Update 2: Rearranged for clarity.
Social Security Posts on Angry Bear Soc Sec 0-23
More Social Security Posts from Angry Bear Soc Sec 24-44
Even More Posts from AB: late Aug to Dec 2008
January 2009: a Flurry of Social Security Posts at AB
Angry Bear Social Security Blogging: Spring 2009
AB Social Security Blogging: Northwest Plan Edition
Update: well my partial absence from AB didn't persist the way I thought it would. Instead Social Security is back on the agenda. Which led to me creating two more index posts here.
In May I was invited to post on Social Security at Angry Bear. It was pretty rewarding and I have to thank rdan for the opportunity.
The series {ed. first two series} terminates with no. 44 not because I really have nothing left to say but instead that proceeding further kind of requires that people had been following along all the way, newcomers being kind of lost. So on the odd chance that anyone would like to read the whole series they are indexed in
I would be happy to discuss any or all of topics I brought up in the series. Just put a comment in any of the three threads here and Blogger will notify me. On the other hand the Angry Bear comment threads are in effect dead in that I get no notification of new comments and no real reason to manually check the threads.
I am not absent from Angry Bear, it is just that the Social Security series will be continued in a new collaborative format with more varied input. See you there.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Hiya Bruce,
I was trying to explain what I'd read of your posts on AB to two voters at the hair shop the other day, and simply couldn't. I was reading your posts here to see if it's been placed in a nutshell anywhere.
Can you put it in a nutshell?
Thanks.
Hi Laurie and thanks for your comments here and at AB.
Unfortunately the answer to your question is "No." Now you could get all tendentious on people and 'explain' that "Social Security is just fine and people who tell you different are either underinformed or lying". Which has the virtue of being true but the vice of being vaguely insulting. After all if you have spent the last twenty years doing your due diligence and following this issue in the media then there are some things that you just know about Social Security. Surely hundreds of journalists and economists couldn't simply be wrong on this? Certainly someone must have checked the numbers for themselves? It seems crazy to just say 'look for yourself'.
At this point probably your best bet to get this across to most center to left people is to name drop Paul Krugman as in "Paul Krugman has examined the numbers and concluded that Social Security is not in fact in any kind of crisis". But other than that the process of getting to the center is not to crack a nut but instead to unpeel an onion.
Sorry I can't do better than that.
Your the best. I can place these lists on AB somehow...drop down menu style with label.
Laurie
my nutshell is not exactly the same as Bruce's, but it gets us to the same place:
Social Security is not facing a crisis. It is paid for until 2040 or so. After that, if the predictions are true, it may be necessary to pay a small amount more in order to keep the same benefits over a longer life expectancy. That will average about 20 dollars per week on an income that is 300 dollars per week bigger than today, and will pay for an extra 6 years of life expectancy.
This money does not come from "the government". It is your money saved for you, and protected from inflation by "pay as you go" with wage indexing.
The only way the bad guys get the scary numbers is to assume that we will not pay the the extra 20 bucks but keep collecting unreduced benefits for seventy five years or the infinite horizon.
Because Soc Sec is pay as you go and NOT an "investment" there is no need to raise the tax before we reach the point where people are actually living longer.
Where Bruce and I disagree is that he treats the Trust Fund as though it was important. I say that it is not. It was only a temporary measure and was always intended to run out. Bruce can show that it may not run out at all, and that anyway nothing is gained, so far, by trying to pay more in now, or reduce benefits now.
I only say that there is no reason to change anything about Social Security now. And that the worst case is that sometime in the future it might be necessary to pay a small amount more because you are going to be living a lot longer.
coberly
This author agrees with your premise but goes the next step and solves the Medicare Crises.
He however insist that only a 1.7% increase in the FICA tax will create a solvent Social Security Program...
Hi Bruce,
I read many of your posts over at Angry Bear and when I saw this story: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=asbiybVqsYC0
at Bloomberg, I immediately was reminded of them. Bloomberg doesn't do a great job of noting editorial vs. factual content and so it wasn't until the veeeery bottom that I noticed that it noted the author was an AEI guy. Anyhow, my assumption is there isn't a lot of substance. Nevertheless, I thought you would be interested and I'd be curious about your thoughts on it.
Kavips thanks.
The Trustees do put the cost of a fix at 1.7% in their 2008 Report. The CBO using different methodology put it at 1.06% in August 2008. When the next Trustees Report comes out in a month or so that should shift some but should still be under 2%.
Mr. Sparkle
I tucked a comment about this on my last post at AB kind of as an afterthought. Short version he is using 'surplus' in a valid but non-standard way. For Unified Budget purposes Social Security is still strongly in surplus once you count interest on the Trust Fund. Plus almost all the damage is temporary and concentrated on the Disability TF. I left an extended comment on Biggs 'Notes on Social Security Reform' website. I may stick up an AB post on this tomorrow.
Good morning Bruce. Dan
Hi Bruce,
I didn't realize you had your own site. This is Robert Oak, The Economic Populist admin. I wanted to invite you over to EP if you want to cross post your economics/ss articles (see user guide on EP for cross posting tips). I had picked up on them via AB, excellent coverage, in depth, the kind of information needed in this MSM/lobbyist agenda world.
(Yes I know our CAPTCHA sucks, we're a community site so security is a huge issue but if you create an account all of that goes away and yes I am working on a site upgrade. ;))
Post a Comment