Old people complain.....

[ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88]

To much. Social Security this. Medicare that. Especially about the SS. It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people!

[HoreTore]

Yes, good heavens that we actually have to care about each other. On the other hand, the old people of today tried their best to dismantle every social benefit in the world when they were in power during the me-me-me-eighties, so I don't really care about them that much. They had their choice, and they choose instant pleasure over long term gain. Screw 'em, I say.

But what is worse is of course that they can't keep their gnarled old hands from meddling with everything. A lot of them, if not most, have a firm belief that the past was a perfect paradise, and every change made to the world is inherently bad. Old people cannot stand to see young people express themselves freely in ways they did not do themselves, and to me that is sickening.

I do not see any reason whatsoever to care about social commentary from the elderly.

[Gregoshi]

...Eh, nevermind. I'm probably too old to be relevent anymore.

[Veho Nex]

Back in my days, we listened to and praised our elders, now-a-days you youngins are ruining everything, let me retire in peace after working for 45 years.

[PanzerJaeger]

Is this the point you were trying to make?

The great question haunting Washington's budget debate is whether our elected politicians will take back government from AARP, the 40 million-member organization that represents retirees and near-retirees. For all the partisan bluster surrounding last week's release of President Obama's proposed 2012 budget, it reflects a long-standing bipartisan consensus not to threaten seniors. Programs for the elderly, mainly Social Security and Medicare, are left untouched. With an aging population, putting so much spending off-limits inevitably means raising taxes, shrinking defense and squeezing other domestic spending - everything from the FBI to college aid.

Power is the ability to get what you want. It suggests that you control events. By these standards, AARP runs government budgetary policy, not presidents or congressional leaders. Obama says we must "win the future," but his budget (and, so far, the Republicans', too) would win the past and lose the future. The massive federal debt would continue to grow because, without restraining retiree spending, there's no path to a balanced budget. The aging infrastructure (roads, airports) wouldn't get needed repairs. The already-stressed social safety net for the poor would be further strained. We would cut defense while China's military expands. All this is insane. It's not the agenda of a country interested in its future.

But it's our agenda. Look at Obama's budget. Under his proposals, annual federal spending rises from $3.7 trillion in 2012 to $5.7 trillion in 2021. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (the three major entitlements) account for 60 percent of the projected $2 trillion increase. Higher interest payments on the debt - mainly reflecting our inability to control big entitlements - account for 31 percent. Altogether, that's 91 percent of the increase; the rest of government accounts for 9 percent.

Indeed, when corrected for expected inflation and population growth, the rest of government shrinks. A table in Obama's budget shows this clearly. From 2012 to 2021, annual "security" spending (defense and homeland security) would drop 21 percent after inflation and population adjustments. Non-security discretionary spending (a catchall including air traffic control, space, regulation and much more) would fall 24 percent. Other "entitlements" (food stamps and the like) would decline 4 percent. Meanwhile, Social Security would rise 27 percent and Medicare, 32 percent.

AARP sends its representatives to Capitol Hill and think-tank seminars, where they pretend to be "reasonable" while frustrating needed Social Security and Medicare changes. Higher life expectancy and private savings mean that eligibility ages could have been gradually raised and benefits curbed for wealthier retirees. Congress, heeding a 1983 commission proposal, slowly raised the age for full Social Security benefits from 65 to 66 (and to 67, much later). Little else of significance has been done. The result is that any effort to control spending must focus on a small part of the budget (from a seventh to slightly more than a third, including defense). House Republicans have cut many programs sharply - some sensibly, others not. Obama is doing the same, though less dramatically.

But AARP sets overall priorities. Its power derives from the fear it inspires in senators, representatives, presidents and political candidates. They worry that they'll be assaulted and rejected by hordes of angry seniors infuriated by any possible loss of benefits and mobilized by AARP. The question of whether all these benefits are needed or deserved can't be asked, let alone answered. It's impossible to enact a major overhaul of Medicare that might check its uncontrolled spending.

The trouble is that this self-serving inattention won't work. The budgetary math doesn't compute; too much is left out. Obama's projected budget for 2021 is instructive. Despite higher taxes - about 10 percent above the 1971-2010 average - and the budget's deep cuts in defense and domestic discretionary spending, the deficit would remain at an estimated $774 billion, about 3 percent of the economy. And that assumes "full employment," a 5.3 percent jobless rate. By 2021, continuous annual deficits would boost the publicly held federal debt to almost $19 trillion, up from $9 trillion in 2010. So the possibility of a financial crisis, triggered by unmanageable debt levels, would survive even if Obama's budget were adopted.

No one wants to strip needy seniors of essential benefits. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid provide crucial protections for millions of poorer and older households. But for many relatively healthy and economically secure Americans, these programs constitute middle-class welfare. As a society, we need to redefine what's in the public interest and what's not. That's the job of our political leaders.

Obama repeatedly says he'll deal with "entitlements" - and does nothing. He made the promise again last week. Congressional Republicans also committed last week to proposing entitlement changes. We'll see if these pledges are honored or if power continues to be outsourced to AARP.

If so, then I agree to a certain extent. The young are increasingly losing out to the elderly in this country in terms of the allocation of government resources. What is more worrisome, though, is that future investment (in infrastructure, R&D, etc.) is being curtailed to pay for ever-expanding entitlement programs for the elderly. This will make it far more difficult for today's young to maintain the same level of benefits that their parents and grandparents are currently enjoying (which were based, primarily, off of huge government investment in the future after the Second World War).

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, good heavens that we actually have to care about each other. On the other hand, the old people of today tried their best to dismantle every social benefit in the world when they were in power during the me-me-me-eighties, so I don't really care about them that much. They had their choice, and they choose instant pleasure over long term gain. Screw 'em, I say.

Well if you want to ignore the fact that the today's elderly that are most dependent on welfare come from those segments of society that really opposed (and suffered at the hands of) the economic revolution in the 80's...

All the elderly people I know, including those in my family, would have died before they voted for Thatcher. But hey there's some angry kid on the internet thats upset because old people aren't cool so I guess they don't deserve a decent quality of life...

[HoreTore]

Well, if you could find a way to deny improved health care for all the elderly who voted for tax cuts, that might be something I would be interested in...

But at any rate, the focus should be on the young.

[phonicsmonkey]

Well if you want to ignore the fact that the today's elderly that are most dependent on welfare come from those segments of society that really opposed (and suffered at the hands of) the economic revolution in the 80's...

All the elderly people I know, including those in my family, would have died before they voted for Thatcher. But hey there's some angry kid on the internet thats upset because old people aren't cool so I guess they don't deserve a decent quality of life...

Spoken like a true Welshman!

[TinCow]

It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people!

Yes, I'm sure you've contributed far more to the Social Security fund than an 80-year-old retiree.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yes, I'm sure you've contributed far more to the Social Security fund than an 80-year-old retiree.

In as much as we are considering current state of affairs, he probably has done. After all Mr. & Mrs Retired are currently drawing from funds provided by their children and grand children, the funds they used to pay have long since been spent on their parents or were borrowed and need to be paid off with interest.

What's even more ironic is that it is precisely those people who currently are 50 or older that elected into office those responsible for or were directly responsible themselves for squandering the USA's budget surpluses. And specifically, given the practical age requirements for being electable into office, it is those who are roughly 70-80 years old that decided how to spend that money...

[drone]

The AARP keeps sending me sign-up letters, even though I'm only 40. Got one today (before seeing this thread), was thinking of calling them up, asking to be taken off their spam mailing list, and ranting about their part in the ultimate destruction of the US economy. Now, I just have to do it!

[TinCow]

In as much as we are considering current state of affairs, he probably has done. After all Mr. & Mrs Retired are currently drawing from funds provided by their children and grand children, the funds they used to pay have long since been spent on their parents or were borrowed and need to be paid off with interest.

What's even more ironic is that it is precisely those people who currently are 50 or older that elected into office those responsible for or were directly responsible themselves for squandering the USA's budget surpluses. And specifically, given the practical age requirements for being electable into office, it is those who are roughly 70-80 years old that decided how to spend that money...

I would never claim that the current situation is acceptable. It isn't; it's unsustainable and needs to be fixed immediately before it gets worse. IMO, that involves some cuts to SS and Medicare/aid, as well as tax increases for $200k+ households. However, I don't think it's correct to blame the current seniors for that. The reason SS spending is so much higher than SS income is that medical treatment has significantly increased the average life span since SS was created. When it was founded, the savings rate was based on the idea that only a portion of those people would actually take out more than they put in due to age. Many would die before they even retired and many more would die before they had received it all back. However, we all live much longer now and that's thrown the entire thing out of whack.

As for seniors complaining about having their benefits cut, why wouldn't they? It's no different than someone else whining about a tax increase. Somehow the latter gets passed off as acceptable, so why is the former bad?

[Tellos Athenaios]

I would never claim that the current situation is acceptable. It isn't; it's unsustainable and needs to be fixed immediately before it gets worse. IMO, that involves some cuts to SS and Medicare/aid, as well as tax increases for $200k+ households. However, I don't think it's correct to blame the current seniors for that.

Sure. It is not the fault of the current seniors alone or something like that. The point however is that, as you noted so succinctly, this low tax + lots of benefits + wars scheme financed on government debt was all too good to last. The bill has arrived, as it were and now you have to split it among who is left to pay for it.

As for seniors complaining about having their benefits cut, why wouldn't they? It's no different than someone else whining about a tax increase. Somehow the latter gets passed off as acceptable, so why is the former bad?

Sure, by all means let them complain how in the 80s and 90s the USA was soo much better and how it is really unfair after 30 years of hard work and tax breaks that their pensions are cut by some amount as the rest of the USA has to deal with far worse in real terms. However that is the point their complaints should not have been taken nearly as seriously as they were and are to the point that the accounting tricks routinely applied to USA balance sheets are the sort of thing which make Enron by comparison look a shining example of childish innocence....

It is that more sinister quality of being able to subvert entire balance sheets worth trillions of dollars on a yearly basis through a particularly strange combination of economic inactivity and demographic scale that make it worth pointing out that with more sensible financial policy by these retirees and those who are about to leave their mess behind you'd not be in this position in the first place.

[TinCow]

Sure, by all means let them complain how in the 80s and 90s the USA was soo much better and how it is really unfair after 30 years of hard work and tax breaks that their pensions are cut by some amount as the rest of the USA has to deal with far worse in real terms. However that is the point their complaints should not have been taken nearly as seriously as they were and are to the point that the accounting tricks routinely applied to USA balance sheets are the sort of thing which make Enron by comparison look a shining example of childish innocence....

I agree with all of this, but it doesn't change the fact that many of these people now live exclusively on social security income, which isn't exactly generous to begin with. Many people do not have alternate sources of income to tap into, and we need to be very careful to ensure that any cuts don't plunge them into poverty. Young people, myself included, have plenty of warnings about the current situation and can plan ahead. I personally do not expect to ever see a single cent of my social security taxes, and am saving for retirement entirely on my own.

Yes, I am paying for the mistakes of previous generations, but there's no other solution at this point. In our current situation, everyone must take a hit regardless of age. Those that can take the hit better than others should shoulder the burden.

[Reenk Roink]

To much. Social Security this. Medicare that. Especially about the SS. It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people!

You have much to learn about irony young whippersnapper

[Crazed Rabbit]

To much. Social Security this. Medicare that. Especially about the SS. It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people!

How much are you contributing to social security?

And politicians listen because the AARP is a strong lobbyist (too strong) and old people vote.

CR

[Centurion1]

AARP is the strongest special interest group in the United states of america. Also the elderly make up a huge segment of the actual voting population. Seniors vote unlike 18 year olds.

[Ronin]

To much. Social Security this. Medicare that. Especially about the SS. It's us young people now a days that are keeping the SS afloat and these politicians listen to who more? The old people!

they show up to vote....we are all hungover on election day...

simple really.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Old age ain't fer wussies. Now GET OFF ME LAWN.

[Major Robert Dump]

I'd also like to point out that up until the @1990, Social Security and Medicare were pretty much touted as viable retirement options to the middle aged people of the country because it had been for a couple generations at that point. As a little boy I recall frequently hearing -- both in RL and on TV, movies, etc -- older people talking about how they couldnt wait until they turned the magical age so they could retire and draw social security, etc. Social Security used to be far more generous than it is now.

So telling people they should be ashamed of using it is sort of akin to telling someone who just lost their 401k to stuff it.

That does not, however, excuse the current situation and the pig heads who got us here.

[Andres]

Everybody complains. It's human. We're all a bunch of whiners who can only be happy if they have something to complain about.

That said, it's a bit easy to blame the older generations for everything that's going wrong nowadays. Even if it would be all there fault, shooting everybody who has the nerve to get older than 70 is not an option. Somebody will have to pay the bill and we can't expect the older generations to be the only ones to pay for it.

Just like TinCow, I plan ahead exactly because I don't think I'll ever see the state paying me the pension I'm now paying so much contributions for. I hope I won't regret this and the state won't find some trick to just grab my savings in the future anyway. I would not be amused seeing that happen in the knowledge that I could have lived a far more luxurous live by wasting it all.

Meh, looking at the current generation of politicians in my country, maybe I should indeed just waste all my money now. They're not even capable of solving some linguistic nonsense, so I don't see them finding a solution for the problem of the greying population without grabbing the savings from those who were prudent (foolish?) enough to save money.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Everybody complains. It's human. We're all a bunch of whiners who can only be happy if they have something to complain about.

That said, it's a bit easy to blame the older generations for everything that's going wrong nowadays. Even if it would be all there fault, shooting everybody who has the nerve to get older than 70 is not an option. Somebody will have to pay the bill and we can't expect the older generations to be the only ones to pay for it.

Exactly, the bill is due now or really soonish and you can't expect any particular demographic to pick up the tab. So the pain has to be shared, and that should/will have to include the retired despite their audible grumblings.