Krugman is a fraud.

Social Security requires payments by employers and employees at a specific rate, which is absolutely guaranteed to be insufficient based on the available workforce projected by population census figures.

On the other hand, economic growth is not a dependent variable as Krugman states.

The facts are that the US economy has shown relatively stable progress, against all kinds of different obstacles, throughout the years over a long period of time. In no small measure, a lot of US economic success is generated by our own ingenuity.

Further, he falsely portrays assumptions that his conclusions are based on as though they are facts. Of course, this negates any validity to his conclusions.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, as the old saying from the '70's goes.

Fuck Krugman. He's an asshole.

"In a long-term sense, the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of Social Security."

This isn't from Krugman, it's from Bush's own administration. So why do we want to do this again?

Bullshit.

"So why do we want to do this again?"

"This", meaning "try to understand and micromanage national macroeconomic policy based on phony soundbytes propagated by idiots"?

You're right, that would be futile and stupid.

Congratulations!

I googled your alleged Bush quote. Guess what? Your page popped up on the first page of the search results. Investigating further, it's very evident that the so-called quote is not attributable to Bush or his administration.

http://www.google.com/search?q=In+a+long-term+sense,+the+personal+accounts+would+have+a+net+neutral+effect+on+the+fiscal+situation+of+Social+Security.&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Reality check complete.

Fuck everyone who spreads this lying bullshit.

Fact check for everyone else too lazy to look for the truth

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1335334/posts

This example isn't an isolated event, it's part of a regular pattern.

How many years does it take for people to wake up to the fact that the Democratic party continually lies and deceives its constituents?

Fuck everyone who supports liars.

While your name-calling skills are demonstrably formidable, you clearly need to work on your Googling. For starters, try Google News instead of Google proper for, you know, news stories.

Here's the actual briefing, in that liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB110752578679946106,00.html?mod=todays_free_feature

Here's a paraphrased version with a distressed GOP quote added for good measure:
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2005/02/03/nation_world/news01.txt

And seriously, quoting a presser from the RNC? You sure showed me. They're a paragon of truth and fact-checking.

Not sure if you still don't get it, or if we're making progress.

YOUR QUOTE as promulgated by lying Democrats, which you and they falsely attribute to the Bush administration: "In a long-term sense, the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of Social Security."

THE ACTUAL QUOTE: "So in a long-term sense, the personal accounts would have a net neutral effect on the fiscal situation of the Social Security and on the federal government."

See the DIFFERENCE?

"Social Security"
vs.
"Social Security and on the federal government"

The FULL QUOTE in its TRUE ORIGINAL CONTEXT discusses the impact of personal accounts on the entire federal budget, beyond its impact on Social Security alone.

The FULL QUOTE in its TRUE ORIGINAL CONTEXT states that personal accounts will not add any additional cost to to the overall budget. This is what the phrase "net neutral" describes.

Leave it to the lying Democrats to spread bullshit instead of truth.

As for what you call "quoting a presser from the RNC", I beg to differ.

The link contains additional links to original factual source materials, which you can visit and read, in order to form your own opinions.

Facts, not bullshit.

"The FULL QUOTE in its TRUE ORIGINAL CONTEXT states that personal accounts will not add any additional cost to to the overall budget. This is what the phrase 'net neutral' describes."

I don't think that means you can completely ignore that the 'fiscal situation' in the phrase ALSO applies to Social Security. Not simply Social Security's impact on, or relation to, the overall budget, because then you're ascribing meaning to the statement that just isn't there.

Even if you grant that, which I don't, it then looks like a clever semantic ploy that is meant to gloss over the fact that the overall budget is fucked either way, and they're not even addressing it. I still consider that irresponsible, and not as egregious of a misrepresentation as you seem to think it is. An administration spokesperson said every single one of the words attributed to him by that quote. Contiguously, even.

I'm going to actually agree with you on one point about partisan distortion with regard to this story, and that's with regard to the reduction of guaranteed benefits. The whole point is that guaranteed benefits are reduced and "variable" benefits kick in for a portion of those overall benefits, so I don't know why the left is acting so indignantly surprised about that. They may not agree with it, sure, but it's hardly a surprise.

Actually, all this is making my head hurt. I'm just going to make a point of dying before I turn 60. Problem solved!

What "reduction in guaranteed benefits"?

What "variable" benefits?

There is no discussion of this in the Bush administration debriefing, apart from the known shortfalls predicted by several non-partisan government agencies.

You and the lying Democrats you are foisting yet another complete fabrication.

READ:

"For individuals who were born in 1950 or later, they would have the opportunity -- the voluntary opportunity -- to participate in personal accounts. If they wished, they could not choose a personal account and they could stay entirely within the current system. The President has said we want to make sure that system is reformed to be fiscally sustainable. Certainly, though, individuals have the option of not taking a personal account and paying the benefits that the traditional system would be able to pay."

The personal accounts are entirely voluntary. If you think you get more benefits under the old way, you can choose to do so.

If benefits are thus reduced, they are reduced because that is the way the current system works.

The Bush administration plan intends to remedy current and future Social Security problems, by providing permanent and sustainable solutions.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/0,,SB110752578679946106,00.html

You and the lying Democrats are criticizing a plan which gives you the option to not participate in, if you believe the new plan is not better for you.

There is no "partisan distortion", as you say, on the Republican side.

The rationale and parameters of the plan thus far are transparent and the facts are available for scrutiny. As more details become available, more informed scrutiny will be meaningful.

In the meantime, the lying Democrats are actively promoting false information to the public.

On the Democrat side, bullshit them and scare them seem to be the two operative strategies.

It gets old, and it's not good for the country or for individuals to tolerate, let alone support, such bullshit.

It's cute how you can't wrap your head around the notion that the "partisan distortion" I'm talking about above is from the left, and not the right, even though I prefaced it by saying that I AGREED with you. Lots of pundits on the left are taking any reduction in the guaranteed benefits as completely sacrosanct. This may or may not be a tenable position.

This is why I fucking HATE the current state of partisan politics. Your implicit assumption that every position I might hold -- despite the fact that I'm neither liberal nor Democrat -- is, by definition, diametrically opposed to yours makes the very notion that what we're having here might be construed as "debate" absurd on it's face, no matter how hard I try to be remotely civil about it. I concede that you might be right on something, and you continue screaming.

The voluntary nature of the privatized side of this has not been widely reported on the left, that's true. But there's also typically a massive difference between what ANY president will pitch for a program and what will actually happen when it gets legislated, when the spotlight has gone away. Congress can be funny like that, and Bush, in particular, seems quite fond of overselling his pitches. In my opinion.

And I'm not even touching the "bullshitting and scaring" comment. WMDs, anyone?

"There is no "partisan distortion", as you say, on the Republican side."

Your right. That never happens, and it surely isn't happening on this issue. After all, everyone knows that if a program is in danger of insolvency, removing even *more* income (by diverting some to personal accounts rather than the general fund) well of course make said program solvent. Just read your Animal Farm. Good is Evil, and all that.

Why anyone would think of questioning this is beyond me, but I put nothing past those lying theiving democrats.

The Right has shown me the light. Cognitive dissonance is your friend!!

notabbott, sorry but your post sure doesn't read that way...

take another look, here's how I understood it:

"I'm going to actually agree with you on one point about partisan distortion with regard to this story, and that's with regard to the reduction of guaranteed benefits. The whole point is that guaranteed benefits are reduced and "variable" benefits kick in for a portion of those overall benefits, so I don't know why the left is acting so indignantly surprised about that. They may not agree with it, sure, but it's hardly a surprise."

""I'm going to actually agree with you on one point about partisan distortion with regard to this story" SARCASM?

"The whole point is that guaranteed benefits are reduced and "variable" benefits kick in for a portion of those overall benefits," FALSEHOOD. But, in your post, it's stated as though it is truth.

"so I don't know why the left is acting so indignantly surprised about that. SARCASM? NONSENSICAL. The left is claiming "that", then expressing indignant surprise? Textbook example of their disingenous politics.

"They may not agree with it, sure, but it's hardly a surprise." WTF? NONSENSICAL, as above. "It" is a falsehood, how can anyone talk about disagreeing or agreeing with it? The Democrats put "it" out there, so how twisted is it that you comment that the Democrats disagree with it?

IF "it" is something you disagree with or don't believe, it's not stated in your post. Instead, it's stated in your post as though it were fact.

Later you wrote:

"Lots of pundits on the left are taking any reduction in the guaranteed benefits as completely sacrosanct. This may or may not be a tenable position."

If that's what you meant originally, it sure didn't read that way in what you posted.

sacrosanct? meaning the pundits on the left are insisting on benefit reduction?

Of course that's not tenable, no one wants benefit reductions.

Good point regarding what will happen when the plan is legislated, and after.

I'm all for careful scrutiny and analysis before, during and after anything our government does.

But, that depends on accurate information and facts.

Here, it's very clear the Democrats and so-called pundits on the left are promoting false information.

Your first clue should have been your initial reaction, which was spot on: ""So why do we want to do this again?"

Of course, it was a natural and appropriate reaction for your bullshit detector to get triggered.

Unfortunately, you assumed the lies that you received from the left were correct, regarding the so-called quote from the Bush administration. That was mistake number one. You were played.

But, mistake number two, is even more problematic. Why didn't you question the reliability of your information? Laziness? Automatic trust of the left? Automatic distrust of the right?

The lying Democratic position shouldn't pass anyone's bullshit filter.

Do the math- if it were true the plan had no effect on Social Security, do you actually believe Bush and the administration would be engaging in this exercise? If so, for what purpose?

Of course not. Thus, the Democratic lie is ridiculous.

But, it worked. You were played. You believed it. You're an intelligent person, but you were duped by another Democratic lie that doesn't hold any water.

This is the big problem you should be blaming. The boogey man isn't partisan politics. It's the lies and misinformation that get passed around as fact.

I hope you understand that my anger and outrage are directed at that problem, and not towards you or anyone else's opinions or views.

It's only of secondary importance that, time and time again, it is shown that promoting false information is a routine practice on the left, rather than on the right.

This has been yet another very clear example illustrating that point.