Comments for The Post Really Really Wants to Cut Social Security Benefits at http://www.cepr.net , comment 1 to 3 out of 3 comments http://www.cepr.net Sat, 18 May 2013 08:22:58 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-post-really-really-wants-to-cut-social-security-benefits#comment-1956 The total lack of official notice that three Cabinet Secretaries and the Commissioner of Social Security would be releasing two Reports on programs that effect everyone's paycheck and current or future retirement until Dept of Labor had an 11AM press advisory for a Noon event is a little odd. In conjunction with the four month delay it is more than a little odd. Both the WaPo story and the slightly longer one in the NYT could have been (and in the former case probably was) dictated by AEI. I just found the CNN story and it is no better calling the situation "grim". In truth Social Security showed that not only can it take a punch from the recession but actually emerge with a smaller projected payroll gap going forward (2.00% to 1.92% the same as 2001 levels). In truth this was a very positive Report, certainly with better numbers than I was expecting. You have to wonder if a depletion date moved to 2035 or maybe a payroll gap up to 2.08% might have gotten more play. - Bruce Webb Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:12:14 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-post-really-really-wants-to-cut-social-security-benefits#comment-1941 Dean, using your logic the other day, there is no need at all to have a social security crisis. According to your math, the "interest" that the U.S. "pays" into the "fund" on the "bonds" is income into the "fund." I guess instead of owing $100 to the fund, then the U.S. owes $103 or so. This makes the fund bigger by 3%. Cool. Well, extending that logic, just have the U.S. increase the "interest" it pays on the "bonds" and the "fund" will be self sustaining. Why didn't they think of this earlier! - pete Fri, 06 Aug 2010 03:43:20 +0100 http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/the-post-really-really-wants-to-cut-social-security-benefits#comment-1940 http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2005/0305saving_light.aspx says: "The 1983 rescue was rooted in four conditions that do not currently prevail." First, a real and pressing deadline for action... Second, both sides .. agreed on a single estimate of the size of the problem Third, negotiators had the political cover to form a consensus ... Fourth, both sides agreed to mutual sacrifice, - AndrewDover Fri, 06 Aug 2010 03:35:49 +0100