Debt may be a long term problem, but it certainly isn't an emergency

[Tansy_Gold]

14. But the numbers are still deceptive

And that's my point --

16 workers in 1950
2> today in the private sector.

But were the 16 in 1950 private sector, or just employees in general? If we're going to compare, then let's compare apples to apples, not grapes to grapefruits.

What other groups may be exempt from FICA? What percentage of earnings are over the FICA cap today as compared to 1950 or 1960 or 1980? What's the percentage of covered retirees/survivors on SS to non-beneficiaries? How has the ratio changed with changes in benefits over the comparison period, i.e. Medicare, surviving spouse, etc.? In the 1960s I had a friend who was going to a fairly expensive private college with all her tuition and basic expenses paid out of SS because her father had died. What effect has disability payments made?

I certainly understand the devastation that the loss of manufacturing jobs has created, and I'm not arguing that. You know how I've argued for JOBS JOBS JOBS over the time I've been in this group!

My point though, is that when someone throws out "data" like this and it's easily seen to be subject to question, then the whole thing becomes suspect. And I'm not saying the numbers are wrong, but they just don't make sense the way they're presented now.

Social Security benefits have changed dramatically over the last 60 years, and it's not fair to compare them to today's without that qualifier. 1950 was less than a generation after the creation of Social Security. How many retirees were covered by SS in 1950? And the post-war boom was in full swing, not only with high civilian employment but with the resulting construction and consumption due to the baby boom.

It seems like a very simplistic "statistic" that can be easily ripped to shreds and yet at the same time screams for expansion. Can the same be said for some of the other statements? I dunno. Yet. . ..