11–20 of 89 posts
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S
The situation is similar to what it was in the late 1980s, and it can mostly likely be managed with the same level of spending restraints we saw in response to that.
> How severe? A sustainable U.S. debt trajectory would entail elimination of nearly all defense spending or almost all non-defense discretionary outlays, he estimated. Reminder that infrastructure is ~3% of the budget, the military is ~13%. Almost all of the rest are benefits, either health or money, for old people or various poverty reduction schemes. Or debt. Social Security was made when there were ~130:1 worker:r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gen-X here. I’ve grown up with the warning non-stop that Social Security will become insolvent. My question is this: If I can’t get some or most it, why can’t I steer the money to where I believe the money ought to go?
Because social security tax is simply a tax like any other, and social security is a pay as you go means tested entitlement program like any other. Current workers pay for current retirees. There is no account anywhere with your name on it earmarked for your retirement. It was enacted with lawmakers well knowing this - it was simply marketed in such a way to make it politically possible to enact and keep around long-…
Rather than reading this opinion piece, you can learn more about the “debt crisis” by just studying this chart which shows what percentage of the federal budget goes toward paying off the debt: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S The situation is similar to what it was in the late 1980s, and it can mostly likely be managed with the same level of spending restraints we saw in response to that.
so... austerity? Like the article suggests?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because social security tax is simply a tax like any other, and social security is a pay as you go means tested entitlement program like any other. Current workers pay for current retirees. There is no account anywhere with your name on it earmarked for your retirement. It was enacted with lawmakers well knowing this - it was simply marketed in such a way to make it politically possible to enact and keep around long-…
In other words: Ponzi scheme, rather than any sustainable retirement mechanism.
Rather than reading this opinion piece, you can learn more about the “debt crisis” by just studying this chart which shows what percentage of the federal budget goes toward paying off the debt: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYOIGDA188S The situation is similar to what it was in the late 1980s, and it can mostly likely be managed with the same level of spending restraints we saw in response to that.
> can mostly likely be managed with the same level of spending restraints we saw in response to that. so... austerity? Like the article suggests?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because social security tax is simply a tax like any other, and social security is a pay as you go means tested entitlement program like any other. Current workers pay for current retirees. There is no account anywhere with your name on it earmarked for your retirement. It was enacted with lawmakers well knowing this - it was simply marketed in such a way to make it politically possible to enact and keep around long-…
In other words: Ponzi scheme, rather than any sustainable retirement mechanism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because social security tax is simply a tax like any other, and social security is a pay as you go means tested entitlement program like any other. Current workers pay for current retirees. There is no account anywhere with your name on it earmarked for your retirement. It was enacted with lawmakers well knowing this - it was simply marketed in such a way to make it politically possible to enact and keep around long-…
In other words: Ponzi scheme, rather than any sustainable retirement mechanism.
There’s no debt being paid; money is simply taken from Peter, and money is simply given to Paul.
It’s not a retirement program, it’s retirement subsidization.
> How severe? A sustainable U.S. debt trajectory would entail elimination of nearly all defense spending or almost all non-defense discretionary outlays, he estimated. Reminder that infrastructure is ~3% of the budget, the military is ~13%. Almost all of the rest are benefits, either health or money, for old people or various poverty reduction schemes. Or debt. Social Security was made when there were ~130:1 worker:r…
> How severe? A sustainable U.S. debt trajectory would entail elimination of nearly all defense spending or almost all non-defense discretionary outlays, he estimated. Reminder that infrastructure is ~3% of the budget, the military is ~13%. Almost all of the rest are benefits, either health or money, for old people or various poverty reduction schemes. Or debt. Social Security was made when there were ~130:1 worker:r…
Gen-X here. I’ve grown up with the warning non-stop that Social Security will become insolvent. My question is this: If I can’t get some or most it, why can’t I steer the money to where I believe the money ought to go?