Fun With Graphs!

by hilzoy

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has published its analysis of the new Social Security Trustees' Report. Mostly it just explains the various changes in the Trustees' assumptions. If you're into these sorts of wonky details, it's good; if not, don't bother.

It did have one graph that seemed to me worth posting here, though:

By some eerie coincidence, today's Washington Post reports this:

"House and Senate negotiators reached agreement this week on legislation to extend the deep tax cuts on capital gains and dividends beyond their scheduled 2008 expiration date, through 2010. Final passage of the agreement must wait until Republican tax writers agree on a second tax bill that includes many of the tax breaks jettisoned from the measure on capital gains and dividends. If the deal wins congressional approval, every major tax cut passed in Bush's first term will be set to expire on the same day five years from now.

At that moment, politicians would face a choice: Either allow taxes to rise suddenly and sharply on everyone who pays income taxes, is married, has children, holds stocks and bonds, or expects a large inheritance, or impose mounting budget deficits on the government far into the future, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office."

The Post has a nifty graphic too, based on the CBO's budget projections:

The dividend and capital gains tax cuts cost the government tens of billions of dollars every year they are extended. But their benefits flow overwhelmingly to wealthy Americans. The administration tries to obscure this fact by talking about the percentage of Americans who own stock. However, as the CBPP points out, this is misleading:

"In the quote above, the President pointed out that about half of all households own stock. This is consistent with the most recent data from the Federal Reserve Bank’s Survey of Consumer Finance. What this statistic ignores, however, is that nearly two-fifths of this stock is held in retirement accounts, such as 401(k)s and IRAs. This distinction is crucial, because capital gains and dividend income accruing inside these retirement accounts is not subject to taxation, and thus would not receive a tax benefit from the reduction in the tax rates on capital gains and dividend income."

To make the point more clearly, here's one more graph

This is the tax cut that those same Congresspeople who are making such serious-sounding noises about the need to bring down the deficit have just passed. They're willing to cut Medicaid to reduce the deficit, but heaven forfend they should repeal tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit millionaires.

Comments

[Frank]

So far things seem to be going very much as planned for the Republicans. If they can just keep the Bond traders cooperation for 2.5 more years they will be able to blame the collapse of the dollar on the Democrats, as well as the unavoidable tax increases.

On another subject the WAPO certainly is bad at econ reporting isn't it. I was particularly struck by the pointlessness of: "At that moment, politicians would face a choice: Either allow taxes to rise suddenly and sharply on everyone who pays income taxes, is married, has children, holds stocks and bonds, or expects a large inheritance, or impose mounting budget deficits on the government far into the future," since obviously that last phrase will cover Republican's intent now and forever without the need for any of the obvious and irrelevent facts.

[Robd]

Can you guess which column of household income those congressmen belong?

[Peter]

Looks like they're planning ahead to screw the midterm elections of the next administration.

[Ugh]

What this statistic ignores, however, is that nearly two-fifths of this stock is held in retirement accounts, such as 401(k)s and IRAs.

And what is even worse, when you withdraw the funds from the 401(k) and IRA, they are taxed at the higher, ordinary income rates (unless it's a Roth IRA).

[lightning]

I get the impression that the "add" and "subtract" buttons are backwards on somebody's calculator. "Let's see -- if we cut taxes by 100 billion dollars, we'll reduce the deficit by 100 billion dollars."

Feh.

[Dantheman]

The study Kevin Drum mentioned yesterday seems relevant to this discussion. Historically, spending decreases when taxes are raised, not when lowered.

I disagree with Kevin's hypthesis for why this occurs. I suspect that the default position is for taxes to remain flat or decrease and for spending to increase, and only when there is some perception of crisis does that change. The change would be for both taxes to increase and spending to decrease as a way to spread the pain. Therefore, I doubt their is a causation relationship, but rather they share a common cause (which one of the commentators points out).

[bleh]

It might also be worth noting that media publishers and top-end media personalities also are found disproportionately in the upper-income brackets, and therefore that they too have incentive to allow this sort of radical upward redistribution of wealth to continue quietly.

Americans tend to vote their aspirations as much -- or even more -- than their circumstances, and so radically favorable treatment of the wealthy is looked upon favorably, or at least not objected to, by a surprisingly large fraction of the middle class. But I have to say, my sense is that the Pat Buchanan "pitchfork brigades" are not that far from a "tipping point," and if that happens, I think it's not at all unlikely that we'll see a return to the Good Old Days of the Eisenhower 1950s, when the top tax bracket was up close to ninety percent.

(That, BTW, is in my experience a nifty little factoid to drop into a conversation whenever some self-proclaimed conservative gets all misty-eyed about the Father-Knows-Best days.)

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

The 'shortfall' is really bigger because the Social Security 'surplus' is currently subsidizing spending. This money has to be replaced unless you cut programs. But reversing the tax cuts is fine in addition to other issues. I don't really understand why capital gains AND dividends are taxed at the capital gains rate. Dividends are much more like normal income to my non-economist eye.

Does anyone understand why the deficit is supposed to decrease so much between '07 and '13 if the cuts expired? Is spending supposed to sunset?

[gwangung]

But I have to say, my sense is that the Pat Buchanan "pitchfork brigades" are not that far from a "tipping point," and if that happens, I think it's not at all unlikely that we'll see a return to the Good Old Days of the Eisenhower 1950s, when the top tax bracket was up close to ninety percent.

(That, BTW, is in my experience a nifty little factoid to drop into a conversation whenever some self-proclaimed conservative gets all misty-eyed about the Father-Knows-Best days.)

Heh. Perhaps we all got the cause and effect wrong...it was the Good Old Days BECAUSE the top tax bracket rate was so high.

[Ugh]

Does anyone understand why the deficit is supposed to decrease so much between '07 and '13 if the cuts expired?

I think you answered your own question.

[Bernard Yomtov]

According to today's Boston Globe the House has passed a bill calling for screening virtually all cargo containers coming into US ports for radiological materials.

However,

The administration said it may not have the money to put nuclear detectors at 22 major ports by next year as the legislation requires. It also termed as unnecessary a $400 million annual grant program over six years to pay for other security measures at ports.

In other words, defending against terrorism is important, but not important enough to interfere with tax cuts. Amazing. And there are those who claim Democrats are not serious about security.

[john miller]

It's not that they are not serious about security, it's just the number two priority.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Does anyone understand why the deficit is supposed to decrease so much between '07 and '13 if the cuts expired?

I think you answered your own question."

No I don't think I did. Look at '11 vs. '12 vs. '13. The magnitude suggests that something other than simple tax expiration is going on in the assumptions.

[zmulls]

bleh makes a point above about how media personalities are usually in upper income brackets; that's true, and the point has been made in other quarters. Certainly the talking-head brigade, as television personalities, has more to lose, personal-income wise, from a Democratic administration (or from a realistic and progressive tax policy).

What's interesting is that the rise of the Republican "majority" has coincided with the ubiquitousness of cable. In the old days, journalists were low-paid workers at newspapers. Getting a gig at the network news show was like going from the minor to the major leagues. TV paid better. But the openings were few, and fewer still for those who sought face time.

But now, there are gazillions of cable news shows, and everyone has a Q rating. There has been a migration from the newspapers to TV news (which is less detail and fact oriented and more picture and emotion oriented) -- readership down, viewership up, along with the better pay scale.

Consequently, the entire "journamalisam" profession has undergone a transformation which has tracked the conservative movement -- and has resulted in more emotional campaigns rather than factual ones. I suddenly realize this isn't a coincidence.

[john miller]

Sebastian, I think the big change is because the largest cuts are set to expire after 2010. Some expire before then but have a more limited impact.

[John Thullen]

Actually, I believe the top tax bracket maxed out at 91% in the early 1950s.

Remember, Ronald Reagan used to brag that he stopped working around that time because of the tax burden, though his agent eventually dragged him out of his Ayn Randian stupor by dangling the rich plum of Borax commercials.

I know all this because I've read Bonzo's fond memoirs, as dictated to Larry Kudlow.

Which is why we had to settle for lesser actors like Gary Cooper, Cary Grant, Jimmy Stewart, William Holden, Marlon Brando, Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, Robert Mitchum, etc in the less productive roles, which goes to show the egregious effects of high marginal rates.

Reagan was offered the Marilyn Monroe role in the 1960 "Some Like It Hot", but between taxes and and being pinched by Joe E. Brown on the set, he left in a huff. Not a half-second too soon, either, because then he would have left in a second and a huff.

[Ugh]

Sebastian -

I think John Miller is correct. That is, not all the tax cuts expire at the same time. For example, the estate tax slowly goes away and disappears completelyin 2009 or 2010, thenn springs back into beins on 2010 or 2011, in the form it was in 2001 or so; whereas the dividend/cap gain rate cuts expire either this year or in 2008, I don't recall which.

[Gary Farber]

"Certainly the talking-head brigade, as television personalities, has more to lose, personal-income wise, from a Democratic administration (or from a realistic and progressive tax policy)."

What also bugs me is that tv talking heads, including alleged "liberal" ones, and, for that matter, even major reporters for major newspapers, are in such high income brackets that the money-related problems of the poor, or even the lower-middle class, are completely removed from their lives.

Thus we often see such people writing as if the problems of the poor or lower-middle-class don't exist.

The economy is rising! (But the fact that the incomes of those in the lower brackets aren't is invisible.) Tax cuts are helping people! (Not if you don't make enough on the books or off to pay taxes.) There are fewer people on the welfare rolls! (Because they've been forced off by draconian requirements or putting so many difficult hoops in their path.)

Etc. The poor and lower income regions are a foreign land to these folk.

[Ugh]

I apologize for my terrible typos.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Sebastian, I think the big change is because the largest cuts are set to expire after 2010. Some expire before then but have a more limited impact."

Right. That explains the '10 to '11 period (the bar at the top of the graph shows it. The part of the graph after that is what is confusing to me. It shows the with tax cuts deficts getting huge but it shows the without tax surpluses acting in odd ways. See especially '15 to '16. If I'm reading the graph properly I would expect the large increase in deficit with the cuts to be matched by a larger increase in the surplus without them. The graph actually shows a no tax cuts decrease in the surplus. A similar issue shows up in '12 to '13. I would expect the relationship between the light and dark graph bars to be more like the '13 to '14 and '14 to '15 points.

[Bernard Yomtov]

I don't really understand why capital gains AND dividends are taxed at the capital gains rate. Dividends are much more like normal income to my non-economist eye.

Both are returns to capital, as interest also is, rather than to labor. The "ordinary income" category is really just a tax code concept. Why capital income should be taxed more favorably than labor income is a different question, especially since much labor income represents a return on investment in human capital. What you earn from your legal work, for example, is in this category.

[john miller]

I think they are using several factors to make their predictions, including projected increases in productivity, expected outlays, specially for the entitlement programs, etc. So yes, there are numerous factors.

Notice that between 15 and 16, although there is a slight decrease in the surplus, there is an even bigger increase in the deficit if the tax cuts are extended.

I am not an economist, so some of this is guessing. So I should actually probably keep my mouth shut (or in this case, my fingers off the keyboard.)

[Bernard Yomtov]

See especially '15 to '16. If I'm reading the graph properly I would expect the large increase in deficit with the cuts to be matched by a larger increase in the surplus without them.

I think your expectation is incorrect. Think of a deficit as a negative surplus and it makes sense. "Tax cuts expire" gives a "surplus" of around -275 and -300 in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Then "don't expire" adds an amount to both 2015 and 2016. But since "expire" has a smaller (negative) surplus in 2016 than 2015 the surplus achieved by "don't expire" is also smaller.

[investor]

The deficits run by the medicare drug bill alone wil exceed those of SS.

The issue isn't deficits. It's ideological with several differing goals. One is to spread the notion that the surplus is a fiction, that the general fund has no obligations, that unlike the "best money in the world" bonds we sell to foreigners, the promises to those earning under $90,000 need not be kept. SS becomes a regressive general fund tax the wealthy need not pay.

Class war.

One simple reality that escapes most is that if the future economy does well that no matter what means is used we will have wealth to distribute to the elderly. If not, then things will tighten, no matter what the distribution.

Private accounts are more volatile. What happens if the market falls 30% one year. Those forced to buy an annuity that year will get significant less than those the year before.

Almost certainly government will be forced to intervene.

And yes you will be forced to buy an annuity. The reason is simple. If things are averaged as in insurance plans, pensions or SS which is a combination of the 2 then we save the amount per person necessary to support the avwerage life expectancy. However if a private account is the source it must contain enough to support everyone for their longest possible life expectancy.

If returns on private equities are desired and this seems reasonable diversification then some of the surplus can be invested in stock indexes.

Remember long term market averages are supposedly the reason why a provate system is better. Of course if we shift too much to stocks then bond rates will rise lowering stocks and the market will be watered. Historical returns are based on historical levels of investment. Increasing the value of a company's stock does not necessarily increase it's profit or the real value of it's holdings.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Think of a deficit as a negative surplus and it makes sense. "Tax cuts expire" gives a "surplus" of around -275 and -300 in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Then "don't expire" adds an amount to both 2015 and 2016. But since "expire" has a smaller (negative) surplus in 2016 than 2015 the surplus achieved by "don't expire" is also smaller."

Hmm I think I'm doing this but I'm getting something I don't expect. Try looking at the difference in the years. '15 to '16 (with tax cuts) shows the deficit going from about 275 to 300. That is 25 worse than the year before. If the taxes are responsible for the 'worse' part I would expect the surplus to increase from '15 to '16. It doesn't which is odd unless they are showing something else going on. (Now that I look at the years I wonder if it is a decreasing Social Security Surplus which can't be spent?)

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

I think the difference is likely to be interest on the debt. If the tax cuts are not made permanent, the debt will be lower. Lower debt means lower interest on the debt, reducing the annual deficit.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I can buy the interest explanation sort-of but if that were a majority component I would expect a more exponential curve. I'm guess there are just lots of factors going lots of different ways so I won't be able to figure it out. :)

But by all means end the tax cuts. I strongly suspect that the CBO is underestimating the Medicare problem, so we should probably do something now.

[Dantheman]

Sebastian,

It is hard to tell without more actual numbers, but it looks to me like the differences between the with and without tax cut extensions are increasing at an increasing rate. That would be consistent with the interest on the debt thesis, since the marginal change is relatively small when compared to the total debt ($250 - 300 billion a year as compared to a current national debt over $8 trillion).

The only numbers in the Post article where the graph came from are: "According to CBO projections, if the Bush tax cuts are extended in 2011, a deficit of $114 billion forecast for the year of their expiration will more than double, to $274 billion. A budget surplus of $67 billion, anticipated for 2016 if all the tax cuts expired, would turn into a $310 billion deficit." This suggests the difference more than doubles over 5 years, from $160 billion in 2011 to $377 billion in 2016.

[Ugh]

OT - Porter Goss resigns.

[CaseyL]

Yowza!

Let's see...was it...Hookergate?

Hadda be.

This is no planned departure; they choreograph and announce those way in advance.

[Ugh]

Only thing I can think of that might not be embarassing to the Bush Administration is if he was recently diagnosed with some fatal disease.

[carpeicthus]

A toast to the first Senator who puts in a bill to sunset every piece of legislation the Bush administration ever put forth. Unfortunately there's no way to disappear the incredible damage already done.

[Gary Farber]

To continue the topic diversion, you can read a Goss resignation AP story here.

One part I like:

''He has led ably,'' Bush said, Goss at his side. ''He has a five-year plan to increase the analysts and operatives.''

Aren't Five-Year Plans kinda, you know, Stalinistic? (Though Mao also loved them, to be sure.) (Yes, I'm just teasing. But I don't know how well-read President Bush is on Soviet and Chinese history; terribly well, I'm sure.)

[spartikus]

Hookers, bribes, or politicization.

So. Many. Choices.

[cleek]

will the media notice? we all know how hard it is to ignore a Kennedy car wreck. will they bring up Hookergate ?

magic 8 ball says "nope"

[Ugh]

Moe Lane speculates he's resigning to run for senate in Florida.

[john miller]

Another great line form the article:

"It was the latest move in a second-term shake-up of President Bush's team."

Sure makes it sound very planned ahead as part of the "New Look Administration."

We'll have to wait and see.

[Dantheman]

"Moe Lane speculates he's resigning to run for senate in Florida."

So that the Republicans would replace Katherine Harris with someone whose favorability ratings may end up being even lower if the Watergategate rumors are true? More popcorn, please.

[Bernard Yomtov]

Try looking at the difference in the years. '15 to '16 (with tax cuts) shows the deficit going from about 275 to 300. That is 25 worse than the year before. If the taxes are responsible for the 'worse' part I would expect the surplus to increase from '15 to '16. It doesn't which is odd unless they are showing something else going on.

I'm puzzled by your puzzlement. Suppose that leaving the cuts in place would cause government revenues to be constant, at say 500, over the two years, and the deficit is due to expenditures being 775 in 2015 and 800 in 2016. (There are all sorts of reasons why expenditures might grow, including interest, population growth causing increased spending, etc.) Now if we let the cuts expire, yielding extra revenue of 335, we get a surplus of 60 in 2015 and only 35 in 2016.

Isn't that reasonable?

[Gary Farber]

"Sure makes it sound very planned ahead as part of the 'New Look Administration.'"

Were it planned ahead, there would have been a replacement standing there by Bush's side, as well.

My favorite part, actually, is this:

The president said Goss' replacement would continue his reforms.

''As a result, this country will be more secure,'' Bush said.

So we're more secure because Goss is leaving. So we would have been less secure, if Goss, the President's appointee, had stayed.

Okay.

(I have to wonder, with no knowledge whatever, what role the fact that Goss fired so many CIA people, and made so many others so uncomfortable that they've left, and has so cracked down on former employees writings as to tick off even the retired folks, does or does not play in this: anything? something? nothing?; as I said, I have no idea just now, but wonder. It's also possible that he just hasn't struck Bolten and Bush as competent. But there are many other possibilities. I can think of lots of lurid rumors to make up!)

It would be nice if Bush would now appoint a professional, not a political toady, but I won't hold my breath. I do, however, miss the days when the theory was that CIA Director was a non-political, non-partisan, job. Like when JFK kept Allen Dulles on. Why that worked out great with the Bay of Pigs, and, well, er....

But, still.

[Steve]

No one ever says "paying for the war in Iraq is going to require either an increase in taxes or deficit spending well into the future." Yet the statement is obviously true.

Given current deficit levels, you could point to any government program whatsoever and make the claim that there's no money to pay for it. Yet the fact that Social Security may start having shortfalls in 40 years is our most pressing priority.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

"Yet the fact that Social Security may start having shortfalls in 40 years is our most pressing priority."

Pressing? Probably not more than Medicare, but the solutions are long term and pretty straightforward so tackling it first isn't as nonsensical as you suggest.

[Steve]

You really consider Bush's Social Security proposal as "straightforward"?

There are plenty of straightforward things we could do if we decided the financial condition of Social Security in 2040 should be dealt with right now. Adjust the tax rate, raise the cap, tweak the benefits - in other words, the kind of stuff we have always done to keep Social Security in the black.

Borrowing trillions of dollars in order to phase out Social Security as we know it and phase in, effectively, an expanded 401(k) system? There's nothing straightforward about that. It's a radical, prohibitively expensive proposal. Not the kind of thing you should do based upon a guess at how the numbers will look in 40 years.

Straightforward? It's straightforward, and not nonsensical, to implement a solution that calls for trillions of dollars in new borrowing? That can't possibly be what you meant.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I didn't say anything about Bush's proposal. I said that it isn't ridiciulous to tackle the problem of Social Security right now. The reason to tackle it ahead of Medicare is because the solution set is much more straightforward than will be necessary for Medicare.

[Steve]

Sure, there's nothing wrong in theory with the concept of a minor tweak, but Bush didn't make it his top domestic priority because he was advocating for a minor tweak. And, indeed, I doubt he's interested in a minor tweak because that would undermine the case for making sweeping changes.

You can make a case for tweaking SS before you deal with Medicare; but that isn't the case Bush made. You can't make a case for radically reforming the entire concept of SS before dealing with Medicare.

[Gary Farber]

Steve, first Sebastian says "Probably not more than Medicare, but the solutions are long term and pretty straightforward so tackling it first isn't as nonsensical as you suggest."

And then you reply with the complete non-sequitur "You really consider Bush's Social Security proposal as "straightforward"?"

And the rest of your reply made no sense at all unless Sebastian had referred to Bush and Bush's proposal. Which he hadn't. You pulled that out of absolutely nowhere but your imagination.

Sebastian points this out with utmost politeness: "I didn't say anything about Bush's proposal. I said that it isn't ridiciulous to tackle the problem of Social Security right now."

You respond again with: "Sure, there's nothing wrong in theory with the concept of a minor tweak, but Bush didn't make it his top domestic priority because he was advocating for a minor tweak."

And go on again about Bush, as if Sebastian hadn't said anything.

You might want to notice that you're apparently conversing with a voice in your head, not Sebastian, who hasn't said anything about Bush.

[Francis]

A soc.sec. post! Haven't had one of those in a while.

SH writes: The reason to tackle [Soc.Sec.] ahead of Medicare is because the solution set is much more straightforward than will be necessary for Medicare.

Let's see: SS is running a huge surplus, loaning billions of dollars to the Treasury. SS may end its surplus in 15 years, or so. Like every other US Treasury bondholder on the face of the planet, SSA will then have a claim on general revenues. SSA may, possibly, run out of money to pay current obligations in 35 YEARS or so. This is a total ballpark guess which may be grossly overly conservative based on immigration rates and productivity increases.

The US healthcare system is widely considered to be unfair, inefficient and intolerable. The last straw that drives GM into bankruptcy may be its healthcare costs. As Ezra Klein has ably pointed out, every other industrial country has healthcare outcomes that are at the least comparable to the US (and arguably much better than the US) at a significant fraction of the cost.

so, in one corner we have a tremendously successful govt program that may have problems in 35 YEARS, and in the other corner we have an inefficient and expensive program that is helping to prop up an enormously unpopular healthcare system.

soc.sec. solution set: do nothing.
healthcare solution set: nationalize health care insurance.

see, not so hard.

(of course, my proposed solution sets are just about as naive as Sebastian's willingness to cut ag. subsidies.)

[Gary Farber]

"of course, my proposed solution sets are just about as naive as Sebastian's willingness to cut ag. subsidies."

For one thing, because "nationalize health care insurance" is meaninglessly generalized. Dozens of wildly different, and completely contradictory, plans could fit under that header. Some could be wonderful, some horrible.

It's not quite as vague a "solution" as "fix social security," but it's close.

[Steve]

Right, Gary, it's fine if he wants to make a point about a completely theoretical proposal, rather than the actual Social Security proposal that's been the subject of debate for the last two years. I spoke to that, as well.

The context you're ignoring is that Republicans have spent the last several years making the following argument:

1. We need to do something about the Social Security shortfall in 40 years!
2. Therefore, we should go to a private account system.

You're absolutely right that SH didn't say anything about issue #2. But given the way this has been presented in the public debate, when someone says "hey, we could do something about Social Security," it would be rather ignorant of me to simply agree without also pointing out that it makes no sense to move on to step #2.

If we're all going to stipulate that Bush's plan was an utterly senseless priority, then great. If not, then I'll take a pass on the "we need to do something, nudge nudge, wink wink" strategem for raising the issue.

[Anarch]

But given the way this has been presented in the public debate, when someone says "hey, we could do something about Social Security," it would be rather ignorant of me to simply agree without also pointing out that it makes no sense to move on to step #2.

In fact, it's more than just ignorant, it's providing ammunition for those who are trying to further the privatization agenda. Much as was done in the run-up to the Iraq war, amongst myriad others.

[KCinDC]

And as is being done in the runup to the Iran war.

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

Ok, whatever. My bad for trying to think about something in a way that isn't exactly like Bush. Your proposals aren't getting through Congress tomorrow either.

[Remainder deleted and then replaced for tone, --Sebastian]

As such, you are not barred from talking about what you think is important, nor are you saddled with only attacking or defending proposals from the Democratic Party. If you are interested in finding out my views on the topic, there are a wealth of archives on this blog which speak to the issue. If you want to merely use any comments I make to bash Bush, as if my comments are unworthy of response, you may do so. But you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to engage you.

[hilzoy]

I'm with Sebastian here. It's not as though he's some unknown figure, bringing up the possibility of SS reform out of the blue. Plus, if he shuts up, we'll all be the losers.

[Gary Farber]

I can't say how idiotic I think it is to treat Sebastian as a stand-in for the Bush Administration.

I've said endless times here that the worst tendency on the internet is to treat other people as cardboard dummy/substitutes for bashing our political opponents.

It goes on and on and on.

And here we see it again.

And not just that, but a justification for it.

It's crap, from whatever side.

I don't care if it's liberals bashing someone as a substitue for our dislike of the current Administration, or the Others for bashing ghost/hallucinatory "liberals" (as DaveC tends to do).

It's all crap nonsense. And we should all dismiss that sort of thing.

Or this site has no point.

Respond to what people say.

Whack them for what they say.

Don't whack people because we can't whack what we think they might say, but don't.

Don't whack hallucinations.

Don't do evil. Do good.

Even rhetorically.

[Gary Farber]

One sentence: treat people as individuals.

Is that so effing hard?

[Steve]

You charge me with a pre-knowledge of SH's positions which I do not possess.

I started the mini-discussion by criticizing how "the fact that Social Security may start having shortfalls in 40 years is our most pressing priority." Now, I'm not saying I couldn't have spelled out my point more clearly, and I'm not criticizing anyone who failed to grasp my meaning.

But when I said "our," I referred to our nation, our current government. And when I said "our most pressing priority," I referred to Bush's repeated attempts to argue that we should start privatizing SS now.

So when SH says "we could do it now, the solutions are straightforward," I took him to be responding to my point, and I asked if he seriously thought Bush's proposal was straightforward.

In my mind, he was responding to what I said, and so I continued the discussion on those terms. In Gary's mind, he already knows where SH stands on the issue, and so, I guess, he took SH to be making a point quite separate and apart from what I was talking about. So when I continued expounding on my initial point - that it's silly how Bush has tried to make this privatization plan our most pressing priority - Gary attacks me for making a non sequitur.

To my mind, it was a trivial miscommunication, that has long since been clarified, and I'm really not sure why Gary feels the need to continue beating me over the head with it. ("Don't do evil. Do good." Wow!) To SH, all I can say is that my original point was about the manner in which the Republican Party has demagogued this issue, and I'm sorry for not realizing you were making a separate point in your response. I'd just like you to realize that I was not "using your comment to bash Bush," I was merely expanding upon the point I had already made before your initial response to me.

Peace.

[hilzoy]

Steve: sorry if I misunderstood you.

[Steve]

The fault was mine, hilzoy. I just don't want to get blogstracized over it!

(And, incidentally, searching the archives for SH's position on Social Security appears to be tougher than one might think.)

[hilzoy]

Steve: I don't recall the specifics, though I think there were considerable chinks of Bush's proposal that he argued for, back when it was a burning issue. (And, again iirc, many of us argued rather vehemently against him, which is probably also relevant history.)

My point, really, was more a response to Anarch than to you: that Sebastian has been around here long enough not to be regarded as some sort of nameless propagandist laying the groundwork for a future privatization effort.

Plus, we only do ostracism in very rare circumstances ;)

[Gary Farber]

"In Gary's mind, he already knows where SH stands on the issue,"

No, I don't. I definitely don't.

That was kinda the point.

My memory is fairly idiosyncratic, actually.

But rest assured that I don't desire to see you "blogstracized" about it, and, in fact, I'll likely not track this to anything else you say.

(Perhaps regrettably, I have little sense or clue who "Steve" is; I'm relatively bad at additively picking up pictures of commenters here, though I've definitely done so with more than a few -- but not with you, so far; I was entirely responding abstractly to what I perceived as your error in going wacky on Sebastian; if I recall you beyond that, it will only be because of this metaness, frankly -- but likely I'll rapidly forget; meanwhile, to me, I'm afraid you're an abstract, almost generic, name, so far; sorry.)

[Gary Farber]

In fairness to Steve, looking back, I have to say that I didn't have him so much in mind when I went off in a relatively abstract ramble. Really. So if he'd like an apology, I give him one for that. I was just kinda thinking more out loud at 12:11 PM then I had "Steve" in mind.

[Steve]

Sometimes it's nice to be generic. Peace and love.

[Anarch]

that Sebastian has been around here long enough not to be regarded as some sort of nameless propagandist laying the groundwork for a future privatization effort.

Actually, that was the exact opposite of my point, such as I had one: namely that Sebastian's known independence will be held up as proof positive that Something Needs To Be Done About Social Security -- with a rousing chorus of See? Even *He* Agrees With Me! thrown in for good measure, I've no doubt -- but further, without some pretty ironclad disclaimers, this will then get mutated into Bush's Plan Must Be Done To Social Security. IOW, the mere fact of the agreement with the basic proposition will be taken to betoken agreement with the entirety of Bush's agenda... irrespective of one's actual stance on the latter.

[See, e.g., Something Should Be Done About Iraq -> Iraq Must Be Invaded.]

This is entirely aside from a) whether I agree with Sebastian that something does need to be done to Social Security in any reasonably short time-frame (I don't, particularly) b) whether I think Sebastian's call for change coheres with Bush's call for change (I don't, particularly, although this is a closer call IMO) c) whether I think he's trying to further Bush's social security agenda (I have no idea on that account), nor d) whether I actually agree with the changes he's proposing (I generally don't, but there are some I think merit further consideration). All of which consists of varying degrees of nuance that, I'm sad to say, seems to be lacking whenever the troops are getting rallied on this issue. And all of which was rather more than I was intending to type but eh, logorrhea isn't the worst afflication to suffer.

[dr ngo]

logorrhea isn't the worst afflication to suffer.

No, missspelling is the worst afflication.

[Anarch]

No, missspelling is the worst afflication.

I'd've thought it was pedantry. Or an erroneous sense of one's own cuteness.

...but in my defense, I did get those from my dad.

[Jesurgislac]

Anarch: I'd've thought it was pedantry. Or an erroneous sense of one's own cuteness.

FWIW, Anarch, I've always thought you're pretty darn cute. :-)