I don't like Baby Boomers Either

[GuyFawkes38]

If your between the ages of 50-70, I don't like you.

I couldn't care less about the 60's, MLK, Dylan, The Beatles, Hendrix, hippies, and Vietnam. I don't want to hear about it. Instead, I will play my Wii.

PLUS, THERE ARE WAY TOO MANY OF YOU. Yes, this is your parents fault. Regardless, it's about time we cut all government services to you.

Ok, so I don't like kids and Baby Boomers. Deal with it.


Edit: I was drunk when I wrote this. but i stand by my claim about kids and Cintas

[boozehound]

What the hell is wrong with you????

[Stonebreaker]

Thank goodness I'm not 50. :)

[joebba]

Hell, I am not a baby boomer and I like a lot of the music you mention.

I do understand your government services concern becuase they will likely drive social security to the grave before any of us see one penny from social security.

I don't hate baby boomers.

[boozehound]

Hell, I am not a baby boomer and I like a lot of the music you mention.

I do understand your government services concern becuase they will likely drive social security to the grave before any of us see one penny from social security.

I don't hate baby boomers.

I don't really blame the baby boomers for social security, I blame the government more than anybody else.

[AdamtheFlyer]

I hate (presumably) grown men who have a Wii. Do you have a poodle named Fluffy, too?

[GuyFawkes38]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to prefer to play a wii than listen to some baby boomer talk about the 60's.


And Bob Dylan sucks. Period. There's no question about that. Beatles are okay though.

[muskienick]

I am between 50 and 70 years old and, based on the posts from Guy that I have read, I am pleased that I am in his hated group. Anyone who expresses the opinions he has must have more than a few screws loose. Ergo, using slightly less than good Aristotelian logic:

GuyFawkes38 expresses stupid takes in his posts.
Guy has posted that he hates people who are from 50 to 70 years of age.
Ergo...
It is stupid to hate people who are from 50 to 70 years of age

[GuyFawkes38]

Maybe I'm too tough on baby boomers. Yeah, the 60's were actually wonderful. A lot of great stuff happened. America turned into a Utopia. Way to go. Your generation really stepped up.

I challenge Tom Brokaw. The greatest generation was actually the baby boomers.

And Dylan was so awesome.

[muskiegirl9]

I want to applaud muskienick because I agree with his logic. It is an absolutely moronic statement to say you hate people between the ages of 50 and 70. I know many wonderful people between those ages and if Guy would open up his narrow little mind he too would see that. But then again this is coming from the same Guy that doesn't want kids at the Cintas center!

[boozehound]

Maybe I'm too tough on baby boomers. Yeah, the 60's were actually wonderful. A lot of great stuff happened. America turned into a Utopia. Way to go. Your generation really stepped up.

I challenge Tom Brokaw. The greatest generation was actually the baby boomers.

And Dylan was so awesome.

Holy 180's Batman!

[wkrq59]

Guy,
First, a question? Do you pronounce Guy as in nice guy or do you pronounce it as Guy as in Guy LeFleur or Guy Charboneau? It's important for us old folks to know, that's why,.
Now that we've cleared that up, does being 71 & 3/4 get me a pass? Didn't think so.
Yes, I'm on Social Security and damn happy about it because I earned it.
I was born in the 30s, raised by struggling survivors -of the -depression parents during WWII, cut my teeth on Xavier football in the late 40s early 50s, learned about the joys of Xavier basketball in the early 50s and married the most beautiful girl in the world in 1963.
Don't know if I qualify as a Baby Boomer and frankly, Guy, I don't give a two-ten-tinkers damn. And I don't mind kids in Cintas. Why should anyone have to wait to see the palace of hoops in Cincinnati?
I have seen things in my world that neither my father nor my mother could have imagined, thinks like the internet, chat rooms, God-love-em cell phones, which now I couldn't imagine being without and which I hate to see held to drivers ears as they come into a turn I'm driving out of.
I've lived to see and be proud of two grown kids and have a chance to look back on all they've provided me. And a grandson to boot.
I've lived to see "Give 'em Hell Harry," and Ike and the Camelot of John Kennedy which ended all too soon. I've survived the bad advice taken by LBJ, the disgrace of Nixon, a pitiful, egotistical man. I've lived to see a misunderstood Ford, an even more misunderstood Carter and glory be, an actor president, I've seen fellatio between the bushes and God only knows what awaits me in the next few years.
Yes, I've lived to see many things I hoped I'd never see and many things I'm delighted to have seen.
So if I'm a Baby Boomer, good for me. If you think ill of me, sorry for you. If I'm not a Baby Boomer but a precursor or forerunner, better for me.
Whatever classification I fall into, I've just one thing to say to you, Guy, "Strike this mother f----- out.":D

[Xman95]

Whatever classification I fall into, I've just one thing to say to you, Guy, "Strike this mother f----- out.":D

What an odd thread. Guy goes off on baby boomers, then 180's and loves them. Retorts from people who still get upset by Guy instead of just ignoring his posts, which usually seem to have been typed while his tongue was firmly planted in his cheek (of course, some might say his head was firmly planted between his cheeks). And, the topper of this whole thing, Q wraps up a post by quoting "Major League."

Add this thread to the list of odd sh!t I've seen in my life.

[Snipe]

I don't really blame the baby boomers for social security, I blame the government more than anybody else.


You can blame the Government, but it is largely Baby Boomers in the government.

If you were to not blame the government, which generation would you blame. The answer is obvious, it is the baby boomers themselves. They hold political power, they are the most ardent voting block, and they knew this was coming. They didn't do much about it.

No generation has sacrificed less and demanded more than the Baby Boomer generation.

[XUglow]

You can blame the Government, but it is largely Baby Boomers in the government.

If you were to not blame the government, which generation would you blame. The answer is obvious, it is the baby boomers themselves. They hold political power, they are the most ardent voting block, and they knew this was coming. They didn't do much about it.

No generation has sacrificed less and demanded more than the Baby Boomer generation.

Gee, let's don't let facts get in the way of your thought process, Snipe. Boomers have paid more and gotten less back from the government of any generation ever. Look it up. Current estimates run at 74 cents returned in services for every dollar paid. What is going to happen is that it is going to be painful for the government when the Boomers stop becoming a source of income for the government. We have been a hugely profitable group for the government. Again, look it up. The last statement on your post is just plain wrong.

It is a bit unfair to talk about Boomers and social security as anything other than a future event since the oldest of the Boomers are only 62, and very, very few of them have retired. Those that are retiring early are only getting a small percentage of what they will get if they wait until 66 or even 70 to retire. The Boomers are still cash positive for the government. Besides, it wasn't the Boomers that changed Social Security from retirement to a full-scale social services network. That happened a long time ago. It wasn't the Boomers that started using Social Security funds to help balance the budget.

Like most Boomers, I am not counting on Social Security to cover me in my golden years. The long term numbers don't look good, so I am sure that adjustments in payouts will be made to make sure that the Boomers don't make it too hard on the people that follow. On the face of it, it doesn't seem fair, but it is what it is.

[wkrq59]

Add this thread to the list of odd sh!t I've seen in my life--Xman95<
<
I thought so, too but couldn't resist. BTW, What a great life you have had.:D

[DC Muskie]

I liked the Major League quote.

[Kahns Krazy]

Like most Boomers, I am not counting on Social Security to cover me in my golden years. The long term numbers don't look good, so I am sure that adjustments in payouts will be made to make sure that the Boomers don't make it too hard on the people that follow. On the face of it, it doesn't seem fair, but it is what it is.

Actually, the long term numbers look fine. Once the boomers die off, the pyramid scheme that is social security returns to normal.

Retirement age should have been adjusted years ago. It needs to be legislated that the retirement age, at least for social security purposes, be tied to actuary tables for life expectancy.

[GuyFawkes38]

This is how a typical conversation goes between a baby boomer coworker and myself:

Guy: If some social security and Medicare benefits aren't scaled back, the costs could impede future US GDP growth.

Coworker: Why is that? I've paid social security and Medicare taxes my whole life. I should get the same benefits as the previous generation.

Guy: Its not that simple. It's a pay as you go system with current workers paying for those currently receiving the money. Because the baby boomer generation was so large, they actually were burdened less with costs.

Coworker: That's great.

Guy: But then it's not quite fair for baby boomers to receive those benefits of being a large demographic group, and yet not be burdened with any of the costs when they retire.

Coworker: I've paid taxes my whole life. Your generation is going to have to deal with the costs.


And it goes on and on like that. the key word is DEMOGRAPHICS. Of course, there needs to be more transparency in both social security and medicare. If there was, maybe the soon to be retired out there would realize how much they are screwing over future generations.

[XUglow]

This is how a typical conversation goes between a baby boomer coworker and myself:

Guy: If some social security and Medicare benefits aren't scaled back, the costs could impede future US GDP growth.

Coworker: Why is that? I've paid social security and Medicare taxes my whole life. I should get the same benefits as the previous generation.

Guy: Its not that simple. It's a pay as you go system with current workers paying for those currently receiving the money. Because the baby boomer generation was so large, they actually were burdened less with costs.

Coworker: That's great.

Guy: But then it's not quite fair for baby boomers to receive those benefits of being a large demographic group, and yet not be burdened with any of the costs when they retire.

Coworker: I've paid taxes my whole life. Your generation is going to have to deal with the costs.


And it goes on and on like that. the key word is DEMOGRAPHICS. Of course, there needs to be more transparency in both social security and medicare. If there was, maybe the soon to be retired out there would realize how much they are screwing over future generations.

Guy, the historic pull of social security from salaries has run at roughly 90%. That means that 10% of all salaries paid went beyond the cap. That level has dropped to 80% in recent years. That means that the government hasn't raised the upper limits as fast as salaries have grown. The government says that Social Security is solvent until 2041. AARP, for one, generally agrees with their numbers.

It would be possible to balance the books through 2 methods. 1) Slow the rate of spending -- which seems to be what you are suggesting. 2) Return the input rate back to the historic level of 90% of salaries -- which is what AARP is recommending.

The vast majority of Americans have a salary that would be totally unaffected by maintaining the payment rate at 90% of all salaries. In short, you wouldn't pay more unless you made more to pay in more, and your generation wouldn't pay more than has been historically paid into the system by previous generations.

[GuyFawkes38]

Come on now XU Glow (Edit: I also meant to say that medicare will be a much more serious problem than social security, although social security creates problems by making it easier for people to retire and no longer contribute to GDP).

It's complete BS to think that even if Payroll taxes stay the same, the country won't be ill affected.

Here are the scenarios:

1. Payroll taxes increase. Well, that's transparently bad for workers. I like transparency. That would likely piss people off (something ARP doesn't want) and encourage drawbacks. SO I HOPE PAYROLL TAXES INCREASE.

2. The federal government goes into an increased rate of debt. This is a hidden tax. As my old economics professor would say, "government debt is a tax increase".

3. The government makes cuts to different programs. I'm not a fan of providing hospital care and retirement benifits for wealthy 75 year olds instead of strengthening the military, aid for the poor, future infrastructure. IN GENERAL THE FUTURE.


THE BOTTOM LINE: THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. YOU CAN'T JUST PROVIDE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE AND RETIREMENT BENIFITS FOR A LARGE PERCENTEGE OF THE POPULATION AND NOT EXPECT SOME SERIOUS COSTS.

[XUglow]

Guy, are you saying 1, 2, or 3 or are you saying 1, 2, and 3?

#1 is what AARP is proposing. That is not transparently bad for any worker whose salary is below $97,500 this year. That cap is raised on a regular basis. AARP is merely suggesting that it go high enough now to capture 90% of the salaries the way the government used to do it until the end of the 20th century. The AARP is also proposing extra incentives to encourage people to stay in the work force beyond 70. At the moment, there are 3 basic cut-off levels for payments: 62, 66, and 70. They would like to see an extra level at 74 or so. While not required, a large number of people would stay in the work force if allowed to do so. In order to help keep older people in the work force, the AARP is also suggesting that the government adopt even tighter age discrimination laws.

[MADXSTER]

Geez, Can we just get back to hating baby boomers. Come on guys. There's enough hate to go around for everyone, isn't there?

[GuyFawkes38]

My fault. I must have misread your post.

And I completely agree with you on the points above which you outlined that AARP supports. There's no doubt that AARP is an important organization.

I guess what bothers me about Medicare and Social Security is that they should really just be a restricted safety net for the very poor.

Right now it looks like we will have a situation in which there will be a massive financial transfer from those who need resources for future investments (those in their 20's, 30's and 40's for education and other stuff). And those financial resources will go into the hands of a lot of people who don't need them .

Like I said before, being a larger demographic group lightened the burden placed on the baby boomers. Plus, quite naturally, those older have more financial resources than the younger. And the younger will need those resources more than the older.

I guess the bottom line for me is that a financial transfer to social security and medicare (in its present state) doesn't make sense (except for those in abject poverty).

[Kahns Krazy]

.....
Right now it looks like we will have a situation in which there will be a massive financial transfer from those who need resources for future investments (those in their 20's, 30's and 40's for education and other stuff). And those financial resources will go into the hands of a lot of people who don't need them .

Like I said before, being a larger demographic group lightened the burden placed on the baby boomers. Plus, quite naturally, those older have more financial resources than the younger. And the younger will need those resources more than the older.


(my ephasis),

Uhhhhh, what now? Seniors don't need financial resources? Can you really be that retarded? How exactly does it cost more to be young than old?

[Xman95]

How exactly does it cost more to be young than old?

Maybe baby diapers cost more than Depends.

[GuyFawkes38]

I have a great post on here somewhere on how Medicare is a waste of money.

Don't worry, some publisher out there will likely look up all my posts and make a book out of them. they are that brilliant.

[GuyFawkes38]

Ok, I'll spell it out for you here.

This sounds crude, but most economist would agree with me and are freaking out about it.


What does medicare, which is well intentioned, do. It gives a blank check to doctors to spend billions of dollars on health care, most of which won't help the elderly a bit.

That money would be MUCH BETTER spent on various needs which actually have a future rate of return (yes, attatching money to 20 year olds makes much more sense than attatching money to a 75 year old.


Edit: Yes, KahnsKrazy, it's likely that someone who has worked their entire life has more financial resources and less demands on those resources (education, housing, supporting family, etc). So why take money away from the 20-45 year old to purchase some health insurance for the 75 year olds.

Why do I even try?

[XUglow]

Ok, I'll spell it out for you here.

This sounds crude, but most economist would agree with me and are freaking out about it.


What does medicare, which is well intentioned, do. It gives a blank check to doctors to spend billions of dollars on health care, most of which won't help the elderly a bit.

That money would be MUCH BETTER spent on various needs which actually have a future rate of return (yes, attatching money to 20 year olds makes much more sense than attatching money to a 75 year old.


Edit: Yes, KahnsKrazy, it's likely that someone who has worked their entire life has more financial resources and less demands on those resources (education, housing, supporting family, etc). So why take money away from the 20-45 year old to purchase some health insurance for the 75 year olds.

Why do I even try?

You have much to learn.

Let's start with the fact that Social Security is insurance for young adults and their families. If you have kids and something happens to you, then your kids will have income to help them get to adulthood. You are so wrapped up with being against helping others that you are forgetting that you are paying this money for your own benefit.

If most economists agree with you, why don't you cite some references to back up your arguments. That should be easy to find if most agree with you.

There is no doubt that medical spending needs some cost constraints, but that spending does generate constantly improving health care. People are living longer and better lives because the health care system keeps improving. At your age, you should hope that the progress continues so you will live even longer than seniors of today. You will benefit from the money that is spent today. There is no way that you would want to go back to the health care provided in 1945 when the first Boomers were born.

So let's review. The young are paying money to insure that they are covered in case of disability and that their children are covered in case of their death. The money paid to help seniors today will help create improved techniques and treatments to help younger people live longer lives with an increased number of quality years. They money paid will help others.

[GuyFawkes38]

This is Ben Bernanke (who is respected by all sides), via the WA Post article titled "Bernanke: Baby Boomers will Strain US":


Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday the burden from retiring baby boomers will strain the nation's budget and economy, unless Social Security and Medicare are revamped.

"Reform of our unsustainable entitlement programs" should be a priority, Bernanke told the Washington Economic Club. "The imperative to undertake reform earlier rather than later is great."...

Bernanke said that as the population ages, the United States will have to choose among higher taxes, fewer dollars for other programs, lower spending on entitlement programs, and a sharply higher budget deficit --or some combination of all those.


article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401596.html

[GuyFawkes38]

Also, it looks like Bernanke prefers a cut in benifits rather than a raise in taxes:


"A large increase in tax rates would surely have adverse effects on a wide range of economic incentives, including the incentives to work and save, which would hamper economic performance."

That's from this speech:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/Bernanke20061004a.htm

[GuyFawkes38]

Also, this article is helpful and balanced:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/we_must_overhaul_medicare.html

The article is titled "Medical: The monster at our door":

Here's a quote:


If monster seems like rhetorical overkill, then recall what the aging baby boom does to government. Federal spending on the elderly is plausibly projected to double from 2000 to 2030 as a share of national income. About three-quarters of that increase will be health spending -- mostly Medicare, but also Medicaid (70 percent of Medicaid spending goes to the old and disabled). The projected increase in health spending exceeds all of today's discretionary domestic spending on schools, the FBI, the environment and much more. If the "aging problem'' involved only higher Social Security spending, we could handle it easily.

[GuyFawkes38]

I love reading blogs. For balance, this is from the blog of a left leaning economist who served in the Clinton Administration (just posted today):

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/05/cbos-long-term.html

From his reaction to the chart, he doesn't seem quite alarmed. But he should be. And some of those who commented expressed some alarm.

[GuyFawkes38]

I hate to double post the same material. I just want to leave it at this and let those who doubt the problems ahead comment:

This is Ben Bernanke (who is respected by all sides), via the WA Post article titled "Bernanke: Baby Boomers will Strain US":


Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said Wednesday the burden from retiring baby boomers will strain the nation's budget and economy, unless Social Security and Medicare are revamped.

"Reform of our unsustainable entitlement programs" should be a priority, Bernanke told the Washington Economic Club. "The imperative to undertake reform earlier rather than later is great."...

Bernanke said that as the population ages, the United States will have to choose among higher taxes, fewer dollars for other programs, lower spending on entitlement programs, and a sharply higher budget deficit --or some combination of all those.


article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401596.html

[GuyFawkes38]

This is it from me.

But here's a good summary of our future troubles via another blog source:

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/02/the_us_governme.html

This blog post clearly shows that economist on both the left and right are extremely worried.

[XUglow]

Wow. I just finished reading Bernanke's speech, and if you think he was advocating cutting services for seniors, you have some seriouis reading issues. The speech talks about the burden the Baby Boomers will create. We both agree on that point. He then goes into a cautionary tale about what will happen if we take NO preventative action to tackle what is on the horizon. He then goes through any number of scenarios and paints very drastic pictures with the choices that we confront through doing nothing. You are pulling his quotes out of context to support your argument.

To help your understanding, the speech is about his way of solving the problem of an aging population through increasing productivity of the American workforce. He wants people to cut down on consumption and increase savings, he wants businesses to actively keep Boomers in the work force, and he advocates better education... all of whcih will increase national productivity which will help us pay the bills.

[GuyFawkes38]

XUGlow, I think we basically agree on most points, along with Bernanke.

But I think we disagree on the policies needed to achieve those points. I believe that drastic cuts to social security and medicare services will be necessary (Of course, a safety net will need to be in place for those in poverty. Also coverage for catastrophic illness for all might be prudent).

I might be reading too much between the lines here, but I believe Bernanke calls for cuts in social security and medicare too in these lines:


Second, changes in the structure of entitlement programs should preserve or enhance the incentives to work and to save; for example, we should take care that benefits rules do not penalize those who may wish to work part-time after retirement.


I don't know any other way to read that. To give incentives to those nearing the retirement age to work more, you have to cut social security and medicare spending. I guess you could argue that the government can reduce taxes on workers above the age of 60 to encourage them to work. But I doubt the numbers would add up.

And Bernanke does state "entitlement programs", not changing the tax code. I personally believe Bernanke would never explicitly proclaim in a speech that their should be cuts in Social Security and Medicare. That just won't go over well politically. Plus, the Fed does not like to interfere much in government policies.

[GuyFawkes38]

Just one more note.

The ending paragraph by Bernanke nicely sums up my concerns:


From a broader economic perspective, the question is how the burden of an aging population is to be shared between our generation and the generations that will follow us. A failure on our part to prepare for demographic change will have substantial adverse effects on the economic welfare of our children and grandchildren and on the long-run productive potential of the U.S. economy.


Maybe I'm reading too much in between lines again, but I sense that Bernanke is basically saying:

"If we wanted to, us baby boomers have the political power to screw over the next two generations. But that's not fair. Changes need to be made to ensure fairness. Us baby Boomers must shoulder more responsibility than what will happen if the current policies stay in place when we retire. The welfare of the next two generations is at stake."

[XUglow]

I don't know any other way to read that.


I think we have finally gotten to the root of the problem. Bernanke wants increased productivity from the masses to help pay for social security. Among other things, he suggests that we change the rules so that we don't punish seniors who want to continue working so that they continue pumping money into the system, and you think it means cut social security and medicare. That is clearly a reading comprehension problem.

[Kahns Krazy]

Remember when Russel and John nailed those two MP's at Bernanke's house while he was away? What a riot. They didn't get home until 2 AM the morning of graduation. Who would have thought they'd be the kind of go-getters Bernanke wanted on the EM-50 project?

[X-band '01]

They only made it to his house because Bernarke owed him (Winger) money.

[GuyFawkes38]

Here is a quote from Congressional Budget Office (a source which now naturally leans left) of the bleak future we have if Medicare doesn't get cut:


Under current law, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security to rise substantially as a share of the economy....In response to your letter of May 15, 2008, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has prepared the attached analysis of the potential economic effects of...using higher income tax rates alone to finance the increases in spending....

With no economic feedbacks taken into account and under an assumption that raising marginal tax rates was the only mechanism used to balance the budget, tax rates would have to more than double. The tax rate for the lowest tax bracket would have to be increased from 10 percent to 25 percent; the tax rate on incomes in the current 25 percent bracket would have to be increased to 63 percent; and the tax rate of the highest bracket would have to be raised from 35 percent to 88 percent. The top corporate income tax rate would also increase from 35 percent to 88 percent.

Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion.

If my tax rate increases that much, I'm out of here. But I think when more people realize the costs of Medicare, there will be a demand to cut Medicare benefits.

I received the quote from this Harvard economist's blog:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2008/05/coming-tax-hike_19.html

[Snipe]

All About Me (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/all_about_me.html)


snipet-


-- The current Social Security system is unsustainable. But the baby boomers who gave us Botox aren't about to up the retirement age and freeze their own cost-of-living hikes to allow the cash-strapped next generation a little help in paying for our out-of-control benefits.

There is a pattern in all these dilemmas. And it is not conservative-versus-liberal politics, but generational chaos. Those who came of age in the 1960s now hold the reins of power and influence -- and we are starting to see why their values have worried almost everyone for nearly a half-century.

History has seen something like them before in the "blame them" years of Demosthenes' Athens, the self-indulgence of Julio-Claudian Rome, the "after me, the deluge" generation of late 18th-century France, the Gilded Age, and the Roaring Twenties.

What are the baby boomers' collective traits? Like all perpetual adolescents who suffer arrested development, we always want things both ways: Don't drill or explore for more energy, but nevertheless demand ever more fuel from other suppliers.

There are never bad and worse choices, but only a Never Never Land of good and even-better alternatives. Housing not only has to stay affordable for buyers, but also must appreciate in value to give instant equity to those who have just become owners.

[GuyFawkes38]

That's hilarious.

great find.

I think I've proven my point about baby boomers.

[GuyFawkes38]

I've got to hand it to him for financing this very astute, cerebral, and alarming chart presentation:

http://perotcharts.com/challenges/


The end of the presentation tries to be blunt, but fails. I'll be blunt now:

1. We must limit medicare health coverage.

2. To reduce the supply side of health care cost, the government must take on the monopolies of the AHA and the AMA. Reducing the artificial floors of health care workers' salaries will be necessary. If your a good doctor, you'll be fine.


One aspect of government spending which is not relevant: Pork barrel spending. It accounts for a tiny percentage of government spending.

Why do Republicans obsess about it? Medicare is the problem.

Here's the Money Shot:
http://img.skitch.com/20080502-xjeaidge2sc4kg3gn3f44c8t2m.jpg

[xu2006]

In an article on Peter Orszag getting political on health reform: (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124839406488477649.html#mod=todays_us_page_one)


At the CBO, his focus on health-care costs drew some criticism. Last year, when he was still the organization's director, he called Andrew Biggs of the conservative American Enterprise Institute into his office to dispute a paper Mr. Biggs had written. Mr. Biggs argued -- and still does -- that the aging population, not health care, is the biggest driver of the federal deficit

[Cheesehead]

I don't like any of Guy's posts. :p

[muskienick]

I would be anxious to read a post by Guy that began "I like..." unless it ended with the highly predictable "...to write posts about things I don't like."

[GuyFawkes38]

What a great thread.

Xu2006 and Orzsag are 100% correct.

So why not reform Medicare instead of the whole health care system?

[GuyFawkes38]

BTW, I remember Kahns talking about how he doesn't take projections too seriously. But it does seem like most economist take them seriously.

from this thread, this washington post article discusses Ben Bernanke's stress about medicare:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100401596.html

[Fred Garvin]

I just finished Joe Queenan's attack on Baby Boomers, "Balsamic Dreams", and it made me think of Guy's best diatribe.

[GuyFawkes38]

I just finished Joe Queenan's attack on Baby Boomers, "Balsamic Dreams", and it made me think of Guy's best diatribe.

Thanks. And I'll be sure to read that.

[Kahns Krazy]

BTW, I remember Kahns talking about how he doesn't take projections too seriously. But it does seem like most economist take them seriously.



If you care at all about remembering accurately, you'll remember that I was referring to projections that are 70 years out. Such as the hundreds of studies done in the 1970's, all of which say we have by now exhausted the entire world supply of oil.

[GuyFawkes38]

Boom goes the Greek economy. I can't stop thinking to myself how ridiculously selfish and irresponsible the Greek citizens are.

But here in the US we also have a similar group of people. They are called baby boomers.

[bobbiemcgee]

Got my early retirement SS funds today. Having a Long Island Ice tea down on the Beach. Thx Guys. Keep working hard.

[GuyFawkes38]

Got my early retirement SS funds today. Having a Long Island Ice tea down on the Beach. Thx Guys. Keep working hard.

it's not really SS that's the major problem. It's medicare. So you can enjoy that drink guilt free.

[GuyFawkes38]

Expect to see a lot of this in the future.

The worst generation ever, baby boomers, is pushing to increase the social security age for people my age (under 40) but not reducing a bit of the benefits for themselves:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/republicans-and-democrats-endorse-major-changes-to-social-security.php


Is there a new, bipartisan consensus forming on Capitol Hill about whether (and how) to scale back Social Security benefits? A surprising number of signs point to "yes" -- and that has many progressives looking ahead a few months to what they believe could become a serious fight.

Several of the most powerful members of the House -- Republicans and Democrats -- have recently voiced real support for the idea of raising the retirement age for people middle-aged and younger as part of a larger plan to reduce long-term deficits, inching closer to what not too long ago was the third rail of American politics.

The strongest backer of this plan is House Minority Leader John Boehner, who recently told a Pennsylvania newspaper, "I think raising the retirement age going out 20 years so you're not affecting anyone close to retirement, and eventually getting the retirement age to 70 is a step that needs to be taken."

Let me just add this. John Boehner is a hack. He cares nothing about balancing budgets or fairness.

Of course, we hear a lot of big talk from him. But he won't touch anything that affects the AARP crowd (including medicare, the big problem).

[SixFig]

If you are still planning on relying on social security benefits in this day and age you are sadly sadly misinformed.

By the time I reach retirement age in forty or so years social security will exist only in the history books.

[GuyFawkes38]

If you are still planning on relying on social security benefits in this day and age you are sadly sadly misinformed.

By the time I reach retirement age in forty or so years social security will exist only in the history books.

Don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone should rely on social security.

I'm just saying that anytime the government needs to reduce benefits or increases taxes, it's best to do that to the broadest base of people possible so no group of people is disproportionately affected. Indeed, the government shouldn't just increase taxes for those west of the Mississippi. Yes, that would add revenue but it wouldn't be the right thing to do.

But most baby boomers believe they shouldn't be hit with any of the benefit reductions. Because there are so many of them, they can unfairly hit those under 40 with the benefit reductions. They have the political power to tweak the system to their advantage.

And yeah, John Boehner is a fraud.

[Juice]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone should rely on social security.

I'm just saying that anytime the government needs to reduce benefits or increases taxes, it's best to do that to the broadest base of people possible so no group of people is disproportionately affected. Indeed, the government shouldn't just increase taxes for those west of the Mississippi. Yes, that would add revenue but it wouldn't be the right thing to do.

But most baby boomers believe they shouldn't be hit with any of the benefit reductions. Because there are so many of them, they can unfairly hit those under 40 with the benefit reductions. They have the political power to tweak the system to their advantage.

And yeah, John Boehner is a fraud.

The Baby Boomers are happy to just pass the problems on to the next generation, and then they call us lazy and spoiled. Not to say we aren't but look in a mirror.

[boozehound]

Don't get me wrong. I don't think anyone should rely on social security.

I'm just saying that anytime the government needs to reduce benefits or increases taxes, it's best to do that to the broadest base of people possible so no group of people is disproportionately affected. Indeed, the government shouldn't just increase taxes for those west of the Mississippi. Yes, that would add revenue but it wouldn't be the right thing to do.

But most baby boomers believe they shouldn't be hit with any of the benefit reductions. Because there are so many of them, they can unfairly hit those under 40 with the benefit reductions. They have the political power to tweak the system to their advantage.

And yeah, John Boehner is a fraud.


Unfortunately, IMHO, the only thing that politicians care about is getting reelected. They don't give a rip what happens to the country 20 years from now as long as they can keep their jobs. They don't want to alienate a large group of voters like the Baby Boomers by cutting benefits to them, so they don't. That is a big part of why nothing ever gets done in washington. Politicians campaigning 24/7/365 afraid to make tough decisions.

[Kahns Krazy]

If you are still planning on relying on social security benefits in this day and age you are sadly sadly misinformed.

By the time I reach retirement age in forty or so years social security will exist only in the history books.

This just isn't true. It's not a bad mentality to take when planning your own retirement, but social security will not go away.

[bobbiemcgee]

SS is minor compared to some of the ridiculous govt pension plans out there paid @ the expense of the taxpayer. Work 20 yrs., get PAID FOR LIFE! Switch to another govt job, do the same thing - absurd. This is where the Greeks messed up and it will happen in USA. Promised people a ridicuous pension they can't pay. Pensions plans are going broke fast - no income @ 1% and lousy investment decisions - See California.

[Snipe]

SS is minor compared to some of the ridiculous govt pension plans out there paid @ the expense of the taxpayer. Work 20 yrs., get PAID FOR LIFE! Switch to another govt job, do the same thing - absurd. This is where the Greeks messed up and it will happen in USA. Promised people a ridicuous pension they can't pay. Pensions plans are going broke fast - no income @ 1% and lousy investment decisions - See California.


I have been following the pensions for some time. They are breaking state budgets. California is going to go bankrupt. Illinois can't pay bills, or they are paying them at 255 days. Imagine waiting the better part of a year to get payment. You know you would then reflect that float period in your cost and just hike it up. California has given away IOUs. It is madness on every level of government.

A lot of people are going to be pissed when they start cutting budgets. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

Pension cuts are the worst. You promise people money, and by the time they retire you have to break your promise. Many people view social security as a popular program. I wonder what the view will be in two decades. Ever since it inception it has been spending money and promising future benefits without saving for them. We just cut the checks and people are happy. At some point the price gets paid, and the popularity then will be in doubt.

Argentina was the third richest country in the world in 1900 after the British Empire and the United States. A century later they were in default, and public pensions were a huge part of that. Payroll taxes just for pensions in Argentina were over 25% at the end and they still ollapsed.

It is hard to find an example of a country that taxes people, promises benefits and actually saves the money for the day those people are going to get benefits. Just about every state in the Union that I have looked at has underfunded pensions. Cities have underfunded pensions. Social Security is pay as you go. We don't have any investments to back that up. We have no assets, just liabilities.

''Things that can't go on forever, don't.'' - Herbert Stein (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/opinion/this-can-t-go-on.html)


Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

The collapse is going to be spectacular.

[XU-PA]

I know it's not a baby boomer issue, but since the state pension issue is part of the topic,,,,

Take a look at everything that your state pays out, it's just an absolute joke, up here in Maine we have turnpike toll collectors making 50 grand a year, plus a sweet benefit package that puts the compensation in the 80's, we have teachers in the community college system making 70K + salaries, and some fo those are welding instructo2, how about government building projects, any building seems to cost twice what any non government project would cost, leased property? even worse, paying above top dollar commercial rates for office space jammed with over paid non essential workers. Every state has it, every state will suffer for it. It's not a democrat vs republican problem, or conservative vs liberal, young vs old, it's just there and needs to be fixed. Deal with your local, then your state and maybe the feds will get the message,,,

[GuyFawkes38]

I know it's not a baby boomer issue, but since the state pension issue is part of the topic,,,,

Take a look at everything that your state pays out, it's just an absolute joke, up here in Maine we have turnpike toll collectors making 50 grand a year, plus a sweet benefit package that puts the compensation in the 80's, we have teachers in the community college system making 70K + salaries, and some fo those are welding instructo2, how about government building projects, any building seems to cost twice what any non government project would cost, leased property? even worse, paying above top dollar commercial rates for office space jammed with over paid non essential workers. Every state has it, every state will suffer for it. It's not a democrat vs republican problem, or conservative vs liberal, young vs old, it's just there and needs to be fixed. Deal with your local, then your state and maybe the feds will get the message,,,

I don't think it's politically viable to pass a big tax increase to fund pensions. But on the other hand, states are legally required to fulfill the pensions promised (and thay can't go into bankruptcy to break the promise).

Something will have to give. It will get very ugly.

I read an article about how federal employees have much more modest retirement benefits than state and local. The Federal government will not be thrilled about bailing out state and local pensions throughout the country. Perhaps the Federal government will find a way to legally cut state and local pensions (the state can't, and governors would politically benefit from that).

Something like a 75% tax on pensions before the age of 65 would help a lot.

I have visited very liberal blogs who have discussed the subject. The liberal commenters on those sites are just as pissed about this as conservatives. I think there's a political will to deal with this.

[GuyFawkes38]

I just stumbled on this article from late 2009:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/education/16college.html


On Wednesday, the City Council is expected to give preliminary approval to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl’s proposal for a 1 percent tuition tax on students attending college in Pittsburgh, which he says will raise $16.2 million in annual revenue that is needed to pay pensions for retired city employees. Final Council action will be on Monday.

It's ridiculous and sad. But politicians do target groups of people without a lot of political power.

It's hard to have sympathy for state and local workers.

[XU-PA]

1% doesn't sound like much so they'll probably be some support for this. BUT when you consider that college students are soaking up double digit % hikes in all costs every year that's the last place the city should look for the pot of gold. Interesting that the mayor calls it the "fair share" how fair is it to fine college students for baby boomer and their ancestors screwing up?
Steel Town USA has become Steal Town

The Mayor's a pile of crap for identifying a portion of the population with money that rarely votes to be a target of his pickpocketing

What the city ought to do is take a look at the high salaries and bloated staffs at those colleges and universities and add a 2% payroll tax for employees of higher edication

[GuyFawkes38]

1% doesn't sound like much so they'll probably be some support for this. BUT when you consider that college students are soaking up double digit % hikes in all costs every year that's the last place the city should look for the pot of gold. Interesting that the mayor calls it the "fair share" how fair is it to fine college students for baby boomer and their ancestors screwing up?
Steel Town USA has become Steal Town

The Mayor's a pile of crap for identifying a portion of the population with money that rarely votes to be a target of his pickpocketing

What the city ought to do is take a look at the high salaries and bloated staffs at those colleges and universities and add a 2% payroll tax for employees of higher edication

Completely agree. And the tax wouldn't go towards operation expenses. It would go to the underfunded pensions which the city messed up on.

A couple months ago I watched a speech online of economics historian Niall Ferguson (I think I linked to it on XH, it's really interesting). He specifically noted that we will see a lot of that in the future.

Of course, the problem is that social security and medicare are the two big debt problems. But AARP has a lot of political power and will seek to put those costs on young people.

[Juice]

1% doesn't sound like much so they'll probably be some support for this. BUT when you consider that college students are soaking up double digit % hikes in all costs every year that's the last place the city should look for the pot of gold. Interesting that the mayor calls it the "fair share" how fair is it to fine college students for baby boomer and their ancestors screwing up?
Steel Town USA has become Steal Town

The Mayor's a pile of crap for identifying a portion of the population with money that rarely votes to be a target of his pickpocketing

What the city ought to do is take a look at the high salaries and bloated staffs at those colleges and universities and add a 2% payroll tax for employees of higher edication

I have no idea what the numbers are, but don't a large percentage of students take out student loans? So students are more or less part of their loan money to pay taxes. Sounds like sound economics to me.

[boozehound]

I have no idea what the numbers are, but don't a large percentage of students take out student loans? So students are more or less part of their loan money to pay taxes. Sounds like sound economics to me.

It also doesn't sound like a policy that encourages higher education, which I think we need to be doing on this country. College is getting less and less affordable for the average kid. Things like this really hurt the middle class, IMHO, because their parents generally can't really afford to put them through college and they do not typically qualify for as many need-based scholarships and grants.

Taxing college students to pay the bloated pensions of retired city employees is a travesty. It has already been touched on in this thread, but city and state employees retire way too early with way too many benefits. You can put in 30 years and retire before 50 while collecting close to 80% of your highest 5 years salary in many cases. The average live expectency is close to 73 years old, I believe, which means that many people are working for 30 years and then collecting a fat pension for another 25+ years!

I understand that a liability exists to pay the pensions, however I still think that they should be able to tell government employees to work until age 65 (at least) like everybody else. You can grandfather in all employees with 20+ years of service currently or something like that, but you have to start making changes. The government pension situation in this country is starting to sound more and more like Greece. If we don't start reform now, in 20 years we aren't going to have enough people paying into these pensions to pay out the benefits. It is going to be a big problem. Let's not deal with it now though, let's wait until we absolutely have to. We wouldn't want to do anything unpopular to risk not getting reelected...

[SixFig]

I say we tax the employees and make them pay for college tuition. Lord knows college kids and recent grads like myself could use the help more than 60 year olds who need to buy another timeshare in Florida.

[boozehound]

The next big Crisis? (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Many-Americans-will-run-short-rb-2605980635.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=)

Over 40% of people age 56-62 are expected to exhaust their retirement savings. Then who picks up the tab?

[XU-PA]

The next big Crisis? (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Many-Americans-will-run-short-rb-2605980635.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=5&asset=&ccode=)

Over 40% of people age 56-62 are expected to exhaust their retirement savings. Then who picks up the tab?

those college students will, so ease off on their taxes, we are really going to need them.

[boozehound]

those college students will, so ease off on their taxes, we are really going to need them.

They had better all be making a crapload of money!

Remember, we have to pay for all those unfunded government pensions too...