The Bruce Web -- The Lost File

Says it all

I put up a link to this site on the Bruceweb.
http://bruceweb.blogspot.com/2008/04/tears-of-clown.html
Brooks I am not ducking you, I am simply scraping you off of my shoe.

Bruce,

Thanks for commenting so I have another example right here of your cognitive deficiencies.

Re: "Tiny fraction says it all"

I quoted you: “We could pick the smallest out of the way federal agency and make every single logical claim about it you have advanced from day one about Social Security.”

And I responded: "Well, yes. As I said, every dollar spent on anything is a dollar contributed to our fiscal imbalance (except insofar as it generates a return on investment that produces revenue feedback). But your “smallest out of the way federal agency” would only be contributing to this fiscal imbalance a tiny fraction of what SS contribues. Yes, if someone contended that spending $50 million on this agency didn’t contribute at all to our fiscal imbalance simply because it had a dedicated tax funding it (and that tax was not a new, incremental tax, but was rather already included in the calculation of the fiscal imbalance), I would correct him, too. But such a conceptual/analytical error concerning that agency in particular would not merit as much attention and effort to correct people on their error as would the same type of error concerning a program that cost 10,000 times that much, right?"

continued in next comment...

In your reply, you then quote me: "Well, yes. As I said, every dollar spent on anything is a dollar contributed to our fiscal imbalance (except insofar as it generates a return on investment that produces revenue feedback). But your “smallest out of the way federal agency” would only be contributing to this fiscal imbalance a tiny fraction of what SS contributes."

And you say: "Which when you combine it with this makes you a dissembler."

You then quote me further: “And I am NOT focusing particularly on SS (as opposed to Medicare, or taxes, or discretionary spending), nor have I EVER suggested “starting with” SS as we seek to reduce our fiscal imbalance."

And you (somehow) conclude: "Come on Brooks, you let the cat out of the bag with "tiny fraction". You are making a specific judgement about the affordability of Social Security and not the general case you are currently trying to claim."

continued in next comment...

Hmm. Your ability to be confused amazes me. Not sure how I could be clearer.

Social Security is undeniably a large and growing part of our total budget, and therefore SS spending contributes substantially to our fiscal imbalance. That's obviously been one of my key points from the start (along with pointing out that SS "solvency" doesn't change that fact).

As I explained already in response to your point regarding spending on some tiny agency, if there were a pervasive, fundamental conceptual/analytical error people were making in the debate over spending on that tiny agency, it would not merit as much attention and effort to correct that error as it would for spending on a program (such as SS) that contributes a great amount to our fiscal imbalance. What's not to get, Bruce?? Saying that is not advocacy of STARTING with SS cuts as a means of reducing our fiscal imbalance, nor even advocacy of cutting SS at all. It just means that a fundamental error being made with regard to spending in an area that is inconsequential vis a vis our fiscal imbalance doesn't merit as much attention, because it is more important that we base our policy decision on the much larger program -- whether or not to cut spending on it -- on valid assumptions and sound analysis rather than erroneous assumptions and fundamentally flawed analysis. It’s not “letting the cat out of the bag”; it’s common sense. Get it? Probably not.

Bruce,

Re: "I am not ducking you"

LOL. You ducked my simple, straight-forward questions for 6 months on Thoma's site and Beat the Press, responding only with straw man arguments and insults of various sorts, while contending that my points were wrong (and reflected gross ignorance and/or dishonesty on my part). Then you finally answered my questions on your (relativley un-trafficked) blog, admitting that I was right, and then promptly deleting the thread on which you made that admission to try to cover up that concession.