4 ms·

Krugman thinks that Social Security is on financially sound footing...

• te_chris 16y ago
  prove him wrong?
  • nickpinkston 16y ago
    This'll do: http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5530&type=0 http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5530&type=0
    • Locke1689 16y ago
      No it won't. There's no context there.
      • nickpinkston 16y ago
        CBO = Govt's Auditer, That graph = range of outlays they predict (best/worst), if CBO is unbiased OR biased towards govt AND best_case_outlays > revenue -> social security will blow up under current laws. $: True
        • Locke1689 16y ago
          I know what the CBO is and I know how to read outlays. The economic impact is far more complex than the simplistic analysis that you have presented. The Social Security Administration also projects that the situation will stabilize. They suggest that, instead of complete Social Security reform, the payroll tax simply go through a graduated increase ending in 2081. Krugman's main criticism with this math is that GDP growth projections are needlessly pessimistic, meaning that the revenue projections are also pessimistic. Either way, he is not arguing against all change to Social Security, he is arguing against the loudest voices that are constantly screaming that Social Security is a giant disaster that will tear the govt down in flames. When I asked for context I wasn't asking for what the CBO is, I was asking for what the economic assumptions (of which there must be many) the CBO made. I was also asking for the context of the outlay in respect to the rest of the government debt and budget.
          • nickpinkston 16y ago
            Since even the govt orgs and economists have no good ideas on GDP growth to 2081 (!) - I'd suggest to look instead at the interests these groups represent: Krugman loves govt safety nets, SSA wants SS to look viable long term, the CBO looks at problems that may or may be occurring. To say "GDP is obviously growing more than that" (especially while the world is in a deep structural recession) is a similar argument to Republicans pointing to sunspot activity and saying ("so theres no CO2 problem!") while ignoring all other data on climate change.
            • Locke1689 16y ago
              Nope, sorry, your method of analysis is a logical fallacy (circumstantial ad hominem). http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-h...
• Locke1689 16y ago
  http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html