And delusional.

This is the official position of the Fed - cut future entitlements and spend now to improve the economy.

But from Main Street, this appears insane. Future retirees are going to be a lot poorer than current retirees, and any significant cuts in SS will simply add a lot more retirees to the OTHER social programs, such as food stamps and Medicaid. The increase in retirement age to 67 alone will cut retirement incomes already, and if you add other cuts to that, the US has a deflationary future.

So you aren't going to save money in the future. Nor will you help the economy now, because SS cuts affect everyone, and those who are higher up in the economic ladder will simply save more now in order to fund their retirements, which is a net subtraction for the current economy.

The same Fed that brought us the 2008 crash is pushing another policy which makes no economic sense, but they do have our president on board. The Harvard/Yale/NY Fed axis of economic destruction is utterly out of touch with economic conditions on Main Street and apparently is doubling down.

It's important for DUers to understand that it is not just the GOP - it's a cohesive theory in the expert circles that advise our government. Mind you, the theory is flawed, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't taken over.

I am already on SS & Medicare. So there is no chance I can save more. The other option is selling everything and leaving the country but alas I am to old now.

Retirement benefits money is consumer spending.

True..with one major exception. The SSA invested its surplus in a deadbeat borrower...namely the US government.

The problems SS is about to face are not entirely demographics/baby boomer retirement. For decades more money went in than came out...in anticipation of the day (which happened a couple years ago) that more money started going out than coming in. The piggy bank would have been full enough to operate this way for 3-4 decades...but here way are 2-3 years in and already cuts are being considered. The general fund just simply doesn't have additional money to pay back the SSA.

What will happen? (this is not what I advocate to happen...but what will happen). The income cap will be raised or eliminated. Means testing will be introduced, and some people's benefits will be reduced. COLA will be reduced or manipulated to not keep up with cost of living, reducing everyone's benefits. The age limit will be increased.

That's just for SS/DI. The Medicare piggy bank is projected to run out in 2026.

Part of your post is true - some of the impetus for these cuts comes from the fear of having to pay back the trust fund.

But another part of your post is not true - the anticipated cuts to SS, DI and Medicare are predicated on the idea that the trust funds ARE repaid. There simply isn't enough in them to cover future retirements.

There are several reasons for this. The weaker economy with slower growth has dropped jobs and wages, thus worsening the future economics because it has dropped contributions to the trust funds now.

But they were always known to not be sufficient - it's just that the trust fund exhaustion date was assumed to come somewhat later.

I don't think you can increase the retirement age limit any more. It will simply cause more people to go out early on disability, because human beings aren't machines and they do wear out. If you were to increase the age limit for full retirement two more years (to 69), probably 70% of retirees would go out on disability earlier and then they would receive their full amounts.

Means testing, yes. Decrease in COLAs for the top, yes. Raising the cap, yes. But you can't increase the retirement age limit - at 67, it is already producing a sharp rise in disability retirements, which are substituting for early retirements.

...and I don't know if there is data available on this...

I would bet that the recent rise in disability claims is not in the 60+ age demographic.

Just a hypothesis, but it is supported by a 1% drop in rate of terminations over the last decade (which suggests people are starting disability at a younger age, and certainly not older).


And, I am certain the age will be increased. If you're over 50 right now, the age won't change...but for younger workers, me , it will increase. There is no way around it.

Most people incorrectly use a metric of 'life expectancy' for this...but that is statistically incorrect, since improvements in infant mortality have helped increase life expectancy by almost 20 years since SS went into place. Instead, life expectancy, after attaining adulthood should be used. Using that metric, men can expect to live 3 more years...and women 5 more years. Based on this, I can absolutely see an incremental increase...0 for people 50 and over, 1 year for people in their 30's and 40's, and 2 years for everyone else.

In fact they are going to reverse slightly

There are a lot of reasons for this, including more sedentary lifestyles, antibiotic influence, and just increasing poverty rates.

The people in their 80s and 90s now were all winnowed, because they went through early life before the antibiotic era, so they have above-average immune systems. Also the big bang for male early mortality was statins, and we've got all of that benefit pretty much already.

Now we are on the wrong side of the curve, especially with decreasing effectiveness of antibiotics. Earlier lifespans are still extended, but this generation of new retirees will have shorter lifespans.

First you state that a large number of retirees are going on SSI disability...with no evidence.

I helpfully point out that the drop in termination rate suggests younger people (not older people) are the ones causing the rise in disability claims.

And you.....don't even acknowledge that whatsoever. Instead, its on to the next unsubstantiated claim that life expectancies are going to drop.

As I stated before, I am not advocating for an increase in the age limit....I just guarantee its going to happen. You obviously have strong feelings against that reality....well that reality isn't going to be fought with fantastical notions of retirees going on disability and/or dying quicker than they have in decades.

In an earlier post, I already pointed out the counter-argument to the 'we live 20 years longer now' argument...because we really only live 3-5 years longer than in the 1930's. That is a solid window...that is something that can be negotiated with. The increase in age can probably be limited to 2 years in that discussion. But making up crap and throwing it on the wall gives others the right to do the exact same thing - and cite '20 years'. See where that gets us.

The US debt is $17 trillion. The debt to retirees is $3 trillion of that. If they can't afford to redeem the $3 trillion, how can they ever repay the other $14 trillion?

Further, what's the problem with borrowing money to repay Social Security? It doesn't change the debt at all, and in fact it is a routine bit of business for the treasury.

"Further, what's the problem with borrowing money to repay Social Security?"

to

"Why didn't the SSA invest in somebody other than the general fund?"

The answer lies in the question...its a whole lot easier to non-pay the SSI, than say China. And frankly, borrowers like China are getting a little wise to the treasury's ability to manipulate the money supply...and it is very unlikely that the $3 trillion in SS debt could be successfully borrowed....but you can bet with certainty that the fed will continue its policy of de-valuing the dollar. Listen closely to the talking head economists...they view deflation as some sort of destructive atom bomb - not destructive to the economy, but destructive to the confidence game that government debt has become. So, the debt owed will slowly decrease in value (and its a double tap, because those same inflationary pressures increase the cost of living for recipients). So the general fund is able to gradually steal value away, by manipulating the value of money...not over the life of a 5 year bond as per normal borrowing, but over a period of decades. What other borrower would allow their money to be borrowed, squirreled, and devalued for decades? None that I can think of.

Now the general fund hasn't been a 'selective deadbeat'....yet. Repayment of its loans is at the top of the list, and is considered non-discretionary, I believe. So the general fund will continue to pay back SS...but other government functions will suffer. This makes it just to easy for a politician to say "hey, if we raise the age limit, the government can afford 'insert program here'".

The intra-governmental transfers have linked the SS fund to our (broke) treasury in a manner that makes it very difficult to cut. This is why I think it was foolish for the SSA to invest so many of its eggs in the treasury basket.

This shit should not be PROPOSED by Democrats.

Believe me, no Democrats are proposing any sort of cuts to social security.

See, this is how you can determine the true identity of a Democrat.

Real Democrats—no proposals to cut social security. False Democrats—propose cutting social security.

which is indeed a cut to SS.

Also cuts to Medicare part D.

Also Medicare has already been cut in ACA.

I read the Alternet comments. They have sock puppets too. And just like the sock puppets on DU, they are arguing in favor of cuts to social security and claim there is actually no social security trust fund. They are paid liars.

The internet was created, not only a way to gather information, but also as a means to propagandize and misinform the masses. It has worked like a charm.

SS has not paid out more than it has taken in yet, interest on the Trust Fund wasn't taken into account when that report came out. Simple solution, raise the cap to 250 thou and the fund is good for 75 years, problem solved. If you really want to reduce the debt, eliminate the now permanent Bush/Obama tax cuts, voila, a 3 trillion dollar reduction of debt.