Math doesn’t work on privatizing Social Security

Over the years, most if not all of the current Republican presidential field have advocated reforming Social Security by guaranteeing the benefits of those in or approaching retirement while giving younger Americans the option of putting at least some of their contributions in personal or private accounts.

Rick Perry, for example, has called Social Security “a monstrous lie” for young people, although he has backed off that recently. Michele Bachmann last year also talked of wanting to wean younger Americans off the program, although she too has softened that rhetoric. In the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney repeatedly endorsed the privatization approach suggested by President Bush, repeating that support in his 2010 book. (Yes, he too has now changed his tune to a degree.) And Herman Cain has consistently advocated using the example of Chile as a model for how to privatize the program here in the United States.

Like President Bush in 2005, however, none of the candidates addresses the enormous financial challenges of such a transition. It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.

Here’s the problem: To finance benefits at promised levels for those 55 or older, we would need to continue to collect payroll taxes from today’s working-age population. However, we would also propose to divert a significant share of those payroll tax into personal accounts. In effect, we would be trying to spend the same dollar twice, and we would do it trillions of times.

When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.

Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.

To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.

In a study exploring the possibility of copying the Chilean example here in the United States, the Congressional Research Service outlined some of the major obstacles:

Absent other measures, keeping Social Security’ s commitments would require the government to raise taxes, cut spending on other programs, or borrow more from private financial markets. Put another way, a generation or two would have to pay twice, bearing both the cost of pre-funding the new system and the costs of benefits under the old system.

The United States already is faced with chronic budget deficit problems, leaving little or no room for the massive tax hikes or public borrowing that would be necessary (the Social Security Administration estimates if all workers currently under age 40 were to stop paying into Social Security, the system would need an infusion of $6.9 trillion in order to pay promised benefits to those remaining in the system).

That was written in 1998, at a time when — to put it mildly — our nation’s finances were in considerably better shape than they are today. That $6.9 trillion figure would also be considerably higher today, considering inflation and the fact that the Baby Boomers are now 13 years closer to retirement than they were in 1998.

All in all, a reasonable ballpark estimate of $10 trillion in additional resources would probably be needed to finance such a transition. So until you identify a source for that kind of money, talk of personal or private accounts is mere wishful thinking.

– Jay Bookman

518 comments Add your comment

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:05 pm

The Chilean model is great.

Yeah, we probably don’t have people with the political guts to do it. But it permanently fixes the liability mismatch created by demographically driven Social Security.

“That $6.9 trillion figure would also be considerably higher today, considering inflation and the fact that the Baby Boomers are now 13 years closer to retirement than they were in 1998.”

Yeah, cause we keep kicking the can down the road. The further you defer the decision and pain, the worse it gets.

Everyone in my generation already knows we get to pay for the current generation of retirees, as well as ourselves. Might as well fix the problem openly and permanently while we’re at it.

“a reasonable ballpark estimate of $10 trillion in additional resources ”

NSS. That’s true of the current system too.

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:07 pm

“So until you identify a source for that kind of money” then I guess we should stop Social Security payments immediately until Jay identifies a source for its deficit as well.

That goes for Medicare and Medicaid too.

stands for decibels

September 26th, 2011
3:09 pm

It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.

shocking, that.

Jay

September 26th, 2011
3:09 pm

“So until you identify a source for that kind of money” then I guess we should stop Social Security payments immediately until Jay identifies a source for its deficit as well.

Sure, jm. Raise the payroll tax ceiling to $150,000 and adjust the COLA.

OK, I’m done.

Yoda

September 26th, 2011
3:11 pm

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:12 pm

Jay 3:09 – good. We’ll use that dough now to privatize SS. Problem fixed.

Jay

September 26th, 2011
3:14 pm

Your math is a little off, jm. You’re once again trying to spend the same dollar twice.

CJ

September 26th, 2011
3:15 pm

I have a better solution than Jay’s above. Eliminate the payroll tax ceiling entirely and leave the COLA alone. Non-crisis averted.

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:19 pm

Jay 3:14- ummmmm. no. You just “created” more tax revenue to fix the problem. I don’t like how you did it, but you did. It is doable, especially over a 10-15 year time frame.

Adam

September 26th, 2011
3:19 pm

And we all know how much Americans love MATH! It’s right up there with SCIENCE on our list of priorities.

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm

Social Security is the least of our problems. It should be fixed.

But Medicare is the 800 pound gorilla sitting on Uncle Sam’s lap.

CJ

September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm

By the way, here’s an excellent explanation of why we should oppose COLA adjustments: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/21/defazio-social-security-cpi_n_905623.html (scroll down and watch the short video of Congressman Peter DeFazio’s explanation).

TaxPayer

September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm

Math, like science or economics, is not a prerequisite for being Republican so claiming that the math does not work out, although a factual statement, is irrelevant with respect to any and all statements presented as though they were fact by Republicans. You just gotta have a little faith. Well, maybe not a little faith. Perhaps a whole lotta faith. Well, maybe a whole lotta faith will not do either. Make that blind faith. That one works every time.

Granny Godzilla

September 26th, 2011
3:20 pm

I don’t think jm actually read Jay’s post……

Mighty Righty

September 26th, 2011
3:21 pm

Jay, Every time a Republican suggests a fix for social security the Democrats who offer nothing just flop around on the floor like a dead fish. Your suggestion is to raise the revenue and cut the benefits which no Democrat has the stomach to even discuss. They prefer to use social security as a vote gathering tool.

Adam

September 26th, 2011
3:21 pm

jm: But Medicare is the 800 pound gorilla sitting on Uncle Sam’s lap.

Goal post movement and “My topic is more important than yours” ALERT!

Joe Mama

September 26th, 2011
3:21 pm

Jay — ” the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.”

Since our conservative friends have started citing the Chilean model so much lately, I smile to myself every time they bring it up — for exactly this reason.

Granny Godzilla

September 26th, 2011
3:22 pm

Math IS a science afterall….

Jay

September 26th, 2011
3:22 pm

Really, jm?

First of all, raising the payroll tax ceiling to $150,000 won’t generate anything close to $10 trillion. And again, that revenue is already spent, so to speak, making the current program actuarially sound. You can’t then turn around and ALSO spend it on private accounts.

Adam

September 26th, 2011
3:24 pm

If Social Security is abolished, do I get a refund?

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:24 pm

Adam 3:21 – um. no, try again. its the truth. but we can talk SS all day if Jay wants….

carlosgvv

September 26th, 2011
3:25 pm

From the time FDR started social security until now, Republican conservatives have been unhappy with the concept of SS. This intense rejection of social security compares in feelings with those who totally oppose abortion and the death penality. It is a fundamental part of Republican dogma and will never go away. So, trying to reason with Republicans on this issue makes about as much sense as trying to get anti-abortion or anti-death penality people to compromise in any way. It won’t work. Republicans will never stop trying to get rid of social security just as Arabs will never stop trying to destroy Israel. This kind of mind set can only be fought, never reasoned with.

Adam

September 26th, 2011
3:25 pm

jm: Switching topic to Medicare instead of SS = “My topic trumps yours” and also is moving the goalposts. Which you did very very fast, btw. We’re not even half a page down yet

Gordon

September 26th, 2011
3:27 pm

I agree that Social Security can continue in its present fundamental form as long as changes are made. These include reducing the COLA amount and raising the retirement age. I do not think means testing should be considered because of the law of unintended consequences: you actually discourage people from being more self-sufficient by penalizing them for doing so. Also, that “full faith and credit” thing the government always talks about. Also, can we stop pretending the trust fund is anything but an accounting mechanism that tells us how much money one part of the government owes another part of the government? The money has been spent.

Medicare is a completely different story, however. Fundamental change is needed there.

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:27 pm

Jay 3:22 – really Jay? Well then you still haven’t fixed the problem then have you. Because Social Security as it is has a $21 Trillion “minor” problem.

“The $21.4 trillion unfunded liability represents the difference between all taxes that will be paid and all benefits received over the lifetimes of everyone in the system now — workers and beneficiaries alike.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-06-06-us-debt-chart-medicare-social-security_n.htm

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:29 pm

Journalism majors don’t get math…..

Generation$crewed

September 26th, 2011
3:30 pm

Why are we forced to pay into SS?

If we had a choice to choose not to and could privately invest our money, with a clause about not being able to claim any benefits if none were paid in it may work better or more efficiently.

jm

September 26th, 2011
3:32 pm

And isn’t this a blast from the past. Exhibit A in why we need a new president.

“President Barack Obama has called for a bipartisan debt commission to deal with the country’s fiscal obligations, and has said “everything is on the table.””

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/89255-funding-gap-rising-debt-put-new-focus-on-social-security-reform

Lord Help Us

September 26th, 2011
3:36 pm

Man, those butterfly ballots in FLA were expensive…Just think, without that screwup:

-no bush tax cuts
-no war in iraq
-no medicare part d

Oh well, certainly the GOP learned something from their screwups…

Bosch

September 26th, 2011
3:37 pm

GS,

Or not.

Advocates of privatization assume that a privatized retirement system would be more efficient and cost effective than a government managed program. But in reality, Social Security’s administrative costs are very low, at less than one percent of income revenues. In comparison, the Chilean system, which often is cited as a model for privatizing Social Security, has average administrative costs of about 13 percent of worker contributions.

http://www.ncpssm.org/news/archive/ssprimer/

Jay

September 26th, 2011
3:37 pm

jm, you’re playing dodgeball, and not playing it very convincingly either.

Libertarian

September 26th, 2011
3:38 pm

So basically………we’re stuck with this and there’s no way to fix it. Great.

(ir)Rational

September 26th, 2011
3:40 pm

Libertarian – That seems to be what Jay is saying.

Granny Godzilla

September 26th, 2011
3:40 pm

“we’re stuck with this and there’s no way to fix it”

arrrggghhhhhh, the you know what…..it hurts

Gordon

September 26th, 2011
3:41 pm

Lord Help Us@3:36,

If the implication of your post is that we wouldn’t be in this mess with Social Security and Medicare if it wasn’t for those 3 things, you are mistaken. Medicare and Social Security dwarf everything else in the budget, other than interest.

Jay

September 26th, 2011
3:41 pm

Libertarian, do the words “too big to fail” sound familiar?

Libertarian

September 26th, 2011
3:42 pm

Generation$crewed

September 26th, 2011
3:30 pm

Yes except we always feel sorry for those who make bad choices.

stands for decibels

September 26th, 2011
3:43 pm

Just think, without that screwup:

[...]

no war in iraq

I’d sure like to think that Gore wouldn’t have been conned into an invasion/occupation by HIS neoconservative Veep, but I guess one never really knows.

Adam

September 26th, 2011
3:44 pm

Plenty of ways to fix it, Libertarian. Just the most irresponsible of those ways is gutting it or getting rid of it.

PUHLEEEZE

September 26th, 2011
3:45 pm

I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance

Way to twist it, Jay. You aren’t purchasing insurance. You are being forced to save money. And the money you are saving is not being spread around to other people. It is your’s to keep.

With Healthcare, you ARE purchasing insurance. One purchased, you don’t see any of it back… ever… unless you have some health problem. And the governement will take tax dollars and supplement other people’s insurance.

But to the main crux of your argument (rather than the idiotic slam on Cain that you attempted)… Yes, it would be prohibitively expensive. To get rid of SS, someone who has ALREADY paid in a fortune and has had no benefit whatsoever is going to get screwed. Young people are not going to get screwed because they have very little money in the system. Those older than 55 are not going ot get screwed because their benefits have been taken “off the table”. It is those who are 45-55, who are past their maximum earning years, who have already paid hundreds of thousands (each) into SS and Medicare, who have just had their savings beaten by two rececessions and a housing market collapse, who are trying to invest safely in a climate of zero percent interest rates, who only have a bit more than 10-15 years left to invest, who are trying to maintain a job in a society that worships at the alter of Ageism, who never voted for either program, that everyone is trying to nail with the entire burden of this Socialist Experiment known as Social Security and Medicare.

Jack

September 26th, 2011
3:46 pm

I was kinda wondering when Bookman would get on Cain’s case. If Cain happens to be the GOP candidate, it would cause all kinds of problems for the Left and present some difficult decisions for black voters. This voter would be delighted to vote for Cain.

Scooter

September 26th, 2011
3:47 pm

Social Security is a system that benefits politicians over the people, so I’m not surprised Jay isn’t interested in reversing that relationship.

How about Galveston, Texas’s opting out of SS in 1980 and creating their own plan that is far outperforming SS? Their plans are theirs, and theirs alone. Their plans can also be part of a person’s estate upon death… no meddling politicians can get their vote buying hands on it. The fact is, politicians pulled a fast one on the American people with SS’s unsustainable promise and Jay seems to be just fine with that, as well as other political promises. I guess those promises are all the hope the masses need to stay passive. keep HOPE alive?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514

Gordon

September 26th, 2011
3:47 pm

There is a way to fix it – take it back to what it originally was intended to be. When SS was started, the life expectancy was at least 10 years less than it is now. But the age people start receiving SS has not changed. It was not meant to supplement retirement income for 10 or 15 years, it was meant to make sure the last few years of a person’s life were not destitute.

Raise the retirement age, and tie it to life expectancy in some way. Also the COLAs are too high.

Jay

September 26th, 2011
3:48 pm

“Medicare and Social Security dwarf everything else in the budget, other than interest.”

Not really. For fiscal 2011:

Medicare; $494 billion
Social Security $748 billion
Defense $768 billion
Interest: $206 billion

St Simons - we're on Island time

September 26th, 2011
3:50 pm

FICA tax – flat tax cheer for the flat-taxers – past 90k to infinity
Medicare for All
Done & done. Everybody knows it.
Shrimp & Grits for everyone. Let’s go surfin jm

Trotsky Foxtrot

September 26th, 2011
3:52 pm

And Herman Cain has consistently advocated using the example of Chile as a model for how to privatize the program here in the United States.

Just ask him what he thinks about “right of return” for Mr. Pinochet. Bwuaaaa haahahahahahaahahahahahahah bwahahahahahahahahah.

What a crock.

Gordon

September 26th, 2011
3:52 pm

Jay, thanks for the correction.

OK, I forgot defense. But interest rates are historically low and that number is going to only rise. Of the 4 things you listed, only defense is discretionary. My point was that Iraq, the Bush tax cuts, Medicare Part D, and other things are not the big problem. Entitlements are.

Granny Godzilla

September 26th, 2011
3:52 pm

Jack

And this liberal would love you to have that chance….

Palin 2012 Oh please Oh please

Bachmann 2012 Oh please Oh please

Perry 2012 Oh please Oh please

Cain 2012 Oh please oh please

It’s a damn dessert buffet for democrats!

Jay

September 26th, 2011
3:53 pm

Social Security is a system that benefits politicians over the people, so I’m not surprised Jay isn’t interested in reversing that relationship.

Go tell it to Grandma, Scooter. Go tell it to the four out of five Americans who oppose any cuts in Social Security that it doesn’t really help them.

You too Gordon. Try to sell your proposal to the American people. And good luck on that.

Adam

September 26th, 2011
3:53 pm

All you cons coming out against Social Security: If you hate it so much, you are free to move to a more capitalist country than ours and invest your money however you see fit!

Oh wait….

Lord Help Us

September 26th, 2011
3:54 pm

Gordon,

‘If the implication of your post is that we wouldn’t be in this mess with Social Security and Medicare if it wasn’t for those 3 things, you are mistaken. Medicare and Social Security dwarf everything else in the budget, other than interest.’

The only implication is that I believe (just my opnion) that we would be much better off today if Gore had been elected instead of GWB – (irrespective of the buffoon his veep choice turned out to be…)

Joe Mama

September 26th, 2011
3:58 pm

PUHLEEZE — “Way to twist it, Jay. You aren’t purchasing insurance. You are being forced to save money. And the money you are saving is not being spread around to other people. It is your’s to keep.”

Social Security is and has always been insurance. It’s even in the name of the program, OASDI.

josef

September 26th, 2011
3:59 pm

“jm

September 26th, 2011
3:05 pm
The Chilean model is great.

Yeah, we probably don’t have people with the political guts to do it.”

The Chilean system was imposed under Pinochet…G-d, I hope we don’t have the people with those political guts…

Jay

September 26th, 2011
4:00 pm

That would also be incorrect, Gordon. The Iraq war alone cost $2 trillion, according to the CBO. How can you possibly say that hasn’t helped to drive the debt up?

The tax cuts cost $2.8 trillion, again a CBO number. That didn’t drive the debt up?

You can’t simply pretend these things didn’t happen.

Trotsky Foxtrot

September 26th, 2011
4:00 pm

Jay: “Sure, jm. Raise the payroll tax ceiling to $150,000 and adjust the COLA.”

Wealth envy!!! Wealth envy!! You’re trying to tax the job creators!!! You’re taxing me to deaaaathhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh….. croak ..

Gordon

September 26th, 2011
4:01 pm

Jay,

Are we going to do the right thing or the popular thing? Means testing is just flat out wrong, because people have for decades been forced to put after-tax dollars into SS and told one day they will receive benefits. It’s become all to easy to just tell the rich to pay for it (see St Simons @3:50). This is the biggest problem with government programs – they create dependency.

Gradually raising the retirement age is the only way. I guess that calls for a leader – something we haven’t had in Washington in decades.

poison pen

September 26th, 2011
4:04 pm

Don’t know about y’all but I like crackers in my Chile.

Adam

September 26th, 2011
4:05 pm

Kamchak

September 26th, 2011
4:05 pm

You can’t simply pretend these things didn’t happen.

Wanna bet?

Jay

September 26th, 2011
4:06 pm

“I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance

Way to twist it, Jay. You aren’t purchasing insurance. You are being forced to save money. And the money you are saving is not being spread around to other people. It is your’s to keep.

———————

Wrong, PUHLEEZE. Of the 13.3 percent, 10 percent goes into the personal account. The remaining 3.3 percent is mandated to be spent buying disability and life insurance on the private market, just as I reported.

Twist it as you will, them’s the facts.

Lord Help Us

September 26th, 2011
4:06 pm

Gordon,

‘I guess that calls for a leader – something we haven’t had in Washington in decades.’

See Clinton, Bill: inherited record deficits and left office with (soon to be squandered) record surpluses.

What do you think happened to that surplus…

poison pen

September 26th, 2011
4:07 pm

Joe Mama, 3:58 Well said.

Trotsky Foxtrot

September 26th, 2011
4:07 pm

Gordon: “Gradually raising the retirement age is the only way. I guess that calls for a leader – something we haven’t had in Washington in decades.”

No it’s not. As Jay said, all you gotta do is ….. raise the CAP!! Which is so simple, I just outed myself as a wild-eyed Socialists noooooooooooooooooooo!! Shhh don’t tell anybody! They’re throw me in the mental ward. Bwahahahahahahahahahahah ….

Bosch

September 26th, 2011
4:08 pm

“Don’t know about y’all but I like crackers in my Chile.”

Me too, the oyster kind…

Kamchak

September 26th, 2011
4:10 pm

Me too, the oyster kind…

I like my chili over rice. In fact, I made a big ol’ crock-pot of it last night.

Gordon

September 26th, 2011
4:11 pm

Jay @4:00

Did I say those things didn’t drive the debt up? No. I said in relation to entitlements, they are much smaller. That should give people an idea of how bad the entitlement issue is.

The Iraq war costs do not project into the future the way the entitlement costs do – those costs will end (some can be transferred to interest on that debt). How much do the tax cuts cost per year (not the total cost) assuming there is absolutely no economic benefit of people having more money in their pockets? Now compare those numbers going forward with the unfunded liability of Social Security and Medicare.

Bosch

September 26th, 2011
4:12 pm

Kamchak,

I did the same! Rice and all! I like oyster crackers in my chili, but none were available, so we settled for Jasmine rice.

Gordon

September 26th, 2011
4:14 pm

“No it’s not. As Jay said, all you gotta do is ….. raise the CAP!! ”

Translation: “all you gotta do is get someone with more money than me to pay part of my retirement income”. After all, there’s more of us than them, so we can outvote ‘em. I know, lets tax left handed people – I think only 4% of the population is left handed, so who cares what they think?

Pathetic.

Kamchak

September 26th, 2011
4:15 pm

Bosch

Last night seemed to call for chili up here in this small hamlet in the N.C. Mtns.

Kinda cool, a touch of fall in the air.

Gonna freeze some of it for this winter.

josef

September 26th, 2011
4:17 pm

Just to be clear…the government still maintains a strong role in the retirement system, providing coverage of those not in a private pension plan and bailing out failing plans, “guarantees” the Chilean taxpayers “underwrite.”

Granny Godzilla

September 26th, 2011
4:17 pm

Chili?

Friday we had family chili competition night instead of steak night.

We all won. None of any of the recipes left!

(Course I mandated that 10% went to TUMS and 3.5 % went to PEPCID)

Bosch

September 26th, 2011
4:18 pm

Sorry Jay, no more chili talk.

Trotsky Foxtrot

September 26th, 2011
4:18 pm

Said Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, in his infinite pontificatory wisdom, on the declining virtue of our good Roman I mean American people:

Speaking of safety net programs like SS, he said:

These programs actually weakened us as a people. You see, almost forever, it was institutions in society that assumed the role of taking care of one another. If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues. But all that changed when the government began to assume those responsibilities. All of a sudden, for an increasing number of people in our nation, it was no longer necessary to worry about saving for security because that was the government’s job.

Gordon

September 26th, 2011
4:21 pm

Lord Help Us,

You forget 2 things about the late Clinton years when most of the deficit reduction occurred:

1) Republicans were in charge of both sides of Congress. They get no credit -right?
2) The dot com explosion basically doubled the stock market in just a few years. People made money and payed taxes on it.

That fact of the matter is that the budget was NOT balanced, or was it even close. During that time, as is true for all times, the liabilities for entitlement programs were growing but were not being counted on the government books like they have to be for a private company. The company I work for has a pension program and must record future obligations as a liablility. In cash flow terms, the federal government broke even for a couple of years there, but in fact we were going deeper into debt. The debt you hear about (14.5 trillion) DOES NOT include the shortfall between expected revenues and expenses to pay entitlement obligations, and is in fact a very small percentage of it. The reason the government does this is because it is not required by law to pay those debts. It could come out tomorrow and say it won’t be paying any more Medicare or Social Security. So please don’t talk to me about squandered surpluses – they never existed.

Jay

September 26th, 2011
4:21 pm

Yes, Josef, and under Pinochet the military somehow forgot to include itself and the national police under this great privatized system and in fact is covered under a “paygo” system much like Social Security.

Why did they do that, I wonder? A great personal sacrifice on their part, no doubt.

josef

September 26th, 2011
4:22 pm

IMAM

Who’s Kramer and what don’t you tolerate? You tolerate wishing fatal accidents on some of us by others who find your favor…. :-)

poison pen

September 26th, 2011
4:22 pm

In Michigan, especially Detroit there are scores of Coney Isalnds that serve great Chile. A lot of people like cheese & onions on top.
Try Lafayette coney island if ever in Detroit, they’re great.

Sorry Jay, but it’s getting near dinner time and I like Chile.

Jay

September 26th, 2011
4:23 pm

Jm

September 26th, 2011
4:24 pm

Jay not sure how u think I’m playing dodgeball but whatever

Granny 1:33 cause Romney doesn’t need to put in his money this go round. Oy

josef

September 26th, 2011
4:24 pm

JAY

Relative to that Chilen model…I just find it hard to swallow given who came up with it and when…

Bosch

September 26th, 2011
4:25 pm

Trotsky,

RE: Rubio — well, yeah! Sure! We would all love those things to happen and cats and dogs would get along and foxes would stay out of hen houses, but we don’t live in an episode of Father Knows Best.

poison pen

September 26th, 2011
4:25 pm

Wasn’t Kramer on Seinfeld? what in the hell is he doing here?

Bosch

September 26th, 2011
4:27 pm

“If someone was sick in your family, you took care of them. If a neighbor met misfortune, you took care of them. You saved for your retirement and your future because you had to. We took these things upon ourselves in our communities, our families, and our homes, and our churches and our synagogues.”

But one thing Rubio is simply forgetting, while yes, we don’t live in the perfect world in many instances — those things still happen.

Lord Help Us

September 26th, 2011
4:29 pm

Gordon,

‘You forget 2 things about the late Clinton years when most of the deficit reduction occurred…’

If you wish to opine, please get chronologically oriented. Clinton’s Deficit reduction bill was passed when the Dems still controlled Congress…with almost zero GOP support…and, with dire predictions of how it would ,’blow a hole in the deficit.’

Sorry…no dice…

Granny Godzilla

September 26th, 2011
4:29 pm

poison pen

worked in the motor city….couldn’t decide which I liked better the coneys on Gratiot or the pierogis in Hamtramak.

(Same mandate for tums though…..)

Keep Up the Good Fight!

September 26th, 2011
4:30 pm

Surprising that the Republicans make great glossy brochures and nice photoshots but there is no substance to their “plans.” Somewhat ironic in how they yelp about Obama’s “missing plan” over and over and over. Much like the so-called RyanPlan that has a nice 36 page glossy brochure and no substance, the “repeal Obamacare first, then we’ll figure something out” and now the Cain “let’s do this Chile plan and we’ll include a mandate that we already claim is unconstitutional”. Daily we see the cons get conned and they whine about “libs” “ilks” etc………. So how is that 2010 Republican Jobs Plan coming?

Jm

September 26th, 2011
4:30 pm

Jay for the record as I have stated 6 dozen times here, I believe SS needs to bs preserved, albeit in A much different form. Private accounts would also be a part of that.

Jay

September 26th, 2011
4:31 pm

Financed how, jm?

Lord Help Us

September 26th, 2011
4:31 pm

Gordon,

more specifically, the Deficit reduction act of 1993:

It created 36 percent and 39.6 income tax rates for individuals in the top 1.2% of the wage earners.[2]
It created a 35 percent income tax rate for corporations.
The cap on Medicare taxes was repealed.
Transportation fuels taxes were raised by 4.3 cents per gallon.
The taxable portion of Social Security benefits was raised.
The phase-out of the personal exemption and limit on itemized deductions were permanently extended.
Part IV Section 14131: Expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit and added inflation adjustments
Zero Republicans in the House of Representative members voted for this bill.

Do not try to give credit to GOP when none deserve any…

poison pen

September 26th, 2011
4:32 pm

Granny, They were both great. My wife went to school in Hamtramak. It was a nets town as was Detroit many, many years ago.

Granny Godzilla

September 26th, 2011
4:32 pm

Jm

or perhaps he’s not too confident?

as Max Bialystock says…”Never put you own money in the show!”

poison pen

September 26th, 2011
4:32 pm

Should have been ..Great towm.

poison pen

September 26th, 2011
4:33 pm

Man, I need some Chile to correct my spelling.

Adam

September 26th, 2011
4:34 pm

Gordon: The Republicans most certainly DO get credit for being reasonable and forging compromise deals after a failed attempt to shut down the government to force their way. It ended up being a winning proposition for them, as they were able to keep getting elected and finally got a R president in office. And then they spent like drunk sailors like they always wanted to do and got thrown out of office for it.

BUT they DID compromise. So they do deserve credit for actually running the government reasonably back then.

Joe Mama

September 26th, 2011
4:35 pm

Kamchak — “I like my chili over rice. In fact, I made a big ol’ crock-pot of it last night.”

Hawaiian style! That’s how the folks in the Aloha State like their chili. :)

/lei

josef

September 26th, 2011
4:35 pm

Financed how? Why, by the government, of course…silly boy…

Adam

September 26th, 2011
4:36 pm

With that, I’m out. See you all later

Peadawg

September 26th, 2011
4:37 pm

So what’s your solution, Jay? Leave it how it is and hope for the best while complaining about everything?

Schrodinger's cat

September 26th, 2011
4:39 pm

Adam……whose correct.. you or “Lord Help Us”?

Jm

September 26th, 2011
4:39 pm

Jay 4:31 by reducing the liability side of the equation

Means testing
Cola
And flattening the benefits payout even more than it already is
Raising the retirement age to 80% of life expectancy which is about what it already is