T1B

All told, 78 million people are going to stop working, stop paying taxes, stop paying into retirement programs, and start drawing benefits.

Not saying this is nothing to be concerned about, but I think there's a little potential to read this way out of context. You won't see 78 million people retiring overnight.

One of the problems with evaluating statistics when it comes to baby boomers is the fact that, while the start of the baby boom is pretty easy to identify, the end of the baby boom is less definite. Births peaked in 1957, so I suppose an argument could be made that that is the last year of the baby boom generation. I've also heard it extended until 1960 in some cases, and also 1964 (I suppose the rationale for the latter date is the fact that anyone born after 1964 conceivably could be the child of baby boomers; in any event, if you use that number, I'm one of the youngest baby boomers.) It wasn't until 1968 that births dropped below the 1946 numbers.

So the 78 million who will be retiring will happen over a 10-20 year period. A short enough period to be concerned, but not so short that it can't be accommodated with the proper planning.

Fwiw, I've already reconciled myself to the fact that I'll be working as long as my health permits.

88 wrote:
After describing the problem, Mr. Goodman lays out his solution. I don't generally agree with all of it, so I didn't quote it. But if you want to read it, here is the link: http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp

I don't generally agree with everything you say, so I think I'll just skip this thread.

Social Security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme. The FICA taxes you & your employer pay go right into the General Fund, and Social Security & Medicare payments are paid out of the General Fund- same as anything else.

And don't think that just because you paid into social security that you're guaranteed to get a fucking dime out of it. Congress can- and soon will- start telling people who had their wages confiscated over a 40-50 year period that "you're rich, you don't need to draw Social Security payments"

"Intellectual dishonesty" is completely misused here, Avi. It's either an accounting error--if it's wrong--or, you're not asking, but stating that there is an "agenda." As usual, you don't really say anything. Similarly with your suggestion that American guns aren't...what, flooding?--to Mexico. And thus..what? Again, you really say NOTHING.

Are you a lockstep supporter of current (non) gun laws? Probably. What we do know is that you've got some sort of reactionary auto-reflex to any and everything that appears sane and rational. Yeah, you've established that.I

Oh?

Do enlighten us then GEDscal

The SS "Fund", just like the Highway "fund" and the aviation "fund" and whtever the fuck other so-called "fund" is nothing more than a PR gimmick. Money is fungible, especially when the government is running a deficit. All the money goes IN the same place, and it all gets paid OUT from the same place. The federal government doesn't really know within a few hundred million dollars how much it really takes in or how much it really spends.

The securities you're referring to are just another gimmick. During the Clinton years, it was decided that the government could claim a reduction in the budget deficit by taking a portion of whatever FICA tax receipts that weren't being directly paid out in benefits and buy US Treasury notes. They then count the interest that's paid out of the left pocket as income into the right pocket. Yeah, as investments, they're worthless. Zero gain at best

mvscal wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:"Intellectual dishonesty" is completely misused here, Avi. It's either an accounting error--if it's wrong--or, you're not asking, but stating that there is an "agenda."

The guy claims there is 100 trillion dollar current unfunded liability which is, of course, complete nonsense. The study cited downthread projects a 13.6 trillion dollar unfunded obligation for 1935 through the infinite horizon.

100 trillion or 13.6 trillion. Hmm. Sorry, that's not an accounting error. That is a deliberate distortion. So, what's the agenda behind the distortion?

Similarly with your suggestion that American guns aren't...what, flooding?--to Mexico.

No, they aren't. The numbers don't lie not that it stops scumbag politicians from lying about the numbers, though.

Avi, where do you, a lockstep seething racist reactionary who again and again and again has been proven ass backwards on pretty much everything, get off dismissing an extremely well-credentialed economist in the first place? You offer nothing whatsoever to refute him, and instead offer...what? "The study cited downthread"...??

As for the gun issue, you offer what??...a cheap sneering attack on...who?..."scumbag politicians"? And who are these people? Apparently they disagree with Rusp Limpdick, your scout master, and so you just follow his lead and just blather some bullshit that they are effectively hating America, or at least "American Exceptionalism"?

Here's a few facts from which you've been desperately in denial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnrFTFRrnmw