Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop it, stop saying Social Security needs reform, you are a Democrat, right? (333 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't have a problem talking about Social (51+ / 0-)

    Security cuts, or espousing them if they are needed.

    They are not needed. Gutting Social Security is nothing more than a wet dream of plutocrats who slaver over having the billions to be spent on helping the elderly and disabled live their lives with a modicum of financial security transferred "upward" to their own bulging offshore accounts.

    That's what should be said -- not that Social Security is "untouchable," but that there is no need for the cuts, and such cuts would only enrich the wealthy while doing nothing productive for the nation as a whole.

    •  SS is good thru 2090. thats it. Period. (37+ / 0-)

      Photobucket

      ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

      by Roger Fox on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:31:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not what your first table says, is it? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wader, sebastianguy99, yorkiedoglover

        Perhaps I'm not reading it right.
        According to that table, by 2035,  old age benefits will have to be reduced by 26%, and the Disability Insurance trust fund will run out of funds in 2016, and thus payments (I'm assuming it will depend on funds coming in from current FICA payments) will be reduced 21% .
        You think people planning on retiring in 2035 might want to fix that so that they get the full benefits they paid for, or do you not see a problem?

        “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

        by skohayes on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 02:50:09 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You got issues (22+ / 0-)

          That table you are looking at assumes 20 more years of recession. Is that realistic?

          25 years of recession would be the longest economic downturn since the Black Plague killed off half the humans on the planet 500 years ago.

          That table you are looking at assumes civilian workforce growth of .4% thru 2033 , no one sees that as being realistic, the BLS says .7% thru 2050. Not very realistic.

          The table you are looking at assumes a large U6 metric thru 2033, maintaining 15% or so U6 rates - essentially 25 million people without jobs, or full time or year round work. Not realistic.

          I told you to

           

          look very carefully for the footnotes.....
          And then I quoted the Trustees
          The Trustees estimate the Trust Fund will not be exhausted in the projection period.

          ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:02:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where are you finding that? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            misslegalbeagle, Justus

            Assuming 20 years of recession? And a growth of the workforce at .4%? There are three cost scenarios listed there- low cost, intermediate and high cost. I'm assuming you're getting your numbers from the high cost assumptions, and ignoring the low cost, but I would like to see what you're looking at.
            Also, while the trust fund won't be exhausted, even under the low cost scenario, old age benefits will have to be reduced in 2054. It is only the Disablility Trust fund and the OASDI that won't exhaust their funds, which does not include the Old Age and Survivors Benefits trust fund.
            That is the "b" footnote.

            “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

            by skohayes on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 03:48:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, Roger is absolutely correct (3+ / 0-)

              We are entering an economic scenario unprecendented in the history of humanity where we have to deal with the dual burdens of AGW (climate change for the unintiated) and peak oil.  We should feel very optimistic about the future growth of our economy under these restraints.

              Of course, I could be wrong and the religious zealots of the right wing could be right that all we need to do is "drill, baby, drill" and our economy will behave as if business is as usual.  

              Unfortunatley, as a reality based person I must admit that the trustees report seems overly optimistic in each of their scenarios of growth because they seriously underestimate the resources needed to combat climate change and the massive resources needed to transition to alternative energy.  In addition to that, they seem to think that re-paying the trust funds will not cause any negative repurcusssions to the economy.  

              Sure, nothing to see here.  Move along.

              We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

              by theotherside on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:29:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, we are near the tipping point on carbon (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright, skohayes

                where renewables cost less. It is already extremely difficult for the industry to get new coal-fired plants funded. Some countries with less political insanity, without subsidies for carbon, and especially with a tax on carbon, have passed the tipping point.

                Bottom line: we get to save the planet and money at the same time.

                Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

                by Mokurai on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:00:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Wind is the cheapest new construction (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright

                  LCOE over 30 years, 6.5 to 3.3 cents per Kwh. Solar is about 11 cents, trending down, and will catch up.

                  ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:04:55 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Details in this comment (0+ / 0-)

              ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:08:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  It'll need help and it'll need expanding, as the (0+ / 0-)

            fossil fuel rush (and colonialism rush) of the last 150 years wears off.  But it's not in immediate danger as the pirates claim.

            •  The more expensive fossil fuels get, the cheaper (0+ / 0-)

              labor is in comparison.

              This doesn't seem to click for a lot of folks.  There comes a point when shovels get cheaper than bulldozers, and employment skyrockets.

              income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

              by JesseCW on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 06:24:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  When we reach that point though, the 1% (0+ / 0-)

                don't expect to have to actually pay their "employed" serfs those quaint things called wages.

                There comes a point when shovels get cheaper than bulldozers, and employment skyrockets.

                When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                by PhilJD on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 06:37:04 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Fortunately this is not the case (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                outside of India and other phenomenally low-wage countries. The true transition is when wind and solar cost less than carbon fuels. Some countries are already there.

                Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

                by Mokurai on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:02:26 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  "Fortunately"?? (0+ / 0-)

                  Sorry.  I come from the mindset that jobs are good things.

                  income gains to the top 1% from 2009 to 2011 were 121% of all income increases. How did that happen? Incomes to the bottom 99% fell by 0.4%

                  by JesseCW on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 01:30:35 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Fixing it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jeopardydd

          so that people get their full benefits can only mean increasing revenues.

          Cutting benefits so that people can get their full benefits is nonsensical. And cutting benefits now because we fear we might have to cut them in 20 years is even more nonsensical.

          If it needs fixing, it needs bringing in more money. We should start by raising the cap - not lifting it, because the idea that we will impose FICA on all earnings is pie-in-the-sky. If we can't even raise income taxes on the richest people by a few percent, what are the chances that we will raise them by 13%? And I wouldn't even want it if it could be imposed. Social Security is a worker-financed pension system and I think it should remain that way. But the cap should be higher.

          My two cents: building up the Trust Fund decades in advance of the boomer retirement was an idea that utterly failed. The money had to be invested in government bonds - there was nothing else that could really be done with it - but most people cannot grasp this. They think the Trust Fund doesn't exist because the money was lent out. Since people think the money doesn't exist, we might as well not have accumulated it. For the same reason, it is pointless to build up the Trust Fund now with money that we might need to pay out in 20 years. We should return to pay-as-you-go. If premiums need to be raised in 20 years, we can deal with it then.

          The Trust Fund is an abstraction that is too difficult for people to understand, and it therefore lends itself to political manipulation. It needs to return to its original purpose of smoothing out year-to-year finances. Using it to accumulate huge surpluses to be paid out in the far future does not work.

          We decided to move the center farther to the right by starting the whole debate from a far-right position to begin with. - Former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay

          by denise b on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 12:38:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  actually the table shows (7+ / 0-)

        the opposite of what you're trying to say.

        the table has the trust fund being exhausted in 7 of the 9 categories, most of which are exhausted by 2030.

        the only ones that fall under the footnote you're referring to are the low-cost DI and OSDAI.

        I'm with you that SS is important, vastly important, but to claim it's good to for for 75 years, that's just factually inaccurate.

        •  Anybody that has been reading the Trustees (4+ / 0-)

          report for any length of time would tell you that the diarist is..... shall we say, less than forthcoming.

          Overwhelming majorities support the SS system but Republicans try to scare their constituents into thinking that the system is a massive failure.  Meanwhile Democrats try to scare their constitutents into thinking that Republicans want to destroy SS.  

          IMO, for those of us that think that AGW is true and that we are entering peak oil, we need to realize that an entirely different paradigm needs to be envisioned to get us through the next century.   Unfortunately too many of us are invested in the left vs right/ Dem vs Repub paradigm to advance the discourse further.

          (PS It should be interesting to see what, if any, response you receive to your factual statement that SS is not viable for 75 years.  My guess is that you will receive "crickets" or a bullshit recital of what the trustees "actually" reports.  And don't forget that the Trustees report actually assumes that the trust fund is a real thing.  For those not paying attention, Al Gore's "lock box" never got implemented and that means that the system is in far worse shape than the Trustees can report.)

          We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. Albert Einstein

          by theotherside on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 05:42:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  SO we should have kept the Trust fund in a (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            simple serf, Robobagpiper, JesseCW

            lock box,  you propose to put 2 or 3 or 4 (back in Gores Day) trillion dollars in a bank?

            If not US Treasuries, then in paper money?

            ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

            by Roger Fox on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:04:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Too bad you havent looked over the (6+ / 0-)

          Selected economic variables,

          http://www.ssa.gov/...

          Immigration

          http://www.ssa.gov/...

          Labor force growth &  real GDP

          http://www.ssa.gov/...

          Compare these projections to CBO or BLS or Council of Economic Advisors. You'll find many the high cost and Intermediate cost assumptions unrealistic.

          But that is the job of an actuary.

          ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

          by Roger Fox on Mon Mar 04, 2013 at 09:01:46 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  and not something included (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            skohayes, johnny wurster, Justus

            in the diary.

            the table included in the diary very specifically says SS will not be solvent, in most cases, before 2030.

            the entire premise of the diary was to say that SS is not only fine, but strong enough to last through 2075 based on a footnote. that premise is factually inaccurate.

            •  Thats scarey, oh and its 2090. U know factual..... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              aliasalias

              ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 10:07:21 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The diarist says (6+ / 0-)

              "The only thing wrong with Social Security is the economy."

              This is true.

              If you go to the site and read the glossary of terms, you will see that 'relatively rapid economic growth' and 'low inflation' result in the low-cost columns.

              OASDI is indeed solvent beyond the chart years if the economy is improved.  Therefore, our focus should be upon improving the economy, not cutting SS.

            •  Like youre gonna read pages of tables (0+ / 0-)

              HA ha hahahahahaha

              ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

              by Roger Fox on Tue Mar 05, 2013 at 04:21:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  don't blame me (0+ / 0-)

                you didn't write a complete diary.

                you literally based your entire argument on a footnote that only applied to 2 of 9 scenarios.

                •  3 scenarios, low cost, Intermediate cost High cost (0+ / 0-)

                  ...... Social Security blogathon March 25th thru March 29th. #HandsOffmySS FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

                  by Roger Fox on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 06:39:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site