Rather than risk choking Blogger on too many links, I will start a new list here. The first twenty three can be found at Social Security Posts on Angry Bear
XXIV: Treasury's Social Security Issue Brief no. 5
XXV: Advisor Jason Furman on Obama's Plan
XXVI: Social Security Low Cost and the 100/100 Target
XXVII: Robert Myers and Prefunding Social Security
XXVIII: Infrastructure; or a New Direction for the Trust Funds
XXIX: What Does Patriotism have to do with Social Security 'Crisis'
XXX: 2 Questions not Asked in 2000, or 2004 Either
XXXI: What is Title 1?
XXXII: Means Testing as a Trojan Horse
XXXIII: Medicare Finance
XXXIV: Open Thread/Assignment Desk
XXXV: Monthly Trust Fund Reports
XXXVI: $17 Trillion Backwards Transfer
XXXVII: Backwards Transfers: Biggs Responds
XXXVIII: Financing Shortfall
XXXIX: Pay-Go and Unfunded Liabilities
XL: Double Books and the 'No Economist Left Behind' challenge
XLI: Why Not Assume Low Cost?
XLII: Unfunded Obligation and Transition Cost
XLIII: Solvency: Demographics or Productivity
XLIV: 'We Can't Grow Our Way Out'
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Bruce:
You are one of the few I look for on Economist's View and seek out your blog site to see what is new. After chatting with you a while back and learning of the non-issues with Social Security, I was able to shelve my understanding of Orzag-Diamond in favor of your analysis. Keep up the good work . . . another Social Security advocate. Google me if you care to find me.
Hello Bruce
I am going to be in Dallas, visiting friends and family. I'll be back mangling both syntax and fact in two weeks. I would like to resume the Roosevelt debate with you at that time. I will send a post to RDAN. I know you have little need of notice to shoot holes in my arguments, but I did not want to take you unaware. Have a nice forth of July weekend. cursed
Bruce:
Been slowly winding through the "Angry Bear" thread on Social Security besides reading all of attached comments. I am at the May 30th post of yours (Cato, Africanus, and Cracchi Brothers).
The one issue I do not understand is the Cumulative Interest discussion (May 28th and May 29th). I know one time you had mentioned to me that maybe getting the interest portion out of the TF and elsewhere may make better sense than allowing it to cum exponentially. Can you expand on this so I understand the issue better?
Tried posting on Angry Bear and may have been mistaken for Brooks
run75441 at hotmail
I appreciate your analysis on Social Security issues, especially explaining the facts and calculations rather than the shrill hand-waving by the privatizing crowd.
Based on your analysis, my response to the privatizers is that they should prove their credibility by first balancing the federal budget. They should fix the immediate, larger problem rather than obsess about a potential problem that's 30 years away.
Post a Comment