A mounting wall street worry

Originally posted by @wajoma
You keep saying that but it is a direct contradiction of your earlier statement saying deficit spending is what voters want.

"The U.S. is running a large deficit because that's what (enough) voters want."

Edit: What were Clintons policies for reducing the deficit, tax increases? They'd need to be accompanied by cutting spending. There must hav ...[text shortened]... e distinct cut the deficit policies they were campaigning on for such a bold statement from you.

Look up Clinton's proposed policies and find out.

Originally posted by @kazetnagorra
Look up Clinton's proposed policies and find out.

You're the one making the claim. What is your claim based on?

Surely not dream feelings.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
Republicans like Ryan keep talking about that, but they know it would be political suicide to do it. Over 65's voters are a favorable demographic for Republicans but mess with their Social Security and Medicare and that would rapidly change.

Real politik aside, the retirement age is going to have to be raised sooner or later, or at least make it a sliding scale. Right now, you can get some SS benefits at 62, full at 67 and max out at 70. Pushing those last 2 numbers to 70 and 73 or at least 69 and 73 seems inevitable.

I get that for some manual laborers, working into their 70s may not be an option, but there's no reason to encourage white collar workers who are 67 and have 20 years of life expectancy left to retire.

Originally posted by @sh76
Real politik aside, the retirement age is going to have to be raised sooner or later, or at least make it a sliding scale. Right now, you can get some SS benefits at 62, full at 67 and max out at 70. Pushing those last 2 numbers to 70 and 73 or at least 69 and 73 seems inevitable.

I get that for some manual laborers, working into their 70s may not be an opt ...[text shortened]... o encourage white collar workers who are 67 and have 20 years of life expectancy left to retire.

There is no necessity to do so; merely lifting the income cap on the tax would secure full funding for decades, if not more.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
There is no necessity to do so; merely lifting the income cap on the tax would secure full funding for decades, if not more.

From a philosophical standpoint, if SS is adjusted for inflation (which it is), shouldn't it also be adjusted for increases in life expectancy? Failing to do so bakes in a perpetual expansion of the program.

Originally posted by @sh76
From a philosophical standpoint, if SS is adjusted for inflation (which it is), shouldn't it also be adjusted for increases in life expectancy? Failing to do so bakes in a perpetual expansion of the program.

An inflation adjustment stops people from being worse off, but why should it be an imperative of the system that people not be better off? Given the disproportionate increases in income among the highest quintile as compared to everybody else over the last four decades, it certainly seems fair to use a small part of that bounty to finance a somewhat longer retirement for those lucky enough to live a longer life than what was expected 80 years ago.

Originally posted by @mchill
Since CNN and FOX News seem to be able to do little except bash each other, I've turned to CNBC financial news. The folks on wall street are getting genuinely concerned about a looming bipartisan problem, America's spiraling national debt. For the last 6 years unemployment has been low and the economy has been strong, but neither President Obama or President ...[text shortened]... n-the-economy-2018-3

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/14/fed-mester-central-bank-raise-rates.html

Lol where was your concern about national debt when Obama was in office? Nothing about this during the Obama stimulus days.

You are so pathetic.

Originally posted by @no1marauder
An inflation adjustment stops people from being worse off, but why should it be an imperative of the system that people not be better off? Given the disproportionate increases in income among the highest quintile as compared to everybody else over the last four decades, it certainly seems fair to use a small part of that bounty to finance a somewhat longer retirement for those lucky enough to live a longer life than what was expected 80 years ago.

Fine, advocate for that, but then call it what it is - an expansion of the program.

I'm not saying you've done this, but I've heard many others attack the idea of raising the age as cutting SS. I think that's an unfair characterization.

Originally posted by @sh76
Fine, advocate for that, but then call it what it is - an expansion of the program.

I'm not saying you've done this, but I've heard many others attack the idea of raising the age as cutting SS. I think that's an unfair characterization.

They need to set SS benefits to kick in equal to the average life expectancy as it was originally set.

Most men were never expected to collect. Most men were supposed to work their entire lives paying into the system then die and never collect.