"the Right cannot afford to have a Social Security system that is perceived to be working"

[Hannah Bell]

A straight out analysis of the economic numbers underlying Social Security 'crisis' shows pretty clearly that there is no 'there' there. To the extent that there is a gap between future projected income and cost it is small, distant, based on pessimistic assumptions, and totally fixable even if we waited years to take the first step...

So why do they push this? Well simple, the Right cannot afford to have a Social Security system that is perceived to be working going forward. They can survive people liking Social Security as is, after all they can spin that as people just enjoying a Free Lunch via that ol' Backwards Transfer pushed by the nice folk at AEI, that just helps their overall 'mushy headed liberal' narrative, a modern day Grasshopper and the Ant. What kills them is to find out that the Grasshopper actually has an actuarial sound insurance policy in his back pocket, and one guaranteed by the Federal government, such a realization might lead the rest of the ants to doubt the 'Big Government is not the Solution, Big Government is the Problem' message being spread by the Ant Queen and her Drones.

In 1993 the anti-Social Security narrative revolved around Trust Fund Depletion, which was a real event which would have real consequences, if not as significant as people would have them (see 'Rosser's Equation' at a Google near you), but by the late 90's Trust Fund Depletion had been pushed so far out in time even as the cost to address it steadily dropped that there grew the need for a new crisis narrative. And so 'Phony IOU' was born. But otherwise nothing much had changed, the definition of 'crisis' was malleable but the solution was always the same: we needed to Destroy Social Security in Order to Save It.

If Social Security was just headed for the cliff, its enemies would just stand back and watch it go... Which is why people asking why the actions of Social Security opponents don't seem to be particularly helpful in guiding the stage coach away from the cliff are asking the wrong question, looked at in that way their actions don't make sense at all. On the other hand if you flip it around a lot of things become clear, there being more than one definition of 'fixing'.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/08/why-is-social-security-under.html

[DJ13]

1. Well that explains the right, now about Obama .......

oh wait........

[SammyWinstonJack]

24. +1

:evilgrin:

[KakistocracyHater]

2. so true, the wealthy have carried their hatred over several generations

& hate Social Security. As for the Banksters: look how much they have already stolen & they want more? Enough! Use the Patriot Act against them.

[Poboy]

3. nice quote k&r-nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. K&R

[pinboy3niner]

5. K&R

[billlll]

6. JFK 92% tax rate at top.... we can expand ss to

A level folks can truly LIVE on
.... Not catfood level.

92% wd double Fed budget.

Expand the debate leftward.

[dkf]

7. For my entire adult life I have been told the problem with SS is the expected ratio of

3 workers to one retiree. Why is this not a problem?

[billlll]

8. Backwds Transfer? Pls define

PS great OP, Hannah!

[dkf]

9. Nowadays the demographics have 5 workers for every retiree.

But in the future we expect there will only be 3 workers for every retiree. It is easier to pay only one fifth of a persons cost of living than a third. Will the workers have the extra funds to pay for their own situation plus the federal debt plus a third of a retirees living expenses?

[Hannah Bell]

10. no, there were 5 workers for every retiree in the 60s.

it's so tiresome to hear the same talking points over & over.

today's workers are 3 times more productive than workers were in the 60s.

that means it takes fewer workers to produce the same amount of goods & services.

[dkf]

13. That is from a current CBO assessment of SS.

We may be more productive as workers but we sure don't get paid like it. People can barely pay for themselves.

Another "affordable" housing project in my state came up. $350,000 for a one bedroom condo. Seriously.

[Hannah Bell]

14. link? link? there are currently about 3 workers per retiree: per the social security trustees:

The estimated number of workers per beneficiary is shown in figure II.D3.
There were about 3.0 workers for every OASDI beneficiary in 2009. This
ratio had been extremely stable, remaining between 3.2 and 3.4 from 1974
through 2008, and is lower for 2009 due to the economic recession.


PAGE 10.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr2010.pdf


THREE WORKERS HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING ONE RETIREE SINCE THE 70S.

Increasing productivity means workers in every generation are capable of producing more goods & services than the generation before.

It only becomes a "problem" if capital takes the lion's share of that increased productivity.

[dkf]

17. Long term Outlook for Social Security

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8877/Chapter3.6.1.shtml

[Hannah Bell]

18. perhaps you could point out the part about there currently being 5 workers for every SS recipient.

[dkf]

20. It's the part about the demographics of 18-64 vs 65+

I can't copy on my iPhone for some reason.

[Hannah Bell]

25. you get the distinction between "population" & "workers"?

your link is about population. not workers per retiree.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9054278&mesg_id=9055019


workers per retiree per the ss trustees, has been 3:1 since the 70s.


The estimated number of workers per beneficiary is shown in figure II.D3.
There were about 3.0 workers for every OASDI beneficiary in 2009. This
ratio had been extremely stable, remaining between 3.2 and 3.4 from 1974
through 2008, and is lower for 2009 due to the economic recession.


PAGE 10.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr2010.pdf

[Hannah Bell]

27. and the demographics in that chart, which show 4/10 over 65, isn't in line with current

forecasts.

[DailyGrind51]

11. Or, working SEC, OSHA, etc.!

[blindpig]

12. k&r

[hobbit709]

15. What they want is desperate downtrodden serfs.

[Faryn Balyncd]

16. & if they can destroy SS with Democrats "in power", the Right won't get blamed!

Interesting that the most blatant assault on SS since the 1930's is happening with Democrats in the WH & controlling both houses of Congress. Reagan, Bush41, Bush43, Cheney --- not a single one of them would have dared an assault on SS during their watch.

[glitch]

22. Yes but they're 'New' Democrats.

Not quite the same thing. It's all about the neo- with these guys.

[WillyT]

19. K & R !!!

:kick:

[maryf]

21. If Social Security was just headed for the cliff,

its enemies would just stand back and watch it go.

Great point, good OP K&R

[billlll]

23. Backward Transfer? if someone defined it i cd not spot

It in chatter about 3 or 5 to 1.

Pls teach me the def. TKS all for the thread. See also my re on expanding revenue. JFK.

[Hannah Bell]

26. transfer from workers to capital, from workers to owners, from ruled to rulers.

as opposed to the usual definition of "transfer payment," supposedly from the rich to the needy.