>>>>Thanks for posting the link to the Concord Coalition. The Concord Coalition and its founders have been very helpful in bringing to the public's attention the problems we are facing with the federal budget. The press release from the Treasury dept is the example james asked wherein they make the doublespeak claimof "paying down the federal debt" but what they've mostly done is just shift stuff around (i.e. notice how they brag about lowering debt held by the public). James definition of what the federal debt is what it is, he doesn't understand that the politician's don't have to conform to james's definition, they fudge it here and there to leave a different impression in the mind of the public --- i.e. political doublespeak.
Sowell appears tobe the only one fudging. So Sowell gets to decide the definition? How come it is that nobody else defines the National Debt the way Sowell does. How come everybody else seems to have the same definition I use. Why do they brag about lowering public debt? Maybe they are trying to impress Greenspan and the Concord Coalition. The Concord Coalition president tells us:
"I agree with Alan Greenspan's view that it is the government's net annual borrowing balance with the public that is the relevant measure"
Those guys must be 'liberals', right?
>>>>The Treasury's press release supports what Sowell was addressing; that james can't understand what's going on also serves to confirm that Sowell was also correct in that there will be some that "cannot follow the accounting sleight-of-hand".
I can follow Sowell's 'sleight of hand' perfectly. That's why I pointed it out to you.
>>>>Thanks for posting the Concord Coaliation link.
My thanks also. Let's see what the Concord Coalition President Peterson has to say on the issue of SS Reform:
>>>>"Now, both Options A and C have the uniquely attractive feature of being very politically correct; that is, they give everybody at least as much as they have now while insisting that any other solution would be a rip-off. Thus, what all too many conservatives have in common with all too many liberals when they approach the question of senior benefits is the urge to fan the flames of victimization while holding out seductive free lunches - or (if you allow me to tidy up my metaphors) seductive fudge sundaes."
Oh No! He's lumping you in with the Clintonista's. I'll avert my eyes if you want to take a swing at him. What else does he say:
>>>>"What the privatizers neglect to say is that, unless Congress makes up for the FICA revenue it loses, Treasury will have to borrow a dollar from the public for every dollar invested in the new private accounts. Such a "reform" merely shifts IOUs around the economy. Like the Wendy's customer, we need to ask: "Where's the beef?" That is, where are the additional savings, the additional funding, without which reform is just a zero-sum game."
This from one of the "founders [who] have been very helpful in bringing to the public's attention the problems we are facing". Well, I want to thank them for pointing that out. I'm sure you are as appreciative. More from Peterson:
>>>>"Privatizers sometimes concede that their plans may not raise national savings and that Treasury will have to borrow to make up for the missing FICA revenue. But apparently they believe that the workers' private accounts could forever earn greater returns (with no greater risks) on the new equity assets than would be lost on the new debt liabilities. "
>>>>"But, let's even assume the privatizers are right about how everyone will earn 6 percent real annual returns by the year 2050. Let's now suppose that the Dow Jones from 2000 to 2015 does no better than it did between 1967 to 1983 -- in other words, that it goes nowhere. In fact, the real value of the Standard and Poors Index fell about 40 percent in that period. Forget economic theory. Imagine how Americans would react politically to finding their retirement holdings have not appreciated as 'promised'."
Peterson thinks there might be a political problem in the 'cohort' risk? Oh no, what will Andre and Javier think of that. More:
>>>>"Thus, using a high discount rate, many of the privatizers make the job of transitioning to a "privatized" system seem miraculously painless. It means that we can leave the benefits alone, rack up trillions of new federal debt (and the related increase in interest rates and interest costs), stuff the borrowed money in every worker's equity account, and make every American much better off.... And if it did make sense, one wonders why government should stop with Social Security? Why shouldn't Treasury borrow trillions from the public under any pretext, invest it in the stock market, and then refund the profits to taxpayers? To ask the question is to answer it. "
Yes, I asked it a couple times, and can't seem to get an answer from the privatizers. More from CC:
>>>>"Yes, getting from here to there would require sacrifice. Today's workers would have to start funding their own retirements at the same time that they continue to pay for their parents'. And to be fair, many of today's retired parents (those who can afford it) would have to forego a bit of what they're now receiving. To put it another way, if society is to save at a higher rate, it must also consume at a lower rate -- at least until the productivity advantages of higher savings kick in."
Oh no! The CC is saying the gov't needs to tell us we are all spending too much, and force us all to save more. Is this what Javier means by 'freedom'? Sounds more like the 'paternalistic wisdom' he talks about 'assosiated with 3rd world countries'.
Do we have an endorsement from you for the ideas of the CC? It doesn't sound like the libertarian ideas you endorse.
