- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
I'm not really sure that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton
: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
I'm not really sure that it is accurate to describe Bill Clinton as
wanting
to save Social Security with the surplus, but I can't admit to being
particularly interested in that debate right now either. Now, paying
down
* JDG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Republicans pretty well kept that from happening.) Now, paying down
the national debt would only really have benefited Social Security to
the extent that the overall ratio of US debt to GDP might become so
overly burdensome in the near future as to prevent
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:36:34 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* JDG ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Republicans pretty well kept that from happening.) Now, paying down
the national debt would only really have benefited Social Security to
the extent that the overall ratio of US debt
:
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:16 PM
Subject: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
My point is that trickle-down economics is a pejorative propoganda
term
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:56:29 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has reduced the government's take of GDP to 17%.
No. It merely has changed the source of the take. In 2000, total
government spending was
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Saturday, January 22, 2005 9:16 PM
Subject: Budget Deficits and Supply-Siders Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
Dan,
My point is that trickle-down economics is a pejorative propoganda
term
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
has reduced the government's take of GDP to 17%.
No. It merely has changed the source of the take. In 2000, total
government spending was 18.4% of GDP. In 2003, it was 19.9%. Using
T-bills to finance the government
On Jan 24, 2005, at 5:05 AM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Julia Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I read the rest of the post. Understood most of it. Wish AARP would
jump off a cliff or do something similarly constructive
Martin Wolf, an economist who writes an excellent weekly column for
the
I am confused here- how does giving parents extra votes votes counteract
the old's power? Don't the old have most of the sons and daughters?
~Maru
Erik Reuter wrote:
Martin Wolf, an economist who writes an excellent weekly column for
the _Finanical Times_, has suggested that one way to
Kotlikoff and Burns Both Diss Bush Social Security Plans
The Democrats want to deal with it in the traditional manner of
politicians: denial. They intend to tinker their way through the
largest demographic change in American history. It simply won't work.
And now we know what the Republicans
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
1950: 1156%
1960 180%
1970 101%
1975 63%
1980 23%
This reflects a true, immediate crisis.
My god! You're right, it is the crisis of proportionally spaced fonts!
Oh, the misalignment! The pain! The exclamation points!!!
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
1950: 1156%
1960 180%
1970 101%
1975 63%
1980 23%
This reflects a true, immediate crisis.
My god! You're right, it is the crisis of proportionally spaced fonts!
Oh, the
At 08:08 PM 1/22/2005 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
BTW, you asked for the publicly held funds debt as a function of GDP: The
same pattern is there, but there are a couple of minor changes:
'46 108.6
Truman 61.6
Eisenhower I 51.9
Eisenhower II 45.6
Kennedy I 40.1
Dan,
My point is that trickle-down economics is a pejorative propoganda term.
Not a term for serious discussion. Or at least, not if you want me to
take you seriously.
You state the supply-side economics is touted as a means of reducing the
nominal federal budget deficit, namely by
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
In this particular issue, you are making the same mistake, in my
opinion, as the Bush camp -- labeling Social Security as in a
present-day crisis.
So you do volunteer to champion an immediate SS benefit cut to 73% now
for you and your cohorts?
I
At 05:56 PM 1/19/2005 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
But, my generation supported higher taxes on itself to partially pay for
our own generation. Right now, our taxes have put 3.3 trillion into the
trust fund for our own retirement.
I think this is why we are talking past each other.
If the SSA were
On Jan 20, 2005, at 6:50 AM, JDG wrote:
So, what is this so-called trickle-down economics practiced by the
two
Bushes and Reagan???
Tax cuts to the very wealthy on the grounds that they will employ more
people, which will cause money to trickle down from the top into
the rest of the economy.
On Jan 19, 2005, at 7:43 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Jan 19, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think it went more like this:
Think again. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Bush
supporter. Kotlikoff, the
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 10:16 PM
Subject: Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If it were, then we wouldn't have fixed things in the early
While I disagree with his solutions K is opposed to the Bush plans.
If I were holding bonds, I'd be very nervous,'' Kotlikoff adds. ``He
(Bush) seems geared up to make an extremely bad fiscal situation worse
by cutting Social Security taxes,'' Kotlikoff says.
Bush has proposed peeling off 2
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
At 09:03 PM 1/19/2005 -0600 Dan Minette wrote:
It's true that the present budget
deficits are very worrisome
Erik Reuter wrote:
He could equivalently have said the system is broken. The
forecast is that SS will not be able to pay scheduled benefits in the
future without an increase in funding.
If that's what he meant, then that's what he could have said. I hear a
world of difference between broke and
On Jan 19, 2005, at 9:47 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
I have a hard time believing this administration's claims of crisis,
since I now think they misused it to raise support for the war.
This is another sticking point for me too. I simply don't think Bush II
has any credibility at all. They tweaked
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
He could equivalently have said the system is broken. The
forecast is that SS will not be able to pay scheduled benefits in the
future without an increase in funding.
If that's what he meant, then that's what he could have said.
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If that's what he meant, then that's what he could have said. I
hear a world of difference between broke and broken. To me,
the former is inappropriate language of crisis. I have a hard time
believing this
Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
He said it perfectly correctly. Present value of liabilities exceeding
present value of income is as good a definition as I know of broke.
Do you consider broke to mean insolvent? That's what it means to
you. Your formula means
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
A *future* crisis. I think there's a big difference between saying
there is a crisis that we must deal with now and there will be a
crisis if we don't make changes now. To me, it's like the difference
I see. What you are saying is you see a big
Erik Reuter wrote:
I see. What you are saying is you see a big difference whether YOU
have to pay for the crisis, or whether you can foist it off on someone
else by doing nothing now.
You see like a blind man, as if there were no difference at all in how
to respond to a present crisis v. a future
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 12:16 PM
Subject: Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
A *future* crisis. I think there's a big difference between
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I haven't said do nothing. But I don't see how we can possibly
reach any sort of consensus about what to, since we don't agree on
whether this is a present or future crisis.
So you agree to taking the cut to 73% now for your generation? You would
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But, we do have to remember, that even with a 25% downward step
function in benefits paid in '45, the paid benefits at retirement will
still be 36% more than they all now.
But not the fair share of the people below 40. How is it fair for the
boomers to
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:59:10 -0500, Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I haven't said do nothing. But I don't see how we can possibly
reach any sort of consensus about what to, since we don't agree on
whether this is a present or future crisis.
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But, we do have to remember, that even with a 25% downward step
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Those folks got a lot more than they paid inas a fraction of GDP.
But, since they weathered the Great Depression and WWII, and built a
United States where I could prosper, I don't begrudge them that. The
fact that the baby boomers will do a bit
Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I haven't said do nothing. But I don't see how we can possibly
reach any sort of consensus about what to, since we don't agree on
whether this is a present or future crisis.
So you agree to taking the cut to 73% now for your
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:35:53 -0800, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I haven't said do nothing. But I don't see how we can possibly
reach any sort of consensus about what to, since we don't agree on
whether this is a
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Those folks got a lot more than they paid inas a fraction
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Those are the two choices, eh? Nothing or cut to 73 percent when?
If we make no changes, SS trustee's best estimate is that there will
only be money to pay 73% of scheduled benefits in 2042. Surely you knew
this? It is printed on the SS statement they
Just found a site with lotsa interesting statistics @
http://tinyurl.com/ym2l
I think figs. 1 and 2 are particularly relevant.
Dan M.
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But, my generation supported higher taxes on itself to partially pay
for our own generation. Right now, our taxes have put 3.3 trillion
into the trust fund for our own retirement. It should near 5 trillion
by 2010 (or about 40% of GDP). The change
Erik Reuter wrote:
Your stated choice is to do nothing now because it is only a future
crisis.
Really? When and where did I state that as my choice? I can clearly
recall saying that how we respond to an impending crisis is different
from how we might react to a present one. Aren't you saying
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
The administration and its language of crisis is what I have been
talking about all along. No change.
I see. Somebody give this man an inkblot test
What do you see in this one? [shows inkblot]
Bush.
And this one? [shows another inkblot]
Bush.
Perhaps it had a Bush-y tail.
~Maru
Y'know Bush doesn't give many press conferences. Maybe cat's got his
tongue? :)
Erik Reuter wrote:
...
How about this one [shows picture of a cat]
Bush!
--
Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/
___
Erik,
I see. Somebody give this man an inkblot test
What do you see in this one? [shows inkblot]
Bush.
And this one? [shows another inkblot]
Bush.
How about this one [shows picture of a cat]
Bush!
I think it went more like this:
What do you see in this one?
[Shows an inkblot of a thing
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think it went more like this:
Think again. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Bush
supporter. Kotlikoff, the person I was quoting originally (which Nick
replied to) is a college professor, not in the Bush administration. Nick
has Bush on the
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: Kotlikoff's PSS plan
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
But, my generation supported higher taxes on itself
On Jan 19, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think it went more like this:
Think again. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Bush
supporter. Kotlikoff, the person I was quoting originally (which Nick
replied to) is a college professor, not in the
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Jan 19, 2005, at 6:34 PM, Erik Reuter wrote:
* Dave Land ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think it went more like this:
Think again. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Bush
supporter. Kotlikoff, the person I was quoting originally (which
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
It may be helpful to look at the fraction of SS tax going to paying
for the present generation (both retirement and disability) and for
future use. By decade the % of SS taxes being put away for the future
is:
I don't think it is so helpful. The most
* Dan Minette ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
If it were, then we wouldn't have fixed things in the early '80s.
We did not fix things in the early 80's.
But, I...as I think others doreserve the word crisis for something
that may collapse on us if we don't address it soon. I think our
Erik Reuter wrote:
Think again. I am not by any stretch of the imagination a Bush
supporter. Kotlikoff, the person I was quoting originally (which Nick
replied to) is a college professor, not in the Bush administration. Nick
has Bush on the Brain.
In this particular issue, you are making the same
Here's a recent article by Kotlikoff on his plan to replace SS.
http://econ.bu.edu/kotlikoff/Globe%20Op%20Ed%2011-21-04.pdf
The end of Social Security?
Don't reform it, replace it
By Laurence J. Kotlikoff | November 21, 2004
After a long campaign season of spin, smear, and slogan, we're finally
Erik Reuter wrote:
... But Social Security is
broke,
Pretty hard to continue reading after that sentence.
Unless, of course, I hear that all the Social Security checks are
bouncing and find out that it's true.
Nick
___
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Erik Reuter wrote:
... But Social Security is broke,
Pretty hard to continue reading after that sentence.
Unless, of course, I hear that all the Social Security checks are
bouncing and find out that it's true.
If you want a more detailed
The best plan for reforming Social Security that I have seen comes
from Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns in their book _The Coming
Generational Storm_. (By the way, they also outline a medical reform
plan, if anyone is interested I'll summarize that too)
Here is their 11-point plan summary of
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Erik Reuter wrote:
The best plan for reforming Social Security that I have seen comes
from Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns in their book _The Coming
Generational Storm_. (By the way, they also outline a medical reform
plan, if anyone is interested I'll summarize that
57 matches
Mail list logo
