Consider what happened when Mankiw, the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to President Bush, attempted to describe outsourcing. '"Outsourcing is just a new way of doing international trade," he said. "More things are tradable than were tradable in the past and that's a good thing."'
Quite reasonable and correct in my opinion. He got lambasted for it.
The other economist who provoked the Inquisitors recently was Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan. He argued, in terms that will be familiar to readers of my Social Security Primer and my proposal to Phase Out Medicare, that the ratio of the level of promised future benefits to the size of the future work force is untenable. He suggested cutting future benefits, while leaving current benefits alone.
Also a reasonable statement in my opinion. He also got hammered for it.
You neglect to provide information as to why Greenspan thought future benefits in Social Security were untenable, the current exploding budget deficit.
my only beef with Social Security is that if i'm not going to get it, i dont want to pay the tax. and there is no way they are going to cut that revenue stream.
The problem with Social Security and Medicare benefits are not really the current federal deficits (although they are one factor that are helping to drive those current deficits). The problem is that the systems are fundamentally unsound. As Kling points out in the article they are both essentially pay as you go systems. The money you pay in taxes doesn't go into a personal account, it is used to pay out for current beneficiaries. The problem lies in the changing demographics of the U.S. We are living longer. As more of our population is over 65, we have fewer people percentage wise to support them. I believe when social security first started the worker to retiree ratio was around 15-17 workers to one retiree, now it is down to around 3-4 to 1 I believe (I'll try to hunt down the numbers when I get a chance). This trend is expected to continue in the future. In particular, we are looking a large increase in the not too distant future when the baby boomers start retiring. I am not a fan of the current (or past) deficits, and Bush has been spending far too much. Social Security and Medicare's problems however were evident before he ever took office (he certainly didn't help matters though by adding on the Medicare drug benefit).
my only beef with Social Security is that if i'm not going to get it, i dont want to pay the tax. and there is no way they are going to cut that revenue stream.
This I am surprised by Voro. See I feel everyone should pay, but people who don't need it should not get it. A sacrifice of the masses to benefit those who need it. It's a very small sacrifice from your check. Well worth it.
And this is one liberal stance I have. Surprised you take a conservative approach on this one.
i do think that those who need should be eligible, that i can agree with. I guess my point is, if the government has no intention of offering the benefit to anybody when you and I are retiring, then i have a problem paying the FICA tax now. but as Chmee's article states a problem with SS is that the current workers pay for the current retirees.
Aye definitely a problem. But, if they made the people who don't need it in-eligible and cut down on illegal immigrants wokring without paying into the system then that might help the whole social security problem.
My belief as to why Democrats(the politicians and media) seem to be against these things is because Social Security is one the Democrats favorite most reliable platforms. They have won many an office off that issue. Scaring the elderly is a bigger winner for them.
