Of course they are based on static analyses and of course they are adjusted, constant adjustments and updated analyses are the only way we will assure we have projections which are as accurate as possible. Yes, this is as the legislation creating the trust fund required. Are you really faulting the government for doing what the law directs them to do? This article is a restatement of the SS agency analysis with the Heritage opinions thrown in. I already posted the data sans opinion... I'd love to comment on this one, but it is behind a subscriber wall. At any rate, it is by Charles Krauthammer, so suffers from his bias and the only added "value" to this analysis is his opinion, which I just don't care about. This is just a restatement of how the trust fund is managed, again with a conservative bias. Yes, the trust fund is made up of US Treasury debt, debt which was borrowed and spent by the government beginning with Reagan. Of course it didn't, his proposal tuned Medicare into a voucher system and the only proposal for SS from Ryan is to turn it into a private account system, a completely unworkable attempt at a solution, given current budget realities... http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/14/news/economy/ryan-social-security/index.htm Given that the Republican "solutions" simply don't solve the problem, but instead gut the programs they purportedly try to fix, I don't blame Obama at all for ignoring their proposals. The simple fact is that two tweaks, means testing benefits and raising or eliminating the payroll tax cap, would fix SS for the foreseeable future. Those changes are not supported by the GOP even though they would eliminate the need to lower benefits or expose people's SS funds to the risk involved in the stock market. Note that one of the fixes mentioned in the article I originally posted was to begin raising the SS benefits age. I completely agree that this should be part of the solution.
And exactly how useful is an analysis that you KNOW going in will be inaccurate, and you KNOW that you will have to constantly adjust in a certain way going forward? You can't base plans off of such an analysis. Of course not, they have no choice. My point is that the trust fund as it is set up is ludicrous. You literally have one arm of the government borrowing money that must be paid back with interest from another arm of the government. Why does that make sense to you? You link gave me "This Webpage Not Available", but maybe that is just my browser. But the data is out there, so whatever. Are you saying that any analysis of the data outside of the government's own analysis is not kosher? I find that an odd position to take. Well, it isn't behind a subscriber wall, you merely have to answer a single question to see it, but if you don't want to read it that's fine. It merely points out that the trust fund consists of IOUs from the government, which is true. That is what a government security is. The entire fund is built upon borrowed money. That doesn't bother you? In other words, "This is just how it is. Everything's fine.". OK. The partial privatization option would give everyone the option to manage a portion of their own retirement account. Instead of the system being a ponzi scheme you could opt to put that money into accounts that would give you an investment return. I for one would like that option, because I would know that at least some of the money I am paying into the system would actually be mine, and that it would actually be there when I need it, and not simply handed out to current retirees with nothing for me when I retire. And in every proposal it is simply an option; you can either opt to stay in the traditional program completely, or you can take a portion of what you pay in and invest it. It is really difficult to argue against that option on its merits. But of course the real reason that liberals resist that is because it would hinder their efforts at wealth redistribution. They want ALL of your and my money NOW, so that they can cover current retirees' benefits. Us younger cats? We get nothing. They don't gut anything, they make the programs sustainable in the long term. That is exactly the sort of nonsensical demagoguery that makes it impossible to address the problem. To say that the GOP is opposed to means testing is simply false. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/04/13/6464594-gop-senators-raise-retirement-age-means-test-social-security?lite Means testing and raising the retirement age are two perfectly acceptable solutions to the GOP. It is no surprise that raising taxes is the first solution that comes to mind to a Democrat. It is generally the last thing Republicans want to do, for good reason.
I find this statement very ironic given the Republican position on payroll tax increases during the whole fiscal cliff affair. This is especially since we are talking about FICA taxes. have you consulted the party recently, or are you merely projecting your views on the a raft of Congressmen who clearly are not in line with your vision?
Wow. That post is a big load of blame bull***** on the baby boomers. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess. Baby boomers ARE the largest generation since the beginning of SS. I guess that's their fault...being born. And guess what? Boomers HAVE and WILL spend more on SS than any other generation since. I bet you never thought of it that way. Too busy worrying selfishly about what it costs you I guess. Meanwhile, your generation has time to plan ahead in case SS is not available. Boomers are quickly running out of time to plan otherwise (although most like myself have done so already). By the way...the baby boomer generation started in the late 40's and ends about 1964. That means 95% of that generation is STILL paying and not receiving SS benefits even today. Now, if you want to make the argument that our politicians have failed ALL of us, then I have no problem with that. Certainly, THEY were members of the baby boomer generation but since they are generally set for life anyways, and discussing the "3rd rail" is considered political suicide they didn't have the political guts to address this issue and continually kicked the can down the street. I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "Why didn't you hold those politicians accountable and kick them out of office?" Many tried. But the plain truth of the matter is the 2 political parties in power have vastly different ideas about how to fix this. And because this country is so vested in that 2 party system and getting "our party" in power means more than actually getting stuff done, nothing has been accomplished. Politicians understand this, run to this, and continue to win while we wonder why they can't fix this issue. My question back to you. What SHOULD boomers have done? Why haven't Gen Xer's and Gen Yer's done these things?
That was a tax "holiday", always meant to be temporary. Maybe since you obviously think the Republicans were wrong on that one we should eliminate the tax entirely?
Oh come on man. The baby boomers created a gigantic SS surplus that they shouldve have kept around. The politicians who made these decisions were baby boomers and the voters who kept them around were also baby boomers. You had gigantic tax cuts in the 1980s and 2000s and the majority of voters supported them (and conveniently were baby boomers) Hell robbing social security of its trust fund was a campaign issue in the 2000 election and Al Gore got mocked for suggesting that we prevent politicians from raiding the trust fund. And I'll tell you what baby boomers should have done. They shouldn't have supported eviscerating our tax base by annihilating tax rates from Reagan on forward and they shouldn't have wrecked the social security trust fund by stealing the surpluses year after year to fund other programs. Now my generation is entering the work force at a time where we're engaged in massive budget cuts to offset the years of fiscal mismanagement by the now slowly retiring baby boomers. You are correct that most baby boomers are not retired. But that's the point. Social security is still technically solvent because most baby boomers are still working. Medicare still has money as well because baby boomers are still paying FICA. But the elderly are worried about medicare and social security and are fighting to the death to prevent any cuts to either program. Now Medicare is a flat out demographic problem so I can't fault anyone for that. But Social Security's demise is the fault of baby boomers. And our current financial situation is a result of years of rampant deficit spending that started around the time when baby boomers had all entered the workforce. They were the dominant voting bloc in the country from the 80s until today. So yes I'm mad as hell at them. Our fiscal situation didn't happen overnight. It happened because of decades of financial insanity. And its not just medicare and social security. Many baby boomers are still advocating insane positions that demand a total preservation of medicare and social security while asking for crazy budget cuts elsewhere (which disproportionately affect younger Americans) Gen X and Gen Y can't just correct those failures and the fact is that we're left with terrible choices. We can either truly balance things by making cuts to Medicare and Social Security but baby boomers don't want that. Or we can make cuts elsewhere and punish the current younger working Americans. We're making budget cuts because baby boomers made bad fiscal choices but the baby boomers are refusing to take any part of the sacrifice. They're passing on the burden to younger Americans. And that to me is infuriating. That said, I'll go along because the elderly shouldn't have to live in poverty. But that doesn't mean I can't vent or be really freaking pissed about it.
Again, whatever helps you sleep at night. Didn't Clinton have his chance to fix this mess? And what about Obama? Hell, I remember a big part of Bush's platform he ran on was to slowly privatize SS while Gore got rightly mocked for his "lock box" idea. As if any politician could ever keep their hands off spending money. Ludicrous. Regardless, they are ALL politicians. ALL of them promised during campaigns to fix the problem. All of them failed to live up to those promises. There is only 2 parties that can realistically hold power. Both of them failed the public. What exactly where Boomers supposed to do? Revolt? Hang the politicians? (hmmm...maybe you have a point.) Yes, that's what everyone who voted during the 70's, 80's and 90's were thinking. How can we eviscerate the tax base and screw us going forward? Again, how you blame voters of a generation rather than the politicians who failed them is just baffling. Oh just your generation is engaged. Not boomers too. I see. I guess we get a free pass on this. Celebrate!!! Also, to characterize todays budget cuts as "massive" shows a complete lack of understanding of how limited todays budget cuts are. This is nothing close to "massive". Regardless, you are correct it hasn't touched SS. And that's a shame. I'm actually willing as a boomer who is 18 years from retirement to talk about how we can save the program including cuts to my own future benefits. Then again, maybe I should just continue to be the selfish ******* you seem to think we all are and give the ungrateful generations following us the finger. Of course they are worried about SS and medicare. They expect promises to be kept. Hard to fault them for that. And yet, I've spoken to many elderly folks including my own parents, who worry about their kids/grandkids futures and are cutting back in order to save an estate they can leave them. Hard to believe these horrible boomers ever think about others eh? As far as deficit spending, that started WAY before the baby boomers were a big voting bloc. And keep in mind this is a 20 year voting bloc. If the boomers are solely to blame, why didn't the rest of the public both younger and older set them straight? You seem to have anointed yourself resident expert on what boomers think or want now and in the past. How nice for you. By the way, millions of Xer's, Y'ers and WWII gen are advocating these policies you hate so much even today. But by all means, lets just ignore that. You have a hate/blame agenda to prove! Here comes the excuses. We can't fix what is not fixable. Boo hoo. We aren't responsible. Blah blah. Its just those nasty baby boomers. I'll point the finger at them. Here's a clue. Don't you think maybe the boomers might have said some of those things too in the past? Nah. Lets just stay pissed at the boomers. That'll show em. Oh WE'RE making budget cuts. Not boomers. LOL. Just boomers are refusing to take part of some "sacrifice". Tell me....what "sacrifice" are YOU making that I'm not as a 49 year old boomer. I'm DYING to hear this. Look, don't do anything you don't want to do. I personally would leave the country if I was as pissed off at half the population like you are. You know, the part of the population that gave you life, raised you, educated you, kept you fed and safe while you were still leaving loads in your diaper. Absolutely, escape this hellhole you have to live in. One last thing. Nobody gives a F--- whether you're really freaking pissed you ingrate. Suck it up.
oh no, merely remarking on the fact that for a party which would claim that raising taxes is the last thing they want to do, for good reason, they seem awfully funny fighting to keep those taxes going---doesn't seem very consistent. Of course, I suppose there is a difference between payroll and income tax. Income tax---take no prisoners. Payroll tax---well technically, it's a holiday, and we wouldn't want to extend that would we, because well, take some prisoners. You also missed quite a few other solutions with regards to moving America off a PAYG system, or dodging some of the ramifications of such (for example, the inter-play between using the Fisher, Paasche or Laspeyres Index to calculate the CPI that drives COLA). Of course, you'd mention private accounts---without delving into why they would be problematic if ill-overseen---which in Republican hands they will be, by the way. Savings&Loans anybody? Have we learned anything about moral hazard? I would think anybody would be against propping up individual or collective risk-taking at the government dime, but I guess not. Of course economic conservatives would want to ween people off government and into the market---more dumb money and retail investors to prey on. Something like 82% of Americans can't grasp the relationship between bond yields and bond prices. and if they fail, the government not only has to lose the funds, but use new ones to cover their risk-taking. but, um, freedom I guess.
Yes, you can. It isn't that you know that it will be "inaccurate," it is that you must constantly review analysis in order to reflect changes in the environment. I'm sorry you don't understand the reality of updating analysis, but it isn't like there have been drastic reevaluations. In the '80s, the estimates said SS was solvent through 2037, the most recent analysis says 2033. That isn't exactly a drastic restatement. That is the way the legislation set up the trust fund. The SS funds are invested in the safest securities on the planet (not my opinion, that is what the free market has determined) so that there is a predictable, reliable, safe return on the investment. Try it again, it comes up for me post haste. It isn't that analysis outside the government's "is not kosher," it is that Heritage, like you, has an anti-government bias that colors their analysis and paints the government as somehow evil or malicious when no such motives are in evidence. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/ The entire fund is invested in the safest securities on the market, that doesn't bother me because it ensures a safe, reliable return on investment devoid of the risk of the stock and bond markets, which can and do crash every couple of decades in this country. It doesn't bother me because that is how the legislation was written for those very reasons. I'm sorry you have an anti-government bias, but just believing the government is some kind of diabolical enemy doesn't make that belief true. BTW, I haven't claimed at an point that "everything's fine," far from it. However, the garbage that you are b****ing about is just plain silly. It doesn't have any merits. It would cost trillions, would introduce dramatically increased risk, and would put trillions MORE into the hands of Wall Street bankers who have shown time and again that they cannot be trusted with the basic subsistence that SS provides for our elderly. Idiots like you have been claiming that SS won't be there for them quite literally for decades and if the GOP has their way, it won't. The only "wealth redistribution" that has occurred with regards to SS funds has been from the middle and lower class to the wealthy, specifically when Reagan raised payroll taxes in order to give massive income tax breaks to the wealthy. Forgive me if Republican cries of "wealth redistribution" ring hollow when the wealthy have been redistributing the wealth of the masses to themselves for millenia. Bull****. The Ryan plan fo Medicare turns it into a voucher system that, over time, places more and more of the burden on the elderly. And if the GOP were willing to compromise, raise the retirement age, means test benefits, AND lift the payroll tax cap, SS would be protected for all time. However, compromise is a dirty word to Republicans, who refuse to negotiate in good faith, and they deserve what will eventually come to them if they continue to act like the spoiled, selfish children that they have proven themselves to be.
Eh, it's not worth the effort of typing a response. GladiatoRowdy is namecalling already, it can only go downhill from there. It doesn't matter anyway, because as long as the Democrats are in control of the Senate and WH nothing will get done to fix it. They simply refuse to cut any meaningful spending outside of defense at all, and entitlements are their political golden egg. The earlier it is fixed the less painful the medicine, but the current leadership in Washington doesn't have the stomach for it. I will continue to exclude it from my plans and won't be caught with my pants down if it isn't around when I retire. Who am I kidding, I'm probably going to work until I die thanks to the debt we're racking up...
great, with that mentality, maybe you can turn around America's oafish savings rate---a large reason why programs like SS have to exist in some form.
Especially since you don't have an intelligent response to any of my points. Well, if you weren't spouting off the same idiotic rhetoric that has been continually (and inaccurately) spouted since the inception of SS, I wouldn't have used the word "idiot." The only other "insult" would have been referring to the GOP as "spoiled, selfish children," which seems pretty accurate given their recent history. That being said, I apologize for the insults to which you seem to have taken offense. Completely inaccurate. SS and Medicare were both on the table during the budget negotiations, but the GOP absolutely refused to consider revenue increases as part of the package. Democrats are willing to compromise, Republicans see "compromise" as a dirty word and refuse to engage. You should exclude it from your plans, not because it won't be there when you retire (it will), but because you should desire a better lifestyle than that which you will get from SS alone.
