"Lower the age of eligibility for full Social Security and Medicare to age 60 and give everyone on

Social Security a 20% raise."

Readers comment on Fake Deficit Hawkery by Paul Krugman
Michael A. Kamperman
Waco, Texas
July 9th, 2010


I take serious disagreement with their endorsement of deficit reduction. In reality this is just a euphemism for cutting Social Security and Medicare benefits. This is not a sane approach. It is akin to the concept that the real fiscal threat is our debt and our long-term structural deficit, which is simply not true. The U.S. Government owes everyone dollars, which it can print. Now would be a very good time to start printing some money. In reality there are going to be fewer jobs per-capita in our economy for a long time. The sane approach would be to lower the age of eligibility for full Social Security and Medicare to age 60 and to give everyone on Social Security a 20% raise. This is counter-intuitive to current mainstream thinking. But in the 1930’s Keynes concepts of government spending seemed counter-intuitive to maintaining a healthy economy.

It would cost $400 billion a year to lower the retirement age to 60. But the question should be what would we get for that $400 billion? For starters would we get a cadre of young retirees ready to volunteer at the charity of their choice. Plus, most of these retirees would maintain their spending patterns as they tap additional sources of retirement savings. Companies would be able to lower their health care spending as those over 60 who choose to keep working would move to Medicare. Older workers are the most expensive workers in health insurance risk pools. This would free up compensation money for raises for other employees. Some would be moving from Medicaid to Medicare, which would lower the cost of the Medicaid program. But the biggest benefit would be millions of jobs would open up for unemployed workers and young people entering the workforce. This would save billions and billions of dollars at the state and federal level as unemployment spending and supplemental nutritional (food stamps) spending would decrease. And, the income of the unemployed would rise boosting consumer spending and tax revenues. Additionally, confidence in a more secure and earlier retirement would encourage people in their 50’s to spend more money rather than fear that they will have to wait longer to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits. And the ensuing decline in the unemployment rate would entail a huge boost in consumer confidence.

Raising the retirement age, which is the goal of President Obama’s Deficit Commission, will trap us into years and years of high structural unemployment rates. America needs to find a way out of this New Great Depression and raising taxes and cutting federal government spending was tried in 1937 and ended in abject failure. So why even give lip service to an obviously failed policy. We remain trapped in a mindset that since we have to balance our budgets the federal government should also have to balance its budget. But no other entity is like the U.S. Government, because they can print money and we cannot. Those that acknowledge the debt and the deficit are a serious problem give the upper-hand to the Deficit Hawks. In no way do I see either as problematic. We can print China a one trillion dollar check anytime they want their money back.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/further-adventures-in-fake-deficit-hawkery/

The writer explained where the money is coming from. Perhaps you should actually read articles before commenting on them.

We've had a huge redistribution of wealth from working people into the bank accounts of the rich.

The top 1% who now hold over 50% of the nations wealth. Are you OK with that?

It's time we end that growing inequality and greed.

We certainly can end the CAP on Social Security taxes along with the huge tax cuts for the rich. Tax them! Tax them until it hurts!

$400 billion appear out of thin air, Paul Krugman is a socialist.

Oh, sizzle...the mindless insult appears.

Money IS available, very easily in fact. You might want to learn where "cold hard cash" really comes from.

Could also melt your brain to find out.

They had a low retirement age and very generous benefits then they had to risk defaulting on their debt. Does krugman recommend Greece get out of the Euro and continue all their benefits and lower their retirement age further?

Just for starters, Greece doesn't even have its own currency like the United States!

Who do you think is owed that Greek "debt"?

Either the capitalists or the working class in Greece and the rest of Europe will have to make sacrifices for the common good.

So who do you think the European rulers have their guns trained on?

And enables them to increase their benefits. Do you think that works for them?

they will not have to surrender their benefits to the ruling rich.

It's all about class.

Who will pay for the crisis?

The ruling rich or the workers?

It really doesn't have to be the working class.

They can't just print Drachmas or whatever to pay off foreign creditors. They're not in the position of the US govt, of owning the world's reserve currency.

We should be thanking Greece, too, by the way, because the only thing we have going for us right now in this financial mess is the instability of the Euro brought on by private sector chicanery and hyper-leverage driven collapses in Iceland, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and and the public sector chicanery of Greece. That makes otherwise sane people in the world want to hold our dollars, when they know that these US debt obligations can only be paid off with more US debt obligations.

post by Malaise:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8715145&mesg_id=8715177>

so why do ordinary people get denied a retirement yet going to war with a phantom is OK.

We do spend more than 400 billion on the Military, but there is no way to cut the military budget to 0.

I agree that leaving Iraq and Afghanistan would go a long way towards reducing our military budget, but even once we see that savings, social security is its own program, with its own budget, and we shouldn't be loaning or taking money between different funds.

And we can end the CAP of Social Security taxes in addition to other measures explained by the writer to lower Social Security and Medicare eligilibity to 60 years old.

So the "problem" isn't a lack of resources and means to pay for that meaningful reform.

it has equipment that your grandfather used.

especially for the common infantry man. The sophisticated (and expensive) equipment that the infantry has would boggle granddad's mind - thermal night sights, Blue Force tracker, individual radios, optical sights on every gun, UAV's down to the platoon level, highly effective protective vests and helmets.

All the other forces are equally modern.

The war costs American taxpayers $275 million per day. That’s $1.9 billion per week and over $100 billion per year.

* The United States National Debt increases an average of $1.8 billion per day.

* Amount of money budgeted for the entire US Department of Education for fiscal year (FY) 2006: $56 billion

The link to the Mother Jones article those figues come from is missing.

Found them here: http://checksandbalances.wordpress.com/the-war-on-terror/the-cost-of-war/

And then there's this: http://costofwar.com/

:shrug:

This country should honor its people by funding soc sec and medicare/medicaid.

And then we add 'special appropriations' for endless wars on top of that, and we hide a hundred billion or so in other programs. We could easily defend ourselves on 250B.

it still needs looking into

given that they have been tapping into Social Security for years in order to help 'balance the budget', I'd bet that the IOU's in there now total at least that much.

...to see Krugman saying this. But will he gain any traction? It seems like everything I see on TV or read about this issue, is someone or some group saying we have to raise the retirement age and we have to cut benefits. Whereas just the opposite is the case: if we allowed people to retire earlier, for one thing it would free up a lot of jobs.

K&R!

— it’s about the deficit as an excuse to dismantle social programs." - http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/further-adventures-in-fake-deficit-hawkery/">Paul Krugman

...but did not notice that the second part was from a reader's response.

Probably wishful thinking on my part. :-)

I'm 24 years old. By the time I retire (provided the world's still around then), I'll have to fund it all myself because there won't be social security, Medicaid, or Medicare. They'll all be bankrupt. So I'll get a Roth IRA, invest wisely, and hope that's enough.

we will probably scratching around trying to find food.

Did you ever consider demanding accountability to preserve one of our nation's greatest trusts to it's people by making sure the trust fund isn't robbed and that the system is adequately funded?

It's not some unsolvable puzzle to ensure Social Security meets it's obligations to your generation and your children's children.

seriously. heaven.

and useless job.

that would add 1 1/2 jobs to the pool in 2 years if we could retire at 60. Our jobs are indoor/outdoor jobs that take a lot of stamina and would be perfect for younger workers.

been promised since Bush was selected.

We are not Bora Bora or Cambodia... American workers are the best in the world.

We can't let the Goldman Sachs boys and their cronies send us down the tubes with their phony Reganomics. 40 Years of trickle down is enough....!

We know it doesn't work... stop with the Supply-side rip offs.

rate. May even open jobs for other younger workers. Also those on Social Security would most likely spend this 20% which would help the economy by increasing the rate of consumption. Makes sense - especially since congress is reluctant to pass a jobs bill.

And it ain't going to happen (thankfully).

:crazy:

And we are being told to accept benefit reductions, retirement age increases, privatization to subsidize the bottomless pit of wall street greed, by nominally Democratic 'deficit hawks' who keep pitching the same tired old crap that we cannot afford medicare and social security while we spend 700B/year on stupid military bullshit, subsidize BP to blow out the gulf, and generally pork without care to our corporate masters.

Lower the retirement age.
Extend medicare to everyone.
Reduce the regular work week for everyone with no exemptions.
Require four weeks of vacation for everyone, six weeks by age 40.
Paid Family Leave for child and elder care.

How about a political party that was actually proposing policies that helped working families?

one falls into TPTB tactic of 'divide and conquer.' Let's get the young to hate the old/boomers. Those fucking hippies are going to ruin us.

Wouldn't you like to have our boomer jobs? We'll get out of your way.

And don't forget, all the boomers have paid into SS their entire lives. I'm all for 'means testing' SS. If you're rich and make over $100,000, your SS is taxed until it dissolves. Do you understand 'means testing?'

How do you like that? Only those who really need the SS can get it. Fair enough for you?

Just wait till you get old....nah, Mother Nature will get your butt before that happens.

K&R.

of people stay in jobs they hate, not because of social security, but medical insurance.

This would be deficit neutral, but would not serve the corporate massas.

Thom Hartman has also been advocating this idea. I'm at the age where I would do it if offered. Even though I like my work I am ready to retire for many reasons: More time with the grandkids who need me with less overall stress to me. More time to actually take care of myself (health & exercise). Those are the selfish reasons because I have spent my whole adult life working, taking care of family & home, putting everyone first and myself last.
I would also like to do volunteer work & would. I just wouldn't have to be tied into a work schedule.
There are young people at my job with families. We are facing layoffs this year & they will be the ones let go.

I would gladly give up my job so a younger person could have it. I do have some modest savings for retirement but will be depending mostly on social security. The two big issues are medical insurance: can't leave my job until I can get medicare & stretching out my other savings over time to supplement my ss.

WIth a 20 percent increase in benefit, lowering age to 60 & medicare I could do it & make out okay.
Per Thom Hartman our current SS benefit is not as high as it should be--really most of us 'normal' people are going to be depending primarily on ss as pensions, ira's etc just aren't enough.

I think there are many like me who would take advantage. I'm still young enough to want to make an active contribution to society. I would like to do volunteer work. I would like to see the younger people get the jobs with the salaries & future raises etc.
I think this would be a wonderful thing. But of course it will never happen here.

and would have a positive impact on unemployment.

I believe in cutting the military and pumping more money into the US economy for the rest of this year. I don't think Social Security is about to go bankrupt and doubt that raising the standard retirement age to 70 is necessary.

But taking a $400B hit by lowering the retirement age and giving a 20% increase in benefits shows absolutely no financial sense at all. That's a yearly, permanent obligation. On top of a $1.6B deficit, it is just crazy talk.

He supports his position only in generalities and speculation. It's no more substantiated than the Paul Ryan budget proposals Krugman is criticizing.

And, BTW, if this is such a good idea, how come it, or anything like it, isn't something Krugman himself is recommending?

perhaps make cuts in order to reduce the government deficit?

Need more money? No problem. Get it from those who have it.

They had no problem or second thoughts about enriching themselves on our backs!

either lift the cap or otherwise raise tax rates on the wealthy simultaneously to pay for the added costs to Social Security. That is a reasonable way to pay for the added benefits. (The original author didn't specify anything that, leading one to think that he would simply add the extra expenses to the deficit.)

I do support raising the upper bracket somewhat, or actually creating brackets with higher cutoff points. However, I think it should be done to address the existing deficit and preserve the existing conditions rather than pay for something else. Obama has got to begin doing what Clinton did at some point if he wants the same results; it's just a year too early IMO.

Thanks to Frank Kapra and Raygun, we have a nation that has simply never been exposed to the concepts that control our national economy.

The U.S. government budget is nothing at all like "your household budget", but the misconception is allowed to continue because it serves the purposes of the people that matter for you to think it is. As long as you cling to this lie, the things they do to you seem to make sense and you are much more willing to 'sacrifice', for them.

Every dollar that the government feeds into the bottom of the pyramid is amplified and multiplied many times over, this is at the heart of what Krugman, Stiglitz, Roubini, and so many others have been trying to get across to the people. When the government pours money into the top of the pyramid ('defense spending' & bailouts for two examples) it goes into a black hole never to be seen again, but when it come in at the bottom, where we all live, it grows and stimulates over and over.

That's why the very question, "where is the money going to come from?" simply indicates that the questioner either has a hidden agenda or doesn't understand how it works.

The original author, however, showed absolutely no attempt to show that his proposal would have a positive impact on the deficit. His post was the equivalent of Arthur Laffer drawing his famous tax curve on the back of a napkin.

The logical conclusion of this kind of policymaking is Greece. They obviously thought they could afford early retirements all the way down.

I don't think that trying to reduce the deficit by keeping money out of the hands of consumers is the right strategy at this point. But look at what Clinton did in 1993 (preceded by Bush I): he raised taxes somewhat, mostly on the higher brackets, and generated more revenue. It's not necessarily bad in the long run; it's just too early in the recovery.

...If I'd written that.

And Americans without jobs should get what an average CEO makes.

After what Wall Street got in the Great Taxpayer Robbery, We the Corporations can afford it.

I'll see your 200% and up it to 1,000% increase in social security benefits and lower the retirement age to 25.

Now that ought to those single payer radicals off our backs by demonstrating just how ridiculous reform demands are!

:)