)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
I think this is a good cop bad cop scenario.
IF the Democrats "save" us from privatization we'll all happily accept whatever hikes in the retirement age and cuts in benefits Obama's CatFood Commission proposes.
Like I said .. cynical me.
:)
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
The republicans probably feel they are doing very well in congress considering their numbers. Obama has been compromising and he might compromise again...to the detriment of the middle and lower classes.
another cynic!
"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up."
Lily Tomlin (1939 - )
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)
it is a way the Dems operate. The solution--let Obomba know he will be a one term POTUS.
McCain/Palin would have been soooo much better. And voting their equivalents into power in 2012 will, among other things, SAVE S.S.
"Obomba"? So original. So juvenile. So two-faced.
The *Democratic party* is the one in power and the true threat to SS. Obama stacked his Catfood Commission with rightwing fanatics and billionaires, the majority and 2 co-chairs hostile to SS. No way SS comes out intact out of Obama's commission. Your scare tactics won't blind anyone who us paying any sort of attention as to the true villian and appalling liar here: Obama. You might want to read Glenn Greenwald's article today -
The fear campaign and Social Security
I think the insensitivity of Washington insiders, CongressPeople and White House officials to the plight of ordinary Americans is explained by this map:
Virginia Unemployment Rate By County
Notice the area around DC.
In two counties (Arlington and Loudoun) unemployment is 5% or less.
In seven adjacent counties unemployment is less than 6%.
If the rest of the nation enjoyed unemployment rates less than 6% we'd all think the recession was over.
And it *would* be over.
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
Thank you very much for posting this, karoli. To be honest, it never occurred to me that the "Social Security is bankrupt" idea was a Republican-fed meme.
points out, there is no real issue here. Now watch as Barry compromises on an issue that doesn't exist.
Bottom line is easy: Social Security should not be on the table. At all.
why obama of course. After crushing bush with SS privatization in 2005, obama goes and resurrects republican talking point, lies, and dishonesty concerning SS. With democrats like obama, who needs republicans.
"And having invented a crisis, what do Social Security’s attackers want to do? They don’t propose cutting benefits to current retirees; invariably the plan is, instead, to cut benefits many years in the future. So think about it this way: In order to avoid the possibility of future benefit cuts, we must cut future benefits. O.K."
Cowardly? Yes. But if we are going to cut benefits in the future, shouldn't we warn the victims of this cut in advance?
Explain to me how the term Catfood Commission differs from the term Death Panels as a rhetorical construct or intellectual exercise.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Thank you.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Well, for one: there actually is a Commission.
Two: A hefty majority of the members of the Commission have espoused the view that SS Benefits needs to be drastically cut in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary.
Three: Said cuts would, indeed, leave Senior Citizens who rely on SS as their only income in a sad situation where they would need to resort to extreme methods to continue to survive (e.g. eating catfood).
Compare this to Death Panels which never existed and weren't sentencing the elderly to death by lack of medical care. How can you even compare the two terms?
I will put you in the "my fecal matter flatters rather than offends the olfactory" school of left of center thought.
I think it has something to do with using a phrase to implant fear of the government plotting to do damage to its elderly.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
What a condescending little pr*ck.
I will place you into the "false dichotomies for the sake of appearing erudite" school of Brooksian logic. You feel that since both terms are meant to cause an emotional response, they are equal. But one is grounded in fact and predictions based on the histories of the Commission's members, the other in hyperbole. Apparently you are incapable of understanding the difference between legitimate concerns and batsh*t crazy.
Are you denying that the most likely outcome of this needless Commission is the recommendation that we slash benefits and raise the retirement age, thus putting extra strain on the elderly?
and as such is not interested in the truth.
An ad hominem attack void of any substance?
Why, Yes it is.
Trollin trollin trollin, keep those moby's trollin, You lie. Move em up, Move em out, you lied......
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Since you're unable to respond to BradyB's reasonable question, I'll do it for you:
Right-wingers are incapable of distinguishing between reality and fiction, and are unable to recognize any form of humor more sophisticated than slapstick. Hence, they see no difference between a commission that actually exists (the "cat food" label is merely a comic device), and the totally made-up, fictional, non-existant Death Panels.
One exists. The other was a cynical contrivance. (A lie, in other words.)
Now, let me repeat BradyB's question. Rhetorically this time:
How can you even compare the two terms?
I now understand thanks to the intellectual guidance offered by BradyB's second response and your astute observations.
My question of how the terms differed as rhetoric was misguided.
The President of the United States really does want seniors to eat pet food by slashing their benefits. That is so logical. It is much more realistic than thinking he would do something so foolish as to actually try and kill seniors. Thank you for showing me how much more reality based you and BradyB are than those on the right.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
detect a note of sarcasm?
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
Well. okay, maybe once he was...
me-oww!
than raumen.
me-oww!
...a copy of Rashomon, which I've always considered good food for thought.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
cost Obama every penny of political capital he had on the professional left.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
propagandists also like to hijack threads critical of Obama with gibberish, making them unreadable to all but the most diligent and driving away posters with any critical abilities. It's a form of censorship, which the 'new' Democratic Party seems to relish in (covertly, of course).
You just can't follow the in-jokes (the fact of the matter being that ricky isn't at all who you think him to be, imo), that's all. Get over it.
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust.
the better critical thinkers on the site. If that was what you were really looking for, you'd recognise it.
He's hardly a 'propagandist,' and it's irresponsible for you to say so.
me-oww!
made one of those passing chatty bullshit one line comments between the weather and stock market report yesterday about how SS was in huge trouble and failing-apropos to nothing. Totally outrageous especially when the other bimbo AGREED with her-that there were more pleasant things to talk about-like the up day in the market!!!! As if that is the indicator of everything.
Too bad so sad, it was down again today. I guess things are 'bad' again, you stupids at KING TV noon news.
No wonder we're headed to hell in a handcart.
me-oww!
she based her comments upon or did you just vent your dissatisfaction here for us to enjoy?
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
I can't move in the heat. I usually do write those bastards though. I did look for her name on the site today, but it's like they keep the names of their spokesmodels hidden. She's a sub, too...
me-oww!
The GOP are beholden to the rich 1 percenters and they want that big fat ball of cash for themselves. They lust for it, they yearn for it, they have to have it no matter who gets hurt. Their way of getting it? Privatize it and then get it onto their turf where they play by their rules. Within 10 years it will be all but gone and when you look around, you will only find the blameless.
Goldman-Sachs and the hedge funds can steal every dime in it. Our seniors won't be able to afford cat food. They will have to eat the cats.
... with all the rhetoric, and that is that some reasonable fixes don't even get considered.
What's wrong with saying that for people under 30 now, the retirement age will be 70? People are living much longer. When SS started in 1935 and set a retirement age of 65, the average American's lifespan was 62.
Now it's 77 or 78.
Still, the one easy fix that would solve all the problems has always been simple.
Remove the earnings cap.
CaliforniaMike blogs at All Voices and at his own blogs, http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice and at http://oneminutewithmike.blogspot.com.
What is wrong with my generation having to work longer than any other before we can fucking retire? A lot. Since it is not your generation, in fine American fashion, you don't give a shit.
But I don't feel like having to work a decade longer just because the generations before me decided to live ridiculously entitled life styles without any consideration for their people who were coming after them. It is bad enough that I had to grew up with Reagan as my first president, having to clean up the toxic putrid environment left by hordes of baby boomers who were too stupid to figure out that shitting where you drink from ain't the best of ideas.
But most importantly, even though people now live longer, productivity has increased at a far higher pace than life expectancy. So why the fuck should I look forward to a future of working harder, longer, for relatively less money, only to probably not even have SS around by the time I get to "retire" (read drop dead).
Education is already priced higher than a Ferrari for most of my generation, never mind having a mortgage with the crazy real estate market, healthcare cost is growing exponentially. No one in my generation knows what it is to grow up in a single income household, so chances are we will have to make due with broken families, not being able to see my children if I have any because I will have to work those extra hours to make up for the ever increasing cost of living.
Apparently all I have to look forward as an American citizen is to be a productive working bee until the day I die, not being able to enjoy much of life and all just to cherish the privilege of buying tons of toxic Chinese made plastic crap. And I am supposed to be ecstatic at that prospect.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
Boomers know better than to let you in the hive. You are a worker ant, son. Start digging.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
... I lucked out and at least my ant hill does not have to suffer a self appointed court jester whoring for the status quo one botched attempt at snark after another.
Gotta see the bright side of life I guess.
CTHULHU 2012 "Why vote for a lesser evil?"
anger and ageism in combination are pretty ugly.
They also say if you don't like insect humor, start with another stupid analogy. Your momma might have told you that if Reagan idolizing boomers had not broken up your happy home.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
Meow Mix you are serving up you unconscionable corporatist, you.
People are only living longer due to the oligarchs inability to prevent their access to life prolonging medical technology. They will raise the retirement age and kill Medicare. Retirement and nursing homes will be replaced by litter boxes.
"I mean Romney is the most conservative on illegal immigration and I don't think Ronald Reagan could get elected in California today."
Ann "Clipped" Coulter
And we boomers aren't paying the high cost for college for our children. And we are able to live on a single income since we are have such generous incomes with to die for health insurance. And let's not forget those wonderful pensions we will all recieve when we retire early. Maybe you should be looking for the "greatest generation" and asking them where your "wonderful life" went.
My wife and I put both of our kids through college without them having to work or take out any loans -- cost us $120,000 at two pretty good state schools, but was well worth the price.
BTW, I would have loved to work at my career till 70, but newspapers are vanishing and so did my job.
CaliforniaMike blogs at All Voices and at his own blogs, http://www.mikerappaport.net/onevoice and at http://oneminutewithmike.blogspot.com.
the real scam is that
"By law, the Social Security trust funds must invest in interest bearing federal government securities."
these securities are pieces of paper at best, ledger entries, they represent nothing but ink, red ink.
they say you can lead a horse to water....ledger entries may represent claims on wealth, but that is different than actual goods and services.
we are plugging holes on the titanic, because no one will stand up and speak the truth, social security is part of the general budget; no one wants to do the politically dangerous thing, which is to point out capitalism's obvious failings, and that the people in this country have a righteous claim to a decent living, retired or not.
someone needs to pull their head out, because change is a comin', ready or not.
Comments are closed on this entry