Paul Who?
The only economist I listen to is that Franks character. He's allright with me! |
| |
Written By:
Sharp as a Marble
URL:
http://sharpmarbles.stufftoread.com
|
While it pains me to say it, I think you're being a bit unfair to Krugman. I went did a LEXIS search of his articles and he's been saying that the Social Security situation is in pretty decent shape since at least 2001. And he's been consistently saying it.
Maybe he thought different in 1996? Probably, but I think his more recent stuff kind of clearly support his thesis that SS is fine. (though I disagree) |
| |
Written By:
Christopher Cross
URL:
http://legalxxx.blogspot.com
|
Actually, I'm probably a bit closer to Krugman's more recent position - that SS is in a bit of trouble, but fixable. The real trouble lies elsewhere.
However, the problem with Krugman's rhetoric--and what I'm trying to point out here--is that Krugman seems to glide easily back and forth over the line of what constitutes "trouble", "huge", "crisis", etc....and that seems to correlate quite closely with whose ox needs gored.
He's clearly stated that some changes need to be made, but when privatization advocates push for a very small privatization, he begins screaming about the falling sky.
It's not his position, so much as the fact that his position seems rhetorically, er, versatile. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
It's good fun, and I'm never one to pass up a good fisking of Krugman, but you took Krugman pretty badly out of context in the last (7/22) article you cited, where he begins : "I knew that the commission on Social Security reform appointed by George W. Bush would produce a slanted report, one designed to bully Congress into privatizing the system. But the draft report released last week is sheer, mean-spirited nonsense." and the very next statement after the one you quote is "But we can't have a meaningful debate about reform unless the parties to the debate are willing to discuss the issues honestly."
So he was just making a rhetorical "case" for privatization as a way of acknowledging that there is another side to the debate, not that he is on that side. |
| |
Written By:
pdq332
URL:
http://
|
I didn't mean to imply that he was making the case for SS privatization. I merely noted that he was ready to concede that a case could be made - that the topic was "on the table". He's pretty clearly in favor of some kind of reform, and partial privatization is one kind of reform.
|
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Today's NY Times has Krugman's latest take on SS integrity. Bottom line - SS is not in jeopardy but is being used by the current administration to deflect pubic attention from other issues. I get no sense of his support of privatization from this.
Here's a quick quote from this morning's paper:
"That claim is simply false. Yet much of the press has reported the falsehood as a fact. For example, The Washington Post recently described 2018, when benefit payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenues, as a "day of reckoning."
Here's the truth: by law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S. government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund.
When benefit payments start to exceed payroll tax revenues, Social Security will be able to draw on that trust fund. And the trust fund will last for a long time: until 2042, says the Social Security Administration; until 2052, says the Congressional Budget Office; quite possibly forever, say many economists, who point out that these projections assume that the economy will grow much more slowly in the future than it has in the past."
From what I'm reading in this blog, Mr. Krugman's done some kind of about-face. The result of careful consideration? Hmm... |
| |
Written By:
Ken
URL:
http://
|
Quit trying to take from the old people they broke their backs for this country their the elders here. so why will we change our social security to where they get nothing when they retire their are other alternatives
assholes
|
| |
Written By:
Wizard of Da Social
URL:
http://
|
|
Not biting on your Krugman critique. He is right on the money regarding social security, which in relative terms has been run somewhat reponsibly as compared to other parts of the government. If there is a problem related to the debt associated with the Trust Fund IOUs, then it is a problem with the accumulated deficits of the borrower in that equation. The problem currently faced by the administration is that the existence of the Trust Fund IOUs runs the risk of causing incresed focus on the deficit. |
| |
Written By:
Dodger
URL:
http://
|
