Reply to What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
 
What the hell are you ranting about?  I've only made two posts in this thread and you quoted both of them. Nice job ranting at me for things I didn't post.

1. Population aging is a filunction of low population growth. The poster I was responding to was clearly suggesting that population growth in absolute terms created the SS mess, not that lack of population growth created the mess.

2. Let me get this straight: That SS will continue to pay out 75% of benefits is a positive? The program will cost five (perhaps six) times what it was originally projected to cost and will deliver only 75% of its benefits. Only a leftist would hold this out as a success or positive. That's a hell of a consolation prize.

3. You claim that SS is free of investment risk and will remain an inflation adjusted source of income. First, those are some pretty incredible claims to make in the same post in which you acknowledge that SS will soon only be capable of paying out 75% of its obligations. You're really arguing that a quasi-retirement program that needs ever escalating amounts of money confiscated through state power and that continuously faces near term shortfalls is free of investment risk?  Second, SS is only free of investment risk and a good guard against inflation if you assume the federal government is incapable of default and if you believe that the dollar will remain a reserve currency forever. I wouldn't bet a mortgage payment on either of those assumptions, let alone 5-6% of the national GDP.  Your claims are borderline irrational at this point.

4.  The real problem is that the political left simply doesn't have the will to accurately price entitlements (e.g., Obamacare, nationalization of student loan program). As a result, entitlement programs virtually always cost more than originally projected and deliver fewer benefits than were originally promised. While myRAs are a decent concept in the abstract, what do you think is going to happen to short term economic growth when employees have fewer discretionary dollars to spend?  Do you really believe hat state and federal governmwnts are going to be able to restrain themselves from trying to funnel myRAs toward government debt (increasing systemic risk in the process). Sure, in 30-40 years things should balance out if governments don't default in heir debts, but there will be short term pain.

5.  SS will be significantly restructured at some point in time and some cohort of beneficiaries will feel significant financial pain from it. The only relevant questions are when will it happen and how bad will it hurt.

6.  Your solution is to simply do the same thing that has been done for 75 years: throw more money at the problem through higher taxes and additionally reduce discretionary income through myRA plans. This time things will be different, right?[/quote]

Oh FFS. Grow up and act like an adult, and argue like one.

Your uninformed ranting doesn't deserve a lengthy response. 
1. If you can't understand the dependency ratio, I can't help you. However, you've basically admitted that I'm right about population aging, even if you tried to twist my argument around.
2. Social Security continues to keep 1/3 of older Americans out of poverty, and yes, that's a huge success. If you're one of those conservatives who thinks the elderly need to go back to living off cat food, again, I can't help you. 
3. You're confusing investment risk with political risk--I was very careful to choose my terms but you obviously can't see the distinction. Again, I can't help you become smarter.
4. You're confusing Obama's myRAs with state autoIRA proposals, but these are two very different things. Also, you seem unaware that auto-IRA proposals would rely on private investment managers, so the state or federal governments involved would not handle the funds. Even if the government did handle the auto-IRA funds (which it won't), you also missed the post above about how government bonds as investments are backed by the full faith and credit of the US government and would take Congressional action to change--reading comprehension really doesn't seem to be your strong suit.

For the rest, yes I agree there will be restructuring. But even Trump doesn't think SS should go away completely. Trump has actually said that he wants to preserve Social Security in its present form, all of it. You're out of step with most of your conservative buddies. There's much more likelihood than you want to think that there will be a compromise that preserves a solid first tier benefit, and one that will help the poor in particular.

(And huh? You say I quoted both of your two posts, and so you're mad that I'm talking to you? Huh?)[/quote]

PS, re #3, if you think Congress will stop funding Social Security to their constituents, you don't understand Congress. Social Security was the piece that led to resolution in the past several budget and debt ceiling crises. That's right, Congress acted only when the debt ceiling reached the point where it would be impossible to pay Social Security benefits. Congress is deathly scared that their constitutents' checks won't arrive on time.[/quote]

Of course Congress won't stop funding SS. But that doesn't mean that SS will be funded forever. Eventually the capacity to continue borrowing will be exhausted. [/quote]

The borrowing is temporary to cover the baby boomers.  A permanent solution for the next generation does not require borrowing.[/quote]

A permenant solution for the next generation does not require borrowing [u]if the economic and demographic assumptions underlying such solution prove to be correct. [/u] [b]The fundamental problem is that politicians are incentivized to choose the most optimistic assumptions possible in designing/modifying entitlement programs in order to keep the cost of those programs to a minimum (see Obamacare).[/b] Hence, entitlement programs tend to cost more than projected and deliver less benefit than promised because the best case projection rarely comes to fruition. Hence, SS needs an ever increasing amount of resources. The solution typically takes the form of significant tax increases every 10-15 years. This has been happening for 75 years and every single time people are convinced that government is enacting the permenant solution that will address solvency problems inherent to the program itself. [/quote]

This is a fundamental problem of life itself.  Every single project undertaken by every corporation, every job started by every individual, every car you ever bought was done based on assumptions that usually turn out too optimistic.  There is just no way around this, except maybe we could let poor old people just starve to death unless some easily curable disease gets them first.[/quote]

The specific problem of optimism bias in life is generally addressed by the fact that the decision-maker(s) evaluating assumptions bear the responsibility of those decisions. You are correct by implying that optimism bias gets people in trouble in everyday decisions. The difference is that in politics there is little or no consequence for bad decision making. E.g., Obamacare is imploding and the Student Loan program has morphed into a serious problem, but what does Obama care about any of that? He's done in about 6 months....

Would you really allow your mother to starve to death without shelter if SS wasn't in place?  also, if this thing is really welfare to prevent old poor people from dying in the streets can we call it what it really is?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics