Feature
The Social Security Hangover
Young people will wake up to intergenerational theft… eventually.
(Page 3 of 3)
But the driving force behind this attitude is that young people don’t expect to Social Security to pay them much in return. So how can it be an investment? It’s a tax to fund retiring Boomers, taken from the same pot as everything else the government spends money on. In other words, it’s just another redistributive program, a far cry from FDR’s Great Idea. In identifying this, my generation has predicted its own future: having massive amounts of our wealth siphoned to fund the elderly.
Social Security Is Dead, Long Live Social Security?
STEVE, UNLIKE THE REST of my interviewees, is a libertarian and part of that most curious of Millennial movements, the Ron Paul Revolution. The Paul subculture stems from a growing skepticism of big government among young people. The Great Statist Dream—whether in the form of FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, or Obamanomics— came crashing down in 2008. The idea that government could fine-tune its people and businesses to achieve better results suddenly seemed foolish. The European Union, slowly burning to the ground, embodies the ultimate failure of government utopia.
The Millennials, scarred by Barack Obama’s failures, are starting to break with orthodox liberalism. Polls show young people are more skeptical of the Hope-and-Change fraud this time around. The reflexive liberalism and idealism of the young is running up against the failures of big government. Forget grand schemes; we’d just like a job.
But there’s one stumbling block Millennials haven’t cleared yet. Even though we understand Social Security’s failures, even though our generational tab is sky-high, we can’t quite abandon the idea of entitlements. Polling—and comments from many of my interviewees—shows that young people still support the core idea of Social Security and don’t want to junk it. They also don’t blame the Baby Boomers that the program lies in shambles. It’s an egalitarian fatalism. This thing exists, so we have to pay it off, even if it’s going to hurt us in the long run.
But it’s not just going to hurt us in the long run. It’s going to ruin any hope of prosperity for our generation. Even with a robust economic recovery (which is unlikely to swoop in anytime soon), how are we supposed to pay off untold trillions in entitlement debt when we can barely pay our student loans? Even if we turn Social Security into a welfare program completely, we’re just transferring the debt to the rest of the government. How can we pay that off? And yet the entitlement machine grinds on. The left, and many on the right, are unwilling to make even the smallest alterations. Among Democrats, the slightest peep of concern about Social Security is considered blasphemy.
The only hope for Social Security is if my generation, the Millennials, loudly demands change. We’re already part of the way there. We see the problem looming in the distance. But how much longer before we finally put our feet down? Young people love to talk about fairness. But when will we acknowledge the unfairness of an older generation that creates a crisis and then rides off into the sunset on our dime?
All this will happen eventually. As millions more Boomers weigh down the Social Security payrolls and the bill starts coming due, Millennials will react at the voting booth. The fact that Congressman Paul Ryan’s Path to Prosperity even exists shows that public opinion is shifting. Many of the president’s political masquerades—the War on Women, his gay marriage “conversion”—have been aimed at young people. He sees the writing on the wall. His economic policies have failed, and Millennials are feeling it.
My generation is waking up slowly, drowsily. But wake up it will. And when that happens, it could pre- cipitate the greatest ideological shift away from stat- ism in American history. But until then, we’re groping in the dark. There’s an economy for us to rebuild, a $16 trillion national debt for us to pay down, and a burgeoning student loan bubble. Who really has time to think about retirement anyway?
“I don’t think I’m really going to retire,” John said. “I think I’ll work until the day I can’t anymore, honestly, out of necessity. I don’t think [retirement] is going to exist the way it did for our grandparents.”
About the Author
Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (93) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Matt Purple
More Articles From Feature
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/17/the-social-security-hangover
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- The Mole in Don Draper
- How Not To Buy a Fighter
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
biomedlives| 9.17.12 @ 12:56PM
I absolutely agree that the Millenials have a legitimate gripe about Social Security. The boomers do not deserve all the blame for the situation, however. In contrast to private pension plans, which have to be reasonably sound from an actuarial point of view, Social Security has always used the contributions of the current working generation to pay the benefits of the previous generation. In addition to paying for the previous generation's benefits, the boomers have had to pay part of their own (hence the current surplus) as a result of the 1983 "reforms."
The generation prior to the boomers got an even better deal from Medicare, to which no one had to make payroll contributions before its creation in 1965.
drudge ette obama| 9.19.12 @ 7:55AM
You bet I think the Millenials should pay for Baby Boomers' retirement. These idiots helped vote Obama into office, run into me constantly while on their Iphones, create waste with vitamin waters and like, you know, have been living in a relatively secure world at the expense of generations before them.
Get to work you bums and pay off your student loans.
LindaF | 9.19.12 @ 3:17PM
The problem really started in the Boomer's grandparents' day - they retired, on modest pensions, savings, and SS.
Then massive inflation hit - can you say Johnson, Nixon (with price controls), and, of course, Jimmy Carter (he "wins" the inflation lottery). So, rather than exercise the fiscal discipline needed to stop inflation, our "leaders" decided to increase the SS payout - WITHOUT funding it. Just use those extra workers in the Boomer generation to pay for it all.
Each year, politicians gave into their most cowardly impulses, and both declined to impose the FICA taxes needed to stabilize the payout, or to impose some cost cutting on SS and Medicare "entitlements".
End result - a HUGE number of elderly who fervently believe that it is their RIGHT to receive yearly increases in their checks, along with other perks. No need to cut back on those cruises. No need to raid their savings, or sell the family home - God Forbid, their children and grandchildren would lose their inheritance!
And, they couldn't move in with the kids - they wanted to be "self-sufficient", at least of their OWN kids.
Depending on other peoples' kids was hunky-dory with them.
It's just the Boomers' bad luck that the Ponzi scheme ended with them. No, they didn't cause it, but they refused to mend the problem (SOME of them - I've been saying for years that we needed to make the changes to get SS back on track).
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 10:10PM
Re-read this editorial's FACT that the government intended each paid-in future recipient to have the right to receive SS. The government typically STOLE from the SS trust fund to finance their welfare schemes to their indigent constituents, but that does not translate into a one generation paying for the prior one scenerio. As stated, if the government fraudently mismanaged the SS trust fund [by stealing several $trillions of SS funds], then benefits are due in a fiduciary sense from it general fund instead. It's a government forced savings-retirement fund owed to those paying into same over a lifetime of taxiation from SS, not some generation-to-generation thing!!!!
eloris| 10.8.12 @ 8:45PM
No, the government said that, but they were lying. They started mailing SS checks out right away, including to people who hadn't paid in a cent. So yeah, the only ones who really got a free ride were those who retired in the 30's. Everybody since then has paid for the previous generation, with the promise of being paid for by the next generation.
This nonsense has to stop, and everybody's going to have to take some pain. The ones who we're ultimately all paying for is the elderly in the 1930's, but they're all dead and gone, their votes safely in FDR's pocket.
avafromtexas| 9.17.12 @ 3:41PM
"Millennials are also expected to fund the lavish retirements of the same generation that created the crisis."
Maybe this author should do some more research on this issue. The average "lavish" retirement of current Social Security retirees is $1,000 per mo. Hardly lavish.
Hardly "lavish". Mine? $1,053 per mo...............after working since the 1960's.
What were we supposed to do? Couldn't refuse to participate. When questions were asked repeatedly about the soundness of this program, the answer was that the "program was sound, and no cause for alarm."
Don't blame this on "the generation that caused this"...........there isn't any "generation" that caused this. It was a complete lie from the beginning, with the generation prior to this one being suckered as much as anyone.
Put the blame where it belongs........the d*** liberal Democrats that created this program with all its rules and threats of what would happen if one did not cooperate with it, and then who lied out of their behinds when questioned by the "previous generation" about where the money was going.
Sheesh!
avafromtexas| 9.17.12 @ 3:54PM
BTW, whenever a cost of living raise in granted every 2-3 years (....... not yearly as I've heard of in days gone by).........all that extra money goes to pay............ guess what? The medical part of Social Security, Medicare B, which I've used about 3 times since 2008.
So much for the complaints I've heard about "retirees squealing like pig" for more, more money. $12,000 for one person is below the poverty level. That's the "lavish" retirement of the average S.S. recipient.
I don't like what's happened to S.S., either, but I've been worrying about this long before the current graduates were twinkles in their dad's eye.
Making wrong and hateful statements isn't a solution, only a goad to hate others. (I have a master's degree myself and worked for non-profits most of my career, which I paid for myself so I guess I'm not entirely "slothful"). Never though I'd be disliked simply because I retired on my modest retirement....'cuse me....my "lavish retirement" of $1,065 year.
avafromtexas| 9.17.12 @ 3:55PM
Typo: $1,065 mo.
Pretty upset right now.
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 10:16PM
Yes, anyone thinking that SS is [or was intended for] one's total required retirement needs is in need of brain surgery. It pays a few of my utilities and thats about it. This BS about the current generation paying for our SS is ludicrous and asinine!!!!!!!!!
eloris| 10.8.12 @ 8:47PM
Oh really? Then why can't the current generation opt out, and immediately stop paying FICA?
Because their FICA payments are needed to fund SS payouts to prior generations.
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 8:36AM
Ava from Texas,
You need to get that paper that Socialist Security sent you that shows how much you paid in SS taxes your entire working life, and, then, calculate how long before you receive everything you paid into the system.
It doesn't take that long to get it all back, if you haven't reached that point already.
Also, Socialist Security was not meant to fund your retirement. That was your responsibility.
John Navratil| 9.19.12 @ 8:47AM
Nick,
You know that, and I know that, and anyone who can spell Ponzi or noticed the "contribution" has steadily increased from the original 2% should have know that, but that wasn't the way the politicians sold it.
None of us will be as fortunate as Ida May Fuller (http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html#idamay) who paid in $24.75, got most of it back in her first check of $24.54 and went on to receive $22,888.92. Even Hillary didn't get that kind of return on her investment in cattle.
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 10:18AM
I'm well aware of Miss Fuller, Mr. Navratil.
I've used her as an example on these pages a few times myself. It galls me that the SSA actually brags about her on their website.
See the example of my late great-uncle, below.
Although, I've heard that those who've paid the maximum in FICA for the past twenty-some years, will not get back what they were taxed. Oh, I mean what "they paid in."
I don't know if that just includes the self-employed, who pay both sides of FICA (i.e., 12.4%,) or, employees who have only paid 6.2% for the past 20 years. I haven't crunched the numbers to see if it's true, or not.
Harry the Horrible| 9.19.12 @ 9:27AM
Not a valid argument.
If I had that money (instead of the SSA), assuming I didn't do something stupid like spend it, I'd invest it and grow it (like my 401K).
So I would EXPECT to get not only what I "contributed" but heck of a lot of interest to boot.
So SS recipients have "right" to get (considerably) more than they paid in.
The problems lies in two places:
1) That the system exists at all.
2) The folks responsible for the money didn't manage it very well (Loaned it to Congress who promptly pissed it away.)
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 10:06AM
Many do receive considerably more than they "paid in," Harry. Don't trust me. Do the math.
My late great-uncle, started receiving Socialist Security back in the early eighties. He figured out that he got it all back in TWO YEARS.
He passed away a year and half ago. His wife is still alive.
You have to accept that your "contribution" was really a tax, which was used to pay for all of the retirees, while you worked. When you have received ALL that you "paid in" (with interest,) every check you cash after that point is WELFARE.
And, if you are worth several hundred thousand dollars plus collecting Socialist Security, you are a rich welfare recipient. Again, it was a TAX. You didn't pay into anything.
If you believe that the problem is that SS exists in the first place, which I also do, don't get upset when policies like means-testing, busting the caps, and cutting benefits get brought up, okay?
See the example of Ida May Fuller, which Mr. Navratil posts above, and the Socialist Security Administration brags about on their website. I figured out the math a few years ago, and Miss Fuller received a 92,480% return on her "contribution."
I just call it welfare.
2Anglico| 9.19.12 @ 10:59AM
The Supreme Court ruled in several cases that Social in-Security was just another tax to fund a government program, like any other.
Also, there is NO surplus, in 2010 the amount paid out in benefits exceeded the amount taken in. Oh, and the "trust fund"? It is full of government "non-negotiable" securities. Think IOU's in your piggy bank.
Anyone who says Social in-Security is solvent to 20 whatever is whistling past the graveyard.
Since I pay BOTH halves (about 15% of my income) of Social in-Security, the numbers are REAL to me.
Only the first sentence was directed to you, Nick. After that I got on a roll because the subject of Social in-Security (legal plunder), INFURIATES me.
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 1:28PM
I hear ya', 2Anglico. It infuriates me, too.
To be accurate, for those who don't know, 2.9% of the 15.3% of what you pay in FICA is for MediScare, 12.4% is for Socialist Security. Because you pay both the employer AND employee portions of FICA.
And, to be really accurate, for the past two years, the employee portion of SS has been 4.2%, because of the Payroll Tax Holiday. Which will cost the U.S. Treasury over $200 billion, this year.
To put that in context, the CBO projects that the revenue collected in 2013 from letting the Bush tax-cuts expire, for those making over $250,000, would be a whopping $40 billion!
Brubaker| 9.19.12 @ 3:50PM
Nick, it isn't quite that simple. The statements provided by Social Security simply indicate the total number of dollars paid into FICA during a person's working life.
That total makes no adjustment for the decreasing value of the dollar during that period of time. That's a generally overlooked and very significant point. For example, each dollar paid into FICA in 1960 is equivalent to $7.58 in 2012 dollars. Even a dollar paid into FICA in 1980 is worth $2.73 in 2012 dollars. In other words, the individual would need to receive benefit dollars amounting to several times the number of dollars paid in, just to break even.
The second problem is that the raw number of dollars paid into FICA assumes no return on investment, but simply placing the money in a passbook savings account would have yielded a significant amount of money over a working life of 40 or more years. More astute earners would of course have placed their money in investments likely to provide better returns.
Bottom line: Social security has become an integral and valuable component of most workers retirement planning, but it's definitely not the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. To blame current recipients of Social Security benefits--as the young author of this article does--totally ignores the ground truth that they were not given a choice. The government simply took the money from their paychecks, like it or not. Now, the time has come for those workers to collect the benefits that were promised.
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 8:15PM
You obviously didn't read all of my comments, Brubaker. Or, the example of Miss Ida May Fuller, provided by Mr. Navratil.
Are you trying to claim that Miss Fuller didn't get her total "contribution" back, adjusted for inflation and with a better interest rate offered by.....ANYONE?
How about my late great-uncle? My great-aunt is still alive, collecting.
Of course, people like my grandpa, who passed away, in 1982, at age 67, get hosed. But his survivor, my grandma, kept receiving SS checks until she died 5 years ago.
People who die before they reach 65 really get the shaft.
But, for the most part, people are taking way more out than they were taxed to put in, since the population is living longer. That's why it is welfare.
Brubaker| 9.19.12 @ 10:06PM
Actually, Nick, I did read the comment about Miss Fuller. That's a tidbit that's been around for a very long time. Although it's interesting, it's also immaterial to this discussion. Do you suppose that you will receive that sort of return from Social Security? Do you suppose that anyone working today will receive that level of return?
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 10:26PM
Yes, but only if the BLACK JESUS and his WOLFMAN hadn't screwed up this economy over the last four years where normal investments could earn decent returns. Additionally it would be assumed that the current generation is working, which they are not again thanks to the above two!!!!!
biomedlives| 9.22.12 @ 8:27PM
Normal investments could earn decent returns? How'd that work out for us during the financial meltdown?
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 11:36PM
Miss Fuller is very material to this discussion, Brubaker. She proves that Socialist Security is a Ponzi scheme.
And, no, I never claimed that everyone gets the return Miss Fuller received. My point was simply that many get way more out of SS than they "put in." And that the well-off have no business getting taxpayer money in the form of Socialist Security checks.
If you're well-off, pay for your own retirement. Why is Bill Gate's dad, Ted Turner, or Hugh Hefner getting a government check paid for, in part, by a guy who is working two jobs?
As long as seniors, who now include the Baby-Boomers, stick to the false belief that they "paid into" some trust-fund, and they "deserve to get back their OWN money," we will never be able to curb the spiraling costs of SS. The same goes for MediScare.
Seniors are STEALING money from their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
Brubaker| 9.20.12 @ 11:31AM
Yes, the SS system is a Ponzi scheme.
Yes, many people do get more out than they put in -- but many get less. You cited your grandpa and your great-uncle and how their spouses continued to receive benefits. Of course, not everyone has a surviving spouse. In that case, benefits stop and the government wins.
I agree "the well-off have no business getting" Social Security benefits, but that’s the system that exists. Efforts to reform Social Security during the Bush administration were stonewalled by Democrats and excoriated by groups such as AARP.
Some ill-informed people do cling to the notion of a trust fund. Most, however, do not, but money was taken from them in return for a promise that they would receive certain benefits. Most recipients simply view it — rightly or wrongly -- as the government paying a lawful debt to them.
Social Security, like any other Ponzi scheme, entails paying off early investors with money taken from later investors, but the blame should fall on those who created the system and not on those forced to participate. It's grossly inaccurate to say that seniors are "stealing" money from later generations. Money which they could have used to fund their own retirement plan was "stolen" from them, by force of law. They are now entitled, legally and morally, to collect on what was promised.
The solution rests not in blaming seniors, but in changing or eliminating the system. On that point, I believe we are in general agreement.
Nick| 9.20.12 @ 6:05PM
I don't know why you are arguing, then, Brubaker.
Except, that you seem to refuse to accept the truth that we are NOT paying into anything. We are paying TAXES.
And, you aren't entitled to get your taxes back.
You also seem to contradict yourself in the same paragraph, when you claim that "most" people don't "cling to the notion of a trust fund," and then, claim "most recipients" see it as a debt owed them. How can both assertions be true?
You are suffering from the same cognitive-dissonance. You claim that you agree with me that the well-off don't deserve SS checks, yet, you state that seniors are "entitled, legally and morally" to their checks. Again, both cannot be true.
It is completely accurate to say that seniors are stealing from their grandchildren. Don't benefits, in both SS & MediScare, keep rising? COLA, survivor's benefits, etc., far outpace inflation. SS disability covers children who never "paid into" the system, and is now O'Bama's loophole to get more people on welfare without work requirements.
I will keep screaming it from the rooftops:
Americans must be educated that they are NOT ENTITLED to ANY MONEY from the taxpayers.
Even if they were the ones who paid the taxes all of their working life.
Unless this entitlement mentality is eradicated, Socialist Security & MediScare will never be reformed.
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 10:32PM
Wrong Nick! An individual constantly working for 35 years could have alternatively invested the taxiation required from SS and tripled plus their SS receipts/payouts. A distant relative of mine had such [RR] employment, invested wisely and retired with several $million in various accounts. If say $50000 over a lifetime of employment would have been invested in stocks, bonds etc; the resulting nestegg would be tremendous. If your examples are those of sporatic employment situations, then yes you're correct, but not from one of constant/normal employment!!!!
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 11:43PM
I understand that, OF. I'm not defending Socialist Security, by any means. I hate SS.
But, people in this country are under the false impression that they are ENTITLED to get what they "paid into" SS. They aren't.
They were paying TAXES all of those years. The money is gone. Get over it.
The American people need to be slowly weaned off taxpayer money, like an heroin or crack addict.
Oldefarte| 9.20.12 @ 8:24PM
Nick, re-read this article. SS was established as a RIGHTFUL FORCED SAVINGS/RETIREMENT ACCOUNT [because the Roosevelt Administration correctly felt that most individuals do not have the financial dicipline to save for retirement so that must be forced into same]. Sure it's one generation taxes paying for the former, but that is solely do to the THEFT OF THE SS TRUST FUND OVER ITS HISTORY. It was suposed to be a LOCKED BOX situation but mostly Democrats stole [ie "borrowed"] from same to pay for their granted welfaric programs that they legislated [ie THE GREAT SOCIETY, WAR ON POVERTY, STIMULUS, WELFARECARE etc]. SS is easily repairable by repaying the stolen money by the government, uncaping the income level of taxiation etc. If the future thought is to dismantle it for future generations then simply payback to extrapolated opportunity of investment costs to those alread retired and for those working but paid in through work years!!!!!
Oldefarte| 9.20.12 @ 8:29PM
PS: As the SCOTUS ignorantly called Welfarecare a "tax", SS can be so termed incorrectly; but the fact is that is was a forced retirement-savings vehicle and cannot be eliminated to it paid in beneficiaries, just as cannot a bank wipe out one's savings accounts/CDs etc [as it is insured by the government/FDIC]!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 9.20.12 @ 8:34PM
PSII: Again, if the desire is to eliminate SS, fine; but the paid-in beneficiaries MUST be reimbursed for the calculated opportunity costs of their forced by the goovernment contributions over teir working lifetimes!!!!!
Alej| 9.19.12 @ 5:34PM
The 1960s was 50 years ago... every dollar put in then was worth five of today's inflated money. If Ava "contributed" ( had forcibly deducted from her paycheck) $500 in 1960, she would have to receive $2500 today just to break even.
Alej| 9.19.12 @ 5:43PM
Brubaker researched the inflation index better than my guesstimate...
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 10:21PM
Nick, you need to understand what is known as OPPORTUNITY COSTS. If anyone were to [instead of being forced by government to pay into its SS fund their entire working lifetime] INVEST THE AMOUNTS OF SS TAXIATION, they would be able to retire onto an Hawaiian beachfront home for the rest of their life. With multiple interest rates and investment returns from stocks, bonds, annuities etc; the minor SS amounts recieved would pale in camparison to same!!!!!
Harry the Horrible| 9.19.12 @ 9:20AM
I blame FDR who created it as vote buying program using rules that would get the managers of any private system thrown into jail.
LindaF | 9.19.12 @ 3:20PM
That amount is a LOT more lavish than I can reasonably expect. I'm 10 years younger, and at 61, anticipate working until at least 70, if not longer. I do not expect to get ANY money from the SS I paid into all those years, and will over the next 10 years or so.
How lavish a lifestyle can I get for $0.00?
So, yes, compared to that, your check does seem lavish.
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 10:41PM
If you vote for the current POTUS, no SS and its sister Medicare will disappear; however if you vote for R/R there's a good probability that they'll be saved!!!!
Appleby| 9.19.12 @ 6:57AM
Ditto. I have been "funding the lavish lifestyle" of Generation Whine for the past 25 years, and as my Daddy frequently told me when I was growing up in the 1960s, nobody gets to live in a world she designs for herself. You have to play the cards you are dealt. I get $1192 a month which would not even pay my rent -- I will be moving to senior housing next year, which is privately owned by the way, not government owned, and which charges 30% of your income to live in it. (Ahepa is the name of the company, google it to see further information). We Boomers are not only taking care of ourselves, but we are carrying the burden of the Occupier Generation who is apparently waiting for a six figure job that only requires them to do work that they like, and will fit in with their heavy schedule of texting, sex, World of Warcraft, alcohol and drugs. Previous generations took whatever they could get and scraped up a life for wife and children out of whatever was available. Generation Whine sits on its backside or marches down Wall Street chanting "GIMMEE! GIMMEE! GIMMEE!" and Demanding. My message to them is to shut up and count your blessings, and then wash your face, comb your hair, change your clothes and get out there and find something to do. Your father and grandfather were not handed a bag of gold when they turned 18. NEWS FLASH: YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOURSELF.
LindaF | 9.19.12 @ 3:23PM
Don't blame the entire generation for the OWS crowd. ALL of my children work. They pay their own way. They face a bleak future, but are managing to make their way, NOT in their parents' basement.
Same with the Boomers. Some of us didn't inhale, didn't screw every person we spent more than an hour with, didn't refuse to act responsibly.
In other words, don't over-generalize.
eloris| 10.8.12 @ 8:55PM
Appleby cracks me up because I've never seen quite such a perfect example of "death to the whippersnappers".
All I can say is that if the 60's crowd want to talk like that, I better not find any pictures of them smoking a bong while burning the flag.
Aristocat| 9.19.12 @ 6:58AM
Social Security will be OK if they bust the cap..
In other words, collect Soc.Sec. on all income with no limit...Then millionaire athletes and entertainers will be paying 6% just like everybody else.
Darin| 9.19.12 @ 7:09AM
This is the same logic that says "raising taxes on millionnaires will increase tax revenue." In other words, its bunk. Not all income is subject to social security taxes, and those who receive large salaries will use these loopholes. While there may be a minor revenue increase, it won't come close to making social security "OK." It just kicks the can down the road a few years.
Minuteman78| 9.19.12 @ 8:39AM
Even if the net amount isn't a huge percentage, it's the principle of the thing. Having a "cap" before you quit having to pay SS taxes is a REGRESSIVE tax, disproportionately placed on the working class.
eloris| 10.8.12 @ 8:58PM
That's because it's supposed to be you saving for your own retirement. So no, it's not "regressive"; everybody gets out what they put in.
If it's straight up socialist redistributive welfare, let's admit that.
Otherwise, if we tax NBA players at 6%, they would, theoretically, be expecting to get million dollar SS checks in retirement, and we'd be no better off.
buckeyeman| 9.19.12 @ 11:32AM
I own/control a business which makes millions of dollars a year in profits. My wife and I take about half million a year in salary and bank the rest. If they " bust the cap" I will simply find another way to fund my extravagant lifestyle (two grand just to fuel my yacht from Naples to Key West and back, and that doesn't include rum! WTF!!!!!). My Social Insecurity "contrubution" will then drop to zero, you frickin' Marxist moron.
JP| 9.19.12 @ 1:11PM
Or you sell your business and just live off of unearned income and dividends. SS taxes only earned income. Of course, that will probably change knowing our politicians.
JP| 9.19.12 @ 1:08PM
I remember Michael Jordan in the mid 1990s tellng a reporter that he paid $3 million in unemployment inusurance alone. Of course Jordan earned over $30 million in endorsements alone. He would never collect a nickel of unemployment, or medicaire, or medicaid. The rich do have cap on social security. But, that doesn't mean they don't pay into it. In pure dollars, they contribute tens of billions each year.
Aren't you a little ashamed of living off the sweat of total strangers?
Darin| 9.19.12 @ 7:06AM
I've never included Social Security in any of my retirement planning. I recognized it as a ponzi scheme 30 years ago and would gladly have opted out if allowed.
Blaming the Boomers, Millenials, or anyone in between is useless. The problem exists because politicians lied and people were gullible enough to fall for it. Looking backwards does nothing. How do we deal with it NOW? Some sort of phased-in privitation is likely the best option. No change for anyone 50 or older. Those younger still pay in at rates which gradually reduce over the next 30 years. Those entering the workforce now pay a greatly reduced amount but end up receiving nothing (which makes up for those who paid in almost nothing when the program started but still received full benefits). It's an imperfect solution, but the solution gets uglier the longer we wait.
Appleby| 9.19.12 @ 7:36AM
If we returned SSI to the form in which it was originally proposed, it would work fine. In order to do this: (1) only people who paid in should collect (no divorced spouses of people who collected, e.g.); (2) emphasis should be returned to the fact that SSI was to be a SUPPLEMENT to one's own savings and investments toward retirement; (3) the age when a contributor collects should be raised to 85. Then it would work just the way it was designed to work.
avafromtexas| 9.19.12 @ 4:57PM
Don't think you are talking about SSI (Supplemental Security Income), which is a form of Medicaid and available to people who are below the poverty level, and is a State program.
You are talking about Social Security (SS), which a Federal program.
Two completely different program.
BD57| 9.19.12 @ 7:57AM
Social Security has been a lie from the beginning. It's never been a "retirement program" where money is set aside for "your" retirement.
It's always been about buying votes and building political coalitions. The results were predictable from the beginning - politicians would expand benefits to buy more votes, believing that, every step of the way, the additional amount taken from each taxpayer would not be significant enough to lead to a taxpayer revolt. Eventually, the political greed would overreach - but, like the frog in the pot of water slowly brought to a boil, by the time the taxpayers realized what had happened, they'd be cooked.
As for those who say "Oh, it'll just stop being Social Security & become another program funded from general tax revenue ..." umm ... guys ... we're kinda BROKE here. We can't afford the government we already have - SOMEBODY is going to have to take LESS.
We're headed for a train wreck. It's as predictable as tonight's sunset.
nathan| 9.19.12 @ 8:05AM
The writer talks of a lower standard of living for the younger generation. But for current generation it's already here. For those of us in our late 50's early 60's we can recall in the time of our parents when a large percentage of them funded a house/apartment, transportation be it a car or whatever, a vacation every year on the income of one parent. Today that lifestyle, the typical middle class lifestyle we extoll and talk so much about takes both parents working. You basically can not doing with one. That's a huge decrease in living standards. We warehouse our kids in pre schools where once there were stay at home moms.
Many parents passed on decent inheritances to their kids. Our generation? We are going to outlive our resources. How much are the people who have commented above going to pass on to their kids? Not much. USA Today did an article saying dementia Alzheimers may affect 20 percent of the population. A third of our generation doesn't have kids and many of us are divorced. And another article talks about savings rates at least half the country has $25,000 or less. And SS pays as stated above 1K a month? Who will take care of those with memory disorders given these numbers? This is the disaster waiting to happen. If the numbers don't terrify you they should. They do me.
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 8:30AM
You already show signs of dementia, Nathan.
nathan| 9.19.12 @ 10:08AM
Well gee, a pleasant good morning to you also kind sir! LOL And I wouldn't know it if I had it.
Because you see my mother had it at the time of her death. She showed clear signs about six years before her passing. She was such an amazing woman and watching her slowly deteriorate . . . And seeing her brother, a father to me with it too. Watching such amazing people who when you're children seem so indestructible and then seem all too frail . . .
But you see as I said in a post yesterday, for Christians in the words of a Vince Gill song, "what's the worst thing that can happen what's the worst that they can do . . . Threaten me with heaven it's all they can do, threaten me with heaven, if they want to, threaten me with heaven I believe that it's true."
And you see we can fight here, some of us indulge in name calling/insults, much though I prefer more reasoned discussion, passion without anger, but really Vince is right, what's the worse thing that could happen, to my mother, my uncle, dementia all of it both absolute Christians? Threaten them with heaven. That's all. And that's where they both are now, waiting for me. And sir, I hope you.
A pleasant good day to you sir.
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 10:26AM
But, you don't discuss, Nathan. You are a drive-by poster.
You make a few comments, and, when you can't answer the questions, you disappear. Only to reappear the next day, to make more inane pronouncements, as if the previous day never happened.
My grandma suffered from Alzheimer's for a decade, by the way. And, my mother died from cancer, almost nine years ago.
So, spare me your guilt trips, okay?
nathan| 9.19.12 @ 11:09AM
Guilt was not the point of that post if you read it carefully. But you got out of it what you wished. My apologies for the misunderstanding. But read it again, carefully. The main point of my response to you is the Vince Gill lyrics. Focus on that and that alone. And if you want to discuss THAT, let me know.
avafromtexas| 9.19.12 @ 5:04PM
Don't hold your breath, nathan.
avafromtexas| 9.19.12 @ 5:04PM
Nick, you are one hateful poster as evidenced by every post from you I've seen so far. This last one of yours and the previous one really makes someone want to seriously consider your points.
All I see is the all-too-often youthful tendency these days in posting is to insult/call names which they think equals a discussion.
BTW, have YOU answered some of the posts above in answer to YOUR post?
What's good for goose........
Nick| 9.19.12 @ 8:19PM
I'm sorry you feel that way, Ava.
I don't see what is "hateful" in my comments.
Plus, do you know the history between myself and Nathan? I'm sure that you don't. So, you are commenting out of ignorance.
Deal with the facts that I laid out, above, and I will respond in kind. Then we can have a useful conversation, okay?
BShep| 9.19.12 @ 8:18AM
Wow, what a bunch of Optimists you interviewed!
I am 62 years old and “I think I’ll work until the day I can’t anymore, honestly, out of necessity. I don’t think [retirement] is going to exist the way it did for our grandparents.”
I know that Social Security will not be there for me if I could or should retire. I know that it will go away much sooner than you state (2035? I should be so lucky) in the article above.
How will it end? Inflation! Inflation! Inflation! QE 1, 2, 3, forever is just a fancy term for inflation. The people running the government know that they will never be able to tax the country enough to pay all of the obligations they imposed in order to get reelected. Their solution is inflation. At 66 I can retire with full social security. At 70 (or sooner) my social security check will be enough to allow me to buy cat food for dinner, but only on Thanksgiving and Christmas. I can forget about ever affording gasoline.
Inflation is coming, closely followed by war, disease, pestilence and chaos. Invest in gold, silver and lead. God be with us all.
Hell, maybe I am the optimist. Perhaps I should be investing in food, water and lead.
RJ| 9.19.12 @ 9:16AM
Good article, Matt.
I think the key is your comment that Millennials "can’t quite abandon the idea of entitlements." While their experiences will make it hard to deny the failure of government programs, no reform is possible until the dependency mind set is changed back to one of self-reliance. People have to learn that giving more power to a corrupt government is not the answer.
Admittedly, Social Security sounded good originally. It was viewed by many as a forced savings program, needed because too few people saved for their retirement years. But we have since learned that government is even worse at saving. It collected Social Security surpluses for decades and when the demands came in, government had already spent the surplus and was $16 trillion in debt.
Social Security illustrates one of my political observations - Any government social engineering program, no matter how pristine in its formation, will be screwed up by government in a short period of time and you are left with a much bigger, intractable problem than what you started out with.
Von Mises Jr| 9.19.12 @ 9:22AM
Trumka is a communist and a thug, not an economist. If the youth listen to him, they do not deserve to have liberty. Liberty is earned, not a given.
Social Security is already a full blown Ponzi scheme. The Fund consists of trillions in IOU's from the government. The money coming out of paychecks NOW, pays for benefits NOW.
The 2033 date is some sort of fiction probably assuming that the government will repay the trillions before that date, and it will still be unsustainable since their won't be enough workers to pay anywhere near what was promised to the then retired.
At an average of $50K income, both sides (12.4%) Social Security tax comes to $6,200 per year. If you work 40 years you pay $248K and the youth will get nothing back.
This is the lesson the youth should take away when Obama stole $716B from Medicare Premiums and gives it to slouches and illegal aliens.
He said again last night (see Drudge) that he wants to redistribute your wealth. All things considered, maybe it is not so bad not having a good job?
JP| 9.19.12 @ 10:39AM
This is a problem that is purely one of statistics and demogrpahics. Even in a healthy and growing economy, society needs to average about 3.5 to 4.5 children per female in order to pay for the intergeneration income transfers that we currently demand. Birthrates during the Baby Boom peaked at 3.5 children per female in 1960. They began to plunge shortly thereafter. At their nadir in the 1970s, Baby Boomer birthrate fell to 1.4 children per female. They recovered to the 1.7 to 2.0 range during the 1990s and 2000s. In short, there just are not enough young people with decent incomes to maintain the inter-generation income transfers without a) large tax increases and or b)massive borrowing, or c)cuts in benefits.
Social Security was always engineered to be a pay-as-you-go entitlement. That is, the current crop of retirees would be subsidized by the younger employed workers. However, it has been advertised as a "lock-box" entitlement where people have accounts and such. To make matters worse, Congress spent excess Social Security dollars during boom years.
Enchanted| 9.19.12 @ 11:30AM
Here is how I figure it. I have been paying into social security since I was 16. So when I retire at 62 (a few years away), I will have paid into the system for 46 years. I have no compunction in taking that money . It is NOT an entitlement; I have paid faithfully into the system and it is MY money that I will be using.
Alej| 9.19.12 @ 12:33PM
And here's the good news, Enchanted... your SS receipts, payback of money that was involuntarily taken from you all your working life, will be TAXED AS ORDINARY INCOME if you choose to work after your eligibility date.
So all those whining "Millennial" brats who overwhelmingly voted for Obama can receive early welfare. To hell with them.
JP| 9.19.12 @ 1:03PM
But, that's not the way the program was designed or passed into law. For the last 45 years you've paid into a system that paid for your grand parents and parents retirement. You've not paid a nickle into your own retirement. That would be the job of YOUR children. If you have no children, then your nieghbor's children would support you ( along with their own parents). In 1937, there were 40 workers per retiree. Now, with the additional entitlement loads (ie COLA) as well as disabilty benefits, less than 4 workers support each retiree. Soon, it will be 2.
Congress and past Presidents sold the Americans a raw bill of goods. In the distant past the children supported their elderly parents. The more children, the better it was for the parents. Social Security broke that connection. We will find out very soon just how bankrupt our system is. Good luck with your retirement- enjoy it while it lasts.
LindaF | 9.19.12 @ 3:27PM
The no-child types both benefited from more disposable income in their working years, but, once retired, will benefit from the money and time I put into raising my children, who will then support them.
Do us parents get a major "thank you"?
lsudolemite| 9.19.12 @ 1:24PM
And this is why we will never get traction on SS reform right up until the day the entire thing collapses. Boomers will accept nothing less than what they paid in, and they don't care who foots the bill. Someone is going to get screwed, and everyone wants to pass that buck.
Enchanted| 9.19.12 @ 1:53PM
I am betting that if you paid in for 46 years, which if you add it up, is a huge amount of money you would want it back too. - and as Alej stated I had NO choice in the matter. So from what I understand I am selfish for wanting back what I have earned the last 46 years AND oh by the way the government has been using interest free? I don't think so.
lsudolemite| 9.19.12 @ 2:25PM
Interesting. So if I get mugged on the street today and have my cash and credit cards stolen, then I'm justified in robbing the next random person I meet in order to get my money back.
I'm simply stating the truth, whether it's uncomfortable for you or not. Which is that real reform is impossible with this intractable mentality. As with so many other things, it all comes down to whose ox is being gored.
keypenitreal| 9.19.12 @ 6:20PM
Like JP said- that is not the way SS was designed. You don't get "your" money "back". You paid money into SS as a tax- that money became property of the SSA. It is not your money anymore so you can not get it "back".
The SSA has plans to pay benefits- but they do not owe them to you just because you paid taxes. If SS is running out of money they are under no obligation to give you money.(or any of us)
The idea that it is "your money" is just plain wrong. Morally and logically I agree with you. Unfortunately our Federal Government is often neither of those. Factually the money(or lack of it) is the SSA's and if they don't have it- tough.
What you describe is privatized retirment accounts. SS is public entitlements. Personally I don't like SS either and would jump at the chance to let them keep everything I have paid in so far if I could stop being taxed in the future. But as a society we have chosen to keep these programs.
As a side question- Since you seem to consider it a personal account would you have a problem with SS if they paid you every penny you paid into it over 46 years, but not a penny more?
Slacker| 9.19.12 @ 11:55AM
This is so sad. A millennial author talks of his generation slowly waking up but he misses the forest from the trees.
The debt and entitlements are small fish. Boomers are the generation that rejected liberty and individualism. Of all the problems the boomers will hand down, the most awful will be an authoritarian government. The millennial generation will never know what has been lost.
The best thing for a millennial to do is not have children. Best not to have any obligations when the American Empire collapses and the barbarians roll up.
JP| 9.19.12 @ 1:05PM
A society can have small, planned families. A society can also provide generous entitlements and other income transfers. However, it cannot have both.
aquanomics| 9.19.12 @ 2:11PM
Every chance we get we should laugh at and mock the younger generations. The OWS generation, the ACORN generation, etc..... have been voting left their short, blindered, liberal idiot lives and need to see - or not see, as it were - the fruits of their misbegotten labor.
If there's to be any hope for them they need to wake up and for vote reform.
wolf| 9.19.12 @ 2:19PM
ahhh...is that mad max is see coming our way...
it can all fall apart in a matter of hours..not years months or days...
in los angeles...in the 90's there was a large earth quake...hours after..almost every supermarket was emptied..gas stations, banks were closed...if you didnt have cash you were SOL..today being that many depend on cellphones/computers etc to connect to life in order to function..all that ends with the pull of one plug...panic is one thing that cannot be reasoned with..and it spreads with the speed of light..
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 3:02PM
This editorial didn't seem to mention/indicate the current employments of these individuals commenting on this subject, but instead it was their gripping/bitching/drinking etc that stood out like s sore thumb. No jobs? Duh, I guess not when these little excrements vote for BHO due to their collective stupidity! Is this another right of government welfare to them? Do they not understand that one has to work and pay its taxiation for a lifetime in order to be qualified for the right of SS collection at 65? It may also surprise them to learn that several $trillion has been stolen [ie borrowed] by the governmental welfare providers [ie Democrats] over the years since SS was enacted. IOW, those $trillions were transferred from the SS trust fund so that the government could pay welfare to the indigents of this country [ie food stamps, affordable homes/rent supplements/utilities subsidizations etc]. SS can be fixed by tweeks such as raising age requirements, uncapping income limitations, etc but it will still require rightfully that future recipients pay SS taxiation by working a full lifetime for ages 20-65 before colleting same. Additionally these snot-nosers had better get their heads our of their other-ends and cease voting for Democrats so that Republicans can repair the SS system etc over time!!!!!!!!!!!
Alej| 9.19.12 @ 5:51PM
Excellent analysis plus sobriquets, sir !
keypenitreal| 9.19.12 @ 6:48PM
Their employment status is irrelevant. Whether the younger generation should foot the bill for the older generation's retirement is the question. Seeing as the younger generation won't get anything back I don't see it as their obligation.
These "snot nosed, griping bitching kids" you talk about could vote in 1 election- which means even if you pin the entire Obama debt on them(including current SS deficits and Medicare) they are still only responsible for 1/3 of the debt. Your generation has spent a life time not paying your debts and passing the bill on to future generations. 10 trillion of debt existed before young voters could vote. I don't think we have actually run a surplus since WWII.
The younger generation can work until they are 80 and still probably won't get anything. I am mid 30s and so far have worked at least one job since I was 16, at times two or three jobs. I don't even consider SS as a posibility when looking at retirement. Under the rosiest of circumstances the best we can expect is to get pennies on the dollar compared to SS taxes paid.
You cannot "repair" a ponzi scheme. Your best hope is to try and suck the system dry and screw over future generations. Go for it, I can't blame you for it. But you do not have a "right
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 10:00PM
"foot the bill for the older generation's retirement"? I worked constantly for one employer for 35 years and PAID SS TAXIATION [if I had not been forced into SS, the alternative investment of this taxiation amount would have resulted in my quadraupling the meager SS check I now receive; plus re-read the part of his editorial that states the government granting the recipients' rights to SS after rightfully paying into same]. "Their employment status is irrelevant" is asinine. How the hell will they have retirement income IF THEY NOW HAVE NO JOB IN WHICH TO EARN THE MONEY TO PAY FOR SAME [so their employment status is highly essential]? They should get off their lazy butts and get a job/work like my generation did. Stop defining "stupidly" SS as a ponzi scheme when it is in fact a defined benefit saving/retirement type account by the government which forces individuals to work and pay into a saving vehicle for their own retirement. Unless you are capable of properly financing your own private retirement through employer retirement accounts, investments etc, I'd suggest you take advantage of SS!!!!!
merlin| 9.20.12 @ 5:12AM
Oldefart, all valid points, good arguments, but the system is flawed. It will collapse. Or more likely, since congress borrowed 16 trillion that it has promised that comming generations will pay back, the value of the money we receive will inflate to near nothing. Not much we can do about it, but properly apportion the blame between the evil party and the stupid party, AND VOTE OUT AND/OR EXECUTE THE CULPABLE.
I can think of one potential benefit of having 16 trillion in debt. We could put signs along the Mexican border: "Step across this line and you owe $50,000 and growing as your share of the US national debt."
Are there some other benefits?
Oldefarte| 9.20.12 @ 8:10PM
True, but it's fixable. Over-generalized, seriously cut government employment, merge departments and block-grant some to states; outlaw municipal unionization; force government repayment of the $trillions stolen from SS while eliminating the income cap on taxiation and raising slightly the benefit age requirement to 67-68; institute the Ryan Plan on Medicare while cutting benefit coverages; block grant Medicaid back to the states; thoroughly close the souther border and uncover, ID and monitor illegals residency terms; eliminate governmental welfare except for the elderly etc over ten years; eliminate foreign and farm aid etc; and eliminate the Dept of Ed and return its authority back to states!!!!
biomedlives| 9.22.12 @ 8:38PM
"...the alternative investment of this taxiation amount would have resulted in my quadraupling the meager SS check.." Of course, you would have moved all your alternative investment to Treasury bonds before the 2008 meltdown, thus avoiding the decline in the value of investments recommended by the masters of the universe on Wall Street.
cuban pete| 9.19.12 @ 3:10PM
In the Eighties, Dan Rostenkowski, Chicago Democrat and chair of House Ways & Means, emerged from a hearing and assured everybody that SS was solvent and we were not to worry.
Any time a Democrat tells you something is OK,especially with money, DO THE OPPOSITE!! The next day I started IRA's for my wife and me.
We also tucked away other funds as much as possible. I put my kids through college but we never went to Disneyland or blew money on nonsense.
In any event because we conducted ourselves somewhat prudently we now have some money tucked away to retire.
My fear now is if Goofy gets reelected the value of my retirement investments will dive.
But I have worked since I was eleven years old and I have been blessed to have landed in the US of A so I'll do what I have to do.
PS
My understanding is SS was never intended as a retirement program.
theyjustcantstop| 9.19.12 @ 3:26PM
i stared working part-time in high school,1966,started full-time work in 1969,started collecting ss disability,at age 60,i will not get out of ss what i paid in,but thats just my personal health.
my wife has a similar work history,shes healthy as a horse,could live to be a 100,she will collect what both of us contributed several times over.
it amazes me college graduates with such limited knowledge of money,let alone economics.
for the last thirty yrs. in the work-force i warned dozens of younger workers about ss,and it's short commings,i felt it some sort of moral duty,because i knew even if they did'nt,they were the ones that were going to get shafted.
good article about the future of ss,but just can't let the dismal future of ss go with letting the politicians get a pass on their,my opinion(fraudulant handling of the trust fund).
if i was an educated college student i would be outraged,75%-80% of o'bama's stops are at college campuses,where he knows the majority of students have not gotten a pay check,or have had no real life money responsiblities,and gets them in a frenzy for free government programs.
the college grads. from 2008 until probably 2014,will soon find out how exspensive all these free things are,the most exspensive thing they will lose is their personal financial freedom.
The Avenger| 9.19.12 @ 3:28PM
And yet the polls show the youth overwhelmingly supporting Barrack Obama. If, as the author states the Millennials are waking up, they better be fast about it. The time is running short and so is the money.
Ronsch| 9.19.12 @ 4:39PM
Matt,
A couple of problems...besides folks just blaming their grandparents (and as far as SS funding "lavish" lifestyles, I am not sure that $1300.00 which is my mothers SS disability after her working is "lavish") is not going to cut it.
It was the .gov's fault...The idea behind SS as described by both my grandparents and my father was that SS was to be paid into by the employee and then upon retirement, the payout was only equal to what was paid in divided by how ever long the money would be there for. In addition, many of my grandparents generation simply expected to get that SS money in one lump sum of WHAT THEY PAID IN and then it was up to them to budget or re-invest it.
It morphed into the monster it is now because the .gov raided it and filled it with IOUS and are expecting a pay forward to support the benefits.
scubadude| 9.19.12 @ 7:11PM
I'm a little late with this comment but here goes. Recently went to the SS office to straighten out a typical problem and waited for 3 hrs to explain situation.
While waiting struck up a conversation with late 40 year old next to me who was there to find out why the checks for his and his son's disability were late. He told me he was a painter and had driven to the office and was missing work. His disability? LEGALLY BLIND! Maybe we should check and purge the roles of all those receiving benifits that were never conceived of to see where the program is really at. I'm 67 and I paid my SS taxes, matched my contribution (self employed) and matched the contributions of my 20-30 employees for over 40 years.
Alej| 9.19.12 @ 9:25PM
"There’s an economy for us to rebuild, a $16 trillion national debt for us to pay down, and a burgeoning student loan bubble. "
A burgeoning "student loan" bubble. God damn.
Entitlement wimps. Nobody I know, NOBODY, I went to school with, had a friggin' LOAN to get through college with. They worked like I did at the Sears warehouse, or the Red Ball Motor Freight docks unto exhaustion, if necessary, to pay tuition, room and board. And if that didn't cover it, we laid a semester out in the South Louisiana oil fields, busting our asses, to pay for the next semester.
You punks wouldn't have made it in Old America, 50 years ago, or earlier. We did, and we, along with our forbears, made the America you snivel in.
Get Fckd.
Alej| 9.19.12 @ 9:32PM
By the way, you whining little excement, a great many of us went to Viet Nam for our country after graduating from college - several of my contemporaries and two of my fraternity brothers were killed there. And you, and your whining buddies, wouldn't understand that, would you.
Because you, less and except our great kids on active duty now, wouldn't make a pimple on the ass of the Americans that used to be.
Oldefarte| 9.19.12 @ 10:51PM
Alej: THANK YOU FOR YOUR MILITARY SERVICE to me, my family, and to this country. You and yours are the USA and we all owe you a huge debt of gratitude!!!!!!!!!
eloris| 10.8.12 @ 9:06PM
Lol, and then you went home and voted for LBJ, who handed such fat wads of cash to colleges that they could afford to increase their tuition until it was pure, flat fantasy to imagine paying for it by working at the "Sears warehouse".
merlin| 9.20.12 @ 4:42AM
No pension, public or private, should be anything other than the money in the account. Anything else is a promise that someone else will pay.
We all know that this stupid system is unsustainable. You may thank the best and the brightest for that. And you may also thank them for the 16 trillion and growing debt. Something has got to give.