The Fake Crisis (Rolling Stone mag interviews Paul Krugman)

Rolling Stone ^ | Jan 13, 2005 | ERIC BATES

[Helms]

I distributed Rolling Stone on my college campus in 1970 and it is now officially just another big corporate maketing device as well as a predictable anti-Bush Leftist
magazine. Same state as popular music is in- decadent bloated and corporatized.

[Kozak]

Da. The " Trust Fund' is stuffed full of IOU's addressed to ourselves (actually our kids!).

[t_skoz]

Cool story! My friends at the shop are always on the lookout for old timers with cool or interesting tattoos. If we can photograph them, all the better!

I'd be screwed if I went by your rationale; I have a tattoo w/ an American flag, the US Constitution, and a banner reading "Live Free Or Die". But I'm not in the military so I really have no worries.

Take it easy...

[LtKerst]

There is no Social Security trust fund. Washington robbed it and diverted the money into the genreral fund.

and with less workers each year paying less into it, and more retirees collecting, how is that solvent?

Rolling Stone is a crap rag, and the Economist is a retard.

[LtKerst]

There is no Social Security trust fund. Washington robbed it and diverted the money into the genreral fund.

and with less workers each year paying less into it, and more retirees collecting, how is that solvent?

Rolling Stone is a crap rag, and the Economist is a retard.

[Tax-chick]

Well put!

[LPM1888]

BTTT

[deermouse]

You're correct that there is no trust fund. Johnson converted it to the unified budget, so all funds are put into a large "sack" from which all obligations are paid. If the general (non social security) budget has a deficit in income tax revenues, it can use the surplus SS revenues to cover it's obligations. If the SS budget has a deficit, it can use surplus income tax revenues. So what's the problem? Could it be that income tax revenues have never had a surplus in living memory? Is social security the problem or could it be that the government can't stop spending?

We've always had "tax and spend liberals" now we have "no tax but keep spending anyway conservatives". It seems that politicians are all alike. Their motto should be: "Spend or Die".

[jschald]

(ducking) i agree with krugman's analysis of social security. also, i saw the bill o'reilly debate and thought he made bill look like an idiot (which he is), and i just saw him debate at ethical culture here in nyc the other day. he is right about it imho. however, i just think we need to dump social security and that's what bush wants as well so i support the privatization plan. i think its the first step to dismantling it. it wouldn't be hard to shore it up and keep it going but its socialism at its worst so i'm against it. besides, i like the windfall aspect of the bush plan for wall street. ;)

the plan of spending the entire treasury and cutting taxes so we have to kill these programs is right on. so far its starting to work, but its not looking so hot for our side on this, people like this program. look, if you can't plan for your retirement then eat cat food, that's life. anyway, maybe next year on this one.

[deermouse]

I wouldn't call social security "socialism at its worst", after all you're not eligible unless you pay in (40 quarters). I never though SS was a great program, but it's not the problem that Bush claims. Bush has created the greatest debt in history and now wants to reduce the deficit. His problem is that soon SS will become a governmental liability instead of an asset for the first time ever. LBJ never imagined that would ever happen when he created the unified budget. The problem with privatized accounts is it lets the government off the hook from paying their obligations. That is they removed over $3 trillion from SS that they will never pay back (because under the unified budget it isn't a debt).

Under privatization you'll be able to pass your wealth on to your heirs (good). But as these retirement funds grow larger, I have no doubt the government will be looking into how to "attach" this resource too. I think the real problem should be addressed. It's not that SS needs to be shored up, but government spending needs to be rained in.

In light of todays news, I think my comments yesterday about "no tax but keep spending anyway conservatives" and the politicians motto: "Spend or Die" were timely. Today a Republican congress refused to pass the cuts to Medicare and Medicaid that Bush requested and also cut taxes much more than Bush requested. He's going to have a difficult time reducing the deficit.

[jschald]

agreed. but i don't think he wants to reduce the deficit all that much. otherwise we won't be able to cut social programs. they cannot just cut medicaid completely right now, its small steps. but the biggest problem is that the states will have to pick up the pieces on the cuts and that's why the republicans didn't make the amount proposed. these deficits are working to reduce certain spending for sure though. of course no one seems to be talking about the fact that medicaid is a much bigger problem than SS.

[deermouse]

I don't doubt it, but that's like running your credit card up to the limit to force you to reduce your spending. Bush still claims to want to reduce the deficit, so that would make him nothing more than a lier.

Medicare and Medicaid are problems (aside from being social services). That's an issue involving medical insurance and what it's done to the cost of medicine. I remember a time when you went to the doctor and he didn't know if you had insurance or not. You just paid the bill and were reimbursed by the insurance company. Just think of all the unemployed doctors and drug manufactures there would be without medical insurance.