Tom has been a poor man for the last year. If he loses 99% a second time, he'll come to appreciate Social Security.

...[T]he author’s wife, Ann (née Bucksbaum), is an heir to the General Growth fortune. In the past year, the couple—who live in an 11,400-square-foot mansion in Bethesda, Maryland—have watched helplessly as General Growth stock has fallen 99 percent, from a high of $51 to a recent 35 cents a share. The assorted Bucksbaum family trusts, once worth a combined $3.6 billion, are now worth less than $25 million.

Political and economic commentator Tom Friedman identified generous bankruptcy laws as an element that his mythical geo-architect would provide in a society designed to prosper in the global economy.

Lenient bankruptcy laws encourage entrepreneurialism, though Friedman's main enterprise was marrying well.

What makes Mr Samuelson and Mr Baker think that Medicaid benefits the old rather than the poor ?

Just a repeat of:

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=11&year=2009&base_name=why_does_the_government_spend

If "a disproportionate share of tax revenue is dedicated to these programs", then unless the special interest group is paying the taxes, the implication is the same: thing: disproportionate resources to a special interest group.

John Emerson,

Um, what does Tom Friedman have to do with anything? Dean is discussing Robert Samuelson, not Tom Friedman. Is Samuelson independently wealthy in the same way?

The two mustaches of understanding are indistinguishable to me. But that was quite a boo-boo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/nov/23/tobin-tax-supporters-pressure-united-states

The Baker gets a mention in today's Guardian:

"Dean Baker, co-director of the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research, said the US treasury could be persuaded to see a [Tobin] tax as an aid in plugging a huge looming budget deficit. "I think it has a chance," said Baker. "People are really, really angry with the financial industry. We do have budget deficits and this is getting a lot of interest."

anonymous wrote, What makes Mr Samuelson and Mr Baker think that Medicaid benefits the old rather than the poor ?

While primarily thought of as a program for the poor (actually, IIRC you have to have children to qualify!), there are things Medicaid will pay for that Medicare won't when you're old. I think certain forms of nursing home care come under that. And that care is extremely expensive.

R. Samuelson, as well as almost all writers about Social Security indeed make the fatal mistake of taking the program out of its fiscal context. Working stiffs have paid into the trust fund, whose balances, esp. since 1983, have been borowed by the govenrment's general fund. Then, during Bush II, the general fund was drained of this money via tax cuts for the ultra rich. So follow the money. From your pocket to theirs. Why does R. Samuelson NEVER mention this in any of his incessant diatribes against the most basic of safety nets? He and others who would gut SS are in effect saying, on behalf of this wealthy cohort, "Thanks for the use of your dough, now I've decided, through the political process, to not pay it back. Good luck, sucker."

Evidently R. Samuelson believes today's young will never grow old.

anonymous and liberal--

A large percentage of Medicaid funds go to keep the elderly not-rich in nursing homes. Most people don't have sufficient resources to pay for more than a few months of nursing home care, so Medicaid kicks in once people have exhausted their funds.

"National data for 2005, for example, indicate that Medicaid payments for services for 28.7 million children, who constituted 51 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, averaged about $1,667 per child. Similarly, for 13.7 million adults, who comprised 24 percent of beneficiaries, payments averaged about $2,475 per person. However, other groups had much larger per-person expenditures. Medicaid payments for services for 4.9 million aged, who constituted 9 percent of all Medicaid beneficiaries, averaged about $13,675 per person; for 9.1 million disabled, who comprised 16 percent of beneficiaries, payments averaged about $13,846 per person."

So only about 24% of Medicare expenditure went to the aged.

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/MedicareMedicaidStatSupp/downloads/2008BriefSummaries.pdf

Being one of the Baby Boomer hit by Alan Greenspans 1983 increases in Social Security Taxes I take great offense to the presumption these benefits 'are not paid for'.

We paid to build up a huge social security reserve that was then transfered to General Expenditures. The concept that the reserve would be managed as a Trust Fund is laughable, it was merely an extra tax, and my generation will not see the benefit of it. Yes we got suckered by Alan, again.

I find it offensive everytime folks consider this Dedicated Revenue, and a General Revenue. But now its been so long of that way of thinking, people don't even think about it.