dagblog - Comments for "Obama's New Stimulus, (He's Still Not Getting It)"

Zounds, Peter; some kinda

we are stardust — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 02:03:22 +0000

In reply to Oh Cho...must we arrive at

Zounds, Peter; some kinda man-crush ya got on Cho, eh? "Missing Chubby"? "Don't leave me!" Wanna talk about it dude?

See Cho above, I guess. A

we are stardust — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:22:10 +0000

In reply to Never Krauthammer. I won't

See Cho above, I guess. A friend sent me this site for an MMT primer; can't say I know enough to grasp it all, and guess I don't want to spend the time it would require. The folks at www.correntewire.com seem to be adherents, too.

too soon...? okay, I'll try

Cho — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 22:07:42 +0000

In reply to Oh Cho...must we arrive at

too soon...? okay, I'll try again later.

I'm saying you're wrong AND playing into the GOP frame. If you join them in saying the Social Security system is a fiction, all you have is a fat chunk of general revenue going to benefits for poor retirees. Of course you'd never actually say that, but that is all there is left when you elide the facts of the trust fund and designated payroll tax.

Whereas we all know that the trust fund represents the Reagan-era deal whereby the working class boomers took a tax hike in order to finance their own retirement. The deal was supposed to involve using the money to invest in the economy - ergo deficit spending - so that the boomers' children would have higher incomes in the later decades and able to finance that debt. If you deny the existence of the trust fund, you're denying that deal - explicit and implicit - between workers and the government. All you have left is a big entry on the spending side that just needs to face cuts like everything else.

Oh Cho...must we arrive at

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:55:14 +0000

In reply to You're just denying Social

Oh Cho...must we arrive at this dreary point so soon?

I'm discussing...what are you doing? Shadow boxing? Tilting at ideological windmills?

MIssing Chubby?

Just as a small answer, there is NOTHING I've said that even remotely supports your assertion that I'm saying SS income is a "wasteful set of welfare benefits for the undeserving poor."

Never Krauthammer. I won't

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:50:00 +0000

In reply to So you agree with Charles

Never Krauthammer. I won't read your CK link, because Chuck just makes me too angry. I've sworn off him. BUT...as I understand him, he makes a somewhat different argument from what I'm saying.

He says, the trust fund is filled with a bunch of worthless paper AND THEREFORE future SS payments are in jeopardy. We thought we were depositing all this money for later us, but every time we put in a dollar, someone (the government) took it and spent and left a worthless piece of paper in its place. Therefore, there will be no money for us when we get to retirement.

I'm semi-agreeing with this, but saying we WILL receive payments and that only depends on the government deciding to pay us, which it will. Moreover, its ability to pay us doesn't have that much to do with how much was paid into the trust fund.

More like MMT. Is MMT true? Don't know, but it makes a certain amount of sense to me.

You're just denying Social

Cho — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:46:36 +0000

In reply to Yes, but that default occurs

You're just denying Social security has a designated revenue stream and its own financial holdings. In short you're just adopting the right wing talking point that Social Security isn't a stand-alone institution where you pay in for retirement income insurance, but just a wasteful set of welfare benefits for the undeserving poor.

Knock yourself out, but you're being economical with the truth. And not in a good way.

Yes, but that default occurs

Peter Schwartz — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:36:31 +0000

In reply to And if there is insufficient

Yes, but that default occurs not because there is insufficient money saved in the piggy bank, but because the government decides it isn't going to pay its bills.

It's not as though the government has this account stuffed with past revenues that it can then draw on--the way a person saves his dimes and can then withdraw them at a later date.

When the government goes to pay its SS obligations, it will pay them out of money it is collecting then. Or, perhaps more accurately, it will just pay them, regardless of how much it's collecting.

So you agree with Charles

we are stardust — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:22:10 +0000

In reply to It depends on how real you

So you agree with Charles Krauthammer? Or is the Modern Monetary Theory I don't grasp, even though I've tried reading many pieces about it?

And if there is insufficient

Cho — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 21:03:01 +0000

In reply to And if there is insufficient

And if there is insufficient money to pay them, there is insufficient money.

Right. That's called a default. But no more and no less than is the case for the 3 trillion the Chinese hold. The SS trust fund and the Chinese investment funds hold paper of the same quality. If you don't pay your debts you don't pay your debts.

So now you're saying all US sovereign debt is a fiction. Which is just nonsense.

YO Cho, I hate to break it to

Resistance — Sun, 12 Jun 2011 20:51:35 +0000

In reply to No, the point is the money is

YO Cho, I hate to break it to you but those IOU's, left by the crooks who would rather owe you than beat you out of it stole the REAL Money, They claimed YOU gave them authority to leverage the asset. you subrogated your rights.

They left the bill to the kids and the kids have said they never authorized the transfer.

Those IOU's are like Confederate money.

The Supreme Court refuses to hear the case,