social security
...ain't so secure...
So I just heard a few interesting statistics on the proposed reform for social security. Now of course I have a conflict of interests... being the bleeding heart liberal I am I can't support anything the Bush administration wants to do, yet being anti-establishment reactionary that I am, I would like to have the government less involved in my finances.
Seriously though... On Fresh Air today, the first guest was all about the new plan and the second guest was against it. Now here is my take on it. With the system in it's current state, eventually it'll be paying out more than it's taking in, lose money and have cash in bonds or something, which the government doesnt' have money for anyway. This will happen sometime around 2042. After this time, the government will be borrowing money against something, I don't know what, in order to pay off 73% of every dollar it promised. This isn't good. Both analysts agreed that this is the situation (although I may have butchered it a bit, but you get the idea). The funny thing was that the two analysts dwelled on different facts. The one supporting Bush's plan basically said... the system is not sustainable, we might as well fix it now instead of later. That makes sense to me. Why the hell not. The second analysts (against the new plan) had an interesting statistic. Bush's tax cuts over the past 4 years are about equal to something like 2% of the GDP, while the necessary funds to fix the financial shortcommings of social security are equal to about 0.7% of the GDP. Hmm... so basically 35% of the total amount of the tax cuts would have solved this problem?
I am really out of my realm discussing Federal finances and stuff... so if anyone can set me straight here I'd appreciate it. I mean... this was either a really fucking stupid move, or a brilliant one on the part of the current administration. Stupid because the budget was balanced and social security was working fine 4 years ago, or brilliant because they worked the system and got elected on tax cuts the first time around, consequently fucking over social security, and then won on that issue the second time around. wow. How funny.
So I just heard a few interesting statistics on the proposed reform for social security. Now of course I have a conflict of interests... being the bleeding heart liberal I am I can't support anything the Bush administration wants to do, yet being anti-establishment reactionary that I am, I would like to have the government less involved in my finances.
Seriously though... On Fresh Air today, the first guest was all about the new plan and the second guest was against it. Now here is my take on it. With the system in it's current state, eventually it'll be paying out more than it's taking in, lose money and have cash in bonds or something, which the government doesnt' have money for anyway. This will happen sometime around 2042. After this time, the government will be borrowing money against something, I don't know what, in order to pay off 73% of every dollar it promised. This isn't good. Both analysts agreed that this is the situation (although I may have butchered it a bit, but you get the idea). The funny thing was that the two analysts dwelled on different facts. The one supporting Bush's plan basically said... the system is not sustainable, we might as well fix it now instead of later. That makes sense to me. Why the hell not. The second analysts (against the new plan) had an interesting statistic. Bush's tax cuts over the past 4 years are about equal to something like 2% of the GDP, while the necessary funds to fix the financial shortcommings of social security are equal to about 0.7% of the GDP. Hmm... so basically 35% of the total amount of the tax cuts would have solved this problem?
I am really out of my realm discussing Federal finances and stuff... so if anyone can set me straight here I'd appreciate it. I mean... this was either a really fucking stupid move, or a brilliant one on the part of the current administration. Stupid because the budget was balanced and social security was working fine 4 years ago, or brilliant because they worked the system and got elected on tax cuts the first time around, consequently fucking over social security, and then won on that issue the second time around. wow. How funny.