Truth vs Propaganda in the Debt Ceiling deal

[Cutlass]

Then in an effort to resuscitate, I'll pose an involved question, basically to anyone who cares to address it or attack its premises. I think it directly falls under the thread title. In keeping with the moderation, I guess one liners will be viewed by me as concessions of the point.



Social Security is supposedly independent of the budget, and solvent for the moment. Accepting these, I don't understand why, then, Social Security recipients are being advertised as the first to suffer. A budget it supposedly has nothing to do with is now running dry; why is Social Security even entering in this debate? Why are all the local papers now running stories about terrified Social Security recipients clinging to their dialysis machines (example)? What about all the complex and obscure bureaucracies that carry out other operations? What about defense, regulatory agencies, R&D, and projects? Why are these checks (ahem, the supposedly independent checks) the front line?

There are only two possibilities: either this is publicity to get these House phones you mention ringing early simply by threatening people very loudly and emotionally, or Social Security's independence is a longstanding lie— a total, inexcusable falsehood that has been played to each succeeding generation by the former for years. I don't see any other possible causes for this bizarre scene than these. If it's the former, tsk tsk, that's very shameless and greedy of congress and the President. If it's the latter, than we should have enacted some privatization in 2005... if only for the sake of preventing the government looting the program!

Can anyone make an honest moral case for this behavior? I mean, do you think looting SS is right if there is no debt expansion? There's literally nothing else to do? The checks will have to stop?

The problem is that the SS budget and the rest of the budget has been so blurred that one can't really operate that separate any longer.

But the problem here is that there just flat out isn't an excuse for shutting down the government. So if it is forced to do so, it should be in a way that brings the maximum political heat down on the people responsible for doing so. And that means SS, because that's as powerful politically as it gets.

Seriously, if Wall St and the business community and pretty much the whole economics profession cannot get the Republicans to see reason, then maybe millions of starving grannies can.

 

[GamezRule]

And, not to butt in, but the "Deficit Hawks" are proposing a plan that cuts less in spending then the "Big Spending Liberals" plan does.

 

[aelf]

Nothing here has anything to do with freedom on the market. Freedom is, literally, the ability to buy and sell my goods, labor, whatever under agreed-upon terms. That your working-class steelworker is severely limited in his alternatives (e.g., by education, productivity, etc.) is an issue of scarcity, not freedom.

Not really. That's not the issue anyway. What I'm addressing is the fact that the free market is buttressed by the free movement of capital. Consider the original context where raising taxes on the wealthy would supposedly cause them take their money elsewhere. Wouldn't you say here that the free movement of capital inhibits a potential limitation on the free market?

If commodities cannot move from one region to another because of legal restrictions, would you consider the global market free?

 

[Cutlass]

And, not to butt in, but the "Deficit Hawks" are proposing a plan that cuts less in spending then the "Big Spending Liberals" plan does.

Well that's par for the course. Clinton always proposed spending less money than the "deficit hawks" and Reagan always wanted to spend more money than the "Big Spending Liberals".

 

[Tristan_C]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of SS is that taxes don't go to a trust fund; they are immediately diverted to other uses and spent on something else. They certainly aren't invested and locked up as they would be in a private fund. The "trust fund" consists solely of IOUs, and IOUs obviously are not assets.

While most SS revenue goes directly to the current payees, yeah. I think you're otherwise correct that the government borrows the amount in excess of the outgoing SS checks. This sounds to me like a dangerous system— "fox guarding the henhouse" comes to mind. I believe the failed effort in 2005 to partially privatize Social Security aimed to correct this in order to prepare the program against the demographic collapse coming up in a few years.

The reform was spearheaded by Bush, but he was more-or-less betrayed by a Republican congress that didn't want to touch the third rail and get zapped. An error. So many vexed conservatives "forgot" to vote the following year, the poor bastards got voted out anyway.

The problem is that the SS budget and the rest of the budget has been so blurred that one can't really operate that separate any longer.

But the problem here is that there just flat out isn't an excuse for shutting down the government. So if it is forced to do so, it should be in a way that brings the maximum political heat down on the people responsible for doing so. And that means SS, because that's as powerful politically as it gets.

Seriously, if Wall St and the business community and pretty much the whole economics profession cannot get the Republicans to see reason, then maybe millions of starving grannies can.

So, the ends justify the means. If you need to hold millions of grannies hostage to leverage your negotiations, then you're going to hold millions of grannies hostage to leverage your negotiations.

The republicans may be playing tough on not accepting a tax increase or raising the debt ceiling, but at least this comes out of some semblance of principle. Foisting the insolvency on the SS checks for political gain does not. Maybe you believe the rich and powerful hold the elected republicans captive, but the voters who put them there are convinced that tax hikes will do further harm and raising the ceiling will allow the cycle to continue. You may disagree on both counts, but there we are: two actual principles. The house republicans are not the ones holding people hostage, trying to inflict maximum harm in the hopes they can pin the blame on someone else. "Never let a crisis go to waste" is someone else's gig.

 

[Rashiminos]

Social Security is supposedly independent of the budget, and solvent for the moment. Accepting these, I don't understand why, then, Social Security recipients are being advertised as the first to suffer. A budget it supposedly has nothing to do with is now running dry; why is Social Security even entering in this debate? Why are all the local papers now running stories about terrified Social Security recipients clinging to their dialysis machines (example)? What about all the complex and obscure bureaucracies that carry out other operations? What about defense, regulatory agencies, R&D, and projects? Why are these checks (ahem, the supposedly independent checks) the front line?

There are only two possibilities: either this is publicity to get these House phones you mention ringing early simply by threatening people very loudly and emotionally, or Social Security's independence is a longstanding lie— a total, inexcusable falsehood that has been played to each succeeding generation by the former for years. I don't see any other possible causes for this bizarre scene than these. If it's the former, tsk tsk, that's very shameless and greedy of congress and the President. If it's the latter, than we should have enacted some privatization in 2005... if only for the sake of preventing the government looting the program!

Can anyone make an honest moral case for this behavior? I mean, do you think looting SS is right if there is no debt expansion? There's literally nothing else to do? The checks will have to stop?

SocSec may have been independent at one point in time, but it has not been treated that way in the last decade (and maybe back into the 90s, research pending; EDIT: pre-Reagan at least). The Bush administration dipped into it to help finance a couple of foreign ventures, and privatization was basically a way to cover the more tenuous position that set of programs was then placed in. Obama making a threat over payment of SocSec checks is a continuation of the trend of mixing the budgets together (and cooking the books). If we had privatized SocSec back then, the government would now look to raid some other performing section of its budget, which is the same behavioral issue with a few minor details changed. It's also a bipartisan effort, fwiw

Spoiler :

There is also the matter of the possibility of financial gain from the poor performance of private investments, including retirement plans. Some people are holding shears.

 

[Cutlass]

So, the ends justify the means. If you need to hold millions of grannies hostage to leverage your negotiations, then you're going to hold millions of grannies hostage to leverage your negotiations.

The republicans may be playing tough on not accepting a tax increase or raising the debt ceiling, but at least this comes out of some semblance of principle. Foisting the insolvency on the SS checks for political gain does not. Maybe you believe the rich and powerful hold the elected republicans captive, but the voters who put them there are convinced that tax hikes will do further harm and raising the ceiling will allow the cycle to continue. You may disagree on both counts, but there we are: two actual principles. The house republicans are not the ones holding people hostage, trying to inflict maximum harm in the hopes they can pin the blame on someone else. "Never let a crisis go to waste" is someone else's gig.

The Republican position isn't principled at all. They want to risk ruining the future of the economy unless the Democrats surrender on all points. It's all about winning, and no thought at all to the consequences for the country.

 

[BasketCase]

On the contrary, I take my position precisely because the consequences of continued deficit spending are worse than the Republican position. Raising the debt ceiling is what will ruin the future of the nation's economy.

 

[Tristan_C]

The Republican position isn't principled at all. They want to risk ruining the future of the economy unless the Democrats surrender on all points. It's all about winning, and no thought at all to the consequences for the country.

Just saying "Nope" doesn't really get you anywhere, since I gave reasons. Both parties have to answer to their voters for how they carry this out. The Democrat voters across the country want the Bush tax cuts to expire, and the Republican voters across the country do not. You could spam a hundred statements to the contrary, but one-sided statements are merely an insult to the fact that the barriers to compromise are on both sides and are, to boot, actually extremely easy to understand. Neither party wants to surrender and get pounded to dust by its own supporters in the next election.


As to the matter with Social Security, though, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, muttering darkly about holding up the SS checks. They control the executive. There are far less sensitive money channels that could dry up instead, but they choose to create angst over this one, because it's sure to lead to maximum chaos. You basically said so yourself. I suppose they can lean on sympathetic media to put the word out that the House Republicans "held up the checks." They definitely already have you convinced.

 

[GamezRule]

Ultimately, the if the United States cut spending on everything except Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, Defense, and Interest on Debt, we would still have an annual deficit of about 250 billion dollars. We essentially can't raise taxes unless Republicans see reason, nor cut defense for the same reason. So yeah, we either have to cut Medicaid, which helps poor people, or Medicare/Social Security, which helps old people.

source

 

[Cutlass]

Just saying "Nope" doesn't really get you anywhere, since I gave reasons. Both parties have to answer to their voters for how they carry this out. The Democrat voters across the country want the Bush tax cuts to expire, and the Republican voters across the country do not. You could spam a hundred statements to the contrary, but one-sided statements are merely an insult to the fact that the barriers to compromise are on both sides and are, to boot, actually extremely easy to understand. Neither party wants to surrender and get pounded to dust by its own supporters in the next election.


As to the matter with Social Security, though, it is the Democrats, not the Republicans, muttering darkly about holding up the SS checks. They control the executive. There are far less sensitive money channels that could dry up instead, but they choose to create angst over this one, because it's sure to lead to maximum chaos. You basically said so yourself. I suppose they can lean on sympathetic media to put the word out that the House Republicans "held up the checks." They definitely already have you convinced.

There isn't enough money to pay the SS without stopping pretty much all other payments.

 

[GamezRule]

There isn't enough money to pay the SS without stopping pretty much all other payments.

Ninja'd you, and with numbers to prove him wrong!

 

[Cutlass]

Ninja'd you, and with numbers to prove him wrong!

The point is that without added revenue from some source, there's no way to fund current operations. And there are just limited places that the money can come from. If the government doesn't make the debt payments, everyone is worse off in the long run.

 

[Godwynn]

Relevant:

The Economist

 

[JollyRoger]

Please opine.

In my opinion, one should not question the truthfulness of the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. If he says 80%, then you should more properly focus on what is wrong with 20% of America that isn't in lockstep with the rest of us.

 

[MobBoss]

In my opinion, one should not question the truthfulness of the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war. If he says 80%, then you should more properly focus on what is wrong with 20% of America that isn't in lockstep with the rest of us.

Does this opinion change with the political affiliation of whoever sits in the Oval Office chair?

 

[JollyRoger]

Does this opinion change with the political affiliation of whoever sits in the Oval Office chair?

That was my point.