Social Security....a generational struggle?

[AnnInLa]

According to Wonkette.com, Gerson, inaugural speech writer warns:

• Gerson on inaugural speech: "We're at the beginning of another generational struggle. It's to some extent a requirement of leadership for the president to inform Americans about that struggle and how we will proceed."
(I didn't feel like going to NYT for whole article.)

Generational struggle, hmmm, what are we going to do with old people in the future, just line them up and shoot them?

[fertilizeonarbusto]

1. unfortunately for Chimpy

"reform" polls THE WORST with 18-30 year olds, only 30% of whom favor it. Oddly enough, this is also the group that is least likely to get their news from MSM. Whatta coinkidink! :silly:

[texastoast]

2. I heard--

though I don't pretend to understand the complexity of all of it--that the "reform" is going to simply screw the young people.

[rogerashton]

3. If it is a generational struggle,

it is not simply old against young. The people likely to lose the most are those in the middle -- those who have already put a lot into the system, and are relying on it for retirement income, but are too old to benefit from any alternative.

Mythical alternative: personal accounts.

Real alternative: increased personal savings.

If there were benefits from personal accounts, one would have to be young to get most of the benefits. The real alternative of increasing personal saving to have one's own vested retirement account, without governent involvement, is also best for relatively young.

On the other hand, those who are now at or near retirment lose only to the extent that benefits are cut immediately, and that isn't being discussed much. And the "very old" mostly won't live long enough to lose much.

(I am old but not, in that sense, very old. Probably.)

[papau]

4. Gerson like to twist Bible phrasing - former poltics guy at USNews& W. Rep

Although the Congress does not fund faith, but does fund social services, Gerson has Bush advocating the passage of the legislation using the language of a very particular faith. But MSM does not care.


"http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/17/politics/17letter.html

WHITE HOUSE LETTER
The Man Who Puts Words in the President's Mouth Defends His Style
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON

Michael Gerson, President Bush's 40-year-old speechwriter, had a mild heart attack in mid-December that put him in intensive care for two days. The timing could not have been worse for Mr. Gerson: it was the height of speechwriting season, and Mr. Bush's second Inaugural Address and 2005 State of the Union address were menacingly close.<snip>

"It was very important for leaders like Truman and Kennedy at the beginning of the cold war to explain directly to the American people what the stakes of the war were and how the government was going to proceed," Mr. Gerson said. "We're in an analogous situation: we're at the beginning of another generational struggle. It's to some extent a requirement of leadership for the president to inform Americans about that struggle and how we will proceed."<snip>

Mr. Gerson studied theology at Wheaton College, worked for Charles W. Colson at Prison Fellowship Ministries and covered politics for U.S. News & World Report. Even some of Mr. Bush's critics praise his prose as eloquent, but Mr. Gerson is now in the process of leaving speechwriting for what is expected to be a promotion to a larger policy role on the president's staff. William McGurn, a former Wall Street Journal editorial writer, has moved into Mr. Gerson's old job as chief speechwriter.<snip>

[cattleman22]

5. I would say yes it is.

When SS started, there were something like 16 people working for every person who was retired. In other words, each working person was paying 1/16th of retired person's payment.

In the near future, there will only be 2 workers for every retired person. What I object to is that people who only had to pay for 1/16th of a SS payment are now expecting people of my generation to pay 1/2 of a SS payment. I find it pathetic that people who paid so little expect people of my generation to pay so much.
I think SS needs to be needs based. That way people who need the assistance get the assistence.

[Johonny]

6. True

But in the near future social security is still fully funded. And the far future human population dynamics are certainly not knownable. Making it needs based is the surest way to make sure it is hated and despieds like all need based programs in America. Every politician understands this. The simplest solution is to raise the ceiling.

[tsuki]

7. Source please?

[ClassicDem]

8. Cato Institute

This from the Cato Institute.

-Snip
In 1950, there were 16 workers paying taxes into the system for every retiree who was taking benefits out of it. Today, there are a little more than three. By the time the baby boomers retire, there will be just two workers who will have to pay all the taxes to support every one retiree.
-End Snip
https://www.cato.org/dailys/01-14-05.html

One solution that no one wants to talk about would be to increase immigration to offset the number of workers to recipients.

Another solution would be to lower the social security tax from its current 12% to 6% for people who pass on receiving its benefits. I am sure that there are many people here like myself who are financially secure and would not mind passing on the $2,000 a month if it means we would pay less in taxes.

[tsuki]

9. Ah, the Cato Institute. Sorting throught facts to reach a foregone

conclusion.

[CarpeVeritas]

10. do not trust ANY numbers from the CATO institute...

they are one of the many mouthpieces for the right-wing.

[ClassicDem]

12. I still think these numbers are correct.

I could go through and do the manual math but if you look at the changes in birth rate and life expectancy it's easy to conclude that Americans are having less children and living longer.

And the Cato Institute is far from right-wing, it's a libertarian group that supports free markets.

[cattleman22]

13. Do you have any proof that the numbers from CATO are wrong?

I have looked but I have not seen other numbers on the subject.

[Famine]

14. Passing my SS on

Every cent that I collect in SS is going to my kids. At least as long as I'm alive they won't be working just to pay either the higher SS tax or higher income tax necessary to support the boomers when we retire.

At least when SS collapses they won't have lost all the money taken from them.

[elehhhhna]

11. Ask your kids if they want you to live with them when you retire. VOILA!