It takes leadership, a bipartisan political consensus, and an engaged public to make such changes. It was done in 1983 when a joint effort between Reagan and Tip O'Neill to reform SS including raising the age for full benefits from 65 to 67. Full retirement age (also called "normal retirement age") had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it reaches 67 for people born after 1959.
The 1983 SS deal also included the mandatory inclusion of federal employees for all new employees entering federal service 1984 and thereafter.
As I indicated there have been reform plans advocated by Ryan, Coburn, and others to change benefits for those 55 and under. But all these reforms are meant to save these programs. No one is advocating replacing them. And no one is advocating reducing existing benefits for seniors.
As I said, each generation in each society decides for itself how to distribute the goods and services that it produces. If we wish, we can pretend that we can make those decisions for people who will be living 50 years from now, but the reality is that we cannot.
Of course we can. What we do now affects their choices. When FDR introduced SS and LBJ gave us Medicare, they baked these programs into the cake for us and future generations. Our Constitution has shaped our country for more than 200 years.
You can pretend that we have distinct societies marked by various time periods, but we operate on a continuum that shapes our society on a daily basis. Medicare is 50 years old. Today's 20 somethings will be alive 50 years from now. We may still be trying to repeal Obamacare 50 years from now.
Any politician who tells you that he has a plan that won't become effective for 10 or 15 years is playing you for a sucker. He knows that those decisions will be made in 10 or 15 years and cannot be made now. In fact, it is because such a promise is meaningless that a gutless politician will make such a promise.
You must be joking. How many years in advance do we plan our military aircraft and ships? Our road systems? 10 or 15 years is nothing when a nation, state, or locality develop future plans. Hell, we have 30 year mortgages when you buy a house.
Do you have an examples of politician promises that are made 10 or 15 years in advance?
It is possible that the dollar will not be the world's reserve currency in 20 years. It is possible that no currency will occupy that role in 20 years. You can be pretty sure that the world is going to be a much different place in 20 years.
A profundity? Of course things change over 20 years, but that doesn't mean that you can't make decisions that will shape events 20 years from now. We are not passive actors waiting for events to shape us.
But, then as now, people will probably be pretty much the same. They will want more benefits and they will want to pay less.
LOL. And does that mean they will get what they want? How do you do that if you are bankrupt?
I want you to begin with a very reasonable assumption - no generation is going destroy itself to pay for the mistakes of prior generations. That isn't going to happen.
What is happening now? Who is paying for the mistakes of SS and Medicare? What say do those under 18 or the unborn have to say about today's decisions whether it is Obamacare or the Iran agreement? Again, generations are not discrete groups that can neatly be separated from the others.
Future generations will decide what to do with what they produce. It may not be as easy to borrow money. They may decide to borrow less. They may decide against sending troops all over the world. They may decide to pay old debts with cheaper dollars. They may decide not to pay old debts. They may decide to pay more taxes. Who knows what they will decide? But, they will decide and we can't decide for them.
Silly argument. What we do today may eliminate their choices and affect their lives. It is not a matter of us making decisions for them, but giving them an opportunity to have choices. Parents do the same thing for their children. What we do affects future generations. How difficult a concept is that? Previous generations gave us the Constitution, liberty, the Rule of Law, great wealth, the world's only superpower, the largest economy, etc.
As for our generation, you can see the choices being made. Go ahead and advocate that we cut senior benefits next year. Go ahead and advocate that we raise taxes next year. Do you really think you can get elected talking like that?
Phony strawman. Where did I advocate that? I said the exact opposite if you look at what I have posted. If we don't reform entitlements, we will go bankrupt. And many of us will be alive to see it. These programs are unsustainable. We will be forced to make changes and the longer we wait the more painful they will be. It is not a matter of if, but when.
Look what the generation living in the 1860's did to this country? They utterly destroyed nearly everything of value and hundreds of thousands of our most capable citizens. The generations that followed put things back together as best they could.
The Civil War was the legacy of the British colonies and the introduction of slavery. We are still living with the legacy of that decision today just like we are living with he impact of the Immigration Act of 1965, which changed the demography of America forever.
The story goes that as Benjamin Franklin emerged from Independence Hall at the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a woman asked him, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin replied, “A republic, madam – if you can keep it.”
You need to read your own answer. You said, "As I indicated there have been reform plans advocated by Ryan, Coburn, and others to change benefits for those 55 and under." There is an example of a promise that in 10 or 15 years, we'll do things differently.
If it's a great idea, why don't they propose doing it now? They don't propose doing it now, because now means it must really happen. It's safe to promise that things might change in 10 or 15 years. But, things won't really change in 10 or 15 years unless people in 10 or 15 years want things to change. Anything that you promise now can be undone in 10 or 15 years. These guys know that.
You need to wake up to reality. No major politician of either party or of any philosophy is advocating reducing senior benefits now, the only time that they can change benefits. You suggest that these guys have a great idea, but that it wouldn't be a great idea for now. In fact, they can't change benefits in 10 or 15 years. They can't build a new house in 15 years now. They can just pass a law promising that the program will change in 10 or 15 years.
It's a lot of baloney. Show me a politician who wants to create a change that takes effect now. We can only control the things we do now.
You need to read your own answer. You said, "As I indicated there have been reform plans advocated by Ryan, Coburn, and others to change benefits for those 55 and under." There is an example of a promise that in 10 or 15 years, we'll do things differently.
If it's a great idea, why don't they propose doing it now? They don't propose doing it now, because now means it must really happen. It's safe to promise that things might change in 10 or 15 years. But, things won't really change in 10 or 15 years unless people in 10 or 15 years want things to change. Anything that you promise now can be undone in 10 or 15 years. These guys know that.
You need to wake up to reality. No major politician of either party or of any philosophy is advocating reducing senior benefits now, the only time that they can change benefits. You suggest that these guys have a great idea, but that it wouldn't be a great idea for now. In fact, they can't change benefits in 10 or 15 years. They can't build a new house in 15 years now. They can just pass a law promising that the program will change in 10 or 15 years.
It's a lot of baloney. Show me a politician who wants to create a change that takes effect now. We can only control the things we do now.