First boomer applies for Social Security

[dr. what]

The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote....

WASHINGTON - The baby boomers' stampede for Social Security benefits has begun.

The nation's first baby boomer, a retired teacher from New Jersey, applied for Social Security benefits Monday, signaling the start of an expected avalanche of applications from the post World War II war generation.

Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue called it "America's silver tsunami."

Kathleen Casey-Kirschling applied for benefits over the Internet at an event hosted by Astrue. Casey-Kirschling was born one second after midnight on Jan. 1, 1946, making her the first baby boomer — a generation of nearly 80 million born from 1946 to 1964, Astrue said.

"She's leading the way for her generation," Astrue told reporters.

Casey-Kirschling will be eligible for benefits after she turns 62 next year. She said she taught seventh graders for 14 years at a school near Camden, N.J., before retiring and volunteering for the Red Cross in Gulf Coast areas hit by Hurricane Katrina.

She and her husband have since moved to the eastern shore of Maryland near the Chesapeake Bay.

"I think I'm just lucky to be at the top of the boom," she said.

An estimated 10,000 people a day will become eligible for Social Security benefits over the next two decades, Astrue said. The Social Security trust fund, if left alone, is projected to go broke in 2041.

But Astrue said he is optimistic that Congress will address the issue, perhaps after the 2008 presidential election. President Bush had proposed changes in Social Security to create private accounts, but the proposal went nowhere in Congress.

Last week, Bush's budget director called the growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid a "fiscal train wreck." The three entitlement programs make up nearly half of all federal spending, a share that is expected to grow.

A report issued last month by the Treasury Department said that some combination of benefit cuts and tax increases will need to be considered to permanently fix the Social Security shortfall. But White House officials stressed that Bush remains opposed to raising taxes.

Astrue acknowledged the political difficulties of addressing the issue, but said there is still time.

"There's no totally politically easy choice," Astrue said. "I'm not pushing any one answer."

Casey-Kirschling said her generation won't let Social Security fail.

"I think the baby boomers will want to get this fixed," she said. "They're going to want to take care of their children and their grandchildren."

__

On The Net: http://www.socialsecurity.gov

[Illuminatus Primus]

I'm sure they will fix things for my generation, yessiree. Not going to leave us behind with the check, nope.

[SirNitram]

2041?! Don't those maniacs realize that's only more than three decades away?!?! Who could ever expect anything to change in a mere thirty years?!?!?!

To cease being sarcastic a moment: Am I recalling poorly(Always possible; more likely today due to cough meds), or has the date been pushed back again for this dreaded insolvency?

[Starglider]

Not going to leave us behind with the check, nope.

As in drive up national debt to utterly insane levels, sending the US dollar into the toilet and destroying the national (and possibly, global) economy, in the hope that the borrowing spree will keep their benefits flowing?

[CmdrWilkens]

First I'm amused that the first to apply for benifits happens to live in Maryland which is just a sort ofneat distinction. That said the 2041 number still assumes that the US economy will continue to grow at the lowest average it has achieved over the last 50 odd years. Simply put if economic growth exceeds 2% per year (which it did through the entire Clinton administration as well as most years excepting the early 90s and late 70s) the the 2041 number keeps getting pushed back because of the increases in OASDI payments by employers and employees. So basicaly the problem is only one if the US economy flatlines against past performance (which could happen once we realize PO is upon us). This isn't to say we shouldn't address the issue but fixing basic economic concerns such as trade and budget deficits while shoring up the buying power of the dollar will do FAR more to fix this problme than massive investment or cuts in benefits. Simply put if the Republitards and Democrats would start actually fixing the shit Bush has done to the US economy and take us back to something closer to a 1960s era tax structure (huge taxes on capital gains and the highest bracket earners with much lower taxes on the lowest bracket) then the Social security problme would solve itself. Now Medicare/Medicaid that's a much more pressing issue and one which would need massive growth, noticeable devaluation or actual re-evaluation of the whole program to fix.

[Nephtys]

2041?! Don't those maniacs realize that's only more than three decades away?!?! Who could ever expect anything to change in a mere thirty years?!?!?!

To cease being sarcastic a moment: Am I recalling poorly(Always possible; more likely today due to cough meds), or has the date been pushed back again for this dreaded insolvency?

Social Security has to fail eventually. The system can never cover a growing population unless it either just pays out and goes kaput, or reduces benefits (IE, a later retirement age). 2041 is more or less as predicted: one more generation.

[Admiral Valdemar]

In the words of Capt. Lennox: We are so dead.

As if the economies of the world weren't facing enough hurdles with Chindia and overpopulation, we now have the baby boomers collecting their pensions after a lovely life of living in the moment.

[Illuminatus Primus]

2041?! Don't those maniacs realize that's only more than three decades away?!?! Who could ever expect anything to change in a mere thirty years?!?!?!

To cease being sarcastic a moment: Am I recalling poorly(Always possible; more likely today due to cough meds), or has the date been pushed back again for this dreaded insolvency?

Social Security has to fail eventually. The system can never cover a growing population unless it either just pays out and goes kaput, or reduces benefits (IE, a later retirement age). 2041 is more or less as predicted: one more generation.

I'd rather we said fuck them now and not go through insolvency first. We need to raise taxes anyway.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Raise the retirement age to 80. That will solve the problem nicely. The age of 65 was made based on the fact that the average life expectancy in the 1930s was... 65. That pretty much explains the fundamental problem with the system right there. And then the idiots went and lowered it and allowed early retirement at 62, which is obscene. Anyway, between peak oil and global warming, people will have to work until they die to keep the economy going, so it's going to happen anyway.

[Admiral Valdemar]

We won't do that, IP, because maintaining the current situation is in the best interests of many people. A future without pensions and retirement? Heaven forbid the laws of economics combat that staple of society now. It's a right, just like big cars, big TVs and being able to fly abroad as often as possible. Fuck repercussions, that's for losers.

So we carry on regardless until reality kicks in. Because people have a tendency of not wanting to admit the system is flawed. And always has been. I'm reminded of the Northern Rock bank run and Darling guaranteeing £100k of deposits, only to sheepishly back down later on when that amount was impossible to finance for every saver.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Raise the retirement age to 80. That will solve the problem nicely. The age of 65 was made based on the fact that the average life expectancy in the 1930s was... 65. That pretty much explains the fundamental problem with the system right there. And then the idiots went and lowered it and allowed early retirement at 62, which is obscene. Anyway, between peak oil and global warming, people will have to work until they die to keep the economy going, so it's going to happen anyway.

There are only so many jobs available for everyone, and companies probably prefer to hire younger people than hire older ones. Experience may or may not matter sometimes.

And besides, retired people do contribute a fair bit to the domestic economy since they have more time to spend on various things working people would otherwise not be able to given the short time.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Raise the retirement age to 80. That will solve the problem nicely. The age of 65 was made based on the fact that the average life expectancy in the 1930s was... 65. That pretty much explains the fundamental problem with the system right there. And then the idiots went and lowered it and allowed early retirement at 62, which is obscene. Anyway, between peak oil and global warming, people will have to work until they die to keep the economy going, so it's going to happen anyway.

There are only so many jobs available for everyone, and companies probably prefer to hire younger people than hire older ones. Experience may or may not matter sometimes.

And besides, retired people do contribute a fair bit to the domestic economy since they have more time to spend on various things working people would otherwise not be able to given the short time.

You're talking about a country which is importing labour from abroad by the tens of millions, you do realize that, don't you? Young people can pick cherries instead of Mexicans, if they weren't spoiled brats who think that farm work is beneath them. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the fact that our economy will shortly be having an energy crisis, and that using old people for things like secretarial work will free up more young people to do brute physical labour to try and compensate for the lack of nice cheap gasoline to do it for us.

Social Security should be scrapped, because the whole idea of retirement is a false and based off of an anomalous 150 year period of prosperity in Western civilization which is coming to an end. Instead, a system which provides benefits to those who are unable to work should be instituted, and elderly people should be required to continue working until they are unable to work at any job whatsoever, just like everyone else is.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

You're talking about a country which is importing labour from abroad by the tens of millions, you do realize that, don't you? Young people can pick cherries instead of Mexicans, if they weren't spoiled brats who think that farm work is beneath them. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the fact that our economy will shortly be having an energy crisis, and that using old people for things like secretarial work will free up more young people to do brute physical labour to try and compensate for the lack of nice cheap gasoline to do it for us.

As much as I realise that, hiring more people might also be exorbitantly expensive since it forces people to travel and this also introduces other problems for economists to ponder. More people working will not necessarily translate to the productivity that will justify the costs. Simply put, in an event if peak oil arises, economies will shrink and so will the no. of jobs available.

Social Security should be scrapped, because the whole idea of retirement is a false and based off of an anomalous 150 year period of prosperity in Western civilization which is coming to an end. Instead, a system which provides benefits to those who are unable to work should be instituted, and elderly people should be required to continue working until they are unable to work at any job whatsoever, just like everyone else is.

I have no objections to that, since likely, like all states, there will be serious questions about government liquidity to be answered.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Raise the retirement age to 80. That will solve the problem nicely. The age of 65 was made based on the fact that the average life expectancy in the 1930s was... 65. That pretty much explains the fundamental problem with the system right there. And then the idiots went and lowered it and allowed early retirement at 62, which is obscene. Anyway, between peak oil and global warming, people will have to work until they die to keep the economy going, so it's going to happen anyway.

There are only so many jobs available for everyone, and companies probably prefer to hire younger people than hire older ones. Experience may or may not matter sometimes.

And besides, retired people do contribute a fair bit to the domestic economy since they have more time to spend on various things working people would otherwise not be able to given the short time.

You're talking about a country which is importing labour from abroad by the tens of millions, you do realize that, don't you? Young people can pick cherries instead of Mexicans, if they weren't spoiled brats who think that farm work is beneath them. Furthermore, you seem to be ignoring the fact that our economy will shortly be having an energy crisis, and that using old people for things like secretarial work will free up more young people to do brute physical labour to try and compensate for the lack of nice cheap gasoline to do it for us.

Social Security should be scrapped, because the whole idea of retirement is a false and based off of an anomalous 150 year period of prosperity in Western civilization which is coming to an end. Instead, a system which provides benefits to those who are unable to work should be instituted, and elderly people should be required to continue working until they are unable to work at any job whatsoever, just like everyone else is.

So you are saying we're going to economically/socially regress fully to pre-industrialism? And stay there?

[SirNitram]

Quite frankly, I think we can safely not worry about this. Either the perfect storm of economic clusterfuck annihilates the US well beyond the 2040 deadline, or dragging the mangled heap of an economy out from the storm will have produced more growth than the present projections use.

'The house is on fire, there's a magnitude 8 Earthquake, but quick! You didn't pay the cable bill on time!'.

[Illuminatus Primus]

That means we should disregard it?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So you are saying we're going to economically/socially regress fully to pre-industrialism? And stay there?

I personally think that the situation will return to a more city centric where each city is forced to be as self-sufficient as possible. There will be trade, but not of the same magnitude as before and won't be able to sustain as large a population as they use to be able to. Kinda like when Rome lost its bread basket in Carthage.

[SirNitram]

That means we should disregard it?

No. It means priorities should be followed in a sensible order. Ensuring that 100% benefits are paid in 2042 if the anemic economic growth of today persists.. Will be utterly, totally meaningless should the economy simply crash and catch fire well before that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So you are saying we're going to economically/socially regress fully to pre-industrialism? And stay there?

No, just that industrial society in a period of stability with low energy resources and a heavy emphasis on energy conservation will not be producing a big enough surplus to allow people to not work. The growth period was anomalous. Now we're in a cyclical up/down stability period, or about to enter it, anyway. So in short life like that enjoyed by the lower middle class, of, say, the 1980s, will remain viable for the majority of people, but never with enough surpluses to allow them to ever retire no matter how old they get.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So you are saying we're going to economically/socially regress fully to pre-industrialism? And stay there?

I personally think that the situation will return to a more city centric where each city is forced to be as self-sufficient as possible. There will be trade, but not of the same magnitude as before and won't be able to sustain as large a population as they use to be able to. Kinda like when Rome lost its bread basket in Carthage.

That's so utterly retarded and ignorant it defies description. Central governments have existed since this guy called Sargon the Great started knocking off Sumerian city-states in the 24th century BCE. There were enough surpluses to run Empires then, there will be enough surpluses to run Empires now. Just not enough for you to retire at 62 and spend your "golden years" playing golf and shuffleboard.

[Illuminatus Primus]

So you don't think an escape to space and fusion energy resources will allow eventual expansion; thermodynamics leaves us as dead as a doornail otherwise.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So you don't think an escape to space and fusion energy resources will allow eventual expansion; thermodynamics leaves us as dead as a doornail otherwise.

I do think that an escape to space will allow eventual expansion, as a matter of fact, though for the first couple of centuries establishing large scale habitations in space and regular commerce with Earth will consume all of those surpluses. Also there's a real possibility that the expansion will only be large enough to keep pace with population growth in space, as we'd even be having to build the artificial habitats we'd be living in, suggesting that the motivation for further resource extraction will come mostly from population constraints. But anyway I don't forsee a major change in living standards except a slight downward correction, and then stability, for the next 500 years give or take. Is it really necessary for us to discuss that far out when we're dealing with people to whom the future means "my next election cycle"? The next 120 years will make or break us, really, and that's what we need to focus on, and that's what I focus on.

[SirNitram]

We really need to institute a 'Hundred years into the future or past' rule on this thread. The year 2508 CE is not News.

[K. A. Pital]

So in short life like that enjoyed by the lower middle class, of, say, the 1980s, will remain viable for the majority of people

Majority of which people, I'm sorry? A tiny fraction of the world's population can afford that lifestyle, often at the expense of some coin-cheap labour by the billions of those who cannot afford it. I suspect many will be losing things far more precious than "lower-middle class life" in the coming decline of the industrial civilization.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You virtually declared the OP obsolescent with your last comment? What gives? Maybe others would like to discuss the bigger picture.