Cut Medicare and Social Security? What's the rush?

[jsr]

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20121202,0,704587.column

Cut Medicare and Social Security? What's the rush?
Because economic projections for a year or two from now, let alone 20 or 70 years, are useless, it's best to resist being pressured to act now on 'entitlements.'
By Michael Hiltzik


Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs lectured Americans that the benefits they’ve paid for during their working lives are things we “can’t afford.” (Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg / November 28, 2012)

The question that normally comes to mind when someone claims to know the future is why he's out hustling rubes for pennies with his purported clairvoyance, instead of using it to make a fortune and retiring to the South Seas.

Of course, the answer is that nobody ever does know the future. And that leads to the question of why so much of the "fiscal cliff" debate in Washington is based on supposedly perfect knowledge of conditions that are 20, or even 70, years away.

We're talking about projections of the cost of "entitlements" — a noxious way of referring to Medicare and Social Security, excellent programs that most workers have paid for during their careers and that have kept millions of Americans healthy and out of poverty.

The customary talking point by the anti-deficit lobby is that the rising cost of these programs will eat us alive. That future, the argument continues, is coming at us like an onrushing train, so to avoid having to cut benefits when it arrives, we best cut benefits now. ...

[Jackpine Radical]

1. What's the rush?

Best to get it done before people catch on to what's happening, that's "what's the rush."

That money rightfully belongs to the banksters, and would only be wasted on food, health care and shelter for the worthless elderly takers if events were allowed to take their natural course.

[John2]

2. This research

came from corporations that paid for it and submitted it to Congress. This is research that can be challenged because there are too many flaws. First of all, there is no prior condition, that they can compare it too. Second of all, their numbers are set numbers on retirees and don't account for the number of baby boomers that want even reach retirement age because of such causes as Death due to disease,accidents or violence.

They have to account also for population growth. This is assuming they account for all births from 1945-1965, which accounts for all baby boomers. They also assume the expected life rate will be at a certain age in the future. That is an assumption, but not a fact. They have that number at 75 for men and 80 for women now. They expect it to be higher years from now but there is no scientific way to measure this, because it depend on too many other factors, such as discoveries in medical research. And if you are retiring at age 65 now, the expected life rate for males now is 75. That means, your life is expected to end at 75, which only gives you 10 years of benefits. So really, I don't see any research, that can predict the future. You know what some people call persons that look into crystal balls.

[Moral Compass]

3. We can't afford Blankfein

What we can't afford is Lloyd Blankfein doling out advice on public policy.

He has no standing. His experience gives him no special insight into what the country can or cannot afford.

Bet we could afford a lot of things in this country with a little HFT tax (High Frequency Trading). But mention that to him and we'd see a level of poutrage that would be something to behold.

God, I'd love to see these Goldman people exiled from any role in government!

[santamargarita]

4. Social Security is not an entitlement; I hate that word.

It's insurance we pay for...get it you plutocrat!

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Because the Predator Class wants to grab the Trust Fund *now*

They hate to wait.