Investors lose a trillion dollars in one day

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

from page three:

Slowing the Growth of Social Security Spending

Three broad approaches for constraining the rise in Social Security benefits have received considerable attention. Under those approaches, policymakers could:



■
Reduce the size of the initial payments that new Social Security beneficiaries are scheduled to receive,





■
Increase further the age at which workers become eligible for full retirement benefits (which would reduce the initial benefit received at any given age of claiming), or





■
Reduce the annual cost-of-living adjustment that beneficiaries receive once they become eligible for benefits.



Several CBO papers have analyzed those and other approaches for restructuring the Social Security program.9 In addition to reducing future Social Security benefits, policymakers could restore long-term actuarial balance to the program by raising Social Security taxes or dedicating more general revenue to it.

If policymakers decide to slow the growth of Social Security benefits, considerations of both fairness and economic efficiency point toward enacting new legislation long before the changes take effect. People generally consider the size of their expected Social Security benefits when deciding how much to save and how long to work. Because those benefits are a major source of income for many people, it will be important to enact any benefit reductions well in advance to give people enough time to respond by adjusting their plans for saving and *retirement.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's all well and good and I'm sure folks really wouldn't mind working to 67 or 70. There is a fly in the ointment though. THERE ARE NO JOBS for these people to work at and as they get older they are more than likely to get RIFed if they work for a company. Policy makers are BLIND to that probably because most people only look at their circumstances and extrapolit that out. Policy makers are supposed to look out for the populace.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by jms62

It's all well and good and I'm sure folks really wouldn't mind working to 67 or 70. There is a fly in the ointment though. THERE ARE NO JOBS for these people to work at and as they get older they are more than likely to get RIFed if they work for a company. Policy makers are BLIND to that probably because most people only look at their circumstances and extrapolit that out. Policy makers are supposed to look out for the populace.

which is why i said the govts first priority should be doing everything possible to get hiring going.
the point of all that above is that ss isn't just in need of a 'tweak', that it has no need of anything being done right now. the longer they wait to do something, the worse it'll get-not better. the gap will be larger, the debt higher, the ability to close the gap more difficult, and the necessary increases in taxes...er, revenue enhancements will be virtually impossile to accept.
changes need to be done, now, and need to have automatic adjustments in future. this problem will not go away.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Danzig

which is why i said the govts first priority should be doing everything possible to get hiring going.
the point of all that above is that ss isn't just in need of a 'tweak', that it has no need of anything being done right now. the longer they wait to do something, the worse it'll get-not better. the gap will be larger, the debt higher, the ability to close the gap more difficult, and the necessary increases in taxes...er, revenue enhancements will be virtually impossile to accept.
changes need to be done, now, and need to have automatic adjustments in future. this problem will not go away.

Baby....exactly where are your hot spots besides the obvious, of course.Also,have you ever actually sat on someone's face?If so,did your muffy-poo wiggle on the face or did it pose a stoic profile?