I'm ashamed to be a Republican tonight.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

My condolences for your loss.

Sincerely, thank you.

But if the exit polls were stated exactly how you phrased them, I wouldn't doubt that 6 of them would say that the REP's spending is out of control.  However, absent the minor detail like the DEM platform on those same issues (if there really truly was one, other than We're not Bush) you wouldn't be cavalier about ceding the fiscal mantle to the DEMs.

As I said before, the Democratic platform is now closer to my beliefs than the current theocratic version of my Republican Party. My only hope is that once this collection of fools is done there is something for me and other true Republicans to come back to. As I said i'm not your typical Republican so facts are very important to me and ignorance is not bliss so i'm pretty familiar with the current DEM platform and one part in particular. "Pay as you go". That was OUR mantra and now it is theirs. In fact I heard Kerry say it close to 100 times and it was central to all his economic proposals.

Yes, Social Security transition costs are going to cost $2 trillion.  But, I'm glad someone has the balls to bring out the issue in the open and finally put a dollar amount on some of the obligations.  That $2 trillion is paltry compared to the $100 trillion in real SS & medical obligations that you'll never read about.

Here is my problem with the current leadership of this party. I abhor talking points and you qoute them to me. If you are educated on this subject you know that a.) SS is not in crisis b.) the crisis was created by this administration's irresponsible tax cuts and spending c.) my party is lying to the american people in order to get them to support something rather than telling the truth and letting voters make a choice.

 

This 100 trillion dollar number is in its construct, false. This is why I'm counting the days until I have a real Republican to support. The reason SS is in "crisis" is because in their projections they used infinity vs the customary 75 year rule. Using the 75 year and a anemic 1.8% growth rate, SS faces a 3.7 trillion shortfall. Does anyone here expect our growth will average 1.8%? No. That's why SS is solvent for at LEAST 100 years.

 

The reason that the DEMs are the party of fiscal responsibility in your eyes is because they're very good in not telling you exactly how much their programs will cost.  Or let me rephrase that, they're very good in not telling you how much the programs will cost to the next generation.

200906[/snapback]

This applies to both parties but in this case it now specifically hangs around our neck because of the level of dishonesty in this character of this President.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

Ah yes, I promise I won't bring up any of those stories that Drudge writes. BECAUSE HE ALMOST NEVER WRITES STORIES. Have you ever been to the site? He puts up links. A few times per month he gets some sort of scoop, which is almost always provided to him ahead of time by the new source in order to generate buzz.

 

a few times a year he'll break a supposed story, some of which go one to be proven wrong like the Kerry Intern story or whats his name beating his wife.

 

reminds me of the time that blzrule pastes something that came from drudge, I point it out, she says it couldn't have come from drudge because he would never write anything like that and then she ignores my posts for a week while I pestered her about it.

 

ha.

201062[/snapback]

When he does they almost are always false. We caught Zarquawi, Kerry screwed an intern, and on and on and on.

[GG]

As I said i'm not your typical Republican so facts are very important to me and ignorance is not bliss so i'm pretty familiar with the current DEM platform and one part in particular.  "Pay as you go".  That was OUR mantra and now it is theirs.  In fact I heard Kerry say it close to 100 times and it was central to all his economic proposals.

 

And if there has ever been an ostrich platform, that one is it. Never mind the population, life expectancy and revenue projections, we can sustain the status quo. Granted Bob Rubin is a bit more rational than ignoring a looming train wreck, but he was wise enough not to say publicly what he knows would need to be done politically. But, isn't this debate about not dealing squarely with the public?

 

Here is my problem with the current leadership of this party.  I abhor talking points and you qoute them to me.  If you are educated on this subject you know that a.) SS is not in crisis b.) the crisis was created by this administration's irresponsible tax cuts and spending c.) my party is lying to the american people in order to get them to support something rather than telling the truth and letting voters make a choice.

 

This 100 trillion dollar number is in its construct, false.  This is why I'm counting the days until I have a real Republican to support.  The reason SS is in "crisis" is because in their projections they used infinity vs the customary 75 year rule.  Using the 75 year and a anemic 1.8% growth rate, SS faces a 3.7 trillion shortfall.  Does anyone here expect our growth will average 1.8%?  No.  That's why SS is solvent for at LEAST 100 years.

 

I certainly would love to see where the $3.7 trillion shortfall comes from, where every data that I have seen shows deficits of greater magnitudes. I imagine you're falling for the accounting gimmick that the "No Change" proponents are peddling by focusing on Social Security only, and sweeping Medicare under the rug. Even by solely focusing on SS, the shortfall is greater, and insolvency is brought about much sooner. Add the potentially unlimited Medicare expenditures, you're in much bigger trouble.

 

This administration's spending is a drop in the bucket compared to what the entitlement expenditures are slated to be. Never mind that the economic policies fostered by the administration have already reduced the deficit by $100 Bn from the earlier projected numbers. Bush appears to finally gotten serious about cutting more from the budget.

 

If you enjoy facts, then you obviously know that the debt markets watch every word uttered by Greenspan and Bush. The bonds shook a little when Greenspan warned about excess deficits, but then realized it was the same message he was sending for a while and settled back. The markets are also optimistic that SS reform will come. If the new $2 trillion is truly an "addition" to the deficit, don't you think that nearly doubling the government debt would have a staggering impact on interest rates? But, since everyone realizes that the $2 trillion is really recognizing off balance sheet government debt, and that the overall debt will actually be lower, the rates are not going up, and the bond market is happy.

 

If you are a Republican, or ever were one, how can you abhor an administration that is trying to dismantle a cornerstone socialist entitlement program?

 

This applies to both parties but in this case it now specifically hangs around our neck because of the level of dishonesty in this character of this President.

201099[/snapback]

 

If I may be forward, I think that your personal opinion of the President is clouding the view of his character.

 

This administartion has not been afraid to reform the ways DC does business, and in the process they have tackled many of the tabu areas - taxes, Pentagon, SS, etc. They are brutally upfront about issues that Congress doesn't want changed. DC Tom is correct, this administration has done a terrible job in selling any of its policies to the US public and the world. But, you should not mistake a bad PR policy with dishonesty.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

And if there has ever been an ostrich platform, that one is it.  Never mind the population, life expectancy and revenue projections, we can sustain the status quo.  Granted Bob Rubin is a bit more rational than ignoring a looming train wreck, but he was wise enough not to say publicly what he knows would need to be done politically.  But, isn't this debate about not dealing squarely with the public?

I certainly would love to see where the $3.7 trillion shortfall comes from, where every data that I have seen shows deficits of greater magnitudes.  I imagine you're falling for the accounting gimmick that the "No Change" proponents are peddling by focusing on Social Security only, and sweeping Medicare under the rug.  Even by solely focusing on SS, the shortfall is greater, and insolvency is brought about much sooner.  Add the potentially unlimited Medicare expenditures, you're in much bigger trouble.

 

This figure is from the SSA which is using a very, very conservative model of growth. You actually bring up the program that is actually in crisis -- medicare. SS is not in crisis, period. If my party wants to "sell" this to the American people as reform then that is alie and you are spreading it. As a real Republican I can't do that. I'm obligated to tell the truth and not just as I see it, but the actual truth. What they are trying to do is destroy SS, not reform it.

 

This administration's spending is a drop in the bucket compared to what the entitlement expenditures are slated to be.  Never mind that the economic policies fostered by the administration have already reduced the deficit by $100 Bn from the earlier projected numbers.  Bush appears to finally gotten serious about cutting more from the budget.

 

This is exactly what I'm taslking about. This is the dishonesty that I simply cannot wait to rid my party of. It's not going to cost 2 trillion to destroy SS that's just the initial estimate. As far as reducing the deficit are you talking federal or just the budget? Or are you talking a reduction of a projection? It doesn't matter since this dishonest President does this by only showing a five year budget projection. By showing deficit numbers for only a five-year period, the budget conceals the marked worsening of the deficit expected under his policies in the second half of the coming decade. The bulk of the cost of making the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent would occur after 2010, when most of these tax cuts are scheduled to expire. He attempts to wrap the budget in an aura of fiscal responsibility by claiming it will cut the deficit in half in five years. This claim is not credible. The budget uses a series of stratagems to mask the magnitude of the deficits the nation faces (and the degree to which the budget would make the deficits worse) and to make it appear on paper as though the deficit will be cut in half. The budget omits approximately $160 billion in costs in 2009 — the fifth year — that the Administration itself favors and is expected to propose in future budgets. By 2009, the budget proposes to cut overall funding for domestic discretionary programs outside homeland security $45.4 billion — or 10.4 percent — below today’s level, adjusted for inflation. The Administration is proposing five-year binding caps on discretionary spending to lock in cuts of this magnitude. A number of these cuts would cause significant hardship. For example, the low funding level proposed in 2005 for the housing voucher program, the nation’s principal low-income housing assistance program, could cause the number of low-income families and elderly and disabled households receiving such assistance to be cut by 250,000. The funding levels proposed for child care programs would cause the number of children from low- and moderate-income working families who receive child care assistance to be reduced by approximately 365,000 by 2009. Plus they aren't even including the 50billion or so in operational costs for Iraq in this budget.

Yet the amount that these cuts would save pales in comparison to the revenue losses from the tax cuts. The savings over the next five years from all of the domestic discretionary cuts combined would be substantially less than the cost of the tax cuts just for the one percent of households with the highest incomes. This is dishonest and it is indeed by the order of the President to do this. It is his budget and my problem with him is not personal it is professional. He is either incompetent or dishonest or as I believe, both. He is the worst thing to bhappen to this party since Nixon and as a Republican that is saying a lot.

If you enjoy facts, then you obviously know that the debt markets watch every word uttered by Greenspan and Bush.  The bonds shook a little when Greenspan warned about excess deficits, but then realized it was the same message he was sending for a while and settled back.  The markets are also optimistic that SS reform will come.  If the new $2 trillion is truly an "addition" to the deficit, don't you think that nearly doubling the government debt would have a staggering impact on interest rates?  But, since everyone realizes that the $2 trillion is really recognizing off balance sheet government debt, and that the overall debt will actually be lower, the rates are not

That is purely an assumption and one that is falwed since the markets don't really react to proposals. Plus, have you seen the dollar lately? That's the sign that foreign markets look at us as a good investment?

If you are a Republican, or ever were one, how can you abhor an administration that is trying to dismantle a cornerstone socialist entitlement program? 

I am indeed a Republican but not a Bush Republican. In other words I simply will not follow an idea over a cliff simply because my party came up with it. While reforming SS may be a good idea, destroying it is not especially since our economy is beginning to shake to its very core due to these irresponsible deficits. Some may equate Republican to idot but I'm not one of them.

If I may be forward, I think that your personal opinion of the President is clouding the view of his character. 

It would be okay to make that assumption but I've been opposing this President's reckless spending and expansion of government from the beginning. Because of that I've been very disappointed that he cannot simply level with the American people on things like this. It's why I'm very afraid that after he is done with all of these short term victories that we will be left with a long-term place as a minortiy party as we will bear the blame for all his failures.

This administartion has not been afraid to reform the ways DC does business, and in the process they have tackled many of the tabu areas - taxes, Pentagon, SS, etc.  They are brutally upfront about issues that Congress doesn't want changed.  DC Tom is correct, this administration has done a terrible job in selling any of its policies to the US public and the world.  But, you should not mistake a bad PR policy with dishonesty.

201115[/snapback]

Lying is not bad PR, its lying and it does not belong in this party.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

You would advocate the Roman method?  In other words you support entertainingpeoplewith the gruesome death of the unwanted members of socirty?

 

As far as being forced to using an iron fist it is not that we were forced.  It's because we have failed in our mission due to incompetence and this is an act of desperation.  The Iraqis did work with us but we made things worse.  In fact if you add the numbers of Iraqis killed by Bush I and now under Bush II it surpasses any estimate of those that were killed under Saddam.

200772[/snapback]

 

That's just ridiculous. I'm talking about the utter devastation of cities which refuse to accept surrender.

 

The Iraqis worked with us? REALLY? I'd be interested for you to provide examples of cooperation from within the Sunni triangle. Good luck with THAT search.

 

They have been nothing but problematic while the Shiites and Kurds have been much more cooperative.

 

It's time we taught the Sunnis a lesson.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

That's just ridiculous. I'm talking about the utter devastation of cities which refuse to accept surrender.

 

The Iraqis worked with us? REALLY? I'd be interested for you to provide examples of cooperation from within the Sunni triangle. Good luck with THAT search.

 

They have been nothing but problematic while the Shiites and Kurds have been much more cooperative.

 

It's time we taught the Sunnis a lesson.

201289[/snapback]

The Sunni triangle is a very small part of that country. The insurgency is no longer within the sunni triangle. It is everywhere.

 

Whatever lesson we teach the Sunnis will have blowback that will make whatever gains temporary. Want proof? Ask the Russians how the iron fist went with the Chechens.

[RkFast]

The Sunni triangle is a very small part of that country.  The insurgency is no longer within the sunni triangle.  It is everywhere.

 

201564[/snapback]

 

Uhhhh....no its not.

 

If youre not happy with the way things are going, thats OK. But youve puked up more left-sided half-truth talking points in this one thread alone to make Randi Rhodes blush. Check your facts a bit, please.

[Alaska Darin]

Uhhhh....no its not.

 

If youre not happy with the way things are going, thats OK. But youve puked up more left-sided half-truth talking points in this one thread alone to make Randi Rhodes blush. Check your facts a bit, please.

201573[/snapback]

Yeah, but he's a Republican.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

Uhhhh....no its not.

 

If youre not happy with the way things are going, thats OK. But youve puked up more left-sided half-truth talking points in this one thread alone to make Randi Rhodes blush. Check your facts a bit, please.

201573[/snapback]

Really? The two places in Iraq that are currently under seige are Mosul (NORTH of the sunni triangle) and Anbar province (WEST of the Sunni triangle).

 

My son died during the assault on Fallujah and he said the insurgency is now everywhere and is close to being out of control.

 

I'll take his word for it not yours.

 

As far as left-sided or half-truth talking points simply because my beliefs are based in reality not Bush talking points doesn't mean I'm incorrect. It means I'm a Reagan-Republican not some lemming.

 

I'm in the same group as Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard (Staunch Republican) as well as Newt Gingrich and ex-Gov. Christie Todd-Whitman. All of us are against destroying SS because right now we need to focus on looming budget and Medicare crises, so borrowing trillions to destroy what is essentially the most financially stable program in the entire federal government seems stupid and dangerous.

 

Like I said, I'm a REAL Republican and I don't believe the way to accomplish our golas as a party is to lie in order to do it. Advocates of privatization almost always pretend that all we have to do is borrow a bit of money up front, and then the system will become self-sustaining. You all talk of borrowing $1 trillion to $2 trillion "to cover transition costs." But that's just the borrowing over the next decade. Privatization would cost an additional $3 trillion in its second decade, $5 trillion in the decade after that and another $5 trillion in the decade after that. By the time privatization started to save money, if it ever did, the federal government would have run up around $15 trillion in extra debt. As far as checking my facts you should check yours. Mine are based on a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Plan 2, which was devised by a special presidential commission in 2001 and is widely expected to be the basis for President Bush's plan. Under Plan 2, payroll taxes would be diverted into private accounts while future benefits would be cut. In the short run, this would worsen the budget deficit. In the long run, if all went well, cutting benefit payments would reduce the deficit. Of course all wouldn't go well but that's a debate for another time. But let's just suppose that everything went according to plan. Even in that unlikely case, privatization wouldn't even begin to reduce the budget deficit until 2050. This is supposed to be the answer to an imminent crisis? While we waited 45 years for something good to happen, there would be a real risk of a crisis - not in Social Security, but in the budget as a whole. And privatization would increase that risk. We already have a large budget deficit, the result of President Bush's insistence on cutting taxes while waging a war. And it will get worse: a rise in spending on entitlements - mainly because of Medicare, but with a smaller contribution from Medicaid and, in a minor supporting role, Social Security - looks set to sharply increase the deficit after 2010.

 

Like I said as Republicans we should not be lying in order to accomplish things because they are going to beat us over the head with it once this fails. We are the party of morality?

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

Yeah, but he's a Republican. 

201697[/snapback]

Yes, and you are not uneccesarily insulting.

[GG]

I'm in the same group as Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard (Staunch Republican) as well as Newt Gingrich and ex-Gov. Christie Todd-Whitman.  All of us are against destroying SS because right now we need to focus on looming budget and Medicare crises, so borrowing trillions to destroy what is essentially the most financially stable program in the entire federal government seems stupid and dangerous.

 

201723[/snapback]

 

Commercial copywriters couldn't come up with a better script. For someone who claims to be a real Republican, to wrap himself in the flag of Bill Kristol is truly a Priceless campaign.

 

Nobody is destroying the concept of Social Security. What the administration is trying to do is destroy the old defined benefit system that was based on actuarial assumptions of life expectancy and government "funded" accounts. Think of it as a change from the old pensions at work to new 401k.

 

Just because you have read about these isuses does not translate into you understanding the issues. By saying that the government debt will increase by the transition costs is a ridiculous argument, because the SS payments and obligations are not counted in government debt. They are, in financial industry parlance, called "off-balance sheet obligations." But just because you don't see the obligations on the balance sheet, does not absolve a company or government from the legal requirement to pay for them.

 

You are falling for the rhetoric that since the obligation is not part of the government debt figure, the obligation doesn't exist. Hence, any raising of actual debt to pay for the transition costs, no matter whether they will dramatically lower future off balance sheet obligations is a bad thing in your view. If private companies engaged in your rhetoric, they'd have a visit from the SEC in the morning.

 

You then take liberty in skewing the analysis by claiming that diverting funds into private accounts would raise the deficit, when the whole goal of private accounts is to remove the government from the equation.

 

In looking at SS reform, you cannot separate Medicare from the equation, because the source of revenue for both programs comes from the same payroll taxes. Both programs will need to be reformed, and SS is the logical one to tackle first. You may classify it as lying by the administration, but I view it as prioritizing the reforms.

 

This administration has put Pentagon reform, tax reform, and SS reform on its plate. Good luck trying to lump Medicare reform on the docket. Please point to the brave Congressmen and Senators willing to stick their neck out to battle AARP.

 

As to the stated budget deficit, it's not in dire shape yet. The $100 billion figure I was referring to was for fiscal 2005, not over the life of Bush's proposals. If you truly understood how macroeconomics work, you would understand that lowering tax rates is not a death knell for revenue generation. At least you would understand it, if you were a true Reagan Republican.

 

The budget deficit is not at record highs, especially considering that we're in war time. The continuing economic recovery should push the deficit lower and allay fears of runaway debt service. Annual budget deficits of less than 2.5% of GDP are a sign of good steady state fiscal control.

 

Your response to the debt markets further underscores your naivete in the matter. The markets react to everything, because the price already reflects the countless forecasts, budgets and outcomes. If the administration was proposing a plan that would drastically increase the deficit, you bet your sweetheart that rates would spike. US Bond yields have been ridiculously low for a while, even with Bush administration's large deficit spending, and foreign buyers being the largest purchasers of US govt debt (the bond, not the dollar is the proxy of the allure of US investment).

 

The low yield on US debt has been a good funding vehicle to break out of the recession, becuse deficit financing doesn't cost that much. This was the reason that the recession was generally mild, and is enough hope that the economy will continue to grow, and lots of jobs will be added in 2005, because you've milked the productivity cow to her fullest.

 

Greenspan issued a correct warning about run away budget deficits. But you also have to consider the timing and venue. He was in Europe and needed to placate the crowd concerned about the weak US$. The timing was important, because his warning came after economic stats came in that the deficit was starting to shrink, and the administration was set to deliver a budget that finally had the notion of spending controls. In effect, Greenspan was already preaching to the choir.

[Alaska Darin]

Commercial copywriters couldn't come up with a better script.  For someone who claims to be a real Republican, to wrap himself in the flag of Bill Kristol is truly a Priceless campaign.

201845[/snapback]

Thank you for saving me the typing...

 

Good post.

[chicot]

That's just ridiculous. I'm talking about the utter devastation of cities which refuse to accept surrender.

 

The Iraqis worked with us? REALLY? I'd be interested for you to provide examples of cooperation from within the Sunni triangle. Good luck with THAT search.

 

They have been nothing but problematic while the Shiites and Kurds have been much more cooperative.

 

It's time we taught the Sunnis a lesson.

201289[/snapback]

 

"That's just ridiculous. I'm talking about the utter devastation of cities which refuse to accept surrender."

 

"Utter devastation" is probably a pretty good description of the state of Fallujah at the moment, which is really the only city which could be said to have refused to surrender. What more do you actually want? The death of all 300,000 of its' inhabitants?

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

Nobody is destroying the concept of Social Security. What the administration is trying to do is destroy the old defined benefit system that was based on actuarial assumptions of life expectancy and government "funded" accounts. Think of it as a change from the old pensions at work to new 401k.

The system as it stands faces better actuarial assumptions than at several points over the last 60 years. As as for 401k's, many of us feel they haven't turned out to be all that great.

Just because you have read that the government debt will increase by the transition costs is a ridiculous argument, because the SS payments and obligations are not counted in government debt. They are, in financial industry parlance, called "off-balance sheet obligations." But just because you don't see the obligations on the balance sheet, does not absolve a company or government from the legal requirement to pay for them.

The above is nonsensical. Of course the system as it stands has significant obligations. Unfortunately, those obligations aren't just going to go away (unless you want to tell a whole generation of workers that they're SOL for getting benefits under the old OR new plans).

 

The point is that transistion costs are ABOVE AND BEYOND the existing costs.

It is not true that since the obligation is not part of the government debt figure, the obligation doesn't exist. Hence, any raising of actual debt to pay for the transition costs, no matter whether they will dramatically lower future off balance sheet obligations is a bad thing in your view. If private companies engaged in your rhetoric, they'd have a visit from the SEC in the morning

The only way that "future off-balance sheet obligations" will be lowered is if, as noted above, you write off people who would be getting benefits under the existing system, and not have enough time to "earn" benefits under the new.

 

And, of course, the implication behind the idea that we can just write off the money owed to the system (the "hidden debt" you're talking about) is that people have been paying extra money into the system for the last 20 years, and now we're just going to say we're not going to give their money back.

The analysis that diverting funds into private accounts would raise the deficit, when the whole goal of private accounts is to remove the government from the equation is incorrect as well.

Perhaps you could be specific about the "incorrect" aspect of the analysis?

truly understood how macroeconomics work, they would understand that lowering tax rates is not a death knell for revenue generation. At least they would understand it, if you were a true Reagan Republican.

Of course. Just because the history of tax cuts has been that they've ALWAYS been followed by real revenue reductions doesn't mean that it will continue to be that way.

 

Also as a REAL Reagan Republican I'm know that Reagan implemented the largest tax increases in American history (He raised taxes 5 times) so obviously he doesn't agree with your point either even though it is indeed priceless.

 

I'd like to see an example of when this was not the case...

The budget deficit is not at record highs, especially considering that we're in war time. The continuing economic recovery should push the deficit lower and allay fears of runaway debt service. Annual budget deficits of less than 2.5% of GDP are a sign of good steady state fiscal control.

You need to check your facts first and spin rhetoric second. Current overall deficits are on the order of 4% GDP yearly -- in the ballpark of where they were during the 80's. At the time, as I recall, there seemed to be quite a bit of concern from us "fiscal conservatives". Ah, for the good ol' days..

 

Per the 2005 U.S. Budget, Historical Table 1.2 the expected deficit for 2004 will turn out to be 4.5% of GDP. If you ignore the extra money being generated by Social Security, it's 5.9% -- just about the worst since World War II.

 

How someone can say that's no big deal, yet claim the mantle of a fiscal conservative and insult me as if I don't know anything about anything, is beyond me. Unless, of course, it's more important to sell a "Socialist Insecurity" phaseout...

 

Additionally annual BALANCED budgets are a sign of good steady state fiscal control. Annual budget deficits are a sign of fiscal irresponsibility. Annual budget deficits add up to mounting federal debt, and mounting obligations to cover the costs of maintaining that debt. Example -- If your wife took $25 out of your kids' college fund every month to pay the water bill, would you compliment him on his "good steady state fiscal control" for maintaining a deficit of "only" 2.5%?

 

Like I said I am a REAL Republican who puts country before party and God before country therefore I cannot support a party being led around through the use of lies. We are the better party and we have no reason to be dishonest in order to gain public support for our programs.

 

To simplify it for you and others that get lost in your verbose responses -

 

1. The system is strong and in good condition to last as is for quite a while. The SS Administration projects using extremely conservative assumptions (such as low population and GDP growth) that the SS trust fund will be able to pay its obligations for the next 40 years (including drawing down the trust fund). The CBO projects it will be okay for the next 50 years.

 

2. It's more likely the system could last forever, with no fix at all. If U.S. GDP growth averages about 3% over the next 50 years then the system is good indefinitely. If you are so blindly bullish on the economy why do you think SS will be a problem. Why is it in "crisis"?

 

3. The system is unquestionably better than privatization, as tested by real life. Every real life example of privatization has been a disaster. Argentina, Chile, England and Sweden, all saw extraordinary costs and consequences from their experiment.

 

Bottom line: Our current system is cheaper, less risky, and undoubtedly caters far better to the greater good. As a REAL Republican my greatest concern is debt accumulation and if we are going to accumulate more debt it must be for something that is actually IN CRISIS not something we as a party are lying to the American people about in order to convince them it is in crisis.

 

Unless you're in the financial industry and hungry for new fees at the expense of the short and long term financial health of this country. As I said before, COUNTRY before PARTY.

 

Also, medicare and SS are both funded out of payroll taxes, but not the same tax. They are not funded from the same pot. SS is currently bringing in more than is going out in benefits and is, at current, somewhat pessimistic estimates, going to be solvent for at least the next 3 decades. My point is that medicare is in trouble now. THAT IS THE CRISIS.

 

And the transition costs ARE debt, because they are not purely benefit payment debts.

[Alaska Darin]

What more do you actually want? The death of all 300,000 of its' inhabitants?

202012[/snapback]

Nah, just the men.

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

Nah, just the men. 

202119[/snapback]

Are you being serious?

[Alaska Darin]

Are you being serious?

202136[/snapback]

No. But wouldn't you feel better if I was?

[Losman-McGahee-Evans]

No.  But wouldn't you feel better if I was? 

202152[/snapback]

Actually no.

[GG]

The system as it stands faces better actuarial assumptions than at several points over the last 60 years.  As as for 401k's, many of us feel they haven't turned out to be all that great.

 

Yes, blame the plan for bad investment decisions. How very Republican of you.

 

The above is nonsensical.  Of course the system as it stands has significant obligations.  Unfortunately, those obligations aren't just going to go away (unless you want to tell a whole generation of workers that they're SOL for getting benefits under the old OR new plans).

 

The point is that transistion costs are ABOVE AND BEYOND the existing costs.

 

The only way that "future off-balance sheet obligations" will be lowered is if, as noted above, you write off people who would be getting benefits under the existing system, and not have enough time to "earn" benefits under the new.

 

And, of course, the implication behind the idea that we can just write off the money owed to the system (the "hidden debt" you're talking about) is that people have been paying extra money into the system for the last 20 years, and now we're just going to say we're not going to give their money back.

 

Frankly, I have no idea what you just wrote, which should be a sign to me that I'm debating someone who has little understanding of how finance works.

 

Of course transition costs are "ABOVE AND BEYOND" existing costs. But the safe bet is that the present value (look it up) of the transition costs is a hell of a lot less than the present value of future costs if the transition costs are not put in place.

 

(If we still had the Resources tab on this board, I'd recommend Finance 101 as a starter, or ask NJ Sue.)

 

The SS obligations are going to go away when the government doesn't have to pay the benefits. This can happen by transferring obligations to the individuals from the government, or the individuals dying. Notice you're not defending the current SS standard of totally losing your SS benefits at death, no matter how much you paid into the system and no matter how much you received. This was a nice boon to the SSA actuaries in computing benefits, when you had a healthy ratio of working people paying into the system vs retirees who didn't have long to live in retirement. The equation isn't as neat for the bean counters these days.

 

The transition costs are there to ensure that people who are nearing retirement would NOT lose any promised benefits. Glad you're following the scare tactics to a tee. The personal accounts would be in place only for younger workers.

 

Perhaps you could be specific about the "incorrect" aspect of the analysis?

The analysis that diverting funds into private accounts would raise the deficit, when the whole goal of private accounts is to remove the government from the equation is incorrect as well.

 

Let me type slower. By transfering the retirement payment obligation from the government to the public, you are removing that obligation from the government, thus the government is no longer obligated for that payment. It's really is that simple of a concept.

 

If you do nothing to the system, you will see no impact to the federal deficit because SS & Medicare payments are "unfunded obligations" that do not get counted in the "official" government debt. But hey, then we can sleep better at night, because the debt hasn't been raised.

 

 

Of course.  Just because the history of tax cuts has been that they've ALWAYS been followed by real revenue reductions doesn't mean that it will continue to be that way.

 

Also as a REAL Reagan Republican I'm know that Reagan implemented the largest tax increases in American history (He raised taxes 5 times) so obviously he doesn't agree with your point either even though it is indeed priceless.

 

I'd like to see an example of when this was not the case...

 

 

Care to back that up with real statistics?

 

Since you enjoy the government statistical tables, check out the personal income tax receipts from 1986 onward, when Reagan dropped the marginal income tax rate from 50% to 28%. Of course Reagan & Bush I raised payroll taxes to prop up the Social Security system, which you insist is perfectly solvent.

 

Making a blanket statement like that won't fly, because most people here understand the difference between absolute dollars and % of GDP.

 

 

You need to check your facts first and spin rhetoric second.  Current overall deficits are on the order of 4% GDP yearly -- in the ballpark of where they were during the 80's.  At the time, as I recall, there seemed to be quite a bit of concern from us "fiscal conservatives".  Ah, for the good ol' days..

 

Per the 2005 U.S. Budget, Historical Table 1.2 the expected deficit for 2004 will turn out to be 4.5% of GDP.  If you ignore the extra money being generated by Social Security, it's 5.9% -- just about the worst since World War II.

 

"Just about worst" also includes the previous recessions of 1980s and 1991. Plus, I'll take a 5.9% deficit when the Fed Funds rate is at 1% than 20%. You may not care, but the low interest rate played major role in the administration's decision to roll the dice on spending its way out of the recession.

 

Oh yeah, I was off a bit in the previous post. The $100 billion reduction in the deficit was for fiscal 2004, not 2005. Curiously, the deficit reduction was brought about by the increased tax revenue - after taxes were cut. Interesting phenomenon indeed.

 

 

How someone can say that's no big deal, yet claim the mantle of a fiscal conservative and insult me as if I don't know anything about anything, is beyond me.  Unless, of course, it's more important to sell a "Socialist Insecurity" phaseout...

 

Additionally annual BALANCED budgets are a sign of good steady state fiscal control.  Annual budget deficits are a sign of fiscal irresponsibility.  Annual budget deficits add up to mounting federal debt, and mounting obligations to cover the costs of maintaining that debt.  Example -- If your wife took $25 out of your kids' college fund every month to pay the water bill, would you compliment him on his "good steady state fiscal control" for maintaining a deficit of "only" 2.5%? 

 

Balanced budgets are a nice soundbite nirvana, but are very impractical in the real world, because the revenues are a lot more unpredictable than expenses. Look no further than the collapse of the capital gains tax revenue from 2000 to 2001. You can try to manage costs from one year to the next, but you will not stop the economic cycles from wrecking havoc. Sound fiscal management should not be about annual budgets, but holding expenses within a relatively steady band of GDP. Debt is not bad. Excess debt is.

 

To simplify it for you and others that get lost in your verbose responses -

 

1. The system is strong and in good condition to last as is for quite a while.  The SS Administration projects using extremely conservative assumptions (such as low population and GDP growth) that the SS trust fund will be able to pay its obligations for the next 40 years (including drawing down the trust fund).  The CBO projects it will be okay for the next 50 years.

 

I thought in the previous post, you said the system would be solvent for at least 100 years? If we keep this thread going, would the solvency estimate keep going down?

 

 

2. It's more likely the system could last forever, with no fix at all.  If U.S. GDP growth averages about 3% over the next 50 years then the system is good indefinitely. If you are so blindly bullish on the economy why do you think SS will be a problem.  Why is it in "crisis"?

 

3. The system is unquestionably better than privatization, as tested by real life.  Every real life example of privatization has been a disaster.  Argentina, Chile, England and Sweden, all saw extraordinary costs and consequences from their experiment.

 

Bottom line:  Our current system is cheaper, less risky, and undoubtedly caters far better to the greater good.  As a REAL Republican my greatest concern is debt accumulation and if we are going to accumulate more debt it must be for something that is actually IN CRISIS not something we as a party are lying to the American people about in order to convince them it is in crisis.

 

Unless you're in the financial industry and hungry for new fees at the expense of the short and long term financial health of this country.  As I said before, COUNTRY before PARTY.

 

2 .The system is in crisis because of a little thing called demographics and productivity. We simply will not have enough working people to support the retirement payments of a retirement population that will live for a long long time, unless you are willing to raise the poayroll tax to equal the income tax.

 

3. Care to provide the examples of those disasters?

 

Make no mistake, the financial industry is going to benefit from this, but your fear of Wall Street is no reason that people shouldn't be given a real stake in their retirement planning. Or are you saying that ordinary people are too stupid to handle these issues on their own, and need the government to help out every step

of the way?

 

Also, medicare and SS are both funded out of payroll taxes, but not the same tax.  They are not funded from the same pot.  SS is currently bringing in more than is going out in benefits and is, at current, somewhat pessimistic estimates, going to be solvent for at least the next 3 decades.  My point is that medicare is in trouble now.  THAT IS THE CRISIS.

 

Woo hoo. Now we're down to 3 decades of insolvency. A few more posts, and we're bankrupt next week.

[RkFast]

In case anybody forgot in the last five minutes, LME is a Republican.