The Free Lunch Bunch

New York Times ^ | 1/21/2005 | PAUL KRUGMAN

[Triggerhippie]

At my credit union the FDIC guarantees my return on investment unless the Federal Government goes out of business. (At which point we ALL have bigger problems to deal with than merely money.)

I don't understand why you insist on trusting the untrustworthy in DC with your savings. I can't speak for everyone here, but I'll have to live to 154 for the SS Administration to give me all of my savings back. For the record, I don't think I'll make it much past 147. That means that someone else gets their hands on my money. Since that money was taken from me involuntarily (just try to opt out!) and not given back, a robbery has occurred. Since the state can and does use force we can safely call this Armed Robbery. A Felony here in FL.

History teaches NOTHING. By every indication that I've seen from the Legacy Media, the sky is still falling after 40+ years of liberal control of this country. Your solutions HAVE NOT WORKED. Your "Glorious Five Year Plan" has failed, Comrade. To think that you'll get a different result from doing the same things is insanity.

[liberallarry]

I don't understand why you insist on trusting the untrustworthy in DC with your savings.

I don't see why my trust in SS is less rational than your trust in FDIC.

That means that someone else gets their hands on my money

That's exactly right. The same thing happens in all insurance schemes. Whether or not this is robbery depends on how much you are willing to honor the "majority rule" which governs our democracy...and on how much charity you feel society owes its working poor.

History teaches NOTHING.

You are in disagreement with the wisest people humanity has produced.

Your solutions HAVE NOT WORKED.

If by that you mean Social Security you are dead wrong. If you mean that some societies which have adopted social security plans have failed you are correct but so what? All societies have failed. Nobody knows exactly why. Probably there are multiple reasons which have rendered societies incapable of adapting to the changing circumstances they face.

[chs68]

"Every citizen is required to participate in providing that dignity."

Every Citizen?

Well, I'm a citizen of these United States, and I have not "participated" in the Social Security ponzi scheme for most of my career.

[liberallarry]

Every...

A term of art...not to be taken literally.

[chs68]

LOL!

A "term of art"!

Not to be taken literally!

You'll exucse me for saying this, larry, but before I was tombstoned, I used to post on DU, and often folks over there would use the "term of art" argument.

Since you seem to favor the "term of art" approach to discussion, how's this:

""Every citizen is required to participate in providing that dignity.""

The above sentence is but a term of art, and should not be taken literally.

Another way of expressing the sentiment contained in the above sentence is as follows:

Each citizen should do all he or she can to support a system in which every citizen has the opportunity to control his or her own investment for retirement.

[Triggerhippie]

(/sarcasm)
You know, You're right about everything. Johnson's Great Society has been a resounding success.

There is no more poverty.
Medicare/Medicaid are trouble-free successes.
Educational standards have never been higher.
At least we can make the blacks dependent upon welfare by expanding its rolls, rather than empowering them to do well on their own. Those crazy Republicans thought they ended slavery in the 1860s! We, Democrats have found a more invisible way to enslave them these days. (And they'll repay us, in votes, for their enslavement!)


FDR is another genius. The New Deal, still the best thing going!

There are no problems with funding Social Security.
WPA, still plugging away.
Insider trading issues? No Way! Not with the SEC on the job, Mister!

Never complain about Viet Nam. JFK got the US involved fair and square. That bastard Nixon got us out of there, Damn him!


(/sarcasm off)

NAAAAAAAAAAAH. I still think I'm on the correct/moral/logical/right/All of the above side of the argument.

BTW, Your defense of Armed Robbery was invisible in your reply.

[liberallarry]

I'm sorry that the phrase "term of art" has such bad connotations for you. I simply meant to say that all social and legal arrangements are imperfect, that people always find ways to live beyond or outside of them. Imperfection doesn't devalue the attempt, however.

Each citizen should do all he or she can to support a system in which every citizen has the opportunity to control his or her own investment for retirement.

That's the kind of generality that means nothing. In fact, the majority of citizens have voted - consistantly and overwhelmingly - to support Social Security as the favored method of investment for retirement.

[liberallarry]

Johnson's Great Society has been a resounding success

Johnson failed at a lot of things.

FDR is another genius. The New Deal, still the best thing going!

He was great for his times and many of his policies have stood the test of time. Not many meet those standards.

There are no problems with funding Social Security.

Whoever said that? Currently, the main problem is that Republicans are lying about everything.

BTW, Your defense of Armed Robbery was invisible in your reply.

If you call forcing the minority to conform to the will of the majority (subject to legal challange in accord with Constitutional protection) Armed robbery then you are no friend of democracy (or constitutional republics).

[chs68]

I love it!

You lecture me that "Each citizen should do all he or she can to support a system in which every citizen has the opportunity to control his or her own investment for retirement." is "the kind of generality that means nothing."

Here's another generality that means nothing, larry:

"Every citizen is required to participate in providing that dignity."

And, just out of curiosity, when was the last time there was a vote in which the electorate had the opportunity to express its opinion concerning Social Security as "as the favored method of investment for retirement"?

I ask this because I have voted in every national election since 1972, and I do not recall ever having the opportunity to express my opinion as to whether Social Security was (or was not) my faovred method of invenstment for retirement.

Methinks you do not know what you are talking about.

[whd23]

Social Security is a safety net - meaning one trades ROI for guaranteed return.

The Government can change the rules at any time. Consider how the full-benefit retirement age was fixed at 65 for decades and in 1983 the Government changed it to 67 years-old (people born 1960 and later). Missing out on two years of payment changes the return rate, doesn't it?

...it is in society's interest to provide them with some sort of dignity in old age.

You consider it dignified to steal from the younger, poorer generation to give the money to the older, wealthier generation? Strange idea of dignity.

[liberallarry]

"Every citizen is required to participate in providing that dignity."

That has a very specific meaning; each citizen must pay his social security taxes (except those who've found legal or illegal ways of avoiding them).

And, just out of curiosity, when was the last time there was a vote in which the electorate had the opportunity to express its opinion concerning Social Security as "as the favored method of investment for retirement"?...Methinks you do not know what you are talking about.

Oh please. There's been constant opposition to Social Security since the day it was established. If opponents thought they had a chance of winning it would have been on the ballot long ago. All polls support this interpretation.

[CFC__VRWC]

All Krugman offers is endless criticism and Bush bashing - I do not see one single concrete proposal of his for fixing the system here. But of course that's an academic observation as we know what his (and the left's) solution will be - continue to expand the scope and the size of benefits under Social Security to make more people more dependent on it, and then when it is teetering on the brink of collapse, use that collapse as a bludgeon to get the public to demand massive tax increases on "the rich" (read that, anyone not drawing a welfare check) to fund it.

[liberallarry]

The Government can change the rules at any time

The government can change all rules at any time...any time the citizens or their representatives approve the changes.

You think that's bad? Ever read the terms of your credit card contract? Or how about the by-laws of the company in which you invested?

You consider it dignified to steal from the younger, poorer generation to give the money to the older, wealthier generation?

You consider it dignified to force the younger, poorer generation to give their lives in defence of the possessions of the older, wealthier generation?

Can the propaganda.

[liberallarry]

Krugman is a smart guy but he has the usual human faults. I offered an easy fix to Social Security's funding problems (if they exist) - raise the retirement age. Smarter and more knowledgeable guys have offered many more.

[chs68]

"There's been constant opposition to Social Security since the day it was established. If opponents thought they had a chance of winning it would have been on the ballot long ago.

It would have been on the ballot????!!!

Excuse me, larry, but wasn't it you who said this:

"In fact, the majority of citizens have voted - consistantly and overwhelmingly - to support Social Security as the favored method of investment for retirement."

Are you just using a "term of art" again??

I ask you once again -- when was the last time the citizens of this country had the opportunity to express their opinion (by means of the ballot) as to whether they consider Social Security to be their favor means of investing for retirement?

[RWCon]

The money was used to fund Lyndon's various programs. The
Great Society etc.

[chs68]

So you want to make people work more years before they can "enjoy" the fruits of their "investments" in Social Security.

Heartless.

Mean-spirited.

Lacking in all compassion.

You want grandma and gramdpa to keep working.

Not only would you have grandma and grandpa continuing to toil away.

You would have grandma and grandpa occupying jobs that grandsons and granddaughters could occupy.

What a heartless wretch you are!

[TASMANIANRED]

Social Security is an insurance program in your definition.

Real insurance companies take money, make a heck of a lot of money by investing it and then pay out benefits according to the terms of the policy.

Social Security is about as sensible as stuffing money in a mattress. Insurance pays out to your survivors.

It is a plan where young black men pay for old white women to live in relative comfort.

[TASMANIANRED]

You obviously do not think much of capitalism in any form.

If the average middle income worker invested the exact same amount of money in the stock market as is stolen from him by the government for Social Security.

By retirement age the investment would be worth about 3 million dollars.

Conversely if you have no minor dependents and are single at retirement age, you lose every cent.

[TASMANIANRED]

Social Security is a Ponzi scheme from start to finish and it was intended to be that way.

At the inception, retirement age when you could collect benefits was set at the life span. It was anticipated that at least 50% of victims of the system would never collect a dime.

Unfortunately for the system, the life span of Americans has gone up.

Your beloved socialist experiment is heading to bankruptcy.

Who do you think will work when the tax rates hit the 76% required to fund it.