|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
01-03-2011, 05:10 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
How many times will Social Security be . . .
A thread topic for the next few years? Robert Samuelson from the WaPO and Economics Professor Peter Kutner each appeared on NPR this morning to discuss the Social Security Fund's solvency and approaches to addressing it's solvency. Samuelson was gloom and doom, suggesting that the government over-promised and now we are in a crisis situation in which the SS fund is facing a crash. He wants to cut benefits and increase the retirement age. In response to concerns that an advanced retirement age would fall particularly harshly on those who have been involved in hard physical labor during their working life, he said that public policy "cannot be based on the concerns of even a significant minority." At the same time, he defended the tax cuts for the top 2%. I wonder if 2% is more than a significant minority.
Despite his gloom and doom, he acknowledged that SS is fully funded for the next 28 years, and that if wages had kept up with productivity, there would be no problem.
Peter Kutner suggested that a "Social Security Crisis" does not exist. He pointed to Samuelson's necessary acknowledgment that SS is fully funded for 28 more years to demonstrate the lack of any real crisis. Kutner noted that the concern about the impending retirement of the baby boom generation was addressed in '83 by the increased withholdings for social security. About the only thing he agreed with Samuelson is that if wages had kept pace with increases in productivity, there would be no issue with long term funding. Even with the increase in productivity being absorbed by the investment class, Kutner suggested that minor adjustments would further secure future benefits, one of those tweaks being a significant increase in the cap on contributions. Finally, Kutner suggested that the talk of crisis was mostly a smokescreen by those who disagree with social insurance for political reasons.
I know my bias shows through in my summary of their positions, but what is your position of the status and future of Social Security.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
01-03-2011, 05:18 PM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
excellent post thank you
|
01-03-2011, 06:05 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Oh, ferfuksake. Check the history. The GOP has been out to kill SS since 1935. The damn slavedrivers are afraid someone will stop working and NOT starve to death as a consequence. That's what this is all about. It wouldn't matter if SS was running an eighty trillion surplus, they would still be sneaking around trying to poke holes in the hull.
And everyone here knows it.
"Finally, Kutner suggested that the talk of crisis was mostly a smokescreen by those who disagree with social insurance for political reasons."----BINGO! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
01-03-2011, 07:45 PM
|
|
Loyal Opposition
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Johnson County, Kansas
Posts: 14,401
|
|
You are not insinuating that the honorable Congresspersons from the GOP do not have the cajones to attack Social Security head on, are you? Actually, I wish they would - that would most certainly restore a democratic majority.
Regards,
D-Ray
__________________
Then I'll get on my knees and pray,
We won't get fooled again; Don't get fooled again
|
01-03-2011, 08:14 PM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-ray657
You are not insinuating that the honorable Congresspersons from the GOP do not have the cajones to attack Social Security head on, are you? Actually, I wish they would - that would most certainly restore a democratic majority.
Regards,
D-Ray
|
do you really think so?
I don't. Not till they got a check that was smaller.
|
01-03-2011, 07:58 PM
|
|
Area Man
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
|
|
Yes, I am.
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
|
01-03-2011, 10:08 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
If the current profligate spending habits of our friends inside the beltway do not change, SS doesn't stand a chance. The blue print for hijacking SS funds is being laid out across the pond right now:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Th...ivate-pensions
Even our friends at the CBO are less than optimistic. From their 2009 report:
"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the Social Security trust funds will be exhausted in 2043.1 (Unless otherwise stated, the years referred to in this report are calendar years.) Thus, if the law remains unchanged, CBO projects that 34 years from now, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will not have the legal authority to pay full benefits."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc...ity_Update.pdf
Well paid boomers continue to retire, and corporate gains in "efficiency" suggest that fewer workers are coming in behind to replace the retirees. Sooner or later, the math catches up. The only difference is that when the government does it, its legal. When Bernie Madoff does it, its a crime.
|
01-04-2011, 05:56 AM
|
Abby Normal
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 11,245
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
|
It's a much different system than here.
|
01-04-2011, 11:58 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Metro Detroit
Posts: 13,016
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by noonereal
It's a much different system than here.
|
The government's power, on both sides of the pond, to take control of the funds, or manipulate the system to gain control of those funds, make any differences irrelevant.
|
01-04-2011, 02:32 PM
|
|
Resident octogenarian
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Maryland
Posts: 20,860
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by whell
The government's power, on both sides of the pond, to take control of the funds, or manipulate the system to gain control of those funds, make any differences irrelevant.
|
The governmment here does not need to sieze private pension funds since non of them are fully funded in any case.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people.
Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM.
|