Paul Krugman on Hillary's approach to Social Security...

[SaveElmer]

ABC This Week...October 28th...

KRUGMAN: Yeah, Social Security, if you go through the federal government, piece-by-piece, and ask which programs are seriously under-funded and which are close to being completely funded, Social Security is one of the best. It's not even for certain that Social Security has a problem. Why on earth - and, of course, it's something that the right has always wanted to kill, not because it doesn't work, but because it does. And for Obama to go after this program, at this time, you just have to wonder. All of my progressive friends are saying what on Earth is going through his mind to raise this issue.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So you think basically the Hillary Clinton position, which we take care of it by fiscal responsibility, and basically it'll take care of itself, we can look at some small fixes is the right one?

KRUGMAN: Yeah. She is.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Good.

Social Security is FINE.

Anyone who suggests otherwise is lying.

Any "improvments" will be in the direction of limiting it.

Leave it ALONE.

[Rabo Karabekian]

2. Nice Job! Paul

Krugman wrote an http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html">excellent op-ed when Bush was trying to privatize Social Security:

As the Bush administration tries to persuade America to convert Social Security into a giant 401(k), we can learn a lot from other countries that have already gone down that road.

Information about other countries' experience with privatization isn't hard to find. For example, the Century Foundation, at www.tcf.org, provides a wide range of links.

Yet, aside from giving the Cato Institute and other organizations promoting Social Security privatization the space to present upbeat tales from Chile, the U.S. news media have provided their readers and viewers with little information about international experience. In particular, the public hasn't been let in on two open secrets:

Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies.

It leaves many retirees in poverty.

Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.

[durrrty libby]

3. Obama must be really old. He has so many brain-farts

Or maybe it is the long term effect of something else...hmmm

[NoFederales]

4. Social Security being used as the fear card again? Say it ain't so.

What does Obama hope to gain? this isn't exactly new territory.

NoFederales