Thanks DU! (MannyGoldstein's radio interview on Social Security cuts)

Some time back I wrote a popular DU post about the scam that's being run by the folks trying to gut Social Security:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x931203">Social Security: the little secret that's fooling even most DUers.

Basically, the projections showing that Social Security will pay slightly-reduced benefits starting in 26 years are deeply flawed: they are based on the assumption that the US economy is about to get awful, and stay that way. For example, it assumes that GDP growth will soon drop to levels that have never been seen for a sustained period, and they'll stay that low for good. It's also assumed that worker productivity will suddenly plummet.

DU reader Thom Hartmann picked up the story and discussed it on his radio show, and, long story short, I ended up being interviewed at length on "The Core of the Matter" radio show, 90.3 Rutgers radio hosted by Yashwanth Manjunath. I just checked and the interview's up on web for anyone who wants to hear:

iTunes: http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-future-of-social-security/id216627577?i=94170340
MP3: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/cotm/~3/SExnhH9xS5w/cotm051011.mp3

Also, I've been working on a new site to pull together easy-to-read info on the BS behind the (likely) upcoming Social Security cuts: http://www.handsoffss.org. It's not quite ready to launch, and I'd deeply appreciate any comments from my good friends on DU.

For 75 years, Social Security has kept millions of seniors from destitution by providing a modest retirement. It blows my mind that both political parties are now trying to roll back this wonderful and successful institution. FDR must be spinning in his grave.

Thank you for your voice.

I'm so frustrated that so many are about to be hurt by the orgy of irrational slashing that's taken hold of Washington. It's really awful.

If not, maybe you should contact him. Don't be shy.:)

It would be very fun, though - maybe I'll send him my demo tape (er, demo MP3?)

I'm sure you already know that he's a DUer. Send him a PM. He really is a good guy. If the facts are there, he'll want his listeners to be informed. And obviously, since he quoted you previously, he agrees with your facts.

Are higher than projected due to the economy?

When people retire earlier, they get paid less per month - so their total lifetime benefits remains pretty much the same.

Even with the unexpected earlier retirements, Social Security had a surplus of $70 billion last year, so all is well.

I think you are being too optimistic. I expect lower than average numbers until the housing market recovers. That isn't happening yet.

whether they retire earlier or later. So long term, as long as the cash flow is there to cover them, it doesn't make a difference. Fortunately, Social Security is expected to run huge surpluses for at least the next decade.

That comes from revenue we don't have.

Just like any other Treasury bond.

Obama, the Republicans, and many Democrats want to cut benefits so less can be paid back. We need to say NO.

I guess i don't understand your distinction.

:sarcasm: :rofl:

And you paid interest when you put it back into the Christmas fund do you get taxed on that?

Would you count the interest as part of your taxable income?

taxes from corporations. And if that isn't bad enough, the outsourcing and importing that has destroyed our manufacturing base and with it good jobs.

We need a true liberal to lead our country. We need another FDR.

The payroll taxes were raised by the Greenspan Commission way back in the 1980s. The problem is that GWB in particular spent our blood and treasure on his vanity wars.

And now elderly Americans who paid into the fund in good faith are being asked to pay for those wars at a time when they can't get jobs and/or are not well enough or strong enough to work.

This is yet another criminal conspiracy against the American people. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is sick. Just sick.

Look up Pete Peterson and Geithner and Geithner's appointment to the NY Fed. Obama had to know when he appointed Geithner to the NY Fed just what agenda Geithner would serve. Manny points out that Geithner is the head of the Commission that has served up these bogus predictions about Social Security.

Let's get our green economy going so that we don't have to wage wars to insure oil supplies. We need to cut our dependence on oil so that we can mostly survive on domestic supplies. Oil should not be burned in the tanks of our cars and trucks or to create electricity. It is needed for industrial uses like pharmaceutical production, plastics, all kinds of things that we need.

people do not pay a reasonable share of the taxes. So, that is the key, and that is why Obama and his wealthy donors do not want us to look behind the green door on Social Security.

Listen to Manny's interview. It is quite shocking.

Especially now that we have rising food prices. It will also make more elderly people dependent for help on their children and on the government. It makes utterly no sense whatsoever.

It is just Wall Street greed eying the Social Security cash. Think of the bonuses the traders could make if they could pass all that cash back and forth for a couple of years.

Pete Peterson is behind this. He chose Tim Geithner (apparently does not even pretend to be a Democrat) to head the NY Fed. We know where that lead. Obama picked Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. If you listen to Manny's interview, you will learn that it is Geithner who heads the committee that projected the future Social Security deficit.

To get the dire, threatening result he wanted, Geithner applied an annual growth rate for our economy of 2.1% -- according to Manny.

Be sure to listen to the entire interview.

My personal conclusion: Obama cannot be trusted with regard to Social Security. He has a secret agenda to destroy it, I have to conclude from all the evidence.

:bounce:

:yourock:

:patriot:

:hi:

Congrats Manny! :applause:

We need you. :)

SS is indeed a 'modest retirement.' I can't see where there's room to cut it.

As they make cuts, that number will go way up.

TPTB won't be happy until we're all in poverty. Staggering stuff, very, very evil.

We are just beginning to find out who Obama is and what he is up to.

We need to let Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow know about this.

to do anything on the backs of the less fortunate. You know, the ones that have NO political representation even though they are more numerous than any other group in the U.S.

Thank you.

K&R

We do, we do. K&R

Congrats! :)

for when your retirement goes South, as very many have over the last 30 years due to Corporate Bankruptcies, health emergencies. employment without benefits, fund mismanagement, divorce, etc. Living on SS is not living it is existing.

For the 15% of your salary that you pay to Social Security, you would think you get a retirement plan.

The Companies did get a retirement plan.

paychecks to save for retirement.

In the 1930s, there was a huge exodus of Americans from their farms. Prior to that time, but very quickly in the 1930s, we switched from an agrarian society to an urban society.

Traditionally and very commonly, in the US, a farmer owned land. Gradually, as he aged, his child or children would take over the farm. Granddad and Grandma continued to either receive part of the proceeds from the farm or to live on the farm with their children.

As people moved from the countryside into towns and cities beginning some time before the 1930s, they no longer had this nest egg of a farm or income or help from their children. So, the need for some kind of retirement plan became a necessity.

That is why we have Social Security.

If you are retired now and have saved in a 401(K), you are probably beginning to realize what a lousy way to save for retirement that is. You have to save far more than most people realistically can save during your working life in order to receive enough monthly earnings or income from your 401(K) to live.

So, pensions resulting from work and Social Security are the basis for your monthly income. Those of us who do not receive pensions have learned after retiring just how little our savings in a 401(K) really can provide.

If you are earning $70,000 and you have a couple of kids to care for and educate and maybe a couple of periods in which you repay student loans or have healthcare costs or other unusual costs, then relying on savings in your retirement is unrealistic.

The money earned by the corporations you invest in with your 401(K) goes to the CEOs and other managers of the companies you invest in.

And right now interest rates are so low on savings as to be laughable.

So, enjoy your illusion while you can.

Social Security is a necessity and the primary retirement income for most middle class people who do not qualify for other pensions.

has been the case in the past. The reason this results in lower GDP is because of demographic changes. In other words, for your hypothesis to be correct (that it will not deplete the trust fund and result in automatic large benefit cuts absent action to correct this), we would have to have unprecedented, ahistorical productivity growth over a long period time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x931203#933434

Why do you hate us?

From:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2011/V_B_econ.html#218325

They also state that worker productivity increases averaged 1.8% from 1989-2000, and 2.1% from 2000-07. And the trend has been distinctly positive, that is, it is going up over time. But the Trustees feel that trends and averages will reverse, and worker productivity will drop substantially, and stay that way for good. Fascinating.

Also, from the Trustee's report:


So growth in the labor force dropped by a full percentage point from the 1970s/1980s to the next two decades, yet GDP growth remained fairly constant - presumably due to increased productivity. Do we have reason to believe that the much-smaller drop in labor-force growth in the future will not be similarly compensated for, given the trend in productivity? I'm also going to take a look at the Trustee's claims on labor-force growth moving forward - I wouldn't be surprised if that's also a cooked number.

At the very best, we can say that these assumptions are historically pessimistic. At worse, they are rigged.

to figure in the theft in our government and on Wall Street.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

If these pessimistic predictions are justified, we need to elect some people who will change current policy.

Taxing the rich and ending the special rates for special interests would be a start toward a healthier economy.

wives,widows,disabled who never contributed?

It's an insurance program. That's how they work.

permanently fill the hole. Of course you know that long run averages are much more reliable than short term averages, since long term averages smooth out wider variation in long economic cycles. But even if we take the BUBBLE productivity increase of 2.1 and extrapolate it forward (as opposed to the longer run averages that includes bubbles and busts, which is 1.7), why do you assert that even that will make SS solvent in the long term?

You keep asserting that SS is clearly solvent using basic assumptions and numbers to make your case. To someone who isn't familiar with the details, your case may even look persuasive. But when someone points out that your assumption of 2.9 long run GDP growth with the upcoming demographic changes is absolute fantasy, you completey change your argument. It changes from a case purportedly based on solid numbers and assumptions, to a case that relies solely on basic assumptions being WRONG (supposedly because such assumptions were wrong in the past).

If you want to argue that, then you should forthrightly argue it. You should admit that all reasonable assumptions indicate that SS is not permanently solvent, but that you disagree with using long run productivity growth or well accepted demographic estimates (within a reasonable margin of error).

Instead, you make it sound like that they are making a simple math error or a contrived bogus assumption (rather than simply using a long run average), and you are using this misstatement to convince people that you are right (when they are clearly not making such a math error or obviously-wrong assumtion).

That uses numbers which are more historically plausable, and it shows that Social Security will not exhaust the Trust Fund at any point within the 75 year period it covers. What do you find to be wrong with that estimate?

All I can say is that the low cost alternative has two sources of optimism -- higher productivity gains than the long run average, AND optimistic demographic assumptions. Both are certainly possible (as are their opposites), but I don't think it is sound to intentionally make government policy based on only the optimistic projections.

This is not to say I think it would be optimal to fix SS now, over two decades ahead of the depletion of the trust fund in the intermediate scenario. I am fine waiting awhile to see which of the scenarios plays out. I just don't think we should wait until our options become dire if the optimistic projection doesnt hold. I also don't think it is illegitimate or misleading for someone else to believe we should address the problem earlier, as your position seems to imply.

Nobody knows what the future will bring. Historically, the future has ended up looking a lot more like the Trustee's low-cost projections than their intermediate projections.

We agree that the program is absolutely fine for many years, and perhaps for 75 years or more. It is unconscionable to slash Social Security today given what we know. In fact, Obama's commission wants to cut benefits by 22%, which is the same as it will be cut in 26 years if the intermediate projections happen to be right. They are cutting Social Security now, in case it needs to be cut later. This is nuts.

I agree with you that we should wait and see. If the exhaustion date is still 2037 a decade from now, that's plenty of time to fix it. But based on past experience, the exhaustion date will move around, but it will mostly move later and later.

a growth of 2.1% per year which was the growth in 2010, a terrible recession year with high unemployment.

labor force, AND the size of the labor force.

You are correct that 2.1 happens to be mathematically the same number as it was in 2010. But that is for a completely different reason. The reason they are projecting 2.1 after 2050 is NOT because they are expecting us to be permanently in a recession. (In fact, they are projecting that productivity will continue to grow at the same rate as the long run average.) Rather, the 2.1 growth projection in 2050 is because there will be huge demographic changes by 2050, and therefore, fewer workers.

Ironically, Manny and I do not disagree at all about what method should be used to fill any future hole (which is higher taxes, not lower benefits). I would bet that we both support higher benefits. We only disagree on whether there will be a hole, and essentially everyone admits there will be.

the age of 70 to go on Social Security.

The age demographic is not so important. The demand for labor is the key factor in determining how many people are on Social Security.

So if the number of younger workers declines and there is a demand for older workers, there will be no problem with funding Social Security.

Therefore, your argument about fewer working people may not be such a problem.

Social Security, no matter what, pays very, very little. A job is a better way to go. So, I disagree with your reasoning.

expectancy, etc. Your factor may be relevant, but it is just one factor of many.

The demographics calculations are somewhat complicated. You can see their work by going to

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2010/tr10.pdf

on pages 77-92.

If good jobs are available, seniors will work longer.

The big demographic change is due to the baby boomers. The fear with regard to Social Security is that the smaller post-baby-boomer generation will not be able to pay enough Social Security tax to cover the cost of the baby-boomer generation's retirement.

I an saying that if the jobs are there and pay decent wages, people will prefer to work at least part-time and continue to pay taxes rather than take their Social Security which does not pay much.

I think you are not dealing with what I am saying.

I appreciate it.

Recommended.

and bookmarked! :)

Give 'Em Hell Manny!

Congratulations and thanks! I listened to the fist 5 minutes and d/l it to my itunes to listen to the whole show later today. I hope more will interview, including Thom.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

posting on DU is activism,
and can have an effect!

WTG, Manny!
:patriot:



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?
You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their EXCUSES.

:toast:

k&r
:kick:

bkmrkd
:)

thom "plugs" and contributes to du.

it`s about time our members get recognition for their posts

to increase wage destruction for as far as the eye can see.

Social Security wasn't designed for decade after decade of flat wages and I have little question that declining real wages are part of the calculation.

They have exposed their long range hand, they are winding us down and falling wages and long term high unemployment means the system breaks down.

Add in trillions in theft and the math sucks.

Seriously it would be great if you could get your info more widely seen.