"Milk cow with 310 million tits!" Social (In)Security

25-08-2010 11:51PM #1

Alan Simpson, the Republican Senate whip from 1985 to 1995, who now co-chairs President Obama's fiscal commission, has been asked to resign for making the "Milk cow with 310 million tits" analogy to the Social Security system in America.

Sources:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/08/social-security-group-calls-on-simpson-to-resign-after-sexist-remark/62035/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/alan_simpson_social_security_n_693277.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0825/Social-Security-Alan-Simpson-offends-almost-everyone-with-cow-quip

The reform and predicted failure of the Social Security system in America has been a controversial topic for many past presidents. No one seems to have a solution that all interested parties would agree with, while the system moves towards predicted collapse.

How do you see (or foresee) the continued Social Security system? Solutions? And should the co-chair Simpson get a medal, be fired, or be cast on The Simpsons?

Overheal · 26-08-2010 12:11AM

resign? Bullsh*t! :pac:

dashboard_hula · 26-08-2010 12:55AM

I saw nothing wrong with his final remark - the rest of his email is along the same lines - salty, a little bit smart, but ultimately honest and direct. I liked how he used the words "sustainable" and "long term solvency" - they are simple and direct, the way social security should be, but really isn't. I don't pretend to understand the full force of the problems facing social security in the states (and here), no matter how much I read, but I doubt that jumping up someones a$$ for being a smart-alec is helping.

And in fairness, whinging about ageism and sexism without actually addressing the points he made in the email is a bit...whingey.

metrovelvet · 26-08-2010 11:49AM

He has to resign for that?

kev9100 · 27-08-2010 02:37PM

Well, the Left is gonna hate this dude.

BluePlanet · 27-08-2010 03:17PM

I don't know much about it, but i've read things that say the Social Security has enough funding for something like the next 25 years?
Like this

Does anybody know if that is the case?

If it's true then SS is particularly well-funded.
Name a private corporation that can make the same claim.

metrovelvet · 27-08-2010 08:35PM

Is it because he said "tits'. Or is it the imagery of a cow with 310 million tits. Thats a lot of nipples to milk.

Social security is the most expensive tax out of your paycheck. I know I will never see a dime of the social security money taken out of my paychecks. It will all be gone by then. My 401k is also gone. Cant trust the government. Cant trust the markets. Its going back under the mattress.

28-08-2010 12:55PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

I don't know much about it, but i've read things that say the Social Security has enough funding for something like the next 25 years?

25 years? More like 10? I've seen several projections that predict when SS will go from surplus to deficit. This is one of the more optimistic charts.

258C5C91C08795E50E23E8A27C639EF5.gif?w=370&as=1

258C5C91C08795E50E23E8A27C639EF5.gif?w=370&as=1

BluePlanet · 28-08-2010 03:54PM

Have to admit i'm surprised to see you linking to a study by the Heritage Foundation.

This paper (PDF) by the Economic Policy Institute says it's well funded.

And if no changes (tweaks) are made, it won't run out of funds until 2037.

Social Security is running a surplus of $77 billion this year and amassing a trust fund large enough to last through the peak retirement years of the Baby Boomers. Social Security can only spend what it receives in tax revenues and has accumulated in its trust fund from past surpluses and interest earnings.

It cannot add to the deficit if the trust fund is exhausted because the law prohibits it from borrowing (if current revenues and savings in the trust fund are not sufficient to pay promised benefits, these have to be cut). Though modest changes will be needed to put Social Security in balance over the 75-year planning period, the projected shortfall is less than 1% of gross domestic product (GDP)..

At any rate, the reason i thought i'd contribute to this thread is that i frequent fair.org, and they have for a number of years been critcizing the main stream media for Social Security scaremongering.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4134
And you'd have to admit the voices clamouring for SS overhaul have received a lot more press than those saying the opposite.

28-08-2010 11:12PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Have to admit i'm surprised to see you linking to a study by the Heritage Foundation.

This one is from the GAO and appears similar?

Source: Testimony before the Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives, 19 June 2002, by David Walker, Comptroller General of the United States.

Anonymous1987 · 30-08-2010 12:17AM

The Congressional Budget Office examined social security under a range of policy scenarios, worst case seems to be 2037 with a good deal of surplus funds built up. Also, outlays are projected to exceed revenues in 2019 which somewhat agrees with your graphs.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=5530&type=0&sequence=2

This graph shows the ratio of the trust fund balance to annual outlays, which indicates how many years' worth of benefits could be funded with a given balance.

This article discusses some concerns with the projections, particularly the unexpected high unemployment rate but overall it does not seem to be as imminent an issue as some would think.

30-08-2010 01:04PM

Anonymous1987 wrote: »

This article discusses some concerns with the projections, particularly the unexpected high unemployment rate but overall it does not seem to be as imminent an issue as some would think.

Does it take into consideration the possibility of a double-dip recession in the US, which, from one economic model projection I saw, suggested that there was a 1 in 4 chance of occurring at this point?

I am reminded when Japan's financials dropped and did not recover for a decade, largely due to an overpriced real estate bubble that was a foundation for their financial system. The US had their real estate bubble burst in 2008-2009, which, combined with poorly regulated investment banking practices, and the bloody resource drain of two wars, contributed to their current financial meltdown and recession.

Does it also estimate the number of hidden unemployed in their projections; e.g., those people unemployed that have fallen off the roles with the exhaustion of their benefits, or those not qualified to receive unemployment due to their conditions of employment (some contractors or self-employed), or how they may have left their employer (resigned or fired for cause, rather than laid off or downsized)? For example, Meg Whitman claims that 2 million people are unemployed in California, when the estimates for the combined unemployed drawing benefits plus the hidden unemployed are closer to 4 million.

Does it account for the return and discharge of thousands of working age troops, now from Iraq, and later from Afghanistan?

Would the current Obama administration put a happy face on the issue of Social Security going into the 2010 November elections?

Anonymous1987 · 30-08-2010 05:37PM

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Would the current Obama administration put a happy face on the issue of Social Security going into the 2010 November elections?

I don't know enough about it but that could certainly be the case. On the other hand they are examining the worst case scenario envisioned in the original model so maybe it is somewhat reliable.

Einhard · 30-08-2010 08:42PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

I don't know much about it, but i've read things that say the Social Security has enough funding for something like the next 25 years?
Like this

Does anybody know if that is the case?

If it's true then SS is particularly well-funded.
Name a private corporation that can make the same claim.

The difference between SS and a private corporation is that the latter can, in general, either be fairly confident that the market sustaining it today will not have changed significantly in 30 years, or that it can adapt to any changes. The demographics that underly SS on the other hand, will have experienced a significant negative shift within a couple of decades, and all the signs are that the necessary reforms won't be enacted. So while the company may not have the reserves, it will be able to sustain sufficent revenues to make a profit into the future. The opposite is the case with SS. Its reserves are impressive, but after a certain period, it will eat true those and find itself unable to realise sufficent funds to continue as it is.

Denerick · 30-08-2010 08:52PM

The US is not unique with social security. Western Europe has the same problems coming since the baby boomer generation gets ready to retire. We just talk about it less. Fact is there are less workers to pay the taxes that pay for social security due to increasing lifespan and an older population. There are only a couple of real solutions:

1) Cut your losses, raise the retirement age to 70.
2) Encourage mass immigration from Latin America and elsewhere, giving priority to those under 30. This will dramatically increase the population, and give the labour force a massive drug rush. It will renew the entire nation, if done right. I really don't see it happening.
3) Muddle along, leave a giant debt to your children (After all, most pensioners will be dead by then so they won't care) Whats most likely to happen is that the entire system will be scrapped due to the insanity and partisanship of the right wing, failing to confront this issue honestly.

Snarkily 4) Encourage people to smoke. Smokers die on average a decade earlier than non smokers, thus saving the state a considerable sum in the long run

Einhard · 30-08-2010 09:13PM

Denerick wrote: »

Snarkily 4) Encourage people to smoke. Smokers die on average a decade earlier than non smokers, thus saving the state a considerable sum in the long run

Even better, encourage the poor to smoke. We need the rich to keep paying into the system for as long as they possibly can!

Seriously though, I don't think that people can have a reasonable issue with an increased retirement age. When pensions were introduced first, the average worker was lucky to live a few years past retirement, if he even reached it at all. Now the average person can expect to live up to 20 years after they retire. It's not sustainable and raising the age is the most equitable way of engineering a solution.

Denerick · 30-08-2010 10:34PM

Einhard wrote: »

It's not sustainable and raising the age is the most equitable way of engineering a solution.

If any politician suggests raising it they risk the spectacle of thousands of pensioners in wheelchairs picketing their home. Political suicide. For all their talk of 'evil big government', republicans are a cowardly crowd and will keep the social security fight under the carpet. Democrats would fight to keep the age at 65. There is far too much politics involved, thus unless it becomes critical, a solution will not be forthcoming.

Overheal · 30-08-2010 11:23PM

Social Security is a catch 22. Damned if you do, damned if you dont.

The only way I could figure doing it right is to roll it down over the course of 65 years, and only affect people born after a certain future date; but thats still not only controversial but way too long to correct the problem. Past that, I hope someone more learned on the matter would be able to come up with a solution.

Einhard · 31-08-2010 12:09AM

Denerick wrote: »

If any politician suggests raising it they risk the spectacle of thousands of pensioners in wheelchairs picketing their home. Political suicide. For all their talk of 'evil big government', republicans are a cowardly crowd and will keep the social security fight under the carpet. Democrats would fight to keep the age at 65. There is far too much politics involved, thus unless it becomes critical, a solution will not be forthcoming.

True enough. Ironically enough though, for all we give out about our crowd here, and for all that a conservative Republican would scorn Cowen or Lenihan as socialists, at least they've gone some way to increasing the age here.

BluePlanet · 31-08-2010 11:39AM

Denerick wrote: »

3) Muddle along, leave a giant debt to your children (After all, most pensioners will be dead by then so they won't care) Whats most likely to happen is that the entire system will be scrapped due to the insanity and partisanship of the right wing, failing to confront this issue honestly.

SS cannot add to the us national deficit, by law.
What is actually occuring is that (successive?) administrations are dipping into the SS trust fund to pay for other projects.

Maintaining the trust fund should be easy enough.
Start with the biggest elphant in the room - Military Spending.

"Milk cow with 310 million tits!" Social (In)Security

Comments