Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Donkey's Inn -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (3421)	3/26/2002 2:16:44 AM
From: Mephisto	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

With the escalation in war spending we will not have the money to pay social security. I've also heard Medicaid is in trouble. I believe Paul Krugman wrote an article about it. Bush has sacrificed the welfare of Americans in order to spend money on his war efforts. I don't know if Congress is going to stand up to him. I believe W has hinted that people will have to work longer and that their social security payments will not be as much as they thought they would be. At least the Brits give Tony Blair a great deal of trouble for his support on an attack on Iraq. The British people oppose such an attack.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (3421)	3/26/2002 1:27:54 PM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

What will the elderly do? HOw about they'll be used for target practice. After all they can't fight and they are a drain on the economy, therefore turn them from a liability into an asset.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (3421)	4/12/2002 9:38:35 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15516

OK your first mistake was proclaiming that Bob Brinker is a famed analyst. Bull pucky. Take everything he says with a grain of salt as he frequently just parrots things he reads that week. He also changes his mind about things without explaining why and has a nasty habit of burying things in the kitty litter box when they come back to bite him. Listen with caution.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (3421)	4/12/2002 11:42:58 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

I have heard Medicare was in trouble, but recently, in a New York Times article, Paul Krugman said that he thinks social security is in good health. The problem is that the Bush administration wants us to think social security is unhealthy so that they can privatize the program. I had thought social security was in trouble as well. Krugman column follows.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (3421)	4/12/2002 11:43:50 PM
From: Mephisto	Respond to of 15516

Connect the Dots The New York Times April 2, 2002 By PAUL KRUGMAN Remember the "bring out your dead" scene in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? It's the one where the old man declares, "I'm not dead!" "Yes, he is," insists his younger companion, who persuades the undertaker to hit the old man over the head and cart him away. Now you understand the Bush administration's policy toward Social Security. Ordinarily, the annual trustees' report on Social Security is released at a morning press conference, and simultaneously posted on the Web; this gives reporters a chance to read the material and discuss it with outside experts before filing their articles. Last week, however, the first copies were made available late in the afternoon, leaving hardly any time for analysis. One wag joked that the information was being closely held to keep it out of the hands of terrorists. But the real reason was surely to avoid too much attention to the report's unwelcome conclusion: that Social Security is in very good shape. True, the rest of the government is running big deficits, and borrowing heavily from the retirement fund - but Social Security isn't the source of that problem. The introductory summary - which, unlike the report itself, is mainly a political document - does its best to make the worst of a good situation. But the bottom line is that the long-run sustainability of Social Security looks better than ever. The staff of the Social Security Administration, using conservative assumptions, now says that the system could operate without any changes at all - no cuts in benefits, no additional revenue - until 2041, three years longer than it projected last year. I hope this satisfies readers who, when I criticize bogus arguments for privatizing Social Security, demand to hear my answer to the crisis. There isn't any crisis: the system looks good for 40 years, and with a bit of extra resources can survive indefinitely. More specifically: The long-run actuarial shortfall of Social Security is less than half the revenue that will be lost due to last year's tax cut. The common perception that the tax cut was no big deal, but that Social Security faces a terrible crisis, is completely upside down. But the powerful forces that want to dismantle Social Security won't take yes for an answer; they insist that the system is doomed. Never mind the rhetoric about retirement security; the real reason for the attack on Social Security is ideology. Here's what Edward Fuelner, president of the Heritage Foundation, wrote to supporters: ". . . today's policies are a product of the Great Society of the 1960s, which grew out of the New Deal of the 1930s, which was an assault on founding principles articulated in the 18th century. . . . Connecting the historical dots is no small task." For Great Society, read Medicare; for New Deal, read Social Security. And the real task is to connect the contemporary dots. For Heritage is the intellectual engine driving today's conservative movement. The foundation's Web site proudly quotes Karl Rove: "We stole from every publication we could; we stole several key staff persons; we want to steal more of your ideas." Indeed, before Elaine Chao became secretary of labor - and hence a trustee of Social Security - she was a fellow at Heritage. And the influence of Heritage spreads far and wide, from employees like Virginia Thomas (wife of the Supreme Court justice) to the stable of columnists featured on its opinion site TownHall.com, most notably Ann Coulter ("We need to execute John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed too"). And it won't surprise readers of my last column to hear that Heritage was founded with financial backing from Joseph Coors and Richard Mellon Scaife. But I digress. The important thing is to understand what's really going on here. The ideological powers behind the current administration want to do away with Social Security - not to offer retirees a better deal, but because they are opposed to the program in principle. Unfortunately, that's an argument that won't work in the political arena; Social Security is very popular. So the strategy they have adopted is to declare that the program is already dead, or nearly so. If the facts say, on the contrary, that Social Security is very much alive, the administration doesn't want to hear about it. And it doesn't want you to hear about it, either. nytimes.com