Compromising Pictures of Paul Krugman

Krugman is the left's propaganda minister on the economy.

He admits he was wrong about inflation. Saying it would be benign'. Still calling it 'transitory', nearly two years later.

'Krugman famously predicted a global recession just days after Donald Trump was elected president in 2016.'

"It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging… If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never," Krugman wrote in November 2016

The Dow returned 56% under Trump, and hit more than 100 new highs.

Quote: Tanko

Biden's proposed tax hike wouldn't be enough to save SS. It's just another money grab.
.

Do you have a solution??????????????

Quote: Tanko

Krugman is the left's propaganda minister on the economy.

???????????????
Absurd
Krugman has zero power and little influence
Jerome Powell heads the Fed
That's power.
That's influence
When Powell speaks, Wall Street listens
When Krugman speaks, Wall Street ignores :-)

Quote: terapined

Do you have a solution??????????????

you were asking Tanko, but here is my 2 cents,

I read a good article on it I no longer have, but what I remember of it is, we can save SS in these ways,

* increase the retirement age again. Clearly, if you make it high enough, it could take care of the entire problem [the early retirement option has to increase too]. Only thing so far that's been palatable to the public, but see below. About that early retirement, that didn't increase when the retirement age did [to 67]. Next time I bet it will

* employers contribute even more. Boy are they going to hate that, don't blame 'em

* diddle with the COLA formula [this has been going on already]

*increase everybody's SS contribution

* increase the cut-off for higher income people, where they quit contributing. This increases with inflation already. I distinctly remember the article said that this is where the most money can come from, more than the retirement age increase. As you can see, I think that means the article writers feel not too much can be done with the latter, or this would not be true.

Does anybody believe it's not better to start sooner than later? Oh, only answer if no Leftist has compromising pictures of you

Quote: odiousgambit

you were asking Tanko, but here is my 2 cents,

I read a good article on it I no longer have, but what I remember of it is, we can save SS in these ways,

* increase the retirement age again. Clearly, if you make it high enough, it could take care of the entire problem [the early retirement option has to increase too]. Only thing so far that's been palatable to the public, but see below. About that early retirement, that didn't increase when the retirement age did [to 67]. Next time I bet it will

* employers contribute even more. Boy are they going to hate that, don't blame 'em

* diddle with the COLA formula [this has been going on already]

*increase everybody's SS contribution

* increase the cut-off for higher income people, where they quit contributing. This increases with inflation already. I distinctly remember the article said that this is where the most money can come from, more than the retirement age increase. As you can see, I think that means the article writers feel not too much can be done with the latter, or this would not be true.

Does anybody believe it's not better to start sooner than later? Oh, only answer if no Leftist has compromising pictures of you

I think the simple solution is just to print a little more money each year to cover the SS deficit. Yes, it will marginally increase inflation but everyone will get their SS payments. My guess is it would barely even move the inflation indicator.

Quote: odiousgambit

you were asking Tanko, but here is my 2 cents,

I read a good article on it I no longer have, but what I remember of it is, we can save SS in these ways,

* increase the retirement age again. Clearly, if you make it high enough, it could take care of the entire problem [the early retirement option has to increase too]. Only thing so far that's been palatable to the public, but see below. About that early retirement, that didn't increase when the retirement age did [to 67]. Next time I bet it will

* employers contribute even more. Boy are they going to hate that, don't blame 'em

* diddle with the COLA formula [this has been going on already]

*increase everybody's SS contribution

* increase the cut-off for higher income people, where they quit contributing. This increases with inflation already. I distinctly remember the article said that this is where the most money can come from, more than the retirement age increase. As you can see, I think that means the article writers feel not too much can be done with the latter, or this would not be true.

Does anybody believe it's not better to start sooner than later? Oh, only answer if no Leftist has compromising pictures of you

Sounds good to me
Sooner is better then later

Quote: terapined

Quote: odiousgambit

you were asking Tanko, but here is my 2 cents,

I read a good article on it I no longer have, but what I remember of it is, we can save SS in these ways,

* increase the retirement age again. Clearly, if you make it high enough, it could take care of the entire problem [the early retirement option has to increase too]. Only thing so far that's been palatable to the public, but see below. About that early retirement, that didn't increase when the retirement age did [to 67]. Next time I bet it will

* employers contribute even more. Boy are they going to hate that, don't blame 'em

* diddle with the COLA formula [this has been going on already]

*increase everybody's SS contribution

* increase the cut-off for higher income people, where they quit contributing. This increases with inflation already. I distinctly remember the article said that this is where the most money can come from, more than the retirement age increase. As you can see, I think that means the article writers feel not too much can be done with the latter, or this would not be true.

Does anybody believe it's not better to start sooner than later? Oh, only answer if no Leftist has compromising pictures of you

Sounds good to me
Sooner is better then later

So why do politicians who bring up the idea get mercilessly pilloried?

Quote: odiousgambit

Quote: terapined

Quote: odiousgambit

you were asking Tanko, but here is my 2 cents,

I read a good article on it I no longer have, but what I remember of it is, we can save SS in these ways,

* increase the retirement age again. Clearly, if you make it high enough, it could take care of the entire problem [the early retirement option has to increase too]. Only thing so far that's been palatable to the public, but see below. About that early retirement, that didn't increase when the retirement age did [to 67]. Next time I bet it will

* employers contribute even more. Boy are they going to hate that, don't blame 'em

* diddle with the COLA formula [this has been going on already]

*increase everybody's SS contribution

* increase the cut-off for higher income people, where they quit contributing. This increases with inflation already. I distinctly remember the article said that this is where the most money can come from, more than the retirement age increase. As you can see, I think that means the article writers feel not too much can be done with the latter, or this would not be true.

Does anybody believe it's not better to start sooner than later? Oh, only answer if no Leftist has compromising pictures of you

Sounds good to me
Sooner is better then later

So why do politicians who bring up the idea get mercilessly pilloried?

I gave you kudos
I think the thought of any proposal to lower somebody's current monthly benefit is where "mercilessly pilloried" comes in
Also the thought of paying in for years then no benefit, no payback in the future gets pilloried
Other then that
You have some good ideas I can get behind

Raise the retirement age to 70.

Baby boomers are dying younger than their parents, and their kids are in worse shape than them.

'Baby Boomers Have Shorter Lifespans'

'Americans are dying faster Millennials, too'

the G W Bush idea of allowing a portion to go to investing outside SS for your retirement in a personal account is still around. I hope it finally dies, it sounds good at first blush but ...

Quote: It had this provision

"Clawback" Would Eat Into Any Gains In Accounts. Upon retirement, workers would be subject to a "clawback" and would have to repay the money diverted into private accounts, plus interest, plus inflation, through automatic reductions of their guaranteed benefits. The total interest rate would be 3 percent above inflation annually. Unless the amount in their accounts grew by more than 3 percent plus inflation, the "clawback" would take away all (or more than all) of the value of the account.

so this would be essential, but I see many problems: in the meantime the money would be missing from SS, and would require borrowing to make up for it... trillions of $ according to the link. Many people would obviously make terrible decisions and not be able to pay the clawback ... 3 percent above inflation? even people who did OK with investing might find it difficult to achieve that, especially with less than very long time frames, and short time frames should just not be allowed. That means only young people should use it, and they will be the worst at having experience in investing. The problems might mean the government takes over in deciding what stocks and funds each person gets to choose.

Terrible idea, really.

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/primer-on-president-bushs-plan-for-social-security-privatization/