Ping list for the discussion of the politics and social (and sometimes nostalgic) aspects that directly effects Generation Reagan / Generation-X (Those born from 1965-1981) including all the spending previous generations (i.e. The Baby Boomers) are doing that Gen-X and Y will end up paying for.
Freep mail me to be added or dropped. See my home page for details and previous articles.
And apparently Santa didn't put a clue in your stocking.
That's some real backward thinking on their part. Gen X needs to be SAVED FROM Social Security.
Social Security doesn't need to be saved for us.
The posting guidelines on FR prevent me from saying what I want to say about this article.
Do they really think we're that stupid? "Calm down and don't bother reading the fine print, oh you who are supposed to be so cynical and suspicious. Just sit back and let nanny state take care of you, put the blindfold back on and don't bother your pretty little heads with facts."
That would be fair if SS paid out in proportion, so 200K contributors would get more than twice as much from SS as 90K contributors.
I didn't see anything about that . . .
Gee - and I had such faith in these Xers!
Those "seniors", of whom I am one, are not doing young people in opposing SS reform. This person obviously does not get that.
Should not surprise me coming from Portland, Oregon. She knows nothing about Social Security so she writes about it.
"It also has fewer built-in advantages for wealthy people or white men than your typical government benefit."
Well, the wealthy don't need it, and in fact it is probably dis-advantageous for them; and I'm not sure about the white men, but it is extremely advantageous for white women, like our author here. The people most ill-served by soc. sec. are black men, who often die before their benefits begin, and lose everything they've paid in.
It really doesn't matter what Social Seucrity is "supposed" to be... what it is, is a Ponzi scheme that will soon bankrupt the country.
This statement tells you that the author wants socual security to be a welfare program, and if that means the only way to keep it going is to ratched up the burden on rich, white males, well, thats even better. But it cant work if that is the solution, its infeasible. Social Security is doomed for her and her family if someone doesnt do something now!
Seriously, speaking as a person in their 30's, I would like to smack the hell out of this idiot.
What a fool. SS will be dead by the time this chick gets old enough to collect unless drastic measures are done NOW! I'm 35 and I KNOW SS will gone because today's politician's are gutless. Of course the article is written by someone from the People's Democratic Republic of Oregon, so consider the source.
social security is bankrupt. the money's not there, there's a huge liability and the government is already up to it's eyeballs in debt
i suspect the proposed reform is just a way to save that other great "ponzi scheme" the stock market
Is this going to be RATS' rallying cry as they try to oppose any changes? Other than their favorite problem solving method - raise taxes.
This fool is utterly ignorant that he and Gen X are heading off the economic cliff. The only question is how far the fall will be: slow economic growth, diminished job and income opportunities, and endless political bickering over benefit cuts; or routine stagnation and recession; or hyperinflation, depression, and general privation?
The federal debt is only a small part of the problem, being far less consequential than the vast generational deficit, amounting to some 44 trillion, yes TRILLION.
See below, from the American Enterprise Institute, for an introduction to "generational accounting."
Fiscal and Generational Imbalances
New Budget Measures for New Budget Priorities
Fiscal and Generational Imbalances
AEI Press (Washington)
Publication Date: July 2003
Download file The full text of this book is available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format
Many appreciate that the federal government's finances are shaky. However, few realize how really bad they are because most evaluations are based on what happened in the past--not what is likely to happen in the future. Although we are accustomed to hearing that today's federal debt held by the public amounts to $3.5 trillion, the important--but often overlooked--question concerns how much debt we will incur going forward.
As we approach a time when entitlement outlays will dominate federal spending, Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters recommend shifting to a new, forward-looking method of analyzing our fiscal position. Combining outstanding debt with future revenue shortfalls, they calculate the United States' "Fiscal Imbalance"--the amount of money that the federal government must have in hand today to sustain current tax and spending policies indefinitely--at a heart-stopping $44.2 trillion, considerably outstripping debt currently held by the public. Although policymakers prefer to ignore it, they do so at our peril: Because the government does not have an extra $44.2 trillion, it must raise an equivalent sum by dramatically increasing taxes or drastically reducing spending.
Not only do traditional fiscal measures considerably understate the government's financial shortfall, focusing exclusively on them introduces a policy bias: Some policies that could improve the government's overall financial position appear unattractive because they cause larger deficits in the near term. A dismal economic arithmetic will eventually force a move toward sustainable policies, forcing sacrifices by some generations. In order to distribute the burden fairly, we must know how alternative reforms will divide it among different generations. To that end, Gokhale and Smetters construct "Generational Imbalance" measures for programs funded with dedicated revenues--to identify past and living generations' contributions to those programs' Fiscal Imbalances. Together, the Fiscal and Generational Imbalance measures constitute a powerful tool-set. They would help lawmakers design reforms best suited for meeting the challenges posed by the retirement and health security needs of our progressively aging society.
Jagadeesh Gokhale is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior economic advisor to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Kent Smetters was deputy assistant secretary for economic policy at the U.S. Department of Treasury from 2001 to 2002. He is currently an assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania.