2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWe need to stop coddling the elderly
From the Comment section appearing below this article:
The column is about as clear a wake-up call as could be hoped for the Geezers who've been voting for Republicans in recent years. You're next.
We need to stop coddling the elderly
By Robert J. Samuelson, Published: November 3
Never underestimate the difficulty of changing false beliefs by facts.
Henry Rosovsky, Harvard economic historian
Two analysts at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis have produced an important study that should (but probably wont) alter the climate for Washingtons stalemated budget debate. The study demolishes the widespread notion that older Americans need exceptional protection against spending cuts because theyre poorer and more vulnerable than everyone else. Coupled with the elderlys voting power, this perception has intimidated both parties and put Social Security and Medicare, which dominate federal spending, off-limits to any serious discussion or change.
It has long been obvious that the 65-and-over population doesnt fit the Depression-era stereotype of being uniformly poor, sickly and helpless. Like under-65 Americans, those 65 and over are diverse. Some are poor, sickly and dependent. Many more are financially comfortable (or rich), in reasonably good health and more self-reliant than not. With life expectancy of 19 years at age 65, most face many years of government-subsidized retirement. The stereotype survives because its politically useful. It protects those subsidies. It discourages us from asking: Are they all desirable or deserved? For whom? At what age?
No one wants to be against Grandma, who as portrayed in the media is kindly, often suffering from some condition, usually financially precarious and somehow needy. But projecting this sympathetic portrait onto the entire 65-plus population is an exercise in make-believe and, frequently, political propaganda. The St. Louis Fed study refutes the stereotype. Examining different age groups, it found that since the financial crisis, incomes have risen for the elderly while theyve dropped for the young and middle-aged.
The numbers are instructive. From 2007, the year before the financial crisis, to 2010, median income for the families under 40 dropped 12.4 percent to $39,644. For the middle-aged from 40 to 61, the comparable decline was 11.9 percent to $56,924. Meanwhile, those aged 62 to 69 gained 12.3 percent to $50,825. For Americans 70-plus, the increase was 15.6 percent to $31,512. (All figures adjust for inflation and are in 2010 constant dollars. The median income is the midpoint of incomes and is often considered typical.)
full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-j-samuelson-we-need-to-stop-coddling-the-elderly/2013/11/03/4063ebc0-430f-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html?wpisrc=nl_headlines
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)spent for food. The is no government subsidized retirement. We pay for social security and Medicare.
This is one of those articles that sets out to divide us making it easy to pass cuts to social programs.
We need to stop giving tax dollars to corporations and the 1%,
jehop61
(1,735 posts)are better off BECAUSE of social security, pensions and medicare. Reducing these to the next generation will result in a majority going back to the bad old days when older people were poorer, sicker and hungary. Pensions are going away, and many 401Ks are reduced or non-existent for most. In many retirement states, the economies are extremely dependent upon retirees spending the money they have. Now tell me how reducing funds for retirees and continuing welfare for the rich will help the economy?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)Maybe the reason the elderly aren't scavenging around in dumpsters, is because they have SS and Medicare.
malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... the thrust of the argument would seem to be, "The 'elderly' are well-off, so they should have their wealth taken away."
Well, then. The wealthy are even better-off than the "elderly," so it follows that their wealth should be taken away first.
-- Mal
scarletlib
(3,418 posts)Have you gone to the website of the original article to post this as a response? You really should.
grilled onions
(1,957 posts)Many go to senior centers seeking out a decent meal,advice on their shrinking finances, confusing healthcare plans etc. Not all seniors have children to help them through the maze of today's confusing world with its' snake oil salesmen,hucksters and often shady relatives all thinking seniors have a major payload in their bank accounts. But I would bet more seniors go to the food pantry than the country club. More seniors visit the hospital every year than those traveling to Aruba. While the fools who listen to the rumor mongers about the seniors living on the backs of everyone else they should see them in their homes. If they still live in their homes, often times, many things need repair to the point of being rundown. You won't see new big screen tv's,theatre rooms,the newest in appliances nor the most modern of anything else(check out the living quarters of the 1% if you want to see more up to date furnishings). Seniors larders are often almost bare. Bills pile up along with first or second notice warnings about overdue bills. They are often ill,scared of their future and do not understand why so much of the population is turning on them,blaming them for a soured economy and for siphoning all the spoils that others "deserve".
This should not be going on. Every one of those griping today should stop and think that one day they too will be in this position(unless they are 1% ers.
ancianita
(36,133 posts)Any raises in money and/or large pools of social network monies are money earned by the geezer class over the last 40 years, increased by savings and investments. If any group is diverse, it's certainly the elderly class. But to say that an outdated stereotype of needy oldsters means we should cut into their savings in order to help the young, I say that's a divide and conquer setup by the 1%.
Hippo_Tron
(25,453 posts)If you want to level the generational playing field and not hurt the poor or near poor, start taxing capital gains like income or even greater than income. But Social Security and Medicare should remain entitlements for all.
HoustonDave
(60 posts)The current generation going into retirement is the first generation since SS was established who will receive less than they paid in. They're not getting coddled, they're getting ripped off. And while Samuelson is busy quoting percentages, try looking at the real dollar numbers and the old have the LOWEST median income, in spite of frequently higher medical bills. Yes, some had the wherewithal to plan ahead and lived prudently - too many others couldn't or didn't and pretty much live paycheck to paycheck. But they at least paid in for years.... some people have a problem understanding that many programs like VA and SS are not simple free entitlements - for most they are a form of deferred compensation and savings, for which the repayment lags far behind what was invested.
tavernier
(12,401 posts)melded together his mother's ring, and tells you with tears in his eyes that this is your inheritance, remember that he raised you in a comfortable home filled with love, paid for your education and all your worldly needs, but had to spend the remainder of his hard earned money on the medical expenses when your mom had Leukemia for 15 years, and his own care and expenses after she was gone.
Not every parent is a CEO.
My dad lives in a small rental apartment in Florida. He is a proud man and would dearly have wished to pass on a large inheritance instead pf refusing monetary help from his daughter.
Shame on Mr. Samuelson. My father is worth a thousand of you!!