Posted on 08/20/2010 4:57:20 AM PDT by ReleaseTheHounds
Around 7:30 this morning, noted financial columnist for the New York Times Andrew Ross Sorkin made an astounding statement that I can only paraphrase.
He said that a recent Paul Krugman piece in the NYT was encouraging that the Social Security Trust Fund may actually be in better shape than generally believed and may actually have a longer expected life than the (around) 2037 forecast.
When Joe Kernan and the guest at that time (Ed Yardeni) challenged him saying there's nothing in the trust fund, Ross Sorkin came back saying "well I found Krugman's piece very persuasive."
The link is to CNBC's Squawkbox -- maybe a video clip of this exchange will be posted soon. Amazing.
Kernan should have asked Sorkin if he also believes in unicorns and leprechauns, as well as the Social Security Trust Fund, since they are all similar mythical beasties.
I saw that and read his blog. He hasn't given up so much as said, "I am going to write what I believe and only listen to supporters." While to us, that's giving up, to him it's a declaration of victory.
In that same discussion they were throwing around “regime change” with gusto. I loved it.
Sorkin is an idiot. But with the two leftists out I guess they had a quota to fill.

That's why I'm a big fan of FairTax. Why? Because by ending all taxation on bank account interest, you can essentially create your own private retirement account (imagine socking away 7-10% of every paycheck into this account for your working life without worries about its interest being taxed--you could build up a pretty big retirement "nest egg" in 20-30 years). Essentially, you created your own alternative to Social Security retirement.
Indeed, FairTax's emphasis on cash financing is actually vasty better for the country overall.
you can go to the cnbc website and link directly to the site. Is it another santelli moment? we have to link and save it before it gets pulled.
0bamaCare is going to kill so many elderly, that Social Security won’t have to pay out.
I fully expect my first SS check to be confetti.
If I were attorney general any public official or economist who said the words “social security trust fund” would be indicted for fraud.
There is an account with nothing in it but non-marketable IOUs from Treasury—so at this point any use of the term has no other purpose than to deceive and bamboozle the American public.
The public hears the word “trust fund” and they think “lots and lots of cash or other liquid assets”.
Even you can try this—open a safety deposit box and put an IOU in it for a trillion dollars. Announce at a family gathering that you have established a “trust fund” for nephew James. Then with great ceremony give the keys to James. Then watch what happens next.
The fair tax is a scam and a fraud.
I have read the original bill on thomas.gov
EVERYONE has to register
oldIRS is replaced with NuIRS
a perpetual monthly welfare check (I demand a living prebate)
The government decides what is or is not a family unit.(iow living together, normal family, divorced family etc etc)
ALL transaction MUST be reported to the govenment and they will determine if taxes are owed.
The notion that fair scam is the most studied is a joke. The current system stinks and should be replaced, fairscam is NOT it.
Some believe there is actual money in the ‘trust fund’. Social Security is a bigger Ponzi than Bernie Madoff could have ever come up with. Yes delusional is a good description.
.....typically liberal way of thinking, and they no longer wonder why networks and newspapers are failing.....full steam ahead....fastest lemmings stay left
Since even Republicans are talking about means testing, if Obama health care doesn't kill me, they'll find a way to make sure I never get anything back. Thank God, for the 2nd ammendment!
So you’re saying ObamaCare is the new Democrat scheme to save Social Security. Interesting take...
Even the flat tax as proposed by Steve Forbes in 2005 is a major improvement—for one reason: it ends taxation on bank account interest, capital gains and stock dividend payments. That means you can save and invest with no tax consequences, allowing you to create your private retirement “nest egg.”
As I understand it, the SS Trust Fund is just a bunch of IOUs (bonds) from the Government. At some point, to pay SS claims, you’ve got to cash in those IOUs for $$. That basically means you have to roll over the debt (sell an equivalent number of replacement bonds). Normally, that’s not that much of a problem. In this case, however, there is so much debt that it may not be doable. The only way to make it happen is for the Federal Reserve to buy the debt, with newly printed $$. Of course, that’s hyperinflationary, but politically more palatable than not giving grandma her food $$. The other thing that may help is stop giving COLA increases (which is currently happening).
On April 5, 2005, after visiting the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia, President Bush said:
"There is no 'trust fund,' just IOUs that I saw firsthand, that future generations will pay -- will pay for either in higher taxes, or reduced benefits, or cuts to other critical government programs.""I have just come from the Bureau of Public Debt. ... I went there because I'm trying to make a point about the Social Security trust. You see, a lot of people in America think there's a trust, in this sense -- that we take your money through payroll taxes and then we hold it for you, and then when you retire, we give it back to you. But that's not the way it works.
They have to pander to their audience. They need to maintain some ratings numbers. The right avoids them. If they drive off the wingbat viewership they all need to start looking for new jobs.
And now David Gregory is on talking about this and debating tax-cuts with Joe Kernan. Gregory is warning that Republicans, if they win, had better be ready to bring workable solutions to the governing. And that means getting off of this “tax cut” logic. Kernan challenges: you mean that any tax rates that are lower than the Bill Clinton level are unacceptable? That the government has planned spending that must be supported by those 1990 tax rates and nothing else is acceptable.
The liberal logic really is circular and perverted. Let’s make Paul Krugman president and be done with it. /sarc
Since I was 18, my planning has assumed no SS by the time I could “retire”.
One has to seriously wonder how KrugmanIdiot won the Nobel Prize... =.=
“I fully expect my first SS check to be confetti.”
WOW! An optimist! :-)
A lot more than the elderly will die...
I have a checking account. But I spent the money. But I deposited a future Powerball winning sum, which put me in surplus, so I’m in better shape for the future than I thought I’d be.
Right?
( Ken eye git one of them dares noble prizes now? )
There is nothing to wonder.....they gave one to Obama, remember?!
The Nobel Prizes are now known as being given only to losers!
My bad; you sir are correct
"...total federal obligations as of September 30, 2009, stood at $70.7 trillion, up from $65.6 trillion the year before, with the 2009 number 4.94-times the $14.3 trillion level of GDP reported for the 2009 fiscal year. Other numbers are included in the summary table."
"The numbers underreport the severity of the U.S. governments fiscal circumstance. Even as reported, though, the numbers are not just unsustainable, they remain uncontainable. Taxes cannot be raised enough to put the annual results in the black, and the level of program slashing needed in Social Security, Medicare, etc. to reduce costs appears to be well beyond the scope of any foreseeable political will in Washington."
http://www.shadowstats.com/article/282-federal-2009-gaap-accounting
Republicans talk a fair game. I’ll believe them when I see it. The actions of the Lott/Hasteret/Bush era proved the GOP was BS. They increased spending faster than LBJ( true, not hyperbole )
The Democrats and Republicans are closer than a bucket of spit’s difference.
Divide and CONQUER. It should be OBVIOUS to anyone now that is the game. The idiots who support Obama now are very similar to the idiots who supported Bush.
Joe Kernan is a good guy.
Krugman, on the other hand... when he speaks, I definitely keep an eye on my BS-o-meter!
“On April 5, 2005, after visiting the Bureau of Public Debt in Parkersburg, West Virginia, President Bush said:
...”
Y’know, I really miss that guy!
Email I got yesterday.
“As an American I am not so shocked that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize without any accomplishments to his name, because America gave him the White House based on the same credentials.”
~Newt Gingrich
Here you go, FF to 5:04 or so http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1570586137&play=1
Me neither, but my old pension plan is tied to it, so at age 62, it is cut by an anticipated amount from Social Security.
Absolutely right. That’s why they have to be replaced as well. The November message is no more spending sprees and Washington sleight of hand - we want serious cuts in discretionary spending.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.