We have been led to believe that the world would end if we started cutting like this. It won't.

The world won't end but a lot of political careers will.

I can see also those potentially happening - except the ss moved to age 71. I just see too many people struggling to make it 65 that I believe that much movement there is political suicide that would be immediately changed back.

"Don't forget moving the Social Security eligibility age to 74. That is vital."

Does that step come before or after rounding up the unicorn?

He's right, but there's no chance.

I still believe that talking about cuts is the wrong thing to do. We are too far gone for that. Instead, we need to eliminate all federal programs. The total federal budget is zero.

No deficits allowed. Now: what would you like to fund?

It will not happen. The status quo continues, until it cannot, which will be when "the full faith and credit" of the US are universally recognized as worthless.

The idea has an appeal to it, but get real. There is a population receiving benefits who happen to vote. No politician is prepared to cut them off. Ignoring that for a second, are you prepared to starve old people? Are you going to stop AFDC? Do you want a replay of the Watts Riot, writ large on the national scene?

You might, at best, get some reduction in Federal employees and some trimming at the edges.

Maybe space aliens will drop some technology on us to provide free food, energy, medical care and living accommodations.

Until then, freeze all Federal budgets and Federal hiring.

I just thought I'd point out that the non-partisan CBO has run the numbers and said that Obamacare will reduce the budget.

Regardless of how you feel about the legislation as a whole, it will lessen the budget not increase it.

I just thought I'd point out that the non-partisan CBO has run the numbers and said that Obamacare will reduce the budget.

That's a load of crap. As my father would point out, numbers don't lie, but liars can figure. The CBO is forced to us unrealistic assumptions, and static analysis. Either can lead to erroneous results. Use both, and you'll find yourself on Fantasy Island.

The piece curiously omits the idea of government spending that can increase the overall size of the economy, thereby reducing the net effect of the debt. Consider the intersate highway system, started by president Eisenhower. The development of these roads vastly reduced the costs of transporting goods around the US. The ability to produce goods and bring them to market more cheaply has increased the standard of living for everyone in the country.

The other obvious example is the Internet, which grew out of a project funded by the Defense Department and later the National Science Foundation. These government agencies supported the network for about 15 years until it grew to the point where it could be commercially self-sustaining. Similarly, Tim Berners-Lee developed the worldwide web while working at a government funded laboratory in Switzerland. How much smaller would the world economy be, are how in the world would we find enough cat pictures to look at, had the spending for these innovations been cut off in the interest of fiscal expediency?

"The piece curiously omits the idea of government spending that can increase the overall size of the economy, thereby reducing the net effect of the debt. Consider the intersate highway system, started by president Eisenhower..."

Yep -- it did. Same deal with the Internet. Trouble is, for every Intersate Highway System, for every Internet, how many Stupid, Expensive Ideas That Won't Go Away are we stuck with? And how do we figure out ahead of time which is which?

“Don't forget moving the Social Security eligibility age to 74. That is vital.”

I never liked suggestions like this for the following reason, according to webmd the life expectancy broken down by demographic is as follows:

• White men: 75.4 years
• Black men: 69.2 years
• White women: 80.5 years
• Black women: 76.1 years

As a result moving the eligibility age to 74 effectively leaves only one group with a reasonable expectation of recouping some of their investment in the system. Why should black men be required to pay into a retirement system that only kicks in 5 years after they would expect to die?

While life expectancy and life span aren’t exactly the same thing, the point still stands that there would be demographic winners and losers if we simply changed the system to make people eligible at 74 (the same is true with the current system, but this change would only make it worse).

A more fair and reasonable way to handle this would be to move retirement age back as a function of life expectancy. Having social security kick in 5 years after every group’s life expectancy is an example of such a system.

If it wouldn’t sit well with white women having social security kick in at 85 perhaps they can understand how black men might feel having it kick in at 74.

No one should be forced to pay into a retirement system that they have an unreasonable chance of collecting from.

Only 70% for Homeland Security?

Piker.

Umm, RainCheck, social security is not an investemnt plan. When it was first concived at the eligable age was set at 65 most people didnt live that long, they certainly didnt live an addtional 15-20 yrs on the medical care paid for by an entierly seperate handout program

As the average death age climed the eligable age should have climed to match

Fuck old people, I'm never going to get back my 'investment' either

Fuck old people, they were the one who were supposed to have been paying attention all these years

Fuck old people, they are the one who turned a blind eye and voted the approval of the current wealth transfer scheme that steals for the yound to give to them

I dont owe them MORE of my money, I owe them a beating for stealing my money

Fuck them, and fuck you to

"Regardless of how you feel about the legislation as a whole, it will lessen the budget not increase it."

Why do you believe this? See, your position is that government involvement in paying doctors makes it cheaper for you. Really?

And, by the way, have you figured out what mode of transportation is your right, since you said that air travel is not? Somehow, I missed your earlier answer... oh, there wasn't one.

-----

Somebody mentioned the Interstate system... People are quick to credit Eisenhower with this idea because he has a shiny record; this is because people don't think about Ike and his deal with the Teamsters. That system and a couple of other moves made the USA dependent on the automobile and trucking, and now we have energy problems because spending it is so easy.

Lujlp,

First of all I never said that social security was an “investment plan”. It is however a federal insurance program. When people pay for insurance they have a reasonable expectation to be paid out when they meet the conditions for the insurance. Furthermore, people who are less likely to recieve pay outs from that insurance policy should always pay a lesser premium for that insurance. At least that is the justification for changing car insurance rates depending upon what your demographic risk assessment happens to be.

If you are less likely to receive a payout from your insurance company you pay less of a premium. This is precisely NOT how social security works. Instead everyone pays in at the same rate and only those who live the longest benefit. You can potentially work yourself into an early grave paying into the system your entire life and then not receive a single penny.

It’s not about you getting back your investment; it is about you paying for someone else to be insured while you are left high and dry. People wouldn’t take too kindly to being safe drivers, paying the same as dangerous drivers, and then find out that only dangerous drivers are covered by the insurance.

Secondly, when social security was first instituted it was 1935 and the average life expectancy was about 62. However this ignores the demographic breakdown. You can see it here:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

See for yourself that every demographic died earlier than 65 except for white women. White men died at 61, black women died at 55, and black men died at 51. Take a wild guess who disproportionately benefitted from social security for the last century?

Only one demographic group at that time could reasonably expect to make it to 65 and it wasn’t men or racial minorities. Social security has pretty much always existed to primarily benefit white widows while the rest of society shouldered the financial burden.

It has always been an inherently unfair system.

I fully agree that as the average life expectancy increased that the age of eligibility should have increased to match. I am simply going one step further than you and suggesting that it should also match the life expectancy of an individuals demographic as would be the case for any other type of insurance.

If that isn’t the case then people who are expected to have shorter life spans should pay a lesser premium into the system.

In case you haven’t noticed the general theme of what I am saying, I’m not in favor of anyone “paying more” into a system that the payer has a disproportionately lower chance of using.

I agree with both RainCheck and lujlp. Your comments illustrate beautifully how screwed up it was to ever have invented this ridiculous program in the first place. Having said that, and even having paid a lot into it, I still say there's no time like the present to get rid of a bad program. Doing more of what got us into this mess isn't going to get us out of this mess.