Skip to main content

View Diary: Why is "touching Social Security" in any manner a bad thing? (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Common sense" is wrong again (4+ / 0-)

    As is so often the case, when someone is ignorant about an issue he or she resorts to "common sense."  Common sense tells us that the world is flat and that the national economy is like a family sitting around the dinner table.

    If you are sincere and not a concern troll or right-wing provocateur, you need to read up on social security before pontificating about it.  Life expectancy is not appreciably longer, and the increase in life expectancy was built into the program's actuarial assumptions.  The people who designed social security were not stupid!

    Moreover, the retirement age has already been raised, gradually, for later baby-boomers and subsequent generations.

    I don't see any explanation in your diary of how social security is going to "destruct" [sic] the government.  Even if there were a shortfall -- which I believe is highly unlikely, assuming the economy gets back in shape -- it would not add to the deficit, as payments would be reduced to available funds.  And even based on the trustees' long-term projections (which are VERY conservative and, when you're talking about projections 75 years in the future, essentially meaningless) , taking the shortfall into account would still result in payments higher than they are now, in terms of real (not inflated) dollars.

    So please, again -- explain to me what you think the problem is.

    "[W]e shall see the reign of witches pass over . . . and the people, recovering their true spirit, restore their government to its true principles." Jefferson

    by RenMin on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:33:00 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site