Subject: Re: [Fot] cams and roaches and such

From: "Randall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Nov 2015 21:48:16 -0800

>	The biggest problem with retirement is that we were all 
> supposed to die at 62.7.That was the average life expectancy 
> in 1935 when social security started. 

"All supposed to die" is overstating the case, IMO.  One of the main reasons life expectancy at birth was lower back then was
because so many people died before joining the workforce.  Infant and even teen mortality was much higher then, due to lack of
things like antibiotics and vaccines.  Even in 1930, someone who had lived to age 65 had a better than 50/50 chance of making it to
75.

But 'average life expectancy' has never meant that we are "all supposed to die" by any age.  "The world's oldest man" that died a
few months back was already 32 in 1935!

And I'll bet there are quite a few on this list that were born before 1935.  
<g>

Randall

_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

http://www.fot-racing.com

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

---

From: "Randall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 08:54:58 -0800

> In my research for the book I came to the odd conclusion that 
> Social Security is doing a lot better job than I expected. 
> Most of the popular criticism seems to be political 
> posturing. 

Part of the problem is whether you are talking about Social Security retirement; or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI).
Lots of folks don't understand the difference.  The original SS retirement fund was created in 1935 and is on pretty sound footing
(although it was better before payments into the fund were cut in 2010).  But SSDI wasn't created until 1956 (and has been greatly
broadened since then).  It has more or less constantly been in trouble since 1967, and still is.  

SSDI is currently expected to run out of money in less than two years, so action on that is urgently needed.  Unfortunately at this
late date, the only solutions appear to be either more funding from some other source (like increasing taxes or robbing the SS fund)
or a drastic cut in benefits to people that have already qualified (or both).  The least politically painful move would probably be
to shift payroll taxes from SS to SSDI, but of course that will hasten the problem with SS.

Randall

---

From: "Randall" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 18:19:28 -0800

> Where will the money to redeem the bonds come from when we
> are running huge deficits?

The debt is already authorized (not part of the debt ceiling brinksmanship), so they just sell more T-bills as needed.  Worst case,
they might have to start paying a bit more interest to sell more T-bills, but that hasn't happened yet (and isn't likely to).

And it's not like they have to come up with the whole $2 trillion at once.

"Running huge deficits" is a different topic, I'm not going to touch that one.  Except to point out that, if the rest of the world
really thought our economy was so bad, they wouldn't be lining up to buy T-bills at practically no interest.  The US is still the
safest investment in the world!

Randall