patrick.net

Any change will mean that somebody gets less than they would before the change.

Therefore we should leave everything as-is.

Idiots. They should have called it the john corzine budget plan.

Then all the democrats would be lined up around the block to felate the plan and band together to chant in unison about houw stupid republicans are for critisizing the plan. Lol

I didn't see any "plan" mentioned in the article at all. Instead what I saw was a total repeat of the same things befuddled, confused Republicans have been saying for the past several years when they lose: That they wern't "conservative" enough.

So basically they refuse to admit that they lost because the stupid ideas they can't ever stray from which have become increasingly unpopular with the general public are the ones that caused them to lose first in 2008 and then 2012.

If the GOP wants to stand a chance of coming close to winning, they need to wake up, come up with ideas that are more appealing than the old-fashioned ones they only say to please their dwindling base, find and promote intelligent, non-winger candidates, and start being a little more original with their overall message.

When I was young, I used to dismiss SS as JUST a Ponzi scheme.

Now I understand that the "looming crisis" is a result of the baby boom generation retiring en masse, at a time of fewer young people in a tougher job market.

If contributions are increased, sooner rather than later, SS and medicare can remain solvent indefinitely. I haven't seen projections on SS, but a year or 2 ago read that increasing medicare taxes now by 0.5% would keep it solvent long past the lifespan of those currently paying in.

The longer the can is kicked down the road, the higher the increase of payments needed and the less politically desirable (from a strictly current-taxes perspective) any change would be.

Automan Empire says

When I was young, I used to dismiss SS as JUST a Ponzi scheme.

Now I understand that the "looming crisis" is a result of the baby boom generation retiring en masse, at a time of fewer young people in a tougher job market.

Um, that's exactly what makes it a Ponzi Scheme. It's the implementation, not the intention.

The proper way to run Social Security and other "buy into entitlements" is to use the contributions of generation N to pay for the benefits of generation N, rather than using contributions of generation N + 1 to pay for benefits of N.

If Social Security was implemented properly, it wouldn't matter one flying fuck how big the Boomer generation is or how small Gen X is because bigger generations would proportionally contribute more canceling out the effect of their size.

This simple formula f(p[n]) = g(p[n]) where f and g are benefits and contributions respectively and p[n] is population N is the entire difference between a sustainable plan and a Ponzi scheme. In a sustainable plan, f(p[n]) = g(p[n]). In a Ponzi scheme, f(p[n]) = g(p[n + 1]). That's it. That's all the math you need to know.

The ACA is a Ponzi scheme and doomed to fail for the exact same reason. To save Social Security or the ACA, this problem must be corrected and any way of correcting the problem means that some population has to bear the cost of the correction. I vote for the richest generation, the Boomers, who have gotten everything their way for their entire lifetimes. For once, they should pay the tab. It's the least they could do.

Dan8267 says

The ACA is a Ponzi scheme and doomed to fail for the exact same reason.

You're going to have to explain that one. Private insurance companies do not tend to function as Ponzi schemes unless something has gone very wrong. In fact, the reason the premiums fluctuate as much as they do is specifically because insurance companies must match benefits with contributions.

Still don't understand how FortWayne's opinion is supported by the LATimes article, but FW's comments are often ex rectum.

As edvard2 said, there is no "plan" mentioned in the article at all, just vague trivial statements that don't mean much but sound good.

corntrollio says

just vague trivial statements that don't mean much but sound good.

The key is they only sound "good" to the base. Cruze basically said this, in a bit taken from that article:

"He outlined a 10-point plan that he said conservatives can rally around, with items like defending the Constitution, boosting energy production, passing a balanced budget, and repealing "every single word of Obamacare." And in a direct appeal, he said the key to inspiring young voters was to "tell the truth," as Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul had."

So there you go. The same crap they have been saying forever, most of it totally meaningless, some of it ridiculous... like "defending the constitution"? WTF is that supposed to mean? To me that sounds like the same arrogant GOP who turns the stomachs of an increasing number of Americans. Arrogant because its supposed to mean that they'll defend the Constitution so long as its only pertaining to issues they care about.

corntrollio says

You're going to have to explain that one.

The ACA needs lots of young adults to sign up in order to pay for the aging Boomers. Even if that happens, who is going to pay for the Millennials when they are old an their children's and grandchildren's generations are smaller?

Health care needs to be age bracketed so that each age group only insures itself. Otherwise generational size fluctuations will inevitably lead to the destruction of the system.

The Baby Boomers did not buy into the ACA. They haven't contributed all their lives to it. So the money paid for by the Millennials aren't buying the Millennials into coverage when they are older; it's simply a gift to the Boomers.

For a system to be sustainable, each generation must pay its own way. There is no getting around that. And there shouldn't be. Any socially just system will follow this principle. Older generations should not be parasites upon younger generations. If anything, each generation should give back more than it takes. And this is coming from someone who has no children.

Dan8267 says

Health care needs to be age bracketed so that each age group only insures itself. Otherwise generational size fluctuations will inevitably lead to the destruction of the system.

I'm not wholly convinced. Every workplace has managed to do it for years and years. You're going to have to find a way to explain that, other than just saying so.

I don't disagree that Boomers are likely going to have a higher cost to the healthcare insurance pool than young people, but that's always how it has worked. If a young person gets cancer, they similarly will benefit disproportionately out of the pool, but that's how group health insurance works.

I suppose you could more clearly try to separate "health care payment plan" from "health insurance" if you were trying to do what you said. To some extent, high-deductible plans somewhat attempt to do that.

corntrollio says

I'm not wholly convinced. Every workplace has managed to do it for years and years. You're going to have to find a way to explain that, other than just saying so.

The current system
1. Baby Boomers, a big generation, gets paid out by Millennials, another big generation. This works.
2. Gen X, a small generation, gets paid out by a small generation, the children of the Millennials. This works.
3. Millennials, a big generation, gets paid out by a small generation, their grandchildren. This doesn't work.

A sustainable system
1. Baby Boomers, a big generation, gets paid out by by the Boomers, a big generation. This works.
2. Gen X, a small generation, gets paid out by Gen X, a small generation. This works.
3. The Millennials, a big generation, gets paid out by the Millennials, a big generation. This works.
4. The children of the Millennials, a small generation, gets paid out by the children of the Millennials, a small generation. This works.

Executive summary
When each generation pays its own way, the relative sizes of the generations doesn't matter. When each generation relies upon the next or the next two generations to pay for it, relative sizes of generations matters a lot.

When each generation requires that the next generation is bigger and wealthier to support the payouts, the entire system must eventually fail for nothing can grow forever, not even black holes.

Moral side note
There is no moral justification for an older generation to rely upon the labor of the younger generation instead of saving for itself.

Practical side note
We have not even included the effects of massive unemployment in the Millennial generation that is a direct result of the Boomers selling off America's infrastructure and outsourcing jobs to China. When you include that effect, it is doubtful that the Millennials will be able to support the Boomers over the next 30 years.

So why not just have each generation pay it's own way? There are tons of advantages to this approach and no advantage to the approach of one generation poaching another.

Dan8267 says

Um, that's exactly what makes it a Ponzi Scheme. It's the implementation, not
the intention.

The proper way to run Social Security and other "buy into entitlements" is to
use the contributions of generation N to pay for the benefits of generation N,
rather than using contributions of generation N + 1 to pay for benefits of
N.

Dan8267 says

A sustainable system
1. Baby Boomers, a big generation, gets paid out
by by the Boomers, a big generation. This works.

Well, it WOULD work, if we could go back in time and have them pay in during their working decades, at a rate in line with projected payouts.
Not sure how it could be made to work, having boomers greatly increase their contributions to the system right as they hit retirement age.

The present system can work, even with fluctuating population numbers, PROVIDED adjustments are made to the contributions early enough in the game. It's one of those easily-passed bucks, in a world with a 2 to 4 year election driven attention span.

What would work is if they cut that 15% SS tax and dismantle SS and allowed people to use that money to save for their own retirement, so people like you and I the younger generation and the ones after us won't be given the bill.

Dan8267 says

Um, that's exactly what makes it a Ponzi Scheme. It's the implementation, not the intention.

It's a simple plan, you invest into it all your life and you get a decent return, which is below what wall street would return.

Now Republicans lately been talking about turning it into a voucher program and selling it down to the rich cronies on wall street. And that is a crapy deal for all of us, because we know the final outcome will mean we lose it all and some asshole on wall street will get to keep it.