The Free Lunch Bunch

An Open Letter To: Paul Krugman of the NY Times

You are really a sad excuse for a newspaperman. I would much prefer to see real numbers and perhaps even a hint at the plan the Democrats want to propose. Or is their plan , "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead."

Instead of real facts the world gets pap from democratic/socialistic talking points. Have you ever had or printed an original thought??? - How does it feel to be a lapdog to Washington fatcats like Ted (hic!) Kennedy?

THEN you have the audacity to expect me to accept a quote from Michael Kinsley, editorial and opinion editor of The Los Angeles Times. - The same boob who had recently allowed lies printed alleging Dr. James Dobson said "DARKLY" that Spongebob was homosexual. OH, BUT WAIT! Didn't the NYT print that phony story first? If ever there was a statue erected for journalists at the NYT and LAT Americans would pull it down and start slapping it with their shoes. - Paul Young -

RE: The Free Lunch Bunch
By PAUL KRUGMAN
From The NY Times
Published: January 21, 2005
-------
...If people are rightly skeptical about claims that Social Security faces an imminent crisis, just wait until they start looking closely at the supposed solution.
-------
At this point in the article something could have been said about the proposed solution instead this highly respected 'journalist' comes up with a snappy line that ignores the fact that money going into Social Security is not the governments money but money that belongs to the person that WORKED for it. - I thought the Communist, Oops, I mean Democrat party was the WORKERS PARTY!
-------
President Bush is like a financial adviser who tells you that at the rate you're going, you won't be able to afford retirement - but that you shouldn't do anything mundane like trying to save more. Instead, you should take out a huge loan, put the money in a mutual fund run by his friends (with management fees to be determined later) and place your faith in capital gains.
-------
You continually ignore the fact that the money that goes into Social Security is money that is earned by the WORKER not something given to him by the largesse of the government.
-------
That, once you cut through all the fine phrases about an "ownership society," is how the Bush privatization plan works. Payroll taxes (Money earned by the WORKER) would be diverted into private accounts (owned by the WORKER), forcing the government to borrow to replace the lost revenue.
-------
This is the devious part of the article. "forcing the government to borrow to replace the lost revenue." Since when is the money taken from WORKERS paychecks revenue for the government???
Excuse me but I thought that this money was designed to help the old folks when they retire not to keep the government clicking along like a supertrain to hell. (See, I can come up with snappy lines too!)
--------
The whole scheme ignores the most basic principle of economics: there is no free lunch.
--------
Unless of course you are a Senator and it is not your Social Security money being spent on studies of the mating habits of Brazilian butterflies.
--------
There are several ways to explain why this particular lunch isn't free, but the clearest comes from Michael Kinsley, editorial and opinion editor of The Los Angeles Times. He points out that the math of Bush-style privatization works only if you assume both that stocks are a much better investment than government bonds and that somebody out there in the private sector will nonetheless sell those private accounts lots of stocks while buying lots of government bonds.
--------
stocks are a much better investment than government bonds
- So Now we go that BASTION OF CREDIBILITY THE LOS ANGELES TIMES.
--------
........
--------
From this point in the article continues with twisted logic and onesided arguments that offer no alternative. Typical liberal garbage. Not one mention the plan is optional. - Think these people will get a life? I doubt it...
--------
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com