Republicans against Retirement? No seriously! Not a joke

[MeatheadMike]

When social security began the average male didn't even make it to 65. Now most live to be 75. Why would retirement not adjust to this?

In the 1930s, the life expectancy averages were lower mostly because of high infant mortality rates. In other words if you survived to adulthood, your chances of reaching 65 were still not bad.

I think the bigger strain on SS is just the greater number of people retiring (baby boomers), without as much younger workers to support.

A big problem problem with raising the retirement age is that lots of companies don't seem to want older workers in general. As it is now, if you are in your 50s, you are going to have a much harder time getting hired than someone in there mid-20s or early 30s. So if you push back retirement even more, you could wind up with other problems related to unemployment... the whole situation is tough to fix.

 

[Jack V Savage]

True but if the opinion on a single issue is negative enough it will tank their campaign.

True, but isn't it still a problem if bad and unpopular policy ideas are sneaked in while candidates get votes based on identity issues?

Of course not but we know that this is a problem that both parties have. It's not some random problem that's only been seen in one group and then that group's supporters try to deflect or minimize by saying "yeah but I bet the other guy does it too."

I don't see it that way. There's a fundamental, ideological difference between the parties that makes one more vulnerable to this particular problem. If someone were to argue that Democrats are too beholden to unions, and are supporting policies or positions that unions want at the expense of the rest of the coalition and the general good (for example, opposition to certain types of education reform that upsets teacher unions or the general silly emphasis on manufacturing that you see in the party), you wouldn't say, "well, what about Republicans? How can you say the Democrats are beholden to unions without saying the same about Republicans?"

 

[JDragon]

Hillary's campaign is in a real mess.

 

[James Keith]

So is it like some law of nature that any two parties have to have the same problems?

It doesn't require a law of nature to predict that when one party in a competition uses a tactic that is effective and legal, others will as well. You should have to prove otherwise.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

When social security began the average male didn't even make it to 65. Now most live to be 75. Why would retirement not adjust to this?

This.

Now I don't like it one bit. But the fact remains,with medical advancements we are living longer. It sucks but seems like common sense.

 

[Jack V Savage]

This.

Now I don't like it one bit. But the fact remains,with medical advancements we are living longer. It sucks but seems like common sense.

Did you read the link? Life expectancy from the age of 65 hasn't really changed for people on the bottom half of the income distribution (the people who need SS the most). And see Mike's post.

 

[panamaican]

True, but isn't it still a problem if bad and unpopular policy ideas are sneaked in while candidates get votes based on identity issues?

That's not what the Krugman article was about.

I don't see it that way. There's a fundamental, ideological difference between the parties that makes one more vulnerable to this particular problem. If someone were to argue that Democrats are too beholden to unions, and are supporting policies or positions that unions want at the expense of the rest of the coalition and the general good (for example, opposition to certain types of education reform that upsets teacher unions or the general silly emphasis on manufacturing that you see in the party), you wouldn't say, "well, what about Republicans? How can you say the Democrats are beholden to unions without saying the same about Republicans?"

But this isn't that type of problem. This is a well documented problem that both sides suffer from about equally. Campaigns are expensive and have to be funded. Democrats are operating under the same economic constraints as the GOP because there's no research that says Dem's are spending significantly less on their campaigns and there's no research that says that Dem candidates are funding their campaigns from their personal wealth.

They are relying on big money donors, just like everyone else. So implying that the GOP's reliance on big money donors leads them to push the agenda of the rich while ignoring that the Dem's reliance on big money donors leads them to push the agenda of a different group of the rich is propaganda, even if it's true as to the GOP. So either give me facts from both sides or stop pretending this isn't more political rhetoric.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That's not what the Krugman article was about.

Not directly. But there is a reason Republicans are voting for people who have a lot of policy ideas they don't agree with.

But this isn't that type of problem. This is a well documented problem that both sides suffer from about equally. Campaigns are expensive and have to be funded.

Campaigns have to be funded. The party's agendas don't have to be set by the rich when there is a disagreement between what the party's voters want and what its donors want. Krugman provided clear evidence that that's happening with the GOP. Where is the evidence that items on Democratic platforms are unpopular with Democratic voters? What issues? You're just presuming its there with no evidence.

 

[speakhandsforme]

if a cop retires after 25 years, say he is 55, he can receive up to 3 figures a year and about half a million ever 5 years.....Now add up all the retired cops, its neglectful...thats a system dishing out more money then they will ever bring in...

Pension formats for criminal justice employees is absurd.

Here in Illinois, you can work as a prison guard for 20 years, switch to being a higher-paid prison cook for one year, and then retire and get 80% of your most recent annual income for the rest of your life. It's a joke.

 

[HamPhan]

This is bullshit. The US is nowhere near the demographic catastrophe Europe is about to enounter (without immigration) - and even in Europe, at least in Germany where retirement age already was lifted to be 67 - the trend is in the other direction. Mainly because productivity increases can offset demographics.

Finland
Denmark
Sweden
UK
Australia
Iceland
Japan
Netherlands

Which Euro countries are trending the other way again?:redface:

 

[HamPhan]

I know Australia isn't in Europe, just wanted to give you perspective ^^^

 

[panamaican]

Not directly. But there is a reason Republicans are voting for people who have a lot of policy ideas they don't agree with.

Krugman's article was about the candidates' motivations, not the voters.

Campaigns have to be funded. The party's agendas don't have to be set by the rich when there is a disagreement between what the party's voters want and what its donors want. Krugman provided clear evidence that that's happening with the GOP. Where is the evidence that items on Democratic platforms are unpopular with Democratic voters? What issues? You're just presuming its there with no evidence.

Actually, he doesn't provide any evidence that the GOP's voters don't agree with the platform. He provides evidence that the public at large does not. GOP candidates could very well be advancing a position that is popular with their constituents but not popular with the nation as a whole.

Krugman's argument is that the reason the GOP is advancing the issue is because it aligns with the interests of the wealthy. But we know from other recent studies that the political ideas that align with the wealthy are more likely to pass, period, regardless of political party.

So, we know it's happening with both sides. That politicians are advancing political positions that align with the economic interests of the rich. But Krugman has chosen to highlight Social Security to make his point about wealthy donors and campaign platforms. That he chooses to highlight only a GOP issue when everyone who's reading is aware of a recent study that states it's a party-neutral problem, is why it's obviously propaganda.

In fact, the very study Krugman linked points out that the wealthy Democrats are more economically conservative than their less well-off peers. It's the exact same problem regardless of party. Rich people engage politicians more often and are more economically conservative than poorer people. So, they explicitly state that the positions advanced by the Democratic wealthy are not aligned with the Democratic middle class.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Krugman's article was about the candidates' motivations, not the voters.

Sure, but the candidates are running for office. You brought up the claim that they won't win if they support unpopular policies, and then I pointed out that that's not true and why.

Actually, he doesn't provide any evidence that the GOP's voters don't agree with the platform.

He doesn't, but it's well-known (here's one that good play in the media showing that a strong plurality of Republicans would prefer to increase SS rather than cut it: http://www.people-press.org/2013/02...oms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/), and he cited the Northwestern study that showed that the public supported 59-10 increasing rather than decreasing SS.

Krugman's argument is that the reason the GOP is advancing the issue is because it aligns with the interests of the wealthy. But we know from other recent studies that the political ideas that align with the wealthy are more likely to pass, period, regardless of political party.

So, we know it's happening with both sides.

No we don't know that. If you have any evidence at all for it happening on the other side, provide it because it sounds like you're just assuming it, which is what I was criticizing.

That politicians are advancing political positions that align with the economic interests of the rich. But Krugman has chosen to highlight Social Security to make his point about wealthy donors and campaign platforms. That he chooses to highlight only a GOP issue when everyone who's reading is aware of a recent study that states it's a party-neutral problem, is why it's obviously propaganda.

Not at all. If you think he was omitting some other issue, what is it?

In fact, the very study Krugman linked points out that the wealthy Democrats are more economically conservative than their less well-off peers.

Not sure how that's relevant. The issue is what the candidates are supporting. If rich Democrats hold views that are not prevailing in the platform-setting process, that's unsurprising and irrelevant.

 

[panamaican]

Sure, but the candidates are running for office. You brought up the claim that they won't win if they support unpopular policies, and then I pointed out that that's not true and why.

And I stated that if the issue is negative enough the candidate won't win. Which you agreed with.

He doesn't...

Exactly.

No we don't know that. If you have any evidence at all for it happening on the other side, provide it because it sounds like you're just assuming it, which is what I was criticizing.

Yes we do. Policies with support from the economically elite pass far more regularly than policies that the economically elite disagree with. This study is specific as to what passes, not just what is campaigned on. So, yes, we do know.

http://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

Not at all. If you think he was omitting some other issue, what is it?

I specified what he was omitting on the first page. He presented data that 130 families provided half of the campaign donations on the GOP side of the election and omitted any data related to the Dem side of the election.

Not sure how that's relevant. The issue is what the candidates are supporting. If rich Democrats hold views that are not prevailing in the platform-setting process, that's unsurprising and irrelevant.

Actually, it's very relevant but I can forgive your ignorance - you seem unaware of the Princeton study and probably didn't actually look at Krugman's link.

We have 2 studies. One study says that the economic policies supported by the wealthy pass significantly more often than economic policies that are not similarly supported. The other study says that wealthy Democrats support economic policies that are more conservative than the general Democratic populace.

Those 2 studies combine to make a very simple point - the wealthy in both parties have positions that the poor don't support and the positions of the wealthy are what get passed. It's a party neutral problem. Rather, it's a rich vs. everyone else problem and it's in both parties.

 

[Mark Hunts FIST]

Did you read the link? Life expectancy from the age of 65 hasn't really changed for people on the bottom half of the income distribution (the people who need SS the most). And see Mike's post.

No. ☺️


but now that we have Obamacare, these poor people will now be able to live as long as as the rich. 😀

 

[Jack V Savage]

And I stated that if the issue is negative enough the candidate won't win. Which you agreed with.

And then I asked if it's a problem if policy ideas that voters don't agree with are getting sneaked in based on identity politics. Is it? I'd say yes.

Exactly.

So since you weren't aware of the background to the comment (the context of the broader discussion), you were a little lost on it, and I filled you in. You're welcome.

Yes we do. Policies with support from the economically elite pass far more regularly than policies that the economically elite disagree with. This study is specific as to what passes, not just what is campaigned on. So, yes, we do know.

No, we don't. You're talking about the effect. Who prevails. But what if that prevailing is solely a result of Republicans having more control over policy? Fits the timeline. That's why it's important to isolate the causal factors here. You're trying to substitute assumption for analysis, and then criticizing analysts for not supporting your assumption, without considering the possibility that you are assuming incorrectly.

I specified what he was omitting on the first page. He presented data that 130 families provided half of the campaign donations on the GOP side of the election and omitted any data related to the Dem side of the election.

Given that that's not relevant to the discussion, one can hardly criticize him for omitting it. Still haven't thought of a single issue in which rich donors are setting the agenda for a Democratic candidate against the wishes of the majority of voters?

Actually, it's very relevant but I can forgive your ignorance - you seem unaware of the Princeton study and probably didn't actually look at Krugman's link.

Incorrect. I only "seem" that way to you because you don't know what you're talking abot.

We have 2 studies. One study says that the economic policies supported by the wealthy pass significantly more often than economic policies that are not similarly supported. The other study says that wealthy Democrats support economic policies that are more conservative than the general Democratic populace.

Those 2 studies combine to make a very simple point - the wealthy in both parties have positions that the poor don't support and the positions of the wealthy are what get passed. It's a party neutral problem. Rather, it's a rich vs. everyone else problem and it's in both parties.

You have not demonstrated what you're asserting. If rich Democrats are setting the party's agenda in a way that is comparable to the way that rich Republicans are setting the anti-SS agenda in contrast to the wishes of Republican voters, there would be similar evidence. Maybe there is, but you haven't provided it or given any indication that you're aware of any.

 

[HamPhan]

I love it when two bastard children of Marx fight.

 

[Amerikuracana]

You are either gross and bad for society or a brainless idiot and bad for society. Those are the two American parties right now. We need new parties, now. And no, not grosser or more idiotic parties, please.

 

[djacobox372]

All these powder puff politicians who haven't worked a manual labor job since maybe their teens think it's a great idea to have all 65 yr olds have to work even longer. Just because they want to leave congress in a coffin doesn't mean everybody can and does feel that way about their job. It's one thing if you are a white collar pencil pusher (let alone a pampered as hell, "can't really call it work" Senator) your whole life versus a on-your-feet service industry or manual labor worker.

Nobody is interested in hiring a white-color pencil-pusher who's in their 60's. It's really sad when you see someone age out of their profession that they were very good at and be forced to work in the service industry.

 

[Satsui Ryu]

Nobody is interested in hiring a white-color pencil-pusher who's in their 60's. It's really sad when you see someone age out of their profession that they were very good at and be forced to work in the service industry.

With the bygone days of the job for life you will likely see more people in their 50's and 40's dealing with this.