Tweaking Entitlement Programs: A Political Hot Potato? (Obama, cost, politicians)

[LauraC]

In your opinion, how difficult is it for a politician to tweak an entitlement program not of their making? For all the politicians who want to give away the store are they banking on "some other guy" to have to worry about reigning it in in the future? Do you think people in FDR's time ever considered his popular giveaways to be a fiscal headache for someone else, like President Obama, down the road? Do you think President Obama doesn't care if Obamacare is someone else's fiscal nightmare long after he leaves office?

I was reading this article (link below) on possible ideas for tweaking Social Security and I'm thinking of all of the politicians, with one eye on Greece, who will run for the hills before they attach their names to any fixes. The time to tweak social security is not when the large baby boomer group is about to retire, it should have been done decades ago, in my opinion, or better yet, social security should not exist at all.

Do you think Social Security tweaking will just send some old folks to another entitlement program - welfare?

How to tweak Social Security - Press-Telegram

[HappyTexan]

FDR got lucky in that WWII came along and ended the Depression.
People started making money during WWII but with rationing they didn't have much to spend it on so they saved. That's what ended the Great Depression.

What do we have...more government spending. This isn't going to end well as people with no jobs don't pay taxes.

[JimMe]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

FDR got lucky in that WWII came along and ended the Depression.
People started making money during WWII but with rationing they didn't have much to spend it on so they saved. That's what ended the Great Depression.

What do we have...more government spending. This isn't going to end well as people with no jobs don't pay taxes.

Social Security illustrates the Law of Unintended Consequences. When SS was passed full retirement age was set at 65, even though life expectancy was less than 65. In other words, it was expected that most people would not live long enough to collect. Today life expectancy is approaching 80 and climbing. That means that more people are collecting for longer periods of retirement. Somehow FDR's brain trust never factored this possibility into their calculations of the future cost of SS. Doesn't inspire much confidence in the geniuses who cobbled together the so-called health reform.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by JimMe

Social Security illustrates the Law of Unintended Consequences. When SS was passed full retirement age was set at 65, even though life expectancy was less than 65. In other words, it was expected that most people would not live long enough to collect. Today life expectancy is approaching 80 and climbing. That means that more people are collecting for longer periods of retirement. Somehow FDR's brain trust never factored this possibility into their calculations of the future cost of SS. Doesn't inspire much confidence in the geniuses who cobbled together the so-called health reform.

You also have to consider that SS got opened to more than just folks who turn 65 as well. That fund was never meant to be a full retirement or disability pension fund. It was never meant to include all the people it does today..so many who are NOT 65 and retired.

It was to supplement in retirement.