No, seriously, Demo. Did the Japanese or Chinese finance ministers actually make that statement? I haven’t seen anything about it. I’d be interested as hell if they did.
Correct – your view is erroneous. He, like Dr. Krauthammer and others (on both sides – let’s be fair here) are deeply concerned about precisely how to pay that debt because of the painful choices it will cause on the non-Social Security side of the government. Also, see below for the bigger problem, which is the huge liability which is not funded by inter-government treasury securities, which is indeed at risk. Believe me, if anyone of importance disputes the legitimacy of this debt, including the President, I will lay into that person. Hard. You may recall that I called for Dr. Rice to be impeached and removed when she was playing games with the 9-11 commission.
As with everyone else on the board, I’m not omnipresent so I don’t really know what Scylla was saying (and what you were hearing, if the two differ). I will say that the bigger part of the problem, the unfunded portion of the liability, might reasonably be described as a moral obligation and I’m not aware of any arguments (though of course they may exist) that it is a legal one. Perhaps that’s what he was talking about? Again, I dunno – just throwing that out there for consideration; he can speak for himself if he pops into this thread.
I agree entirely. In one sense, that occurs in 2018 when the government will begin to be a net redeemer of the inter-government securities – they’ll be redeeming the debt but they’ll have to finance it with tax increases, program cuts or public debt. In another sense, it occurs in 2042 (or 2052, or whenever – let’s agree that whatever estimate is used for that date is not going to be precisely correct but the date will still come) when the government completes the redemption of the inter-government securities and either has to cut benefits or supplement the system with direct general revenues (as opposed to repaying prior obligations).
And here’s a surprise for you. I have deep, deep concerns about privatization generally and deeper ones about the way in which the President seems to be leaning in order to do it. I think those concerns are well worth hashing out. But it can’t happen whilst idiots like RT are running around distracting the real arguments with lies. In any discussion, there are indisputable facts, disputed facts, disputed philosophies and disputed predictions. The last three can’t be addressed until there’s common ground on the first, IMO.
Hmm. I can’t remember ever being pulled down to the Pit before. Might have happened sometime, but whatever. In honor of this, I’ll have to come up with a comprehensive rant, since I see no point in being civil to an insufferable ass who thinks calling someone “pro-terrorist” in GD is acceptable behavior on any planet in the universe, or to anyone who would defend said insufferable ass. I’m taking names, as I have sworn to lay off being civil in any way ever again to anyone who associates themselves with said piece of shit.
However, as I’m at work, it will have to wait until tonight. Pity.
The funny thing is, “reasonable people disagree” is exactly what you left behind in the original thread. If I read Bush as saying (for damned obvious reasons) that the trust fund is an accounting fiction, you say I’m a liar.
ISTM you’re losing an argument with yourself here. Have it out with yourself, and get back to me when one of your selves has won.
So, because he agrees with what I said Bush said, I’m an idiot?
Damn, boy. You are lost in space.
Your reading comprehension problem is presenting itself again. Krauthammer says nothing about redeeming the securities. In fact, quite the opposite. He’s rather adamant that
What he says we will have to “borrow on the world market, rais[e] taxes or cut other government programs” to do, is not to repay the bonds, but to
which he hardly regards as a necessity.
I know I can read, and you can’t. I know that I can think, and you can’t. At least not when you’re arguing with me. Something about me clearly gets under your skin, at which point you lose sight of whether your arguments are coherent or not. You want so desperately to demonstrate that I’m a liar that you really go completely off the rails. Damned if I know why that is so - I used to think you were a decent human being, even when we disagreed - but it’s hard to argue with your track record of late.
But if every post of mine is like a matador’s red cape to you, it kinda puts you in the position of being full of bullshit, now doesn’t it?
But getting back to the discussion:
I’m still waiting on that cite, of course. But the reason why I cited Krauthammer is that he agrees with me on what the President is saying:
Chucko and I don’t agree on much, but we both interpret Bush’s words here exactly the same way: as saying there really is no trust fund. It’s a fraud.
Feel free to come up with a cite to demonstrate that Bush has recently (say, from October until now) said that those Treasury instruments will be honored when they mature. I’m waiting, dude.
You’re so impressive when you paw the ground. Gotta get that red cape!
But really, if what you’re saying is that the grounds for my banning are at least as good as those for december’s, I’m sure that must mean you can come up with equally good grounds for having me banned. I would think that’s worthy of a thread of its own, but I’m also pretty sure you don’t have the guts to start it. If you do, though, I’ll be sure to show up. And laugh. And laugh some more.
What statement? You’re looking for proof that the Japanese finance minister thinks that Shodan should lay off the bourbon? 
Seriously though, sorry, I wasn’t claiming that the Japanese or Chinese finance ministers said anything about US social security. I was only talking about my own circle of analyst friends outside the US.
The thing that strikes me about that social security thread is that at the same time he’s railing against you, RT, I also see manhattan discussing the finer points of the debate with other posters. Whatever bad blood there is between you, he’s still making contributions to the conversation.
You may not like his politics, his beliefs, or the way he kicks puppies on the way to work each morning, but he is trying to do more than just GRIPE at you.
Since I come to the boards to become better informed, that earns him some serious points in my book. Before I got sick of the nitpicking, I was learning from that thread, coming away informed.
I guess I’m grateful for your moving the disagreement part of it to the Pit.
You’re attributing a bit more expansiveness to me than you perhaps intend. I am not claiming Bush questions the validity of the national debt. I am just saying he’s dismissive (I think that’s a pretty apt word) of the portion of that debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund.
(I’ll stay out of the argument regarding that implications of Trust Fund default on how other creditors view the security of the Treasury instruments they hold; I haven’t reached a strong conclusion there.)
Then parse them for me to demonstrate how they mean something else. Just saying they don’t mean their straightforward meaning does not suffice.
Did it ever occur to you that since the number of people that you used to think were decent human beings but now don’t (and really, what does one’s political beliefs have to do with weather one is a decent human being or not? Nothing, that’s what) has been increasing a lot lately, and since you are increasingly being refered to in the same context as posters like Dio and Reeder, and that from your posts you’re regarding the world with a lot more suspicion and a conviction that there are large, unseen plots out there angeling to do all manner of unlikely things to the poor little innocent downtrodden citizens of America unless brave, bold SuperRTF leaps to the rescue to expose their nefarious deeds, maybe the problem here is not everybody else, but you? That’s something a rational man might want to examine objectively.
Maybe manny just has more time on his hands this week than I do. But when someone calls me a liar because he and I interpret certain words differently, I’ll admit that responding to that takes first priority. (I’ll concede that that gets under my skin.) I’ll respond to other stuff as time allows, and yesterday it didn’t.
When I saw Gaudere’s post this morning, I wasn’t sure whether or not I was still otherwise welcome in the thread. I decided not to press the issue.
When he’s addressing me, he certainly IS trying to do more than just gripe at me. Sometime last year, he decided I’m a liar, and he’s been getting out the extra-large shoehorn to try to make the accusation fit ever since. I certainly don’t like it, and I reserve the right to respond to that, even if it means I contribute less to the debate than I otherwise might. Sorry about that.
You are correct in thinking that Bush considers the SS trust fund as an accounting fiction. No problem there. The problem crops up when you start saying that this means there is “nothing” in the trust fund. You imply that the Treasury Securities in the trust fund are valueless and meaningless, and may as well not even exist.
That’s not the case. The government is on the hook for paying back that debt, and has every intention of paying back that debt. The payback has to come out of tax rolls, additional borrowing, or reduced spending. Could they default, yes, but they have no intention to.
Manny even fucking well admitted, in the post you’re pitting, that the accounting fiction angle is reasonable, but that it doesn’t change the fact that the government will pay back the money it borrowed.
No, as explained to you in the other thread, that is not the inescapable implication of his words. When the time comes when more money needs to come out of SS than goes into it, the SSA will go to the Fed and say “hey, remember all that money we lent you guys so that income taxes could stay low and expenses high? Make with the paying it back. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s an accounting fiction; so is money, generally (that was the gist of Scylla’s post), so I’m underwhelmed”. At that point, the Federal government can 1) borrow the money from someone else 2) raise taxes 3) cut spending. We beleive that to be true because that’s what he’s said (sure, Bush could be lying, but the question isn’t whether he’s lying, it’s about whether he has already claimed the debt is unpayable). At no point, anywhere, has he said he won’t honour the obligation. You’ve been asked for cites that prove that he has claimed this, and you’ve failed to do so. Your cite (in the other thread, the one calling for Bush’s impeachment) show exactly the opposite; that we have to honor that obligation.
Seriously, all bickering aside, why is that so difficult to understand?
Hell, laying off the bourbon is good for anyone. Ugh.
Are there seriously analysts out there who believe that US debt instruments won’t be paid back? Are they straight up about this or just blowing smoke over beers?
What he actually claimed was that analysts outside the US thought it would be perfectly OK if the US repudiated the portion of its debt represented by Social Security. I think it is a pretty safe bet that he just made it up.
It’s a valid commitment, and Bush wants to talk about how we are going to meet that commitment, and this constitutes being “dismissive” of the debt? Again, the words don’t mean that.
Although I am glad to see that you have backed off from your claim that Bush is questioning the validity of the national debt.
You know better than that. I said exactly the opposite - that Bush’s words do mean their straightforward meaning.
It’s that kind of shit that causes people to accuse you of not being able to read, and/or lying. People who are familiar with you know you are perfectly capable of rational discussion, and can read perfectly well. But then you go and post that black is white, and ask for cites to show you wrong.
We don’t have to disprove your notions. You have to prove them. And you have yet to come up with anything that establishes that Bush doesn’t want to pay people their Social Security checks.
This is, really and truly, beneath you. So don’t do it.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, if the trust fund doesn’t exist, it can’t have anything in it. Q.E.D. (Remember, I’m not saying that there’s nothing in the trust fund; I’m saying that’s the essential meaning of what Bush is saying. Rest assured I’m not saying that what Bush says is true.)
No, I don’t. I am arguing that that is the obvious message of Bush’s words. But if enough people come to believe that (especially enough people who write legislation), it can be made true. Hence my concern.
Let me be more explicit: I’m not talking about “the government” as an ongoing entity. If there are no changes in the law, then I share your assurance that the government will pay that debt back.
I am talking about President Bush. I think it’s clear from his words that he is doing his damnedest to make people doubt whether the government would be able and willing to pay back that money, absent changes in the law. He would use that doubt to push his program through, but that’s beside the point; the point is, President Bush is not saying that the government will ultimately redeem the Treasury instruments in the trust fund.
Since we’re not yet to “l’etat, c’est moi”, there’s still some daylight between what the President says, and what the government is committed to doing.
I’m just stunned at how outraged you are about this. I oppose Bush’s plans for SS, and I think he is trying to hype the danger, but he has never said that Social Security will collapse in 2018, which is what you seem to be drawing from his statements.
“When I talk about a Social Security trust going bankrupt in 2042, there is enough money in the system to take care of the promises for those who have retired, and those who are near retirement. That’s a fact. We can argue about a lot of other issues, but one fact is certain: Social Security is in good shape and will meet its promises to those who’ve retired, or nearly retired.” Feb 4
"Thirteen years from now, in 2018, Social Security will be paying out more than it takes in. And every year afterward will bring a new shortfall, bigger than the year before. For example, in the year 2027, the government will somehow have to come up with an extra $200 billion to keep the system afloat – and by 2033, the annual shortfall would be more than $300 billion. By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. " State of the Union.
“In 2018, 13 years down the road, it starts to go negative. … So that by the year 2027, the government is going to have to come up with $200 billion additional above and beyond the payroll taxes to meet promises – and greater the next year, and greater the next year; $300 billion in 2037, until 2042, it’s broke. And that’s the dilemma we’re faced with.” Feb 10
You can interpret these words how you want, but I interpret them thusly: after 2018, the government is going to have to pay to buy back the bonds that form the SS trust, because of off-budget deficits that will become increasingly large. The government will have to find ways to pay for that, and yes, it could be through tax increases, benefit cuts, or more borrowing. But not once have I seen Bush allude to anything to the tune that the securities in the trust fund lose their value in 2018; what he’s trying to say in simple language is that we’re going to have to buy them back in 2018.
I really don’t understand how you’ve managed to get your panties in such a twist about someone calling you on your bullshit re-interpretation of Bush’s statements. Just build a bridge and get over it.
For the record, you all might find this very interesting .
From the Center for Economic and Policy Research:
This report from CEPR is dated July 23, 2001. Apparently even four years ago, it was suggested by the Bush administration that the government might default on these bonds. The CEPR report is obviously tendentious. Nevertheless, the idea that the United States might default on this obligation is not new.
I think you’re confusing one “commitment” with another. Let’s distinguish, please, between a commitment to preserve Social Security in some form, and a commitment to make good on the Treasury instruments held by the S.S. Trust Fund.
I don’t think this is hairsplitting. One can “preserve” Social Security in a lot of different ways. Including by slashing promised benefits to a level well below what the Social Security actuaries believe the system can afford without any changes.
Well, it’s hard to ‘back off’ a claim I never made, but no, I don’t think that Bush is questioning the validity of the national debt in general. Never said it, never thought it.
He’s said “there is no trust.”
Look, there’s a difference - and most people are quite clear on this - between these two things: (1) my spending a pile of money I got; and (2) my loaning the money to a creditworthy entity via an instrument with a specific interest rate and maturity date. (1) means the money’s gone; (2) means that for all practical purposes, I still have that pile of money - because the instrument I have is worth that money. It’s an asset that represents money, and it’s customary in this society to consider those things equivalent, unless and until there is nontrivial risk involved - unless there is doubt as to whether I’ll ever be able to redeem my note at face value.
Bush is using the language of (1). If what he really means is (2), that’s not his plain meaning. Maybe he’s leaving enough wiggle room so he can later, if called for, weasel out and say he really meant (2), but that’s not his plain meaning. Unless you work for Minitrue.
See above.
I mean, do you have certificates of deposit? I don’t look at my bank statements that list my CDs and say, “there’s no CD; that money’s been spent,” even though someone surely has spent that money. Do you? I consider those CDs to be money, in only a slightly modified form.
Whoa! This isn’t about whether Bush wants to “pay people their Social Security checks.” He’ll ensure they get their statutory benefits, whether or not he’s able to change the statute to reduce those benefits. Once again, you’re saying I’m saying more than I’m saying.
I am saying only that Bush is saying things that, if true, would directly imply a failure of the government, down the road, to honor its debts to the Trust Fund in a way that resulted in that money being available to pay Social Security benefits. I don’t believe what Bush is saying is true, which won’t surprise anyone, so I don’t believe that the government will fail to honor its obligations to the Trust Fund. But Bush clearly wants people to think it will so fail, and his words - if taken seriously - would lead directly to that conclusion. ‘No trust fund - no money accumulated - all spent’ - I’ll be damned if I understand why I have to argue that Bush’s message is that there ain’t nothing of value in the Trust Fund.
Find me that quote, please, where he says, “There’s $1.5T of Treasury notes in the S.S. Trust Fund. It will be difficult to repay that money - we’ll have to raise taxes, or borrow, or cut spending - but when that day comes, we’ll do what it takes to honor those notes. Because they’re backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.”
Let’s review the bidding.
I’m in complete agreement with you so far; see my post to Cheesesteak.
I’m looking for anyone to produce language that shows that’s what Bush has said.
OK, he’s said things that directly imply it.
Baloney. I’ve even pointed out exactly how his words lead inescapably to that conclusion.
Sorry I abandoned that one; went back to work while I was still sick, and by the time I had the time and energy to post again, it had dropped out of sight.
At any rate, the Fourteenth Amendment says the government must honor that debt. But does George W. Bush say it will, or is he selling the idea that it won’t?
The clear import of his words is the latter. There ain’t nothing there, the money’s already been spent, yadayadayada. The only way Social Security has a ‘problem’ in 2018 is if the government defaults, not only on repayment of principal, but on payment of interest. Or, alternatively, if it ‘pays’ the money back in some accounting-fiction sort of way that the money doesn’t go towards paying Social Security benefits.
Remember, I’m not saying that this is what will happen. I’m saying that if we believe Bush’s words, which a lot of people do, this is what we must believe will happen.
Just so I’m clear on things, it’s okay if I infer in GD that someone may be an idiot as long as that inference is supposedly clinical?
I just want to make sure that while I’m there I know the correct ways to call people names.
Manny is a defrocked moderator. He is accorded privileges quite beyond us groundlings.