First off, although very minor this is probably the funniest story of the year. It's good to see that there appear to be others besides me with a Taco Bell obsession.
Next, from an article in the New York Times, a new report shows Medicare and Social Security now going broke even earlier than expected. Social Security is now set to go bust in 2037 (4 years earlier than previously estimated), while Medicare will be broke by 2017 (2 years earlier than thought). While estimates are notoriously inaccurate, like the weather they tend to get more and more accurate the shorter the projection, and 2017 isn't that far away anymore. The culprit is, of course, the recession, so initially when I read this my first thought was "yeah, but once the economy improves it'll push those dates back out again, right?" Wrong. The current estimates already assume that the economy will return to growth later this year. Which means that if that doesn't happen the reality will be even worse, perhaps significantly so.
I'm not bringing this up for gloom and doom sake. Of the things that I worry about, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare don't even make the top 20. Of course, that might be because I already assume that those programs won't be around by the time I qualify for them. But I digress. From the article: "Spending on Social Security and Medicare totaled more than $1 trillion last year, accounting for more than one-third of the federal budget." So we're already at 1/3 the budget yearly and the baby-boomers have only just started to retire. It's important to keep things in perspective and in that respect all of this debate over stimulus plans and increased government spending programs, while still important, is really just something of a sideshow. The truth is that no matter what else happens, you will never have a sustainable balanced budget if you don't figure out how to manage these two programs. And to manage them, one of two things needs to occur: 1) raise taxes or 2) cut benefits. Some combination of the two is probably the most likely outcome. Anyone who tells you we can have the same benefits without raising taxes is mathematically challenged at best and a deceitful windbag at worst.
I think this would also be a good time to point out how disastrous the Republican plan for the privatization of social security accounts looks right now. Obviously we can't say for sure, because it looked pretty good for the 10 years before last October, but if the Social Security endowment had been in the stock market it would have easily shed 25% of its value and probably shaved about 10 years off of the projected insolvency date. And before anyone jumps down my throat for more Republican-bashing, I was fully in favor of this plan too so I am admitting that I was wrong as well. Maybe it will recover and still look like a good long-term plan again in the future, but I've already seen enough to think that a separation of retiree income from the ups and downs of the stock market is a good thing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I tried to talk to my parents about this stuff a couple days ago, starting out with a joke about how they are bleeding social security and ruining it for the rest of us...
Then we had an actual discussion about it, and it shocked me that they had no idea what they were talking about. They are fairly well educated people and they did not see the correlations between the end of WW2, the baby boom, SS going broke, the young generation being pissed off at the older generation for investing in something they will never see a return on...etc...
They just couldn't grasp the fact that the fund going broke leads back to the end of the war (their parents/grandparents) and the fact that the baby boom created a brief exponential population rise (if avg was 1.5 children and it jumped to 2.5 children for just a generation it would have a drastic effect on population 2 generations down the line.) And that, the baby boom created the unsustainable ratio of payees to recipients that we are seeing that is causing the fund to go broke.
Whew.
I mention (and by mention I mean ramble) this to ask a question. Is the current group of workers about to retire really THAT oblivious to the causes and consequences? Or do they just not care?
Anyways, I was pro-privatization as well, but only on a small scale. I wanted a compromise or a test program that privatized like 10% of the fund for 10 years. A pilot program, if you will.
Also, I see you gave Star Trek a 5 star rating. Nerd.
(Also, I think the lowest you've rated a movie or book is 2.5 stars. Are you really trying to tell us that, in your opinion, you haven't see/read something that is below average?)
Weir, I like your pilot program idea.
Other than that I can't respond because I really don't know much about it. Much like the people you're complaining about. :S
*Disclaimer that the following represents my own thoughts and is based on absolutely zero scientific data*
It has been my observation that the baby-boomer generation as a whole (not talking about individual members of it) is very odd. It was this generation that started off as left as left can be - they ushered in the civil rights era, protested the Vietnam War, and took part in all the excesses of the 70s. The almost overnight they do an abrupt about-face and are all gung-ho for Reagan, low taxes, and the war on drugs. Now they are all over the map politically, which I would say overall is a good thing but is also fairly odd.
One anecdote that I have thought about on more than one occasion. Every year at our company, we have some lame HR person come down and give basically the same spiel about team building and communication and such. And one exercise that she always does is split everyone up by generation and then we all make lists about what we think defines our generation. Supposedly it is to help us communicate with each other better. Yes it's just as lame as it sounds. Anyway as she goes from group to group she introduces them with something like "and now let's hear from the . . ." Most of the groups react with polite applause and some half-hearted cheering, but when she gets to the baby-boomers they go FREAKIN' NUTS! And it's not an anomaly; this has happened 3 years in a row and I've also been to other similar conferences where they've divided groups in this way and it's the same thing: the baby-boomers are always so proud to be baby-boomers. What does that mean? I actually have no idea. I guess they are just very proud of it; and to me it seems weird to take pride in something as arbitrary as the year of your birth. (Yeah, 79ers! Raise the roof! What what!)
OK, as for the movie ratings thing I went back and looked at my ratings and just for the record there are in fact 2 movies that I've given less than 2.5 stars to: The Strangers (2 Stars) and 10,000 B.C. (1.5 Stars). But, yes, I have been accused in the past of pretty much liking every movie. And I would also agree (and the stats show) that I am far more likely to give something a rating of "awesome" than "terrible". My defense is 1) since I watch less movies than I used to, I tend to watch less crap. 2) To me, 2.5 stars is below average. It means that I'm not sorry I watched it but it didn't do anything for me. Maybe it's semantics on what exactly "average" means. 2 and 1.5 Stars I'm wishing that I had the 2 hours of my life back and below 1.5 Stars were talking about a sheer act of will to not turn off the movie or walk out (i.e. Troma-bad). I'm a little more generous than Ebert; to him only 3, 3.5, and 4 Star films get the thumbs up; everything else is thumbs down.
I've noticed that too and wondered about it. It's interesting that while they appear to take a lot of pride in what they have accomplished- Civil Rights movement, protesting the war, etc.- these days it seems like they're not really that interested in modern public life. To the extent to which they do engage, it's often by absorbing and repeating MSNBC/Fox News opinions rather than really struggling with tough questions and dealing with the gray areas.
Did the boomers get tired? Did they decide they'd paid their dues and wanted to bow out of the effort? When younger generations started coming up and taking the mantle upon themselves, did they feel alienated and give up? I'm wondering.
I have a problem with most ratings systems in that they all tend towards over-positivity. Like an ice skater falling after a jump, but still manages to get a 5.8 out of 6. What kind of crappy rules do you have that when you mess up one of five things you still get graded a 96%? (not that I watch a whole lot of ice skating, but you get the idea.)
It goes hand in hand with a frustration over grade inflation too. What good is an 'A' if 60 percent of the class gets it?
I along with some others actually created a real-life grading scale for women. Instead of everyone getting an 8, we decided on a median looking girl, gave her a 5, and worked off that.
(As I'm typing this I realize how shallow this sounds, but it really only applies to strangers in bars, so eff-it.)
Because seriously, anonymous person, your wife/girlfriend is not a 10. Megan Fox is a 10. Jessica Alba is a 10. Olivia Wilde is a 10. Your wife/girlfriend is a 6 (although she is actually a 5 and I'm just being nice.)
And I don't know what the baby boomers have to be proud of. They followed "The Greatest Generation." If you think about it, the baby boomers are a serious let down from that. And so are the rest of us.
Weir, it has to do with the fact that are two ways to think about a ratings system. One is purely taking the average of all that's out there and saying what's above that and what's below that in quality. But the other way of thinking about it, as John has hinted, is when you consider your response, whether your response was neutral, negative, or positive. For example, presuming a heterosexual guy, he finds an average-looking woman attractive. So thus, even an average-looking girl--a 5 on your scale--is to him, an improvement upon if there were no girl at all. So if you were to assign her a number, it would be above 5 because the effect on the observer is positive. Same with movies. If you consider what you could have done with that hour of your life, if that hour of your life was improved, you must give that movie more than 2.5 stars. If that hour of your life was a wash, between 2.0 and 2.5 stars. If you feel those hours of your life were made worse for watching the movie, less than 2 stars. So again, it's less about empirical averages and more about personal relevance.
Point taken with the last part. At least the generation before them went to war and died for their country (and the world). Who could top that?
Weir, I have been pondering your comment for a while now and I think I finally have it. You are talking about a ranking system, which is different than a rating system.
For example, say we're both given a test on multiplication and we both get every answer right. We've both earned 100% and have rightfully earned As. But maybe you finished in half the time I did; it would be proper to rank you as the better math student even though we have rated the same. But who cares if 60% of the class gets an A? In a classroom setting, the grade is supposed to indicate your comprehension and command of the material, not your performance relative to other students.
So take that and apply it to movies. In any given year, every film released could be a 4-star film, or they could all be 1-star. Regardless of their pure rating, you could still rank them from best to worst.
"Anyone who tells you we can have the same benefits without raising taxes is mathematically challenged at best and a deceitful windbag at worst."
OK - I'm going to give it a try. Cost savings? Efficiency? A really crazy innovative booming economy?
Nevermind. I'll grant you that we'll probably have to raise taxes and lower benefits in the end... But remember - "lowering" benefits isn't really "lowering" benefits. In 1935, the average life expectancy was 61.7 years. Today it's over 77.8. Raising the age of retirement - something we really should do - isn't "lowering" benefits - it's just readjusting them to where they were when the program started. It's impossible to sell politically, but it's true...
I also think you guys are a bit too negative about the boomers here. Let's give them a little credit. Some of my favorite music was made by their generation. They started personal computing, the internet... They did a lot to advance civil rights. It's hard to measure up to the WWII generation. I'll be shocked if we do. But it was the WWII generation that started these programs (SS during the New Deal and Medicare during the Great Society) and had all these kids. It's pretty short-sighted to fund your retirees on the wages of the working generation. Virtually every private pension plan on this model has dried up. Those that couldn't (e.g. the auto industry) are bankrupt. The model just doesn't work, and the "greatest generation" created it. Huh.
If anything, if it wasn't for the 1983 SS amendments from the boomers and Reagan, it'd be bankrupt by now.
...oh, and Becky, be careful drawing an equivalency between MSNBC and Fox News. Do you watch either one of them?
Welcome to the comments Joe. We need some new blood around here.
John, 60% of a class getting A's (most of the time) represents a failure. It is most likely a failure of testing (test is too easy) or a failure of material (material is not advanced enough.)
Because when it comes down to it, not all kids are the same, and not all kids have the same aptitude in a particular subject. The bell curve is the standard for a reason.
(Damn, this started about movies, didn't it...lets digress...)
It boils down to a question of 'What is your ratings system based off of?' (I initially typed 'ranking system')
Is it a system based upon quality of film, or enjoyment of film, or enjoyment of time or a combination of these and others? Because I saw 'Snakes on a Plane' with a bunch of people, we had a bunch of cocktails beforehand (and during,) we talked through the whole thing, and had a great time. So based on my overall quality of experience, it is a 4 star movie (out of 4.) But if I were to rate it, it would get 1 or 1.5 (out of 4.) (Little side note, my dad's favorite movie in the last few years was 'Wild Hogs.' He didn't understand why it get trashed by the critics because he thought it was hilarious. He also doesn't get why 2 and a half Men gets trashed by critics but is the #1 rated comedy.)
On the other hand, you can go see almost any of the Best Picture contenders and the opposite is true. Or in literary terms, people prefer The Davinci Code to A Bleak House. (This site wont let me use the /u html tag. Boo.)
Why rate on a scale of 0-5 if you are not going to use 0-1.5? Or rate on a scale of 0-6 if you will not use 0-5?
(Another side note on the grades thing...I was watching an old Malcolm in the Middle episode, and they were in the advanced class at school, and everyone got an A so the teacher decided to grade/rank them on other things like time, penmanship, etc... so there was a big board in class where everyone had between 99.995 and 99.999. Naturally all the kids started to fight for the top spot even though they were equal.)
That was a mess of a post.
Joe - On Soc Security: first of all, I absolutely agree that raising the retirement age is a good idea. That said, I certainly do think that constitutes lowering benefits. Maybe not relative to 1935, but certainly relative to today. The politics aside, I'd like to hear you explain to someone who turns 62 this year that them not getting money for a few more years now doesn't constitute a lowering of benefits. The words "tough sell" come to mind.
On the boomers, I wasn't trying to be negative and I do give them a lot of credit. As we have discussed before, I just have difficulty resolving some really divergent ideas that define them. How does the hippy generation of the 70s turn into the greed-is-good capitalists of the 80s? Why does the generation that ushered in civil rights now want to stonewall gay marriage? Perhaps it's just the natural aging of the generation, but it's something you didn't see nearly as much of in "The Greatest Generation." By and large, I saw the values of the 50s and 60s in my grandparents all the way till the day they died.
Weir - Alright, I think we've just about beaten this one to death at this point. Suffice it to say that I agree that my rating system is somewhat arbitrary and probably is a little too generous. I try to take into account what a movie was trying to accomplish and then I judge how well I think it did it. Obviously, my expectations will shape that a great deal. Star Trek is not as good of a movie as The Dark Knight, which was not as good as Frost/Nixon. Nevertheless, I gave all 3 of them 5 Stars and I stand by that because I believe they all succeeded completely in what they were trying to do. In that context, I rarely find a movie that I feel utterly fails in what it is trying to do, so I rarely give anything 0-1.5 stars. Or maybe it's just that all the god-awful wastes of celluloid watched during Breakfast Club in college have showed me what truly terrible really is.
Fair enough.
On SS:
I think it may have been said here, or maybe somewhere else, but it needs repeating.
The difference between a blue collar worker working until 67 is WAY different than a white collar worker. Life expectancy is up, sure, but there are still jobs that physically can't be done past a certain age.
But yeah, benefits are going to have to be cut, and soon.
Perhaps I should have been more clear. I definitely know the differences between MSNBC and Fox News, and yes, I am aware Fox News has got WAY more of the crazy.
I just wanted to point out that both media outlets are very homogenous: whichever one you're loyal to, you could pretty much watch it all day long and never hear anything you disagree with. Perhaps I was being too diplomatic by referring to them so evenhandedly... it's just that the whole point of what makes this blog lively is that it's not just liberals who read it--and I recognize there are readers who feel MSNBC is the delusional one and FOX News is the sane one. I was in no way attempting to equalize them in terms of how extreme they are (Fox News is moreso).
The thing is that no one is fair and balanced because even though they are 12, 16, or 24 hour news channels, they still have to pick and choose their stories, and they do so based upon their ratings, and the ratings are built off the beliefs of the people that watch the channel.
An example might be one day...
Fox News spends all day talking about irresponsible bailouts and government takeover of private enterprise.
MSNBC spends all day talking about Obama bringing together doctors, drug companies, and insurance companies for a health care package/compromise.
Headline News spends all day talking about Caylee Anthony.
Now, each network will report the other stories, and then go right back into their (slightly spun) coverage of the stories that they feel will get them the best ratings based upon their audience. I don't think they are any different (which is why I try to watch both) and I think the reason you think FNC is more over the line is because you find the issues they focus on to be unsavory.
Also, John's boy Newt was on The Daily Show last night, and I wish the interview went just 2 minutes longer because they ended with this exchanged (paraphrased...)
John: "But can you trust the federal government to run a national military, but not to run national healthcare?"
Newt: "Yes I can..."
And the music came up and the show was over (it is funny how the show always end on a Stewart joke, one liner, or zinger... hmm....) but I would have liked to hear Newt's response.
OK, I know we're moving on to John's latest post, but I need to set the record straight here.
As far as MSNBC vs Fox goes, they do select issues and spin them as Weir said. The difference is that Fox just makes sh*t up. You don't need any more proof than their "Fair and Balanced" slogan - anyone that says Fox shows the liberal and conservative sides to an issue is smoking crack. So far, nobody on this board has done that, and I consider that a good thing for our health.
For The Daily Show - of course it's going to end with a zinger or joke from Jon - it's a half hour *comedy show*. They do get into issues, though, and it would be nice to see Gingrich's response... In fact you can - they posted the uncut interview online: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=228277&title=newt-gingrich-unedited-interview
OK, well just to play devil's advocate for a minute that's a pretty hefty charge you've made without offering up any proof other than their slogan. If someone made the statement that "Keith Olberman makes shit up" your understandable reaction would almost certainly be "like what? Name something." So I pose the same question to you: "Can you give some examples of things Fox News has made up?" And not something that Olberman said that someone on Fox said; that's not a first-hand source.
Personally, I actually don't think Fox flat-out makes up things any more than other news outlets. Where I think Fox is far worse is in taking a nugget of truth, taking it out of context, distorting it horribly, and ignoring contradictory evidence. A good example of what I'm talking about is the recent Hannity interview with Jesse Ventura. I don't think Hannity actually says anything that can be unequivocally called "false" (although he comes real close by almost, but not quite, saying that "Bush inherited 9/11") but the whole thing is nevertheless a ridiculous caricature of Obama and Clinton and a patent denial that Bush ever did anything wrong.
Post a Comment