Posted on 01/02/2015 6:52:32 AM PST by Kaslin
When that old man in a long white beard turns over the New Year to a robust round baby in diapers, they share framed edges of life, one at the end and one just beginning. With the help of science, an old man today passing the baton has a greater life expectancy than his predecessor did in 1840 when data began to show steady increases. The baby this year is lively and bouncing, and need not worry as much about infant mortality.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a baby born in America was expected to reach the ripe old age of 47. My grandson, delivered on Christmas Eve, can anticipate living to the age of 79. If progress continues, his life expectancy will rise to 88. At the end of the century, the norm may be a cool 100.
As the culture ages, so does the collective Congress, and there's a tendency to protect the government protections for old age. Some of those protections are showing their age. Economic advantages through government assistance expand for aging seniors, and economic advantages for their juniors look less likely. That's now clear. What to do about it is not.
Social Security is based on age assumptions rooted in the last century, but Social Security remains "the third rail of politics." A president touches it at his peril. The last president who raised the qualifying age for benefits was Ronald Reagan, our oldest president. President Obama, with a new conservative Congress, will not likely do much more than talk about the problems of Social Security -- although its pay formula remains unsustainable.
But for all of the photo spreads of seniors skiing, rowing and running, it's too soon to depict Father Time on a skateboard, with scythe in hand. Even if the parents of a new baby are vegans on gluten-free, low-carb diets with exercise monitors on wrists, ankles and arms to measure heart rates, pulse and blood pressure, we aren't close to discovering the fountain of youth, or even a spray of magic water to slow down the aging process.
Ponce de Leon never found the Fountain of Youth he sought in Florida, but many now live out the final stages of their lives in warm climates, where the aging elite meet (in late afternoon) for their early-bird dinners. They enjoy life on the retirement track longer than their counterparts of last century did, but physical and mental nirvana remains elusive.
The New Year's baby has a greater chance for a longer life because we know more about nutrition, sanitation and medical inoculations. But buzzwords for greatly extending longevity can quickly morph into quackery. Buyer beware.
It's reassuring to say that 70 is the new 50, and there's solid evidence to back up Grandpa's higher energy levels as the result of emerging science, but if he looks in the mirror and sees the taut facial skin of a primetime star, he's hallucinating.
When writer Gregg Easterbrook visited the Buck Institute in Marin County, California, the first private research institute dedicated to extending the life span, where the researchers are lean, exercise junkies nibbling on "ascetic" lunches, he couldn't help but notice aging wrinkles around the eyes of Brian Kennedy, the 47-year old CEO. Human cells simply stop repairing themselves around age 50, he writes in the Atlantic Monthly, no matter how a man lives.
Institute researchers have quintupled the life span of laboratory worms, but even a "glow worm" of the human species, as Winston Churchill imagined he might be, can't find a way to slow the aging process. Chronic diseases increase after 50, when aging or senescent cells increase in number.
"If we can figure out how to eliminate senescent cells or switch off their secretions," says Judith Campisi, who runs research on the subject for the Buck Institute, "then we could prevent or lessen the impact of many chronic diseases of aging." Scientists are now calling for a more inter-disciplinary approach to problems of chronic disease and aging. If old age can't be cured, perhaps it can be treated better.
Celebrations of the 50th birthday remain mixed with joy and trepidation because the switch to stop cell senescence like the fountain of youth has not been discovered. The late-blooming Boomers have become transitional figures moving into post-modern old age, still enjoying strength in their abilities and showing healthy looks in face and figure, but with a creeping view of diminishment that has political and economic consequences.
We need to find a voice for reform before benefits evaporate and the old man of last year and the baby of the New Year are depicted with less felicity because they represent major generational conflicts and confrontations. We toast the New Year, but it's the years that follow we have to worry about. Happy New Year, anyway.
God kept us sinners from the Tree of Life for a reason.
Genesis 3:22-24 - And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
Who would want to live in this sinful world forever?
On the other hand, repentant believers have hope for something better, to include the Tree of Life:
Revelation 22:14 - Blessed [are] they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
Social Security is always on the verge of bankruptcy but there is always enough money for more welfare, more free Obamacare and more food stamps, housing and Obamaphones for moochers and illegal aliens.
Like Obama’s illegal alien uncle and aunt (now deceased).
This is, of course, nonsense. The majority of this differential is due to reduction in infant and childhood mortality, not to the age a young adult would be expected to live to.
But, the average remaining for adults has increased significantly, as well. Here's an interesting table from http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
| Table 1: Life Expectancy for Social Security | ||||
| Year Cohort Turned 65 | Percentage of Population Surviving from Age 21 to Age 65 | Average Remaining Life Expectancy for Those Surviving to Age 65 | ||
|
Male |
Female |
Male |
Female |
|
|
1940 |
53.9 |
60.6 |
12.7 |
14.7 |
As you can see, there's been a large increase in the percentage of adults at age 21 that survive long enough to start drawing Social Security benefits.
And if they start drawing benefits, the number of years (and thus the total amount) has increased as well.
My guess is that a large percentage of Freepers are Boomers, many of whom are collecting social security.
Social Security is supposed to be self-funded. And while it is not yet "on the verge of bankruptcy", the demographic and economic trends are clear: it will exhaust the "trust fund" in 2033, give or take a few years. After that, Social Security is required BY LAW to reduce benefits to the level that can be funded by incoming revenue. Currently, that estimate is about 75% of the benefits provided by law.
And, I'll preemptively ask everyone to please spare us all the meme that "Congress stole Social Security". They didn't. Congress "borrowed" Social Security taxes, by selling the equivalent of long-term bonds to the trust fund -- just like they sold bonds to US and foreign investors.
Prior to the Obama administration, US Treasury bonds were considered the safest investment in the world -- where would you have invested the trust fund? Can you imagine what strings Congress would have attached to any investment in private equities or bonds?
Those bonds are now being redeemed. So, we (as in the US taxpayers) are paying back that borrowed money -- with interest -- to fund Social Security benefits that taxes won't cover. The redemption started a few years ago, about 4-5 years ahead of projections, due to the Democrat's Great Recession. It will continue until the trust fund is exhausted, in about 2033.
Congress put Social Security on this path by making a basic actuarial mistake: they increased benefits back in the 70's to more than could be sustained by the incoming taxes. No, it wasn't giving benefits to people that didn't pay for them, that's either funded separately out of the general fund (and administrated by Social Security), or a small percentage of the excess benefits.
What did it was the huge increase in benefits back in the 70's: Congress arbitrarily increased benefits by about 20% more than Social Security actuaries said could be sustained. And, then Congress indexed them to inflation, just before the worst inflation period in the past 60 years.
The "missing" Social Security funds weren't "stolen". They were paid to your parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.
But, but we were made promises back in 1964 that it would NEVER go broke!
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/ssa/usa1964-2.html
Self-Supporting
“The program is designed so that contributions plus interest on the investments of the social security trust funds will be sufficient to meet all of the costs of benefits and administration, now and into the indefinite future—without any subsidy from the general funds of the Government.
Both the Congress and the Executive Branch, regardless of political party in power, have scrupulously provided in advance for full financing of all liberalizations in the program.”
And HERE IS WHERE YOUR MONEY WENT! Read and weep!
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/ProgData/fundFAQ.html#n4
And about a decade later, Congress increased benefits beyond what could be sustained -- just like I wrote in my posting you apparently didn't bother to read.
And, I guess you missed this statement at the top of that webpage:
This is an archival or historical document and may not reflect current policies or procedures.
And HERE IS WHERE YOUR MONEY WENT! Read and weep!
If you had actually bothered to read my posting, it's almost exactly what I wrote about the trust fund.
Like I wrote earlier: please spare us the hyperbole about Social Security. It doesn't accomplish anything except to inflame people, and prevent reform.
Social Security can only be "fixed" with a tax increase, a reduction in benefits, or some combination thereof. Social Security taxes are already the primary taxes for about half of US taxpayers, so increasing them further will just make it worse. Frankly, I don't want to do that to my children and grandchildren.
30 years ago, we had the opportunity to fix Social Security without inflicting much pain on anyone, but just kicked the can down the road. Now, every month it is put off is going to make it that much more painful. Doing so will require sacrifices by both taxpayers and beneficiaries.
My parent's generation was too selfish to make the necessary sacrifice. However, I'm willing to give up a portion of my benefits, even though I'll be eligible in only a few more years. But, I'll do so only for real reform that does more than just kick the can down the road a little further.
This is the unwritten premise of Obamacare.
Every year sliced off the lifespan is HUGE in the SocSec and Medicare financial numbers.
When the millenials start to grouse about grandma’s early demise, President Warren will offer Groupons for student loan forgiveness.
I know where you are coming from, but I just LOVE posting those two SS web pages since they are so hard to find on the SS site.
It shows the difference between THEN and NOW.
E.G., Right now, Billions in Social Security Disability Benefits are made to huge numbers of people who are not disabled, just irretrievably unemployed, including many young people who will be supported for many decades to come, without ever contributing to the "fund."
World Trend: One can retire in Portugal at 35! Greece. The UK, Scandinavia, Italy, all struggling with pay-out and no pay-in. That's why they originally encouraged immigration from the Third World. The theory was the Third Worlders would work, pay taxes, and support the retired geezers and "disabled." Ha! and Double Ha! The Turd Worlders always turn out to cost more than they will ever pay, leaping on to the very doles their "work" was supposed to support. Now our politically correct Euro cousins are stuck with the nasty bastards.
Wait a minute .... so are we!
My guess is that you may be right here with us, judging from your handle
http://youtu.be/XsYJyVEUaC4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.