17 comments:

Brooks said...

Bruce,

Whatever your reasons for creating this page, thanks for doing so. And thank you for the civil and professional (non-prejudicial) manner in which you introduced this thread.

I'm just going to pick up where our dialogue was (lamely) interrupted by Mark Thoma.

IMPORTANT: Please READ Thoma's post of Krugman's views and ALL my comments and yours here. This reading is essential (minimal) background for the following.

And here is my reply to your last comment (3/30/08, 11:12am), which Mark Thoma did not allow:

Bruce Webb,

(Mark Thoma and everyone: Please forgive the length of this comment. I don't intend to make it a habit, but I'm really trying to gain some understanding here.)

First, I’m glad we’re having a civil exchange this time, even though you are still not getting my point and apparently you think I’m not getting yours (which I am, but that’s beside the point, since you don’t think I am).

It seems possible that you only scanned my reply to your previous comment rather than actually reading it and thinking about it, since you are now making points that I addressed in my reply, and your comment here does not seem to reflect a knowledge and understanding of what I said. I realize my comment was very long. I wanted to clearly and fairly thoroughly address your points. If you just scanned it, please read and think about that comment as well as this one (despite the length) so we don’t keep going around in circles.

Re: “Brooks you are still making the same error. 'Would' does not imply 'should', at least not in isolation. If you believe that Social Security benefits are too high in relation to the utility of redirecting those revenues in some other direction then make the case.”

I am making no such error. As I told you over at Beat the Press and as I told you in my comment above, my purpose was to point out a fundamental conceptual/analytical error that many people were making and on which they were basing their strong views on the extremely important issue of SS policy and, in turn, overall fiscal policy. It seems that you don’t think that such a correction has any value in itself, but would only be worth making if it served to support a policy position one was advocating. I strongly disagree. If people are basing their respective positions on erroneous assumptions or fundamentally flawed analysis, it is worth correcting them just so that discussion/debate can proceed in a rational, logical manner based on relevant, valid arguments. You are free to see no benefit to such a correction if it does not support your policy objectives, but you should not assume that everyone has such a mentality. I, for one, do not. I cannot tell you how many times I have told someone who shares my policy preference on an issue that some of his reasons are invalid (e.g., factual or analytical errors) or brought to his attention a strong counter-argument that he was not considering or sufficiently appreciating. To me, that’s a matter of intellectual integrity as well as humility (humility because I realize no one can be certain that his policy position is best, so encouraging, facilitating and participating in legitimate, rational, informed discussion/debate is at least as important as promoting my policy preference – just as I think that professional educators should, in their classrooms, place a higher priority on providing information, analytical structures and training/encouragement of independent research and critical thinking than on promoting their particular views and preferences).

So yes, of course “would” does not imply “should”, and I have said over and over again in thread after thread that the point I was making does not mean we SHOULD cut projected SS spending (or that we SHOULD NOT). But if people are refusing to accept and acknowledge that a particular policy option with known costs (i.e., harm to those who would receive lower SS benefits than they otherwise would) “would” provide some benefit (reduction in the overall fiscal imbalance, and without defaulting on bonds), it is not possible to move on to a discussion of whether or not the benefits would outweigh the costs, right?

And may I ask why you did not respond to my question as to whether or not you regard my statements #1 through #4 as “True”? Will you do so, and if not, why not? I hope that this time we’re having a real discussion. I think it would be appropriate for you to answer rather than ignoring my question. You have said in this thread that the main point I’ve been making is quite obviously correct and have been met with agreement from the start. I’ve restated my point, or more precisely, points. If they are obviously correct, please just say so.

Re: “You continually talk about overall fiscal imbalance without ever, ever putting those dollars in context of overall budget figures.”

Simply incorrect. Many times I have provided links to charts, reports, and other info showing our overall projected fiscal imbalance and the components thereof (SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, Interest, Other Discretionary, etc. as well as levels of taxation). Please don’t make such strong assertions of “fact” unless you have good reason to believe they are true. It’s very presumptuous and grossly unfair.

Re: “We could pick the smallest out of the way federal agency and make every single logical claim about it you have advanced from day one about Social Security.”

Well, yes. As I said, every dollar spent on anything is a dollar contributed to our fiscal imbalance (except insofar as it generates a return on investment that produces revenue feedback). But your “smallest out of the way federal agency” would only be contributing to this fiscal imbalance a tiny fraction of what SS contribues. Yes, if someone contended that spending $50 million on this agency didn’t contribute at all to our fiscal imbalance simply because it had a dedicated tax funding it (and that tax was not a new, incremental tax, but was rather already included in the calculation of the fiscal imbalance), I would correct him, too. But such a conceptual/analytical error concerning that agency in particular would not merit as much attention and effort to correct people on their error as would the same type of error concerning a program that cost 10,000 times that much, right?

Re: “"And I am NOT focusing particularly on SS (as opposed to Medicare, or taxes, or discretionary spending), nor have I EVER suggested “starting with” SS as we seek to reduce our fiscal imbalance." Come on now! Please point me to a post where you have used any other example. If the subject is Social Security whether here or at Beat the Press you show up and make this same argument and always in the context of Social Security. Perhaps you have made appearances on Ag Economics blogs and made the case against ethanol subsidies on fiscal grounds, all I know is that I never seem to run into you in threads that don't involve this specific topic. Your claim that you are trying to just make a general point about finance kind of runs afoul of your actual track record of commenting.”

Believe it or not, my participation in discussions/debates on economic/fiscal policies are not limited to this blog and Beat the Press, much less to just the threads you’ve seen me on (or recall seeing me on). First, even on this blog and Beat the Press I have indeed repeatedly advocated other means of reducing our fiscal imbalance (e.g., tax increases) as well as stating many times that we need to look at ALL spending as well as raising taxes. Second, I have taken a similarly comprehensive approach elsewhere in the blogosphere (and in emails and conversations with friends and acquaintances). I have advocated on numerous blogs and in letters to the editor published in major publications for a non-partisan or bi-partisan commission to put all options on the table and develop alternative means (alternative sets of sacrifices of various types and degrees) of solving the long-term fiscal imbalance problem. And I have indeed criticized ethanol subsidies, an appallingly lame policy – wasting taxpayer money and driving up food prices for little to no environmental benefit, and all because of the Iowa caucuses, farm state senators, and large agribusiness (e.g., ADM) campaign contributions. And it’s one of my poster child examples of why we need public funding of campaigns. (See my comments in threads starting here and here). (We probably should also rotate the first primary and caucuses among the states from cycle to cycle.) As I mentioned in my previous comment and several times in the past, I devoted a lot of time and energy in the blogosphere (and among friends/acquaintances), including many, many times on hostile RedState.com, trying to disavow people of the myth that, as a rule, “tax cuts increase revenues”, that the Bush tax cuts had done so, and that tax increases would not increase revenues. I explained to them that just because revenues had increased since the 2003 tax cuts, it didn’t mean that the tax cuts had had a positive net impact on revenues, and that revenue increases following the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts didn’t prove the general rule they though it did (explaining that cherry-picked anecdotal observations don’t constitute proper correlation analysis, let alone establishing causation). Many reacted the same way you did, Bruce: by saying my assertion was not only obviously wrong but reflected utter ignorance, equating my correction of their false assumption with advocacy of a particular policy (in that case, tax increases) and accusing me of hiding my supposed agenda (“lefty tax and spend”). I have argued vigorously that further tax cuts would NOT be fiscally conservative because fiscal conservatism must mean, first and foremost, fiscal responsibility, which tax cuts would most certainly not represent, and I ridiculed the attitude of many on the right that tax cuts are a good idea under any conditions. And in my ONLY diary ever addressing SS in particular – indeed, to the best of my recollection, in my only COMMENT on SS in particular anywhere in the blogosphere outside of this site and Beat the Press and once or twice on Café Hayek – I did NOT advocate cutting projected SS spending, but rather addressed only the same fundamental conceptual/analytical error (on the part of both “sides” of the SS debate) that I have addressed on this site and on Beat the Press.

Granted, on this site and on Beat the Press I have indeed spent much of my time trying to correct people on this conceptual error being made regarding SS “solvency”. That’s because a large portion of the posts and comments about which I feel I have something to contribute pertain to that subject and serve to perpetuate that conceptual error. I have also, on these two sites, discussed the myth held on the right that tax cuts generally increase revenues, I have discussed on several threads the degree to which demographics contribute to projected Medicare cost growth vs. excess cost growth unrelated to demographics, and I’ve expressed my view that tax increases are necessary.

So hopefully you are satisfied that (1) despite your impression, I have NOT focused particularly on SS as a means for reducing our overall fiscal imbalance, (2) the points about “solvency” that I’ve tried so hard to make so many times is NOT even advocacy of cutting SS, just a correction of a fundamental conceptual/analytical error that people are making (3) that making such a correction IS worthwhile even if one is not advocating a particular policy position (just as it is in the case of the “tax cuts increase revenues” myth whether one opposes tax cuts or not), and someone offering such a correction is not necessarily hiding some agenda.

Re: “Are you talking letting Bush tax cuts on the wealth expire? Or raising payroll taxes in an attempt to have workers finance even more of the General Fund deficit?”

First, as I’ve explained, getting into a policy discussion/debate is really a separate matter from the conceptual point I’ve been trying to make, and we really should come to agreement on that conceptual point before moving on to particular policy choices. But to answer your question, I am not referring only or in particular to payroll taxes (nor have I given you any reason to suspect that). Yes, I want the Bush tax cuts to expire, perhaps with some adjustment. In general, there is a trade-off between tax policy that slices up the nation’s wealth more evenly and tax policy that grows the nation’s wealth, but I believe in progressive taxation, and given the major fiscal sacrifices we will have to make and the pain these sacrifices will cause, I lean toward (eventually) an even more progressive structure than pre-Bush since the pain will be great and wealthy obviously have more to give relative to the pain it will cause. But I would consider the impact on GDP and dynamic effects on revenue as well as considerations of wealth distribution and relative pain.

Now, assuming you are genuinely interested in a good-faith discussion, again PLEASE tell me if you agree that my statements #1 – 4 in my previous comment are “True”, and if you don’t think they are completely true, please explain. As you know, I have tried many, many, many times to get a straight answer from you on those statements, so please extend me the courtesy of answering. If you don’t accept those statements as true and can’t give a valid reason why they aren’t, further discussion would seem pointless.

Brooks

12:29 PM  

Brooks said...

One of my links above did not work. I'll paste the sentence below and hopefully link will work:

As I mentioned in my previous comment and several times in the past, I devoted a lot of time and energy in the blogosphere (and among friends/acquaintances), including many, many times on hostile RedState.com, trying to disavow people of the myth that, as a rule, “tax cuts increase revenues”, that the Bush tax cuts had done so, and that tax increases would not increase revenues.

1:11 PM  

Brooks said...

I don't know why the link isn't working, but here's the URL
http://logicizer.blogtownhall.com/

It's very useful for anyone trying to convince an irrational supply-sider that the Bush tax cuts have NOT generated higher revenues.

1:14 PM  

Bruce Webb said...

Brooks I should be able to consolidate these three comments into an integrated front page post sometime tomorrow morning which for me starts generally about 6AM Pacific. I'll reserve my response until then.

5:07 PM  

Brooks said...

Bruce,

If possible, please just post the first comment, but with the faulty link (discussed in the second and third comments) corrected.

Thanks.

5:11 PM  

Anonymous said...

This isn't related to the lead post, just want to thank Mr. Webb for his yeoman's work analyzing SS.

When I started looking into SS myself, starting as a person who believed there was a solvency problem, I came to believe that most of what was being discussed in public was counterfactual & spun to actually confuse people & stampede them into pre-selected "solutions" for a problem that didn't exist.

To my knowledge, you're the only observer who's compared the Trustees' Projections to the returned actuals, & that in itself should make one wonder - supposedly Congress & the press are monitoring such things.

Yet all ordinary people hear in the press is crisis hype, & both aisles of Congress buy into it, with the Republicans pushing for privatization & the Dems pushing for increased payroll taxes or lifts on the cap.

I hope you are able to reach a wider audience, & soon. Out here in the hinterlands, everyone I know is convinced SS is bankrupt, especially young people. If the economy tanks, that seems to me an opportunity for the "Leninists" (of the Cato school) to take down SS.

That would be a disaster, IMO.

Thanks again for your work.

HB

5:29 PM  

Bruce Webb said...

Brooks will do.

HB thanks. This blog was conceived and carried out as something kind of a passive link list back to the Reports, depending on interest I am looking to activate it in a more proactive way. It is astonishing how much difference having unlimited Internet access 24/7 via a iPhone makes.

6:29 PM  

Bruce Webb said...

Brooks, I don't have time to address every point. You might consider editing down some. But here we go.

"I'm just going to pick up where our dialogue was (lamely) interrupted by Mark Thoma."

Brooks you do this just about every time. There is absolutely no reason to take a shot at Thoma and frankly you are really not in a position to make those kind of judgements. You did the same thing with Dean Baker. This is not only extremely rude behavior in what is in effect someone else's house, it serves to immediately alienate other commenters who admire and respect the hosts. To put it in your terms that was both uncivil and unprofessional, and I might add typical.

"even though you are still not getting my point and apparently you think I’m not getting yours (which I am, but that’s beside the point, since you don’t think I am)."

Oh my God. You start right off the bat with a negative judgement of my understanding of your argument combined with a positive assertion of your understanding of mine. Once again you are simply applying a really appalling double standard. Too much of your general style boils down to" "I (Brooks) am right and you are wrong (and probably deliberately so) but I will slow it down so even a dunce can understand it". Boy howdy, and then wonder why you don't get any respect. If you don't give respect you don't earn respect. Earning respect takes something more than blowing onto a website and stating 'I am Brooks and this is how it is!' Which is pretty much your standard approach. As in the following:

"my purpose was to point out a fundamental conceptual/analytical error that many people were making"

It is simply your opinion that this error is one an error to start with, still less that its roots are in conceptual or analytical failure. Once again you are claiming an authority you have not earned.

"If people are basing their respective positions on erroneous assumptions or fundamentally flawed analysis, it is worth correcting them just so that discussion/debate can proceed in a rational, logical manner based on relevant, valid arguments. "

Rational, logical, relevant, valid as defined and judged by Brooks. Who made you king of the logical discourse?

"You are free to see no benefit to such a correction if it does not support your policy objectives, but you should not assume that everyone has such a mentality."

Once again you are simply asserting the correctness in your analysis of my motives and accusing me of ignoring your argument in light of my policy objectives, which pretty much equates to calling me a liar. That you don't see how offensive your language is is telling. And by the way you just blew your whole argument with the following:

"Well, yes. As I said, every dollar spent on anything is a dollar contributed to our fiscal imbalance (except insofar as it generates a return on investment that produces revenue feedback). But your “smallest out of the way federal agency” would only be contributing to this fiscal imbalance a tiny fraction of what SS contributes."

Which when you combine it with this makes you a dissembler.

“"And I am NOT focusing particularly on SS (as opposed to Medicare, or taxes, or discretionary spending), nor have I EVER suggested “starting with” SS as we seek to reduce our fiscal imbalance."

Come on Brooks, you let the cat out of the bag with "tiny fraction". You are making a specific judgement about the affordability of Social Security and not the general case you are currently trying to claim.

"First, even on this blog and Beat the Press I have indeed repeatedly advocated other means of reducing our fiscal imbalance (e.g., tax increases) as well as stating many times that we need to look at ALL spending as well as raising taxes."

Has it ever come in the form of raising taxes other than FICA? Not that I recall. If you think you are scoring points by saying 'We don't have to cut Social Security benefits, we could instead boost Social Security taxes' you are dead wrong.

Then after some blather about ethanol and supply side you return to form:

"Many reacted the same way you did, Bruce: by saying my assertion was not only obviously wrong but reflected utter ignorance, equating my correction of their false assumption with advocacy of a particular policy "

Dude I dare you to find a post where I said your assertion was 'obviously wrong' or that it 'reflected utter ignorance. Instead I pointed out not that it is wrong, but that without specific context instead 'trivial' and that while you may not be utterly ignorant you are amazingly obtuse. And you can't help slipping in another insult, which you may not even recognize as an insult.

More later.

11:10 AM  

Bruce Webb said...

"Now, assuming you are genuinely interested in a good-faith discussion, again PLEASE tell me if you agree that my statements #1 – 4 in my previous comment are “True”, and if you don’t think they are completely true, please explain."

I am genuinely interested in good-faith discussions. I just don't think that that is what this or previous exchanges are or were.

You deliberately entered policy threads specifically focused on Social Security solvency, made claims that made it clear that you thought Social Security was a huge liability (as you did here with 'tiny fraction') when challenged retreated into a very pretentious, overly verbose claim that everyone but you was making fundamental conceptual errors and that all you were trying to do was make a logical correction.

Well sorry I don't buy it. And BTW I didn't put up this post so that we could continue this ridiculous back and forth, instead I hoped you would state some actual policy position, that instead of trying to trick people into conceding your logical premises and then popping out your policy conclusion, that instead you would state your argument and then outline and justify the assumptions that underlie it. Instead you still are trying to lay dense logical snares hoping to trap us.

Well it is not working because frankly some of us are actually pretty highly trained thinkers. . You are trying to pitch a sophomore level argument into a discussion that here and there is happening at a graduate seminar level that you are perhaps not capable of perceiving. Which may explain why you have openly insulted some very high powered thinkers with world wide reputations (which obviously doesn't include me) but does include Professor Thoma and Dean Baker. I have all the time in the world, but I found it amazing that either would spend so much of their valuable time trying to show you the weakness of your argument and argumentative style. If you would simply look around you would see that these two guys are constantly being cited with approval by all the top thinkers in their field. By and large you would be advised to start with the assumption that they actually do understand your argument and are rejecting it on substantive grounds, or contrawise that it is trivial. In which case you need to reexamine that argument. Or contrawise you could conclude that you were not expressing your argument in a clear enough way and find some way to express it in a more concise way. Simply repeating your argument at ever and ever increasing length using more and more verbiage, throwing in latinisms in 'arguendo', 'ceteris paribus' doesn't demonstrate that you are some deep thinker showing obvious truths to the unenlightened, it simply reveals you as a pompous windbag of a type familiar to every academic who ever lived.

I have graded a fair number of undergraduate papers in my time and yours would probably come out with a B. For padding and pretentiousness for starters. If you would like me to put up a new fresh post so that you can restate your argument in straightforward terms from the beginning (and not in reference to past discussions) I'll be glad to do so. I was willing to take some time on the chance you were willing to elevate this above the level of tit for tat wordy flame war, well this was a disappointment. I wasted an entire morning here.

Anyway the choice is yours. If you want to make a positive, as opposed to a reactive, argument then I'll give you space. But I am not at all interested in continuing this kind of meta-discussion, particular not when it is laced with accusations of me acting in bad faith.

Civil and professional were your words. I don't think you have passed your own test.

11:45 AM  

Brooks said...

Bruce,

This is a response to only parts of your comments (there are a lot of misunderstandings, mischaracterizations and non sequiturs to deal with). More to follow.

First, I don't want to spend a lot of time correcting your mischaracterizations of my tone in the blogosphere or of your tone and comments to me, although I may try to dig up the threads with our earliest exchanges a few months back, and if I do I'll show you where you did indeed characterize me as ignorant (among other flattering descriptors) in response to the central point I made then and have been making since.

Let me explain something you are still not getting. I'll state it in neutral fashion to hopefully avoid the problem you are having understanding it. You implied that my making what I considered to be a correction of a fundamental conceptual/analytical error people were making regarding a very important policy matter would only have a purpose if it was part of my effort to advocate some policy position. I have tried to explain to you that I see providing such a correction -- if it is indeed a correction -- as having a very real, important purpose in itself, whether or not the person providing it has a policy preference that the correction somehow serves to support. If you don't think my correction was indeed a correction, fine (and see the following paragraph and question/statements). But I was stating my strong disagreement with your implication that such corrections have no purpose or value in themselves. ok? agreed?

Now, on to substance regarding SS, if you'll join me on that ground.

I think we should be able to agree at least that a good-faith discussion/debate should at least include direct answers to straight-forward questions, rather than ignoring such questions, "answering" straw men substitutes for them, or other avoidance or diversion. As you know I have asked you the same basic questions -- the questions that represent the main point I've been making -- over a dozen times and you have never answered them. You have, however, said (in that thread on Thoma's site) that I keep bringing up the same point (which you didn't describe correctly) which is obviously correct. Yet you still won't respond when I practically beg you to PLEASE just answer if you think the statements below are true. And the rationale you offer for not answering these simple questions is that I am "trying to trick people into conceding [my] logical premises". I am not saying this to be snarky, but I must say that I would be embarrassed to respond to someone with such a rationale (and insulted if someone defended me with it) because it's essentially saying "Hey, I'm not gonna answer that question, because I don't know what you're up to, but you're up to something bad, and if I answer your questions you might say something next that will cause me some kinda trouble." Look, it seems that no layperson on earth has collected and analyzed more about SS than you, so I really find that rationale odd unless what's really going on is that you just don't want to say that I'm right.

I'll try yet again. Do you agree that all four statements below are true?

1) Under current spending policies and at current levels of taxation, we face a huge, unsustainable OVERALL long-term fiscal imbalance that must be substantially reduced via higher taxation, lower spending (vs. projection), or a combination of the two.

2) Every dollar we spend on anything contributes to this imbalance, so SS spending contributes to this imbalance even if it is/were projected to be “solvent” forever, and a reduction in projected SS spending would reduce this overall fiscal imbalance.

3) Reducing projected SS spending would NOT require defaulting on the Trust Fund bonds even if, under the current SS FICA tax structure (tax rates and applicable income), SS is/were projected to be “solvent” forever, because we could simply lower the SS FICA tax rate (or the limit on applicable income) accordingly to match the lower level of projected spending (so that SS surpluses and Trust Fund assets don't grow forever). And this would not necessarily mean a net tax cut, since we could offset SS FICA tax cut with increases in other taxes, resulting in no net change in overall taxation, but a reduction in our overall fiscal imbalance.

4) Just as it is a bogus argument for anyone to say a supposed lack of SS “solvency” means we must cut projected SS spending, it is bogus (and nonsensical) for anyone to say that supposed indefinite (eternal) SS “solvency” means that SS spending does not contribute to our overall fiscal imbalance, that there would be no fiscal benefit to cutting projected SS spending, or that reducing SS spending would require defaulting on the bonds.

Do you agree that all of the above are completely true? If not, what's false/incorrect?

Or will you once again refuse to answer directly?

2:54 PM  

Brooks said...

Bruce,

I wrote that you reacted to my point by "saying my assertion was not only obviously wrong but reflected utter ignorance" and you said you "dare" me to supply a post from you saying such things. I REALLY would much rather discuss substance than on some endless discussion of the discussion, with your (double-standard) diatribes regarding my tone, etc. But a dare is hard to pass up.

I just checked ONE single thread, which I think was the first thread anywhere on which I made my point about the conceptual error people were making regarding SS "solvency" vis a vis our overall fiscal imbalance (oh, sorry, you think latin makes one sound pretentious -- as I told you previously, I use "arguendo" because it's substantially shorter than "just for the sake of argument". I usually prefer to type a word rather than the much longer definition of that word. I'm funny that way. Sorry if it touches on some insecurity of yours). Anyway, some highlights from that thread are in the paragraph below. I think it's fair to say you repeatedly asserted ignorance on my part. You also assert, in response to my repeated explanation that I am talking about our projected OVERALL fiscal imbalance and the contribution that SS spending makes to it, that "In the 'big picture' Social Security is a nothing and perhaps a positive."

In response to my point, you replied in a way that, as I said showed that you were "not seeing the forest through the trees". You responded by grossly misrepresenting my point and putting words in my mouth, then called me a "knave" and said I was "at best lazy, but probably simply dishonest." I then had an exchange with "Arne (not Anne)" and you chimbed in to say "Brooks, to follow up on Arne (not Anne) show that you can pass the 'No Economist Left Behind' challenge or take a nice stiff gulp of STFU. Frankly you are punching well above your weight on this issue." We then proceeded with our first of many uncivil exchanges from both sides. From you: "I know your type: dumb and lazy. Baaah." You later said "you are running with some of the big dogs here and you need to bring it. Being the best informed sophomore on the dorm floor not cutting it." You later quoted my statement: "I'm trying to say we need to look at that big picture, see how big the TOTAL imbalance is, what the costs/benefits/risks/rewards will be of addressing it to various extents in various ways with various timing under various assumptions, try to get some idea of probabilities or establish realistic ranges for all of the above, and then get into policy choices from an economic, and, ultimately, a moral perspective" and responded with "No you are not. You are trying to obscure the fact that you really had no clue as to the overall scope of Social Security 'crisis' and have been scrambling ever since. In the 'big picture' Social Security is a nothing and perhaps a positive...Try doing some homework next time." (As an important note, my point was NOT that there was a SS "crisis". I was clear that my concern was the projected OVERALL long-term fiscal imbalance). Later, from you: "The sequence is 'Read' 'Learn' 'Discuss'. Brooks you seem to have that directly backwards." And later you called me "All hat and no cattle."

All that from just one thread, and the first one at that. Now, please, let's get to substance. Please address my point -- my ACTUAL point, not some straw man. Just respond directly to my statements # 1 - 4 in my prior comment. PLEASE.

4:31 PM  

Bruce Webb said...

Brooks I am not ignoring you here. It is a little late my time and I am working from an IPhone and not my full fledged computer. Depending on priorities I will try to reply sometime AM Pacific tomorrow.

6:48 PM  

Brooks said...

thanks Bruce. No urgency, but I appreciate the thoughtful note.

I know we're both still engaging in some negativity, and I guess I can't just ask for the last word (my comments above), but I hope soon we can start fresh, and until we have good reason to question each other's motives or integrity, stay away from accusations, and also stay away from debating each other's respective tone in past or present, and just focus on substantive statements, questions, etc., responding directly, substantively and in good-faith.

Since I have tried so many times to get real, direct answers from you to questions similar to my statments #1 - 4 above, since they represents the main point I've been trying to make all along, and since without agreement on them a policy discussion would seem pointless for reasons I've explained, I think it's fair and appropriate for me to request that we start there. I hope you'll oblige.

8:09 PM  

Bruce Webb said...

Brooks frankly you are just performing a classic troll trick here, just extended beyond all bounds.

First you enter a discussion, say something misinformed and or stupid and then retreating into some meta argument that you were really making some other and supremely more lofty argument.

"(As an important note, my point was NOT that there was a SS "crisis". I was clear that my concern was the projected OVERALL long-term fiscal imbalance)"

Bullsh*t. You have an exaggerated sense of self-worth and didn't like being exposed as a fool in a major forum and have been scrambling ever since.

Frankly its bullsh*t and this post and all its comments will disappear fairly soon. I gave you a chance to make a substantive case and you insist on returning to your worn out rhetorical trap.

As for answers to nos 1-4. True and trivial. Good bye Brooks.

7:10 AM  

Brooks said...

Bruce,

First, congratulations on finally giving a straight answer! Wish you hadn't made it like pulling teeth over the last few months.

Re:"this post and all its comments will disappear fairly soon."

That's because (1) you are embarrassed that you didn't admit I was right from the beginning -- and despite numerous attempts to get you to answer -- but rather asserted that I was wrong, ignorant, dishonest, and pursuing a hidden agenda (and now, like a kid who is losing a pick-up football game in the park, you are going to pick up your football and go home -- i.e., end our exchange and delete it), and (2) you don't want any record of your agreement that those talking points of your "side" are invalid, indeed nonsensical. So just admit, at least to yourself, that your planned deletion of all this is not principled at all. And by the way, it won't really disappear. I keep a record of threads on partisan blogs whose moderators are prone to (or likely to) delete comments that make their "side" look bad, for my own research & writing purposes (re: the polarized, hyperpartisan political discourse in America today).

Now, for whatever it's worth, since you've FINALLY answered those simple questions (after making me work so hard for it over the past few months), here is the grand sum of my policy views re: SS in the context of our overall fiscal imbalance.

1) We face a huge, unsustainable OVERALL long-term fiscal imbalance over the next few decades under current and historical levels of taxation (40 year average of about 18% of GDP) and current spending policies (even if Defense goes down substantially), driven mainly by entitlements (as well as interest on the debt).

2) Within entitlements, Medicare is projected to grow more and be larger than SS, and therefore, by definition, will contribute more to the fiscal imbalance. SS, however, will also contribute a large amount to the fiscal imbalance since it will also be a large part of the budget. (And as you've finally agreed, SS "solvency" has nothing to do with the fact that each dollar spent on SS adds a dollar to this imbalance).

3) Major, painful sacrifices will have to be made to sufficiently reduce our overall fiscal imbalance.

4) As I said from the very beginning on Thoma's site and elsewhere, I favor letting all the Bush tax cuts expire, and I (and just about every economist and budget policy expert) believe we must find ways to spend much less than projected on entitlements. Cuts in the Defense budget and cuts in non-Defense discretionary programs simply won't sufficiently reduce this long-term imbalance (see here and here for a sense of scale based on the CBO Long-Term Budget Outlook, December, 2007), and if we tried to solve it mainly by tax increases we'd reach a point where we'd kill, or at least make quite ill, the proverbial goose that lays the golden eggs.

5) Therefore, in addition to substantial tax increases, perhaps eventally even beyond the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, and in addition to seeking savings on the discretionary side, I favor phasing in some degree of means-testing of entitlements so that those who are relatively affluent don't receive benefits at the expense of the rest of the population, who will already be harmed by the fiscal straight-jacket they will find themselves in (higher taxes and lower spending on programs that benefit them), something I also said from the very beginning. I also favor healthcare reform (including in the private sector, if beneficial) that can cut Medicare & Medicaid costs, while considering also quality and access to care. I haven't researched healthcare policy much, but I think it's quite possible that single-payer (rather than private insurance companies) would be a good policy.

So there you have it, Bruce. My grand conspiracy. And of course, I was obviously lying when I said I thought that correcting people on a fundamental conceptual/analytical error they were making had some purpose, some value, some benefit in itself. No, such corrections are worthless unless they support some policy objective. Man, you saw right through me from the start. Good for you, Bruce.

11:54 AM  

Brooks said...

oh, and re: "As for answers to nos 1-4. True and trivial."

Hardly trivial. When people who oppose ANY reduction in projected SS spending (via reductions in benefit levels and/or eligibility) base their position completely or to a large extent on the invalid arguments that (1) Because SS will be "solvent" for a long time (or forever), it is not contributing to our overall fiscal imbalance, and/or (2) that the only way we could reduce projected SS spending is to default on the bonds, correcting them on these erroneous assumptions is not at all "trivial". There are rational, logical arguments for leaving SS unchanged, but those two arguments are not among them.

Similarly, as I've pointed out many times to the RedState folks, there are legitimate arguments against tax increases (or for tax cuts), but the myth that "tax cuts increase revenues" is not one of them. I think correcting them on THAT erroneous assumption is not "trivial" either.

Certainly our unsustainable long-term fiscal imbalance is as far from "trivial" as an issue can be. So correcting pervasive myths and invalid talking points on which people are basing their (strongly held) policy positions must not be "trivial" either.

By the way, I should add to my prior comment that I also lean toward phasing in a higher retirement age for entitlement benefits, to the extent that it is shown that people at, say, 68are (now or at some point) as capable of working as people at 65 used to be, and given increased life-spans and the projected severe decline in worker-to-retiree ratio. I would also consider different indexing of initial SS benefits (the whole CPI vs. wage growth debate), but I haven't researched the respective arguments for each.

12:45 PM  

Brooks said...

And you wrote: "First you enter a discussion, say something misinformed and or stupid and then retreating into some meta argument that you were really making some other and supremely more lofty argument."

You then quoted me: "(As an important note, my point was NOT that there was a SS "crisis". I was clear that my concern was the projected OVERALL long-term fiscal imbalance)"

And you wrote "Bullsh*t. You have an exaggerated sense of self-worth and didn't like being exposed as a fool in a major forum and have been scrambling ever since."

Let me take a page out of your book and "dare" you to substantiate that charge. Where did I ever say or imply in any way that there was a SS "crisis"? (hint: nowhere. You won't bother looking, because you know your charge is completely fabricated by you). And if there is some other point that I was supposedly originally making that was "misinformed and or stupid" and from which I have retreated to some other argument, please explain and point me to it. Again, you can't, because outside of your mind, it simply didn't happen. But by all means, if think you can substantiate your charge, please try. Provide a link to the relevant comment(s) of mine that you think substantiate your charge.

In my comments upthread I've provided you links to my earliest comments on SS in the blogosphere in which I made my point. Go ahead, show me. Substantiate your charge.

LOL. Comically lame. The only mystery here is: Do you believe your own bullsh*t or are you just pretending in some futile effort to save face (well, along with deleting this thread out of obvious intellectual cowardice and lack of integrity, as you've said you'll do soon).

9:40 PM