Tuesday, February 01, 2005

pinions of buddy don: fortellin the futchur

tiz amazin how folks lacks to tell ye whuts a'gone happen in the futchur, witch thar all stirrd up to tell ye the futchur of soshul securty, even 30 or 40 years down the line. seems lack we need to see how good these folks is at perdictin it in the furst place befor we deecide tiz a crisis that sumthin mite happen in 2018 or 2042 or 2052.

so how bout mr bush who keeps tellin the lie that soshul secury will be bankrupt or busted or flat busted or flat broke in 2042. thems all lies on a counta how even the mos pessimistick perdicters add mitt how ye wood still be payin over 70% of benefits n how that 70% wood be more in real dollars than whut folks is gettin now. that aint bankrupt.

but i wonted to talk bout perdictin, so heres mr bushs perdickshun bout soshul securty in 1978:
According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper’s little office “maybe five or six times. He’d sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We’d argue over Carter policies.” Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“a misuse of power,” he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves. None of this really distinguished him from Hance, though, so in the end Bush simply argued that a Republican could better represent the district: “If you want a chance in the way Congress has been run, send someone who will be independent from those who will run the Congress.”
so tiz obvious that he caint perdick thangs as well as he wonts ye to thank. not only that, he tole this lie in the 2000 debate bout whut he wuz a'gone do with the surplus mr clinton left him:
Well, we do come from different places. I come from being a West Texas. The governor is the chief executive officer. We know how to set agendas as a governor. I think you'll find the difference reflected in our budgets. I want to take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security. One-quarter of the surplus for important projects, and I want to send one-quarter of the surplus back to the people who pay the bills.
turnt out thay wuznt a nuff in that surplus fer innythang but them tax cuts, witch the top 1% gut 71.6% of the income tax cuts n once that wuz dun thay wuznt nuthin lef to 'take one-half of the surplus and dedicate it to Social Security.'

in sted, mr bush wuz spendin it jes as quick as it cum in, witch thats why the right wing lacks to say thay aint nuthin but iou's in the trust fund. corse them iou's is sumthin thay call u.s. treasury notes, witch so far we aint deefaulted on em yet. ifn we did, the hole worl wood be in big truble.

now do they wont us to thank that thar a'gone pay the chinese n japanese, but we wont pay our own folks the money we borried frum them? cawz ifn thats true, then whut we have is a transfer of wealth frum the middle class to the top percent of folks. thats on a counta how since 1983 we been overpayin whut we need to pay fer soshul securty.

ifn yer wunderin bout who owns our debt, ye kin read about it here:
As a consequence, foreign ownership of the U.S. national debt has risen to $1.8 trillion, or half the privately held debt. A decade ago, foreigners owned just more than 20 percent of the debt.

The Japanese are the largest foreign holders of U.S. Treasury securities, with $720 billion in September, up from $317 billion just four years earlier. The Chinese have become the second-largest holders, with $174 billion worth, a sharp increase from $62 billion in September 2000.
ye mite member the jokes the right wing lacked to make bout gore's lockbox, but the jokes on us since the money has dun been spent in three tax cuts, a war we wont sacrifice nuthin fer (besides our troops n the liberty n freedum of them troops to cum home whenever they wuz furst promissd), uneggspeckted events lack 9/11 n the usual bizness cycles that goes frum boom to bust or at least recesshun. but everbidy knows them thangs happens, witch is why mr gore wonted to take keer of soshul securty with the furst money frum the surplus, not the last.

so now we gut a situwayshun whar mr bush wonts us to thank we gut a big problem in 2018, witch thats when they been a'sayin soshul securty will be spendin moren it takes in. turns out that perdickshun dint hold up all that long on a counta this here story that cum out today:
The Social Security system will take in more money annually than it pays out in benefits until 2020, two years later than earlier estimated, the Congressional Budget Office reported.
ifn they caint even git a perdickshun fer the ten years frum 2001 to 2010, witch they couldnt since the surplus dint last a year after mr bush gut to spendin it, n ifn they caint hold to thar own perdickshun of the system 'headin fer a iceberg' in 2018 (on a counta havin to pay back the money we all overpaid durin the past 22 years), then how kin we eggspeck em to perdick whuts a'gone happen by 2042 or 2052?

corse, that ignores the fack that mr bush has dun failed to prove a lotta the thangs he tole us wuz absolutely true, witch thay aint no weppons of mass deestruckshun in iraq (lack mr ritter tole us n lack the inspecktors wuz a'trine to tell us, so we caint say we dint have no evidents of the truth bout that lie) n lack the iraqis bein in close cooperayshun with al qaeda, witch thatn dint hold up neethur.

so should we be worried bout the futchur of soshul securty? thays a cuple ways to look at that. ifn thangs is a'gone be so bad as them that perdicks the program is no longer viabull in 2042 is true, then the economy has to grow at no faster rate than 1.9%. ifn thats true, then aint nobidy a'gone make no 6.5-7% in no stock market, witch ye wood need to make that return to cum close to makin up whut ye lost by privatizin n phasin out soshul securty. ifn thar rong, then the system kin keep on a'goin fer a long time to cum, longer than inny perdickshun out thar. ye kin read all bout how this wurks in mr krugmans column today:
Which brings us to the privatizers' Catch-22.

They can rescue their happy vision for stock returns by claiming that the Social Security actuaries are vastly underestimating future economic growth. But in that case, we don't need to worry about Social Security's future: if the economy grows fast enough to generate a rate of return that makes privatization work, it will also yield a bonanza of payroll tax revenue that will keep the current system sound for generations to come.

Alternatively, privatizers can unhappily admit that future stock returns will be much lower than they have been claiming. But without those high returns, the arithmetic of their schemes collapses.

It really is that stark: any growth projection that would permit the stock returns the privatizers need to make their schemes work would put Social Security solidly in the black.

And I suspect that at least some privatizers know that. Mr. Baker has devised a test he calls "no economist left behind": he challenges economists to make a projection of economic growth, dividends and capital gains that will yield a 6.5 percent rate of return over 75 years. Not one economist who supports privatization has been willing to take the test.
tiz a nuther moment whar i go back to the bible (matthew 6:25-34) to figger whut to do:
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O ye of little faith?

Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
corse, we dun cum a long way since jesus wuz a'givin that sermon on the mount. we know better now, dont we?

No comments: