Comments on: Chicken Littles have it wrong: Social Security System actually is getting stronger

By: Pat Cunningham

Pat Cunningham — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:55:31 +0000

Mike: My words are my weapon.

By: Kaus

Kaus — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:15:40 +0000

Pat, I hope that when you say a ‘little tweaking’ of the social security plan, that means greater fiscal responsibility (thanks a lot Bush) and NOT raising taxes. I won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer nor waiting for the government to limit reckless spending (like the current administration and democratic house that thinks adding spend programs to bills is a good idea. .

By: Mike Carroll

Mike Carroll — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 15:23:31 +0000

Pat-Why do I suspect that some of your SS check briefly passed through my hands in the form of a pay stub. At least use my portion for a few beers or your weapon of choice.

By: Pat Cunningham

Pat Cunningham — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:08:02 +0000

Mike: I’m sorry if I unfairly ascribed to you a bias against The New York Times. I thought — wrongly, it turns out — you had previously dismissed the credibility of the Times, not just Paul Krugman. Anyway, I sure am enjoying my monthly Social Security checks. I’ll be dead by the time the system runs out of money. So….as Alfred E. Neuman would say: What? Me worry?

By: Mike Carroll

Mike Carroll — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:50:25 +0000

Edit-I think I misinterpreted the numbers. 12.4 to 12.7 for the employee and employer would not double the tax obviously. Other than that, my comment stands.

By: Mike Carroll

Mike Carroll — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 13:46:57 +0000

Pat-for the record, I didn’t comment on Krugman-Kaus did. I read the article and I offer the following excerpt
“For an average 35-year-old today, for instance, the benefit cut in 2036 would be the equivalent of about $300 a year. For workers, the tax increase would start 10 years from now and rise each decade, so that by 2036, the rate would be 12.7 percent, up from 12.4 percent today, split equally between employees and employers. Taken together, those changes would close nearly one-third of Social Security’s long-term financing gap.”
In other words you double the tax on both the employee and the employer while reducing the benefit and you would address 1/3 of the gap. Is this how tweaking is defined which btw seems to be a favorite word of liberals when talking about Social Security.
Liberal solutions to the problem continue to be doing more of the same, assuming static reaction in the real world, and expecting a different outcome. That approach is a rough definition of a certain mental condition.
I’m not a fool. I know that politically some combination of taxing and reduced benefits will eventually pass with what I think will be some version of W’s plan for private ownership. Some combination of the above can solve the problem and then its time to address the real elephant in the room-Medicare.

By: Pat Cunningham

Pat Cunningham — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:49:24 +0000

Mike: If you can get past your bias against the messenger and concentrate instead on the message, The New York Times had some interesting proposals a few years ago on how to fix Social Security:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/02/opinion/02sat1.html

By: Mike Carroll

Mike Carroll — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 12:11:35 +0000

Pat-Just what in the world is comforting about an estimate that predicts a 22% shortfall. A little tweaking, which is liberalspeak for a huge tax increase, would not solve the problem. The model is broken. It depended on short life spans and lots of younger workers pouring taxes into the system to support those who had not paid anything in. The reverse has now occurred and I see nothing in the future that will reverse that demographic trend.
My grandmother lived off social security, with help from my parents who could hardly afford the kids they had, so don’t think I’m slamming the system as some kind of commie plot. It was a good idea at the time but is no longer sustainable in its present format.
BTW-the average return for the dollars you put into the system is less than 1%. You would do better with a passbook savings account.

By: Pat Cunningham

Pat Cunningham — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:29:16 +0000

By the way, the Associated Press story on the Trustees’ report says this: “In 2041, when the Social Security trust fund is exhausted, the program will be collecting enough in payroll taxes to pay 78 percent of current benefits. That is up from an estimate of 75 percent last year.” Mind you, that’s the situation if NOTHING is done between now and then. Obviously, a little tweaking will take care of the situation for decades beyond. Of course, this has nothing to do with Medicare, which is, in fact, facing a crisis. But Republicans who hate Social Security in principle too often conflate Medicare with Social Security. They’re not the same thing.

By: Kaus

Kaus — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:27:26 +0000

How can you disprove a theory before the inevitable happens? Show me ANOTHER expert who backs up Krugman’s theory. I will admit that he has a load of legitimate credentials as an economist. But, he is the only one going out on a limb. No one will join him. Why? Liberal economists….not a lot of them out there.