1 Nothing will help our side save the country like getting voted out of office.

2 With Obamacare, I'm sure life expectancy will go right down.

3 See you all in the camps!

4 I don't understand why they don't go with means testing as the first step.  It could even be some sort of means testing in which the individuals don't lose "rights" to the funds in perpetuity, but just until they qualify based on need. 

5 Math might be hard but it can also be obvious.

Not when it's Social Justice Math--answers vary depending on race, gender, sexuality, and feelings.

6 2 With Obamacare, I'm sure life expectancy will go right down.

That's the point.  You can extend the life of this Ponzi scheme if you get the average lifespan below 70.

7 I don't understand why they don't go with means testing as the first step.

Millions of oldsters screaming "I paid in for 40 years so I deserve my money, dammit!" 

It's hard for people to admit they were duped.

8

What he's saying is that it's not his place to set it. When you're in the minority, it's a suggestion.  When you're the Speaker, a suggestion is a command.

If the 70-year retirement age is "Boehner's idea" it will be Alinskied before it gets off the ground.  Drew, don't yell "then fall Caesar" until the knife is actually in your back, OK?

9 Posted by: Y-not at January 27, 2011 10:47 AM (pW2o

Because they don't means test how much you pay in.

The problem is the Democrats have convinced people they are just getting their own money back, not receiving welfare. If you means test it, you are basically admitting SS is what it is...a generational wealth transfer program. People will flip out.

10

This video of Chris Christie telling it like it is a fucking eye opener.

I got it via Insty and tried to get back in but it appears that its gone viral quicker than HIV in a bathhouse..so keep trying

The city of Parsnippety recently paid out over $900,000 to four cops upon retirement who cashed in their accrued pay for sick days they didn't use. The city had to issue a fucking bond just to be able to pay it,

11 Nothing but good news,as usual.

12 Boehner said he'd favor increasing the Social Security retirement age to 70 for people who have at least 20 years until retirement, tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation, and limiting payments to those who need them.

"We need to look at the American people and explain to them that we're broke," Boehner said. "If you have substantial non-Social Security income while you're retired, why are we paying you at a time when we're broke? We just need to be honest with people."

June 29, 2010



So, what changed in the intervening 7 months? Are we no longer broke -- or perhaps are we no longer being honest?

13 Enough already!

14 Are we no longer broke -- or perhaps are we no longer being honest?

The politics matter.

15 Off cannibal sock.

16 13 You'll keep getting kicked down the road and like it,bitch!

17 There is a paradox at work here that frustrates me endlessly on debates about SS (about any big entitlement program, really, but especially SS). Namely: the only workable solution is the one no one wants to talk about. The talk is always about "adjusting" or "modifying" or "restructuring", and even then in the most minimal ways -- and yet everyone knows that half-measures are just as bad as no measures at all, really. It might delay the reckoning for awhile, but exacerbate the collapse when it comes. I keep hearing about how simple it would be to "fix" SS: increase the retirement age, do means-testing, etc. What they don't say is that these initiatives will almost certainly never be enacted (because Democrats and the elderly will fight it to the last breath), and even if they were, it would only delay the inevitable. I get the feeling that everyone knows a crash is coming -- the sense now is simply that current beneficiaries are hoping simply that SS will last through their own span; after that, they don't care. Medicare/medicaid (and even bigger fiscal black hole) is in the same boat. No politician who values his or her job is going to go after SS or Medicare in any meaningful way, because they dread the "you're trying to kill Grandma!" rhetoric from the Donks. So...really what it boils down to is that we've agreed to let SS collapse rather than try to fix it while there's still time. We've agreed to let future retirees get the shaft in order to pacify the Boomer generation. We've agreed to burden young people like pack-mules with a colossal load of debt they had very little say in accruing, and in so doing cripple our national economy for decades to come. Remember -- we are choosing to do this. All of us. We could fix it if we really wanted to; it's not as if the scope of the problem is not well-understood. Cowardice, avarice, weakness, and perfidy are overcoming our basic common sense. We have sown the wind; we will reap the whirlwind. And we will have no room to complain, because we chose this outcome.

18 I don't understand why they don't go with means testing as the first step.  It could even be some sort of means testing in which the individuals don't lose "rights" to the funds in perpetuity, but just until they qualify based on need. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 27, 2011 10:47 AM (pW2o

I think that is the second step.  The first step is cutting benefits to all recipients by 5-10%.  That way, the program will last long enough to make a permanent change. 

19 Spot on Monty

20 So now we'll start paying back the IOUs out of general revenues.  Deficit explodes, collapse imminent.

Hello, Greece.

21 Anyone really think even if the GOP gets both chambers and the White House that there is the political will to actually reduce currently promised entitlements in SS and Medicare? Seriously? There won't be any real cuts in entitlements, except for possibly for people entering the system or beginning to pay into it. No one is going to permit default either. So, the government, even a Republican one, will do what it always does. It will just print the money. They will bend over backwards to do it stealthily, it will be called borrowing or investing or something warm and fuzzy. It will be one program or "TARP" at a time, and not all at once. It won't be called monetizing the debt, it won't be called what it really is. Yet one way or another the money will be printed out of thin air, like all fiat money. With integrity. That's just the fuckin' way it is.

22 Face it,  all pain and no gain is a surefire loser.    But we can offer gain that still saves money.   I'm 55 and currently fall in the 67 year eligability, but I'd like to work longer (but less).    What if there were an option (on-line) to tailor your SS payments and timing.    This would be much like the very limited (and useless) onetime options to start early or delay payments.   I'm thinking of a system were you might be able to treat some of the SS payment like an IRA (for a discount).

Say you wanted to get 10-15% of your SS payment at age 55 (typically about $200-$250/month vs $2000-2500)?    I'm sure some sharp actuary can figure out a plan that can do this while having an appropriate discount.  Make it all tax free and it would encourage people to keep working later.     Ditto with Medicare.    Flexibility is worth a lot and people would see that they get ownership in exchange for less total $$

23 So...really what it boils down to is that we've agreed to let SS collapse rather than try to fix it while there's still time. bold and italic It's the pragmatic thing to do. Ask weepy John.

24 Thunderdome.  Set SS against everything else.  Make the pensioners our allies.

25 So, the government, even a Republican one, will do what it always does. It will just print the money. They will bend over backwards to do it stealthily, it will be called borrowing or investing or something warm and fuzzy. It will be one program or "TARP" at a time, and not all at once. It won't be called monetizing the debt, it won't be called what it really is. Yet one way or another the money will be printed out of thin air, like all fiat money.

Posted by: George Orwell at January 27, 2011 11:00 AM (AZGON)

Frankly, for people who planned ahead and have substantial private retirement savings, that is probably the best option. 

26 tying cost-of-living increases to the consumer price index rather than wage inflation,

No, you eliminate COLAs altogether.  Let the value of Social Security be withered away by inflation over time, until no one cares if they get it or not.  It's gradual, it's across-the-board, and it's not 'cutting' anything.  It's acknowledging the fact that the system is unsustainable and that it will phase itself out of existence.

27 Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2011 10:51 AM (HicGG)

Then I would say that is the first step.  "We're going to try fixing Social Security in small steps.  We estimate that providing benefits on a sliding scale based on your non-Social Security income [or whatever they want to use] will save eleventy-gajillion dollars over the next 10 years.  We know this is a hard pill to swallow, but we hope that we are providing the needed safety-net to those who are most vulnerable while ensuring the solvency of Social Security for the next generation."

Then, after a year or two of Seniors who actually saved not getting their full benefits, they'll be forced to admit it was a scam.  And then maybe we can do something about the Ponzi scheme that is Social Security.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 27, 2011 10:53 AM (NmKUg)

"Don't go planning to die for your country.  Let the other guy die for his." 

It doesn't do any good to fall on this particular sword at the moment.  We knew that a lot of what we got from Congressional Republicans would have to be waiting-game style politics.  This is just one part of that.

28 Emboldened by the masses, we've come to seize your Barry, not to praise him.

29 Can I say two words to you? Just two words? Are you listening? Pickle juice.

30 It seems to me that means testing is preferable to arbitrarily moving the retirement/payout age. 

The point of SS is as a safety net.  If people feel entitled to it, that's fine, but that's not the same level of freak out (and accompanying sympathy doled out) as one gets to the notion of taking aged, unemployable people regardless of their financial situation and taking away that safety net. 

I could imagine a scenario where there's either a deferred payout to people above a certain income/asset level or lump sum payout that would ease the burden on the system, reserving the funds for people who really need them.

Otherwise, you'll have a bunch of 68 year olds who for whatever reason (of their own making or just bad luck) who end up on welfare or eating dog food, etc.  It's that scenario - the fear scenario - that keeps us from being willing to touch SS. 


And I think there is a means test paying in with the cap on FICA (at least on the SS portion of FICA).  After a certain amt of income earned, you don't pay any more SS. 

31

This video of Chris Christie telling it like it is a fucking eye opener.

I got it via Insty and tried to get back in but it appears that its gone viral quicker than HIV in a bathhouse..so keep trying

The city of Parsnippety recently paid out over $900,000 to four cops upon retirement who cashed in their accrued pay for sick days they didn't use. The city had to issue a fucking bond just to be able to pay it,

Posted by: beedubya at January 27, 2011 10:51 AM (AnTyA)

I think I might watch that a few more times.  Yeah, I will.

32 Et tu, Bernanke?

33


If the 8.8 million people who lost their jobs were working, we would have an extra half a decade to fix this.

How about we get the economy going first, before we get demagogued into irrelevancy?

34

Posted by: Y-not at January 27, 2011 11:06 AM (pW2o

The problem with means-testing, as with any progressive tax, is that those who paid in the most get the least.  Technically, you will be punishing those that planned for retirement, and rewarding those who did not.  If you inflate, the pain is shared, plus you don't admit that you are cutting, which is why they will go that route.

35

Millions of oldsters screaming "I paid in for 40 years so I deserve my money, dammit!" 

Honestly, jacking up the retirement age will be easier than means testing, since SS was sold to people as self-financing.

36 Insty video? There's an old one but are you referring to a story filed today? Dailyrecord.com from Middletown NJ ...Sean Kelly, a corrections officer with the state who lives in Middletown, asked Christie how he would be able to afford health insurance. Under the governor's proposal, many state employees would pay about a third of a health care plan's cost, up from 1.5 percent of their salary. "My paycheck just went up $4," Kelly told Christie. "How am I supposed to live with that?" Christie told Kelly he should be happy to have a job, given how many people in New Jersey are unemployed. "It stinks, but it's reality," Christie told Kelly, referring to state employees paying more to receive less. "Other politicians made you promises they couldn't keep. I'm the guy who has to be here when the party is over."

37 The problem with means-testing, as with any progressive tax, is that those who paid in the most get the least. You mean SS could become a welfare program for the elderly? I'm shocked.

38 Christie was referring to the payments announced in December 2009 owed to Lt. Kevin Carhart ($317,237 to be paid over 2 1/2 years), Officer Robert Luongo ($292,184 over three years), Sgt. Carl Kohler ($200,791 over five years) and Officer Richard Murphy ($89,378 over 1 1/2 years). See? It's good to be the fuzz.

39 Let me be clear.  I'm old and I vote, and I want social security and medicare axed naow.

40 Drew, One point: it's not that I am " willing" to put money in Social Security. I have no choice.. It's taken from me before I ever see it. I resent talk of raising MY retirement age because MY retirement was taken from me against my will, and given to others instead of invested for ME. And now that I'm mid-career, I'm being told I should work until age 70 because the politicians ran a Ponzi scheme this whole time with MY money? I could have been investing that money this whole time, and when I chose to retire would be no one's damn business. My Dad dropped dead of a heart attack at age 68 (well, OK, in slow motion - the attack was 8 years earlier, and he never really recovered). So talk of "work until you drop" doesn't go over well with me. First eliminate welfare (there's a thought!) for those that NEVER worked. Then let's talk.

41

So...really what it boils down to is that we've agreed to let SS collapse rather than try to fix it while there's still time. We've agreed to let future retirees get the shaft in order to pacify the Boomer generation. We've agreed to burden young people like pack-mules with a colossal load of debt they had very little say in accruing, and in so doing cripple our national economy for decades to come.

Monty, I ususally agree with you but you are just wrong about this. The only way the boomers affect you regarding social security is that the government spent the surplus the boomers paid in and that bill just came do. What you are suggesting is that the government default on the money they borrowed from SS that the boomers paid in.

Why not just have the government default on the $14 billion in treasury bonds while your at it? The boomers were never going to pay your benefits, that is the generation behind you that is responisible for that, there isn't enough of them.

By the time the so called $2.5 Trillion trust fund runs out in 2037 over 90% of the boomers will be dead. If the government is going to start defaulting on it's obligations let's default on all of them.

42 I think that is the second step.  The first step is cutting benefits to all recipients by 5-10%.

To me it seems backwards.

I have several elderly relatives: father, aunt, godmother, and mother in law.  My father has federal and state pensions so (if his new wife wasn't a spendthrift) he should be fine.  His house is paid off.  He stupidly lives in MD so his taxes are high.  He is not working (and unemployable at his age).  Yet he tells me he has only $27 at the end of each month.  He freaked out about the COLA stuff.
I'd put dad into the means test plus the "too bad, cut back on your living expenses like the rest of us" category

My godmother has been a widow for quite a long time, but they had some money back in the day and now she is still working as a part time (I think possibly tenured) instructor for a college.  So she has investments and paycheck income.  She seems to be fine financially.
I'd put her into the suitable for a means test category. 

My aunt is a widow.  Her husband was an electrician (union, I think).  He died a decade or so ago.  She inherited an old house from my grandmother.  It has no value except as potential land for a commercial business in an old town.  She has trouble making ends meet despite very modest living (no cable, no car, no eating out, no new clothes).  She never worked outside the home so no money is coming to her from her own payments/pension. 
I'd put her into the "full payout" category

My mother-in-law is also a widow.  Her husband was an insurance salesman and a veteran.  She has health issues, but not major ones (yet).  She's in assisted living (but not major nursing home).  Similar lifestyle as my aunti, but bigger monthly fixed expenses from the housing situation.  She never worked outside the home.  I think my f-i-l had some sort of pension from his company, plus she gets some sort of veterans benefits. 
I'd put her into the "full payout" category


I think we need to acknowledge that some people are facing real poverty if they get even a 5% reducting in their SS.

I don't think welfare or the other programs for the needy are robust enough or well-run enough to handle an influx of confused and frightened 80 year olds needing their services. 

43 I think we need to acknowledge that some people are facing real poverty if they get even a 5% reducting in their SS. Like I said, no one will see current bennies cut. We'll just print the money. Madness, you say? This is Sparta!

44 I don't think welfare or the other programs for the needy are robust enough or well-run enough to handle an influx of confused and frightened 80 year olds needing their services. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 27, 2011 11:17 AM (pW2o

I know where you are coming from, but honestly, these people should be relying on you, not on the federal government.  I have savings earmarked for my elders, in case they need it (they don't, so far).  I don't see government-mandated pensions or healthcare anywhere in the constitution.

45 The problem with means-testing, as with any progressive tax, is that those who paid in the most get the least.

Yes, but the cap is pretty low, let's face it. It's something like $106,000.  There are a lot of people - or rather there is a lot of wealth - above that income level. 


Also, the question becomes.  If you own a home, should you be expected to be able to die in that home?  I don't know the answer to that, but I suspect there's a lot of wealth tied up in expensive homes that people don't want to sell because they want to pass it on to their kids. 

It's a tricky question, imho. 

46

I'm being told I should work until age 70 because the politicians ran a Ponzi scheme this whole time with MY money?

How is that more brutal than means testing it, or cutting it?

47 Everyone laughed when I said there'd by no SS for me (I'm 47).  I've been saying it for 17 years.  I'm not planning to get a dime, and I think my generation, right after the boomers, will be referred to the "Sorry" generation.  "Sorry, SS is gone."  "Sorry, Medicare is gone."  "Sorry, retirement age is now 85."  "Sorry. . . sorry. . . sorry."  I know it's going to happen and am sick of hearing them hedge.  Just do it.  Pull the cord, bite the bullet and quit pretending the gravy train won't derail.  SS should have never been implemented and it's now dying under it's own weight.  It was nice for those who partook while it lasted, but it's over.  That way my co-agers (?) might just start planning on their own now and make the created crisis a bit little critical.

48 Sorry about all the bold highlighing - just wanted the first sentence in bold...

49 Technically, you will be punishing those that planned for retirement, and rewarding those who did not.

Sort of like we reward the women who drop out of high school and sit around making babies for the next 20 years, and punish the women who finish college and work decent-paying jobs. Welcome to my world, old people.

50 The point of SS is as a safety net. The problem (which manifested itself pretty much immediately after SS was implemented) is that neither the government nor the beneficiaries look at SS as an augmentation of their retirement income, but rather as a linchpin of it (sometimes, the sole source). Many people don't save a dime during their working lives -- sometimes because they aren't able to, but far more often because they are spendthrift. The notion that SS is some government provided "savings plan" (which it most assuredly IS NOT) fools people into some really bad habits earlier in life, and the government chooses to keep them in the dark. Consider this: if you're making (say) $80,000 the year before you retire, you can assume that you'll need somewhere around $60K per year after you retire -- your expenses don't suddenly and magically drop just because you quit working. (The SS folks naively assumed that people would own their own homes (or rent), and not run up a bunch of credit debt late in life, things that are not true these days.) In the most optimistic scenario, SS will cover about 1/4 of that requirement (and I'm betting it will cover quite a bit less as time goes by). So where does the rest of that $60K come from? If you're lucky, you have a pension check or 401(k) disbursement; but odds are that you don't have one at all, or failed to fund it properly. And if you're like many Americans, you're carrying a lot of debt into retirement -- mortgage, college loans for the kids, car loans, and credit-card debt. You live a far more active lifestyle in retirement than even your own parents did -- you like to travel, and go out to dinner once a week, and take in a movie -- but have failed to account for how much spare income all this stuff requires. That SS check looms very large now -- it's completely insufficient, of course, but it's the absolute bedrock of your life now due to your own failure to save enough money. You're now completely dependent on a government welfare check just to keep your head above water. But wait! It gets better! You're probably going to live longer than your parents did -- maybe 5 or 10 years longer. Your medical bills will probably be much higher (partly due to the longer lifespan, partly due to better technology that you will demand to be available to you as your age brings the accompanying illnesses). So that completely inadequate SS check is going to have to stretch for a lot longer than anyone thought it would, and you will insist that your SS check be inflation-adjusted (again, just to keep the wolves at bay). The Federal Government now owns your life, almost completely. Never mind the kids -- they are laboring under a vast debt-load themselves (their own and the Federal and state debt), and have no funds to give you. You are in complete thrall to a vast centralized bureaucracy whose sole imperative is to perpetuate itself, and you have no choice but to go along and make sure that the beast keeps getting fed, because the alternative is penury. This is how the government makes a slave out of a formerly-free person.

51 ...but I thought when the GOP picked him to do it they were biting the bullet and launching a trial balloon.

No such luck.

As far as anyone can tell, there are no Christies to be found in the current Republican party leadership.

52 I resent talk of raising MY retirement age because MY retirement was taken from me against my will, and given to others instead of invested for ME. And now that I'm mid-career, I'm being told I should work until age 70 because the politicians ran a Ponzi scheme this whole time with MY money?


For over 40 years, we've known this was going to happen to social security, yet we always kicked the can down the road.  Whelp, here we are.  Now something's got to change.

When we voted in the assholes who kept raiding the fund and refused to change it, we accepted this future.  There is no 'right' to retire.  You retire if you have enough money to.

53 but I suspect there's a lot of wealth tied up in expensive homes that people don't want to sell because they want to pass it on to their kids.

This reminds me of a TV ad for Medicare Part D that ran in Iowa back in the day, showing some 65-yo scrunt talking about how the taxpayers footing the bill for her monthly medication meant she had more money to buy electronics for her grandkids' birthdays.

It's nice that you choose to leave your kids your home, but you don't get to force other people to pay for your choices.

54

I don't think welfare or the other programs for the needy are robust enough or well-run enough to handle an influx of confused and frightened 80 year olds needing their services. Bingo.

THIS is why jacking up the retirement age for those who aren't there yet is politically easier than abruptly changing "The Understood Ground Rules" on those already there. 

55 I know where you are coming from, but honestly, these people should be relying on you, not on the federal government.  I have savings earmarked for my elders, in case they need it (they don't, so far).  I don't see government-mandated pensions or healthcare anywhere in the constitution

Are you saying SS or Medicare are unconstitutional?  The horse left that barn a long time ago.

It's a reality.  We've been paying into those funds.  I was always taught by my parents it was a safety net.  I never expected I might need it, but you know what, my house devalued 20% so we took a huge hit when we moved.  We're getting older and only have so long to recover. 


Try to look outside of your secure financial situation and think about people who have no children nearby (or at all) or never had the earnings power to have the security you have. 

Or think about what it will be like in this country if all of those old folks wind up on real welfare, not what you choose to call welfare because you don't need it. 

56 Posted by: CoolCzech at January 27, 2011 11:16 AM (tJjm/)

So, you'd rather force your children and grandchildren to face the same problem we're facing now (only, by then, the sudden, catastrophic collapse may be completely unavoidable) rather than find some way to scale SS back down to nothing?

You didn't "pay in" to Social Security.  That was a lie the Government told you to keep you asleep.  You paid a tax which was then redistributed to others.  In most cases, it was redistributed to current SS recipients.  When there was a surplus, it was redistributed to things that weren't Social Security.

So now, no matter how unfair it is, the money is gone.  When you retire (assuming SS survives that long- which is certainly not guaranteed) you won't be getting "your" money back, you'll be getting the money that I (assuming I'm as much younger than you as I think) and those younger than me will be having confiscated from our paychecks.

57 Posted by: Mostly Lurk at January 27, 2011 11:25 AM (y5VNb) Exactly. Stp my payroll deductions RIGHT NOW and let me start putting it in IRA's of my choosing. And stop worrying when I choose to retire.

58 None of this matters when you realize that the retirement age will soon be NEVER, no matter what any of the Lying-Class says.

59 This is how the government makes a slave out of a formerly-free person. You'll know we've reached truly interesting times when the gubmint starts minting coinage out of aluminum rather than copper, iron and nickel, on account of the expense. Anyway, the answer is gleaming in the corner... that shiny printing press, all lubed up and warm. No gubmint has been able to resist its charms in the end. Ever.

60

Posted by: Monty at January 27, 2011 11:27 AM (4Pleu)

Well said.  Also, anyone who is not saving 15-20% of their income is asking for this in their future.  Cut some luxuries, and save.

61 Try to look outside of your secure financial situation and think about people who have no children nearby (or at all) or never had the earnings power to have the security you have.

I have neither a secure financial situation nor children, and I'm still failing to see why they're entitled to 13% of my wages.

62 58 None of this matters when you realize that the retirement age will soon be NEVER,

I think about 10% of the country is "retired" right now.  The discouraged workers of a particular age are effectively retired.  Even if they get some sort of hourly job, they are not putting anything away for their retirements, just treading water. 

63 None of this matters when you realize that the retirement age will soon be NEVER You're beginning to get the hang of this.

64

Posted by: CoolCzech at January 27, 2011 11:31 AM (tJjm/)

Thanks.  I always assumed every dime I put in went right back to my mother in her monthly check, who's disabled and cannot work.

And when did retirement become a right?  Used to be you either worked until you died, were taken in by your kids, put in a corner and you'd darn socks or make yourself as useful as possible, or had a whole bunch of money and hadn't really worked before retirement age, either.  When did we get the idea that with old age came a permanent vacation?  Was it at the same time that we decided  wars never caused civilian casualties and the federal government was smarter than us?

It was brought on us by our elders and complaining about it won't change a thing.  We just have to shut up and deal with it.  Maybe not upgrade the XBox every year, that sort of thing.

65 anyone who is not saving 15-20% of their income is asking for this in their future.  Cut some luxuries, and save.

What rates are you getting on your money market that this strategy is going to be the magic bullet? 

Seriously.  If you have wealth, you can create more wealth.  If you've been a regular working stiff and - gasp - have some bad luck, you are fucked. 

66 @56: read my post 57. Also, READ my original post. I said flat out my money was given to others. All I ask is: 1) Give me a S.S. amount calculated on what I paid in plus government band interest rates, and, 2) Stop my payroll deductions NOW and let me fend for myself.

67

Posted by: Y-not at January 27, 2011 11:30 AM (pW2o

I recently moved as well.  I didn't take as bad a hit, but I did purchase a smaller house, so that I could save more.

68 Or think about what it will be like in this country if all of those old folks wind up on real welfare, not what you choose to call welfare because you don't need it. What makes you think this won't happen anyway? We are broke. We're out of money. Worse, really; we're going into debt at a terrifying clip just to keep the current bills paid. As anyone who's used one credit-card to pay off another one can tell you, this edifice cannot stand for long -- it will collapse, and sooner rather than later. Who gets the remaining (and dwindling) supply of cash? The single mom with two kids? The peraplegic war veteran? Grandma and Grandpa, who need the money to pay the rent? Joe and Jane, young newlyweds who need some help to buy a house? Tom, who has a drug problem but wants to get clean (sincerely)? It used to be that we could give money to all of them; now we may have to choose. Who gets the money? I know we want to shelter our elders from danger and poverty, but this is not the way to do it. It's cruel to shine them on and convince them to rely on a system that is so fundamentally broken.

69 And when did retirement become a right?  Used to be you either worked until you died, were taken in by your kids, put in a corner and you'd darn socks or make yourself as useful as possible, or had a whole bunch of money and hadn't really worked before retirement age, either.

Why are you focusing on retirement when our problem is unemployment?  Are you seriously saying employers are going to hire 65 year olds with the unemployment rate what it is?  They can hire people cheaper with an expectation they'll work longer. 

I think we need to realize that although the country as a whole is screwed up massively right now, some individuals are making money (look at the stock market) and/or are completely secure right now.  It's not a question of fairness but of necessity that we make sure the folks at the edge of real poverty don't slip below that line, particularly when they are too old to work. 

70 And when did retirement become a right? There's a whole book that needs to be written on this topic. "Retirement" is a modern concept that has only been au courant for about a century or so, and the very notion would have struck our ancestors as very weird indeed. It's a notion that could only have been promulgated by a very wealthy and powerful civilization. (And very civilized it is...as long as you can afford it.)

71

Why are you focusing on retirement when our problem is unemployment?  Are you seriously saying employers are going to hire 65 year olds with the unemployment rate what it is?  They can hire people cheaper with an expectation they'll work longer. 

!Si', Sen~or!

72 What rates are you getting on your money market that this strategy is going to be the magic bullet? 

Posted by: Y-not at January 27, 2011 11:36 AM (pW2o

Trust certificates, commons, and overseas mutuals - diversifed.  Over the past 15 years, I have annualized 9% ROI, including the 2008 crash.

73 If you means test it, you are basically admitting SS is what it is...a generational wealth transfer program. People will flip out.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2011 10:51 AM (HicGG)

There should be an abortion tax for all registered Democrat retirees. Since they decided no other generations could fuck and produce as much offspring as their parents, and younger generations would have to somehow support their stubborn asses for decades before they finally kick the bucket, they should lose benefits in direct proportion to the number of abortions performed since Roe v. Wade passed, since those babies could have chipped in.

74 Dumb. Just graduate the ages, put them on a schedule, until we are weaned of this problem.

75

Also, READ my original post. I said flat out my money was given to others.

All I ask is:

1) Give me a S.S. amount calculated on what I paid in plus government band interest rates, and,

2) Stop my payroll deductions NOW and let me fend for myself.

Proposed that in 2003. Remember how the Demunists demogogued that?

Of course we should do as you suggest. But we WILL have to jack up the retirement age, because too many dolts will stay "on autopilot", and the higher the retirement age, the less of a Ponzi scheme it is.

76 When we voted in the assholes who kept raiding the fund and refused to change it, we accepted this future.  There is no 'right' to retire.  You retire if you have enough money to. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at January 27, 2011 11:28 AM (TpXEI) Yeah, well that's exactly my point: I'm already saving over 15% of my income for retirement. Stop taking money out of my pay for SS and Medicare and I'll save that, too. Yeah, there's no "right" to retire. But there's no obligation not too, either, if you can afford it. It should be a strictly personal decision: not some Senator's, and - regarding anyone else - not yours.

77 It's not a question of fairness but of necessity that we make sure the folks at the edge of real poverty don't slip below that line, particularly when they are too old to work.

If you believe that, then you should spend money toward the task.  You will choose how much money you feel comfortable giving.  The government forcing people to do this is unjust.

78 Who gets the remaining (and dwindling) supply of cash?

That's my point. 

Means testing has to be the first step.  This is an emergency.  We're in triage mode. 


It is ridiculous for my dad to be collecting on SS (I don't know the amount, but he did work in a non-federal job long enough to pay in) until he cuts his voluntary expenses and can demonstrate he needs it. 

And, although there is a lot of fear associated with it (and the real estate market sucks), he should at least look into selling his home, which is not palatial but still have some significant value because of the location and age of the property.

People like my aunt already have their backs up against the wall; people like my dad really don't.


Also, I think this assumption some are making that we all have kids is naive. 

Or even if people have kids, the assumption that they are in a position to help is flawed.  A neighbor was telling me that two years ago every one of her middle-aged kids was unemployed... as was essentially her husband (who was in real estate development). 

79

Dumb. Just graduate the ages, put them on a schedule, until we are weaned of this problem.

And the difference between this and gruadually raising the retirement age is....

80 Social Security isn't a Ponzi scheme! It says so right on their website.  (I bet Madoff wishes he'd thought of that).

The reasons they're not a ponzi scheme?
1. Ponzi schemes offer a great rate of return, SS doesn't.
2. SS is like Germany's retirement system that's been in place since the 19th century.

I'm convinced!

81 Trust certificates, commons, and overseas mutuals - diversifed.  Over the past 15 years, I have annualized 9% ROI, including the 2008 crash.

Sounds great. 

You should really help the 70 year old Walmart greeters with their investment portfolios. 

82 Bernie Madoff is in jail for running pretty much the exact same system. He just didn't have the threat of fines, property confiscation, arrest and incarceration in his back pocket to force ran out of people willing to put money into his system.

FIFY

83 Let's face reality.

There are going to be a lot of people, many who don't deserve it, that will be devastated.  Either by necessary cuts, or the collapse of the system  - it doesn't matter which.

Concentrate on you and your loved ones.  Take care of your needs, start planning, and

STOP RELYING ON THE GOVERNMENT.

84 Posted by: CoolCzech at January 27, 2011 11:36 AM (tJjm/)

+100

85 You'll know we've reached truly interesting times when the gubmint starts minting coinage out of aluminum rather than copper, iron and nickel, on account of the expense.



Clay.  When things fell apart in Japan during WWII they started to make coins out of clay.

86 So raising the retirement age is out? fine. Abolish COLAs for SS for starters, then begin cutting back benefit payouts. If means testing is a feasible route to do so, go for it.

As somebody said last night in relating a conversation they had with their mother regarding the solvency of the SS system, 80% of something beats 100% of nothing any day of the week.

87 Here's the Social Security link about Ponzi schemes:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm

88
You should really help the 70 year old Walmart greeters with their investment portfolios. 

Posted by: Y-not at January 27, 2011 11:48 AM (pW2o

FDR sold them a bill of goods.  Reality is rearing its ugly head and is now saying, "Not my problem."

You want compassion - we want fairness.  We never asked for this.  Neither did they, but what you advocate is shackling everyone because that generation fell for a Ponzi scheme.

They are not entitled to the fruits of my labors simply because they lived a long time.  Period.  I am not morally obligated to help them.  Do I feel pity?  Sure.  Would I give to a charity to help them out?  Absolutely.  Government, the police power of the state, has nothing to do with this.  It should NOT be in the business of compassion because that always comes at the expense of someone else's precious life.

As in, the life I spend working just to funnel the money to the government to give to themselves and other people.

Those people are not my problem.  If they were members of my family, or close friends, then they would be.

89 Try to look outside of your secure financial situation and think about people who have no children nearby (or at all) or never had the earnings power to have the security you have. Fuck that. I've had to start over twice already. And I didn't have salable assets like many of the current oldsters. So, the average SS payout is ~$1,000 monthly? Sell your fucking house and get three roommates to go in on a 2 BR condo with you. You'll have enough for rent, utitlities and all the cat food you can eat. Plus, no property taxes or maintenance costs. Why do old people like cat food? Weird. The point is, too many seniors have assets that they are NOT WILLING to liquidate. They want to live alone in their own house and expect the rest of us to bear the cost of property taxes, maintenance, utilities, etc. as well as the necessities of life. Fuck you and grow up, grammy. Get a roommate. Solve your problems before I solve them for you. And I promise you won't like my solution. You ever see those Japanese hotels where people sleep in tubes? Yeah, welcome to the EoJ Villas, where you can live with dignity. And by "with dignity" I mean IN A FUCKING TUBE.

90 You folks are railing about a fund that has existed for decades, to which we all paid in (including those Boomers you hate so much). 

Acting like it is stealing from you is not helpful to solving the problems now.

Saying some 70 year old childless widow with health issues and no assets should suck it is not particularly helpful. 

Saying private philanthropy should step in, when we still have not fixed the tax laws in a way that makes it easier to give to charities (and when charitable giving is down across virtually every sector), is not realistic or helpful. 


I am missing what big line in the sand is being drawn about means testing, when so many other lines were crossed.  It rings particularly hollow when the taxable income cap for SS is something like $100k.  So let's not act like people making $200k paid so much more than someone making $75k -- they didn't.  I don't understand why during this current financial crisis we can't triage payments and COLAs so the people who need them most don't get them.  Why not do that and reassess later when the economy stabilizes?


And, btw, I'm not that happy about paying for your kids' college loans or yours either, but I did it.  So all of you who are so outrageously outraged that this chunk of the taxes you pay is going to old people whom you've decided didn't plan well enough 15 years ago (when so much of your taxes are wasted on other things less vital), can feel free to send me a check for the taxes I paid for your college loans... pro-rated based on your earnings capacity with the degree and with interest.


Honestly, this is a difficult problem.  Some of you think by simplifying it with outrage at the very existence of SS or Medicare helps.  It doesn't.  And it makes our Party look gawdawful. 

91 On the "right to retire" and retirement as a concept in general: well, I'm not sure it's a "right," but damn straight I'm looking forward to it. Yeah, I know about past generatipns, but those people died at age 30 on average, too, and never earned enough in terms of pat rates and years of work to save enough money to retire. Nor did they live long enough to worry about it, much. No one really expected to work until age 80 for some 30 year old snot-nosed kid supervisor. But aside from the idea that 50 or 60 years of that is a revolting idea: if no one retires, what would the unemployment rate be for young people just entering the work force? One reason for retirement is to make room for new workers. Don't think Work Till You Drop is a Magic Bullet. All those seniors staying at their paper shuffle jobs, or cashier jobs, would add NOTHING of value to our economy. No real new wealth would be created. Younger workers would still get screwed, with lower pay.

92 No politician who values his or her job is going to go after SS or Medicare in any meaningful way, because they dread the "you're trying to kill Grandma!" rhetoric from the Donks.

Yeah, but now the Dems have passed Obamacare and spent us trillions deeper into debt, so Pubs can say, "No, you're trying to kill grandma!" This is a rare opportunity to lop away at the entitlement hydra and finally slay the beast. In fact, Paul Ryan's responsible constituents in WI appreciate his courage.

93 Also, I think this assumption some are making that we all have kids is naive. Having (nor not) kids is a choice, and if you choose not to have children, you are choosing to forgo the benefit they might have provided in your old age. (Same goes for the horrible and/or abusive parents who alienate their children.) I can gin up sob-stories all day long about how sad it will be if granny or grampy goes broke. The fact remains that their current situation is the end-result of choices they made in the past, and choices in many cases that they alone were responsible for. The real question is: how much of a "living" does a civilized society owe to its citizens? I think it's a given that an enlightened society would prevent a citizen from starving or freezing to death, and provide essentials like clothing and shelter, but how much beyond that are we obligated to go? How much can we wring out of complete strangers to make up for the bad decisions or bad luck of other people?

94 Do we really have two years to diddle with the timing when the engine block is cracked?

95

They are not entitled to the fruits of my labors simply because they lived a long time.  Period.  I am not morally obligated to help them.  Do I feel pity?  Sure.  Would I give to a charity to help them out?  Absolutely.  Government, the police power of the state, has nothing to do with this.  It should NOT be in the business of compassion because that always comes at the expense of someone else's precious life.

Posted by: grognard at January 27, 2011 11:55 AM (NS2Mo)

Bingo

96 Regarding people's unwillingness to face facts and abandon their "I got mine" mentality, reflect on whether Thomas Paine's writing in The Crisis (number one) has any traction today:

I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty.

And your answer is?

97 Let me put it another way: I'm a government worker, and if I never get a promotion my pay will top out in a few years at abit over $100K. If I retire, I'll get a relatively modest pension, social security, and a draw down of my Thrift Savings (basically a 401K) that together will add up to maybe half of that. So what do you save, if I continue to work until age 75, save - like a lot of government workers do - and keep pocketing the extra 50%, AND effectively lock out a new college grad from the job, that he would begin to work at the bottom, not top, of the pay table?

98 And, btw, I'm not that happy about paying for your kids' college loans or yours either, but I did it.  So all of you who are so outrageously outraged that this chunk of the taxes you pay is going to old people whom you've decided didn't plan well enough 15 years ago (when so much of your taxes are wasted on other things less vital), can feel free to send me a check for the taxes I paid for your college loans... pro-rated based on your earnings capacity with the degree and with interest.

That's news to me.  Last I checked I've been paying my own off for the past 15 years or so. At a fairly hefty interest rate, I might add. I took nothing from you.

Look, from a less ideological standpoint, it'd be horrible to screw over the old people.  I don't think it can be avoided.  The bottom line is that the bill is coming due.  We can't possibly protect all of them. 

What we can do is look out for our own.  I need to look out for my kids.  The older generation, and the boomers, got sucked in by the lies of the progressive politicians, and this is the result.  I fail to see why me or my kids should suffer for that in the long term.

I don't disagree that charity could do more if government would get out of the way, but that's exactly what I'm saying.  Government *should* get out of the way.  Charity will pick up the slack.

I know that if I was taxed a lot less I'd contribute more to food banks and other things to help out.  I do it now, but less than I would be.

The government is a FAIL.  What you're saying is that we should drag out the FAIL to other generations so the people who fell for it aren't impacted adversely by it.

I say bullshit.  They should share the pain and the consequences for their decisions.

99 There are going to be a lot of people, many who don't deserve it, that will be devastated.  Either by necessary cuts, or the collapse of the system  - it doesn't matter which.

Republicans should start highlighting stories of Medicare fraud. Show people that the system is too big to regulate properly and that people are pulling off outright thievery, because nobody will go near meaningful reform.

100 Y-Not: I can't speak for the other Morons on this issue, but please: you must understand the bitterness we feel. I'm coming up on 44, and all I see in my future is a huge debt-burden, no retirement beyond what I provide for myself, and constant grabby hands from every corner of society -- from retirees, from the ever-growing ranks of the "poor" (who somehow manage to have cars and big-screen televisions and cellphones and ipods), from deadbeats and victim-groups and unions and public employees. My own parents never saved a dime. My mom passed not long after she retired, and she had a small pension to augment her SS, but I sent her a check every month out of my own pay to make up the shortfall. And though I sent the money gladly, it still irked me -- why didn't she save more? Money I gave her was money I couldn't save myself. I loved her, but was angry with her at the same time -- and that describes how I feel about the Boomer generation. As a demographic, they are the most spendthrift and profligate generation this country has ever known (or probably ever will know). I won't allow my elders to starve or freeze in the streets (regardless of what the donks may say), but the fountain is very nearly dry. My days of shortchanging myself to the advantage of my elders is over. My own dotage is closer on the horizon, and the way things are going it looks like I'll be sliding into my sunset years at just about the time things really go straight to hell. So yeah, I'm a little bitter about it. I think I have good reason to be.

101

Also, READ my original post. I said flat out my money was given to others.

All I ask is:

1) Give me a S.S. amount calculated on what I paid in plus government band interest rates, and,

2) Stop my payroll deductions NOW and let me fend for myself.

This. A fair solution. I'm 58, and have been getting statements for decades from Uncle Sam about what the SS payment would be when I retired. Now, after paying in for 37 years, the rules of the game are being changed. OK, I get it, and I have been saving for a long time so I'm not going to be in dire straits when I retire.

In any case, I would be far more convinced to take a hit for the team if (1) I hadn't been forced to pay SS in the first place on top of the other taxes I pay (those dollars could have been invested far more profitably if I had been left alone from the start), and (2) I was absolutely convinced that EVERYONE, and this includes the Obamaites, SEIUites, the govt. employees, EVERYONE was going to take a roughly equivalent hit.

102

And, btw, I'm not that happy about paying for your kids' college loans or yours either, but I did it.

My parents paid cash for mine, I paid cash for my wife's, and I set up funds at birth for my childrens' education, so theirs will effectively be paid in cash as well.

103 @ 96 Only one-third of the population supported the revolution. Only 10 percent actively participated. Thanks for the parable highlighting the fact that millions of Americans are swinging from the terribly sore nipples of our current workforce.

104 I'm paying MY kid's school costs 100% for him. We're also sending $500 a month to my mother-in-law. I don't need a lecture about my obligations to future or past generations.

105

Honestly, this is a difficult problem.  Some of you think by simplifying it with outrage at the very existence of SS or Medicare helps.  It doesn't.  And it makes our Party look gawdawful. 

Y-Not is being realistic, people. All of you who are reciting Ayn Rand chapter and verse and want to abolish the program outright have to realize that that isn't going to fly with old people who in their minds were only playing by "The Understood Ground Rules". And those people *vote*. And they aren't happy with the Demunist social policies, so they will vote GOP. Unless you piss them off.

So let's do what we can. jack up the retirement age if we can, means test if we can (Clinton sort of did that by making SS more taxable past a certain income level).

As for me, polls indicated that as twentysomethings--twenty odd years ago--we expected to meet extraterrestrials face to face before we got any SS. Now we are fortysomethings and that has not changed.

106

All those seniors staying at their paper shuffle jobs, or cashier jobs, would add NOTHING of value to our economy. No real new wealth would be created. Younger workers would still get screwed, with lower pay.

One wonders why that doesn't apply to the illegals now often doing such jobs at the local fast food eatery.

107 Let me put it another way: I'm a government worker, and if I never get a promotion my pay will top out in a few years at abit over $100K.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 27, 2011 12:06 PM (tJjm/)

Wait. You're a government worker making above the private sector average and you're complaining about taxes, Social Security and deficits?

108

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 27, 2011 12:15 PM (ujg0T)

To me, the ultimate solution is to put SS payments into the general fund, just like welfare, and cut off future recipients at some age limit (probably those in their forties).  If I am cut off now, I have 20 or so years to plan, and so does everyone else my age and younger.  I frankly see the 2011-2012 cut to SS taxes as a step in that direction, and have been telling everyone I know to not spend that money, but save it, as those monies will have to replace the coming cuts to their own benefits.

109 Curmudgeon: We have been explaining at length that "politics" is not going to trump reality. At this point it doesn't really matter whether the "optics" of a given approach are bad or not, or whether it will scare old people, or whatever. The situation is what it is, and all the glad-handing by grinning Congresscritters won't change a damned thing.

110

We have been explaining at length that "politics" is not going to trump reality.

In the long run, you are right. But that still leaves us quite a few elections where the Commiecrats could take power and *really* screw things up. In the long run, to paraphrase weenie Keynes, the Left could make us dead (literally, with their appeasing nuclear armed tyrants).

Of course I will support the GOP triage efforts--no one here with half a brain is disputing that.

111 At this point it doesn't really matter whether the "optics" of a given approach are bad or not, or whether it will scare old people, or whatever.

Of course it does.  Unless you are just resigned to auguring this burning craft straight into the ground.  There's bad, and then there's worse.  I say we shoot for bad.

112 Wait. You're a government worker making above the private sector average and you're complaining about taxes, Social Security and deficits? Posted by: DrewM. at January 27, 2011 12:20 PM (HicGG) I'm a CPA with an MBA and 20 years of professional experience. Do you really consider $100K above the average of private sector CPA's tooling around on Wall St. in their BMW's? Who do you WANT overseeing the way defense money is spent, a cashier from WalMart?

113 Now we are fortysomethings and that has not changed.

These old people haven't done shit for me, and they're not making off with my money that I slaved for. They can all eat out of dumpsters, and I'm serious. I want off this ride, and in a free society, that's my right.

As a child, the courts couldn't force my father to pay child support. My mother couldn't be forced to not shack up with all the abusive men she brought into my life. CPS couldn't do their jobs to intervene and place me in a safe environment. Public school couldn't ensure that I was prepared to enter the workforce or go on to college. The military decided to discharge me after I was sexually harassed on my training command. Throughout my life, I have not taken a penny from welfare.

So, all these people who have been fine with this system throughout the years, who have shrugged and yawned and jerked off, they can all go to hell. Sorry they never felt like figuring out how to pay for all the shit that the government chooses to waste money on. It has to go somewhere, and it never goes to the right people. Well, I know this firsthand, and that's why I demand a full refund. Letting me opt out will just help you identify the real freeloaders. As for those who want theirs, life ain't fair. Suck it.

114 @103: "...sore nipples of our current workforce." Wait. What??

115 You are the sum total of all the choices you made. You KNEW what the monthly SS payout was going to be. And you chose a life of bare subsistence. Of spending your remaining years waiting to die, because you can't afford to do anything else. What the fuck? I want to travel, eat at fine restaurants, spoil my grandchildren. How am I going to do that when I'm living on Social Security? Why the hell would I CHOOSE a lesser standard of living than I had when I was working? Isn't retirement supposed to be your reward? I keep hearing about how today's kids suck at math. Why can't people be held responsible for the choices they made? There's no statute of limitations for murder. But there are infinite mulligans for those who choose to demand a living from strangers. Pretty soon the ants are going to slam the door in the grasshopper's face.

116

One wonders why that doesn't apply to the illegals now often doing such jobs at the local fast food eatery.

Why do we need all this fast food and crap, either. While we're talking about entitlement reform, let's end corporate welfare, too. I would like fewer malls and restaurants. Going out for a nice dinner is a rare treat for me and should be for most people. I miss when high school students washed dishes, waited tables and mowed lawns. Fix immigration and downscale our economy.

117

Of course it does.  Unless you are just resigned to auguring this burning craft straight into the ground.  There's bad, and then there's worse.  I say we shoot for bad.

THANK YOU! Somebody gets it. I'm trying for triage.

These old people haven't done shit for me

Which ones? The ones who defeated the Nazis? And their Rosie the Riveter spouses? The ones who fought Soviets and their various minions? Don't forget how many of them have the veterans claim. They are dying off, but they are not quite dead yet.

, and they're not making off with my money that I slaved for. They can all eat out of dumpsters, and I'm serious. I want off this ride, and in a free society, that's my right.

You still think you are in a free society? The "New Deal" (sic) and the "Great Society" (sic) sank that ship. :-(

118 Posted by: CoolCzech at January 27, 2011 12:28 PM (tJjm/)

Are you even paying into to Social Security? I thought federal employees had a separate program. Besides public sector pension plans are far more generous than private sector ones (which is a whole other ticking time bomb), so I'm no sure why someone in your position is worried about SS.

On balance, I'd prefer fewer lectures from the consumption side of the economy to the producing side.

119 "Average life expectancy" isn't the figure you want to consider. It includes the effects of infant and child mortality, which were significantly higher when polio, diptheria, measles, etc. roamed the land, dragging down the average.

120 You still think you are in a free society?

It's put up or shut up time. If we're going to hear endless platitudes from every politician about how great and free this country is, then stop confiscating my wages for people who haven't earned it. The Nazis were evil people, and I've seen evil in my lifetime that I shouldn't have if the Greatest Generation was as great as they claimed, and that includes from veterans.

121 Who do you WANT overseeing the way defense money is spent, a cashier from WalMart? Hang on while I imagine that scenario... "Hey General, can I get a price check on this hammer? It's ringing up at $700. That can't be right." Yeah, I'm okay with that.

122 Back on this shit again. I posted links over and over. I posted a detailed explanation why all these calls that "life expectancy" has increased or a damn myth as far as SS is concerned.

In fact, they just had a guy from the CBO on Fox a few minutes ago who did not deny the myth, but did say that raising retirement age "a few years" will not produce any savings in SS.

I will say this one more time and you can check it at the census bureau web site. When these people talk about the "average life expectancy" they are talking about the average of all people from birth to death. Back in the 1930s there were a substantial number of deaths from childhood diseases, a lot of early deaths from other diseases such as TB and polio, and a lot of younger deaths in wars and other types of events.

The majority of the increase in life epectancy comes from eliminating those youthful deaths but they do noit impact to any significiance the age that people live to after they pass those years. We do get some increase from surviving later diseases like heart disease at a higher rate.

In addition to all of that not a damn soul is talking about reforming and curtailing the scam that is taking over half of the payments right now, that is the BS disability payout fraud.

123 @118: federal emploees started paying into ss back in the 1980's, just in time for me. The one's hired before then got a standard 50% of their base pay with no ss and no payroll deduction deal. I call it the Gravy Train Always Comes To a Screeching Halt Just as I Hop Aboard Principle and I hates it.

124 Every time I become eligible for profit sharing, the company ceases to be profitable.

I'm like a Jonah.

125 Vic: Those census numbers are old, and were full of shit to begin with. Read this for details, but odds are, if you make it to 65, you've got a pretty good shot at living to 90, statistically speaking.

126 I'm like a Jonah. You complain about getting swallowed? Some folks just can't be pleased.

127 @121: "Hey General, can I get a price check on this hammer? It's ringing up at $700. That can't be right." Yeah, I'm okay with that. I don't know, guy. I've being staring at government contracts for years and still haven't seen any $700 hammers. I have found, however, millions of dollars of fraud perpetrated by companies looking to rip off the government: so, I'd say my salary gives the taxpayer a good return for the money.

128 Posted by: Monty at January 27, 2011 12:54 PM (4Pleu)

Without looking a your link (will catch up in a few minutes) what I have been saying all along is that even way back in the 30s if you made it past the dangerous years your odds of living into the 80s was high.

The first woman to get a check Ida Mae Someingorother lived to 85.

129 OK  I took a brief look at it and they are repeating the same BS myth. Also the table from the census bureau and some other agency that I linked to yesterday was NOT old and out of date.

The fact is those short numbers they quote from years ago are impacted by huge numbers of childhood deaths that have zero impact of how SS works.

130 I have been saying all along is that even way back in the 30s if you made it past the dangerous years your odds of living into the 80s was high. And my point is that a) there were a lot fewer people in the aggregate then (~120million) than there are now (~310 million), and b) your chances of surviving childhood are much better now than they were then. I.e., we have a lot bigger pool of old people now, even though the average age is only a few years higher. (And a difference of 5 years in lifespan is huge in financial-obligation terms.) Another problem is that the ratio of working people to beneficiaries is much worse now than it was then. So not only is the pool of beneficiaries vastly larger, the pool of workers contributing to the fund is much smaller as a ratio of the whole. Further: there's a lot of evidence that chronic illness in old age will be more common now because medical technology is so much better. Diabetes being the main example. This translates to a huge expense in another entitlement program, Medicare. So the above problems are a gruesome double-whammy, really, and underscore what a rotten foundation SS was built upon.

131 Social Security is going down -- to be replaced by some sort of welfare program for the retired along with privatized pensions... 

  However, one easy parts of this debate one need to put on the table it so match government worker retirement benefit age (expanded to include anyone getting money from the Feds) to the SS retirement age -- what ever that age is determined to be...   If nothing else, this might help evolve Social Security to the scrap heap in favor of a decent welfare program plus privatized pension reform. 

132 (And a difference of 5 years in lifespan is huge in financial-obligation terms.)

According to the CBO guy on Fox a few minutes ago it was not a substantial savings from just a few years.

133 We are a democracy of four rats with three pieces of cheese.  The oldest rat wants two pieces.

134 Alan West for Speaker of the House

135 According to the CBO guy on Fox a few minutes ago it was not a substantial savings from just a few years. Then he should lay off the crackpipe. As many municipalities are finding out, even if only a few hundred retirees live a few years longer than the actuaries said they would, that translates into tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars that has to be diverted to paying off their pensions. Small changes have big effects with numbers this large, Vic. About 48 million people (that's bigger than the entire population of Spain, by the way) currently receive SS benefits. That number is set to grow dramatically in coming years due to the influx of the Baby Boom generation, who will swell their ranks to about 65 million a decade from now. If 30 million of that cohort live only a year longer than actuarists thought they would, that's a huge outlay of cash that no one thought would happen (and which, consequently, no one planned for).

136 Posted by: CoolCzech at January 27, 2011 12:50 PM (tJjm/)

Timing is everything.

137 f 30 million of that cohort live only a year longer than actuarists thought they would, that's a huge outlay of cash that no one thought would happen (and which, consequently, no one planned for).

Posted by: Monty at January 27, 2011 01:39 PM (4Pleu)

Monty you are missing the boat entirely on this. All those people who died in the 30s died before they were of an age to contribute or collect. They had zero damn impact on SS.

The actuarial tables average birth to death for everyone born in a particular year. If a baby was born in 1931 and died in 1932 from whooping cough he knocked the averages back a lot, but his impact on SS in 1965 was ZERO.

138 Here's the Social Security link about Ponzi schemes:

That's funny that the Social Security would have something about Ponzi schemes on its own website...

139

If 30 million of that cohort live only a year longer than actuarists thought they would, that's a huge outlay of cash that no one thought would happen (and which, consequently, no one planned for).

BINGO! Sorry Vic, but you can't tell me longer lifespans don't matter. And yes, they are longer. Check the *median* figures that account for childhood death outliers.

140 Go check my links from yesterday, I'm done with this argument.

141 One last thing.  If Barry, Nancy and Harry have taught us anything over the last two years it's that WE CANNOT AFFORD TO LOSE BIG TO THEM EVER AGAIN.  If we touch that third rail we will be right back where we started in 2008.

142 There should be a means test for SS.  Millionaires shouldn't be getting checks regardless of how much they paid in.

143 altın çilek - fx15 - leke kremi - yudali - zayıflama hapı - ozon yağı