McCain On Social Security

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: lupi

So those people that retire now at 60+ and don't draw SS till 65 (to get a higher check amount) by using what savings they had (since about no one now offers a pension) just have to learn that they need to work 5 or more years. That's a great slogan. Work till you die and SS will fix itself!

Both quality of life and life expectancy have increased since Social Security was implemented. The age at which you could draw benefits was directly related to what age you could reasonably be expected to be able to still work in 1937. That age has changed, why shouldn't Social Security change with it? This seems like common sense to me.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

I have no problem with wealthy being exempt.

But only if you have a choice to exempt yourself from the deductions. The idea is I pay in now to provide someone elses retirement and someone else pays in later to pay for mine. Lets make it a bit more personal. I pay in now to fund my retirement later. You know....Lets privatize it.....

Otherwise it becomes nothing more then wealth redistribution by taking money from well to do people and giving it to those who are not.

You cannot force people to put away for retirement and you cannot just say, "screw those old people! Let them starve!" either. If you believe that is an ok thing to do then fine. You are entitled to your opinion. However, all that opinion will do from now until the day you die is fuel hatred and anger towards something that will never change no matter how much you hate it. On top of all of that, most people will consider you a very cold hearted greedy bastard.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Genx87
I guess the point of SS is a safety net is it not? Why would somebody worth millions need a 4500 dollar a month check just because? All welfare is wealth redistribution be it personal or corporate. And anybody who is dumb enough to not save for retirement and live off SS gets what they deserve. Living at or below the poverty rate. Which is all SS can and will ever be able to afford. The other option will consume an ever growing rate of everybody's paycheck.

What is more fair in this deal. Means testing and cutting out the size of SS, or staying on the current one size fits all model that will require young people to pay more and more of their income to fund this monster?

I have no problem with wealthy being exempt.

But only if you have a choice to exempt yourself from the deductions. The idea is I pay in now to provide someone elses retirement and someone else pays in later to pay for mine. Lets make it a bit more personal. I pay in now to fund my retirement later. You know....Lets privatize it.....

Otherwise it becomes nothing more then wealth redistribution by taking money from well to do people and giving it to those who are not.

Well I have already paraded around the idea of privatizing it and making people qualify for welfare should that run out. Which btw is my preference. My other option is just a realistic compromise.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Neither SS or Medicare is that big of a problem. Social Security simply needs to be updated for a changing demographic. When it was originally made, 65 was OLD... life expectancy was only 62 in 1940. Now it's 77 or so. As far as Medicare goes if you look at all these debts that are coming our way from it, (like 40 trillion over 75 years or something?) while it is certainly a problem it still only amounts to a small percentage of GDP. It's also tied to our health care system's larger problems that are obviously going to be addressed. (I sincerely doubt our health care system 50 years from now will look much like the one we have now)

So those people that retire now at 60+ and don't draw SS till 65 (to get a higher check amount) by using what savings they had (since about no one now offers a pension) just have to learn that they need to work 5 or more years. That's a great slogan. Work till you die and SS will fix itself!

With longer life expectancy is it unreasonable to expect people to work into their 70s now?

Depends. Have longer life expectancies increased the number of years that one is capable of working? Furthermore, would requiring these people to work more directly decrease their extended life expectancy by a lot because they are working those years? I do not have the answers to these questions, but I believe they need to be answered before making that kind of change.

 

[Genx87]

Did making people work until 60 when their life expectancy was 62 decrease their lifespans? It doesnt appear so. I'd venture a guess one of the biggest ways to slow down and die is by slowing down and waiting to die. Working keeps you on your feet and your brain functioning at a higher level. Surely there is probably little medical facts to back this up. But you can see it with many celebs. They work and work. Then disappear for 3 years and look like they are about to die, then do.

I'd say with our medical advances and the way people look and act into their 40's and 50's. People working into their 70's shouldnt be a problem. The way we have it setup now people only need to really work about a half of their life. 1-20 and 65-85 they arent in the workforce in any meaningful way.

I also believe many older people have a lot to bring to the table via experience. One of our HR people was talking about that this morning. Lots of people in their late 50s and 60s will be retiring soon, leaving with all that knowledge.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Specop 007

I have no problem with wealthy being exempt.

But only if you have a choice to exempt yourself from the deductions. The idea is I pay in now to provide someone elses retirement and someone else pays in later to pay for mine. Lets make it a bit more personal. I pay in now to fund my retirement later. You know....Lets privatize it.....

Otherwise it becomes nothing more then wealth redistribution by taking money from well to do people and giving it to those who are not.

You cannot force people to put away for retirement

It's hilarious you say that, because you're also defending SS, which is forcing people to put away for someone else's retirement. So apparently you're against the gov't forcing people to put away for their own retirement, but you're OK with the gov't forcing people to bankroll other people's retirement. It just boggles the mind.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Xavier434

You cannot force people to put away for retirement

It's hilarious you say that, because you're also defending SS, which is forcing people to put away for someone else's retirement. So apparently you're against the gov't forcing people to put away for their own retirement, but you're OK with the gov't forcing people to bankroll other people's retirement. It just boggles the mind.

Fair enough. Allow me to revise my statement in order to portray how I feel more accurately.

You cannot expect people to put away for retirement on their own free will.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Did making people work until 60 when their life expectancy was 62 decrease their lifespans? It doesnt appear so. I'd venture a guess one of the biggest ways to slow down and die is by slowing down and waiting to die. Working keeps you on your feet and your brain functioning at a higher level. Surely there is probably little medical facts to back this up. But you can see it with many celebs. They work and work. Then disappear for 3 years and look like they are about to die, then do.

I'd say with our medical advances and the way people look and act into their 40's and 50's. People working into their 70's shouldnt be a problem. The way we have it setup now people only need to really work about a half of their life. 1-20 and 65-85 they arent in the workforce in any meaningful way.

I also believe many older people have a lot to bring to the table via experience. One of our HR people was talking about that this morning. Lots of people in their late 50s and 60s will be retiring soon, leaving with all that knowledge.

You could very well be 100% correct. I am not disputing that possibility. I would just rather be more certain about such things through studies which are trying to be as accurate as possible instead of assuming anything here. It's my way of protecting the health of our elderly when it comes to this matter and it also evaluates how much of a benefit we would actually receive as a country. More years does not necessarily mean more productive years know what I mean?

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Xavier434

You cannot force people to put away for retirement

It's hilarious you say that, because you're also defending SS, which is forcing people to put away for someone else's retirement. So apparently you're against the gov't forcing people to put away for their own retirement, but you're OK with the gov't forcing people to bankroll other people's retirement. It just boggles the mind.

Fair enough. Allow me to revise my statement in order to portray how I feel more accurately.

You cannot expect people to put away for retirement on their own free will.

What incentive do they have to do so? They know they get Medicaid, Medicare and SS. We have effectively removed any driving reason to plan for our own lives.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Harvey
-snip-
Furthermore, it is also completely relevant that the worst financial drain on the entire governement is your Traitor In Chief's war in Iraq. That's trillions that otherwise would not have otherwise been squandered.

War Resisters League Report on Iraq/Afganistan War spending

According to their site, only about 7.4% of the annual budget (excluding SS which would make it look even lower) is spent on Iraq & Afganistan combined.

Their numbers and the math:

Military Spending 54% and $1,450 Billion for 2009.

Afganistan and Iraq $200 Billion for 2009 (amount included in the $1,450 total for military spending)

200/1,450 = .1379 x 54% = .0744 or 7.44%

Originally posted by: Harvey
-snip-
-- Social Security would be solvent if Congress hadn't stolen... err... "borrowed" trillions from surplus that was in the SS trust fund.

Social Security would be solvent with a surplus if Congress hadn't "borrowed" the money already mandated by law to squander elsewhere.

Social Security runs a surplus.

What to do with the extra funds?

Storing them in a vault (similar to stuffing it in a mattress) would be a poor choice. The funds should be invested.

What to invest in?

I don't think the stock market would be many's first choice given the risk of loss (much the same with arguing over which stocks, and then there's the opportunity for shenanigans etc).

What's considered the safest investment?

US bonds and notes. No risk of loss on principal (other than errosion due to high inflation).

So the excess funds are invested in US Treasuries securites; and SS does have a surplus. Actually it's a special type of Treasury that IMO pays too low a rate of interest IMO. It's that low rate that is unfair to the SS fund. By paying an artifically low rate, they are subsidizing the general budget and making the deficit look lower than it should be because the payment on debt (one of our biggest expenditure) looks lower than it should.

How the federal government utilized those funds they received from SS investment in US Treasury securities is irrelevant to SS. No different than when I invest in a CD from a bank, as long as they pay me my interest and principal it's irrelevant to me.

What the federal governemt did with those funds is a general budget (irresponsible) spending matter/problem.

Al Gore and his stupid "lockbox" analogy has been a great cause of confusion regarding SS funds. It's an incredibly poor and inapt explaination, for if the SS funds are not invested in US Treasuries then what, pray tell, are they invested in?

Fern

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Specop 007
What incentive do they have to do so? They know they get Medicaid, Medicare and SS. We have effectively removed any driving reason to plan for our own lives.

People are lazy. People are greedy. People are often irresponsible. People have a lot of trouble thinking past square one. They are even worse at actually preparing for anything past square one let alone fully preparing for the rest of their lives when they become too elderly to work.

I made this argument in another thread, but it appears that I need to make it here too. That is, no matter how little the government helps us out, nothing is going to make these people more fiscally responsible. Removing these kinds of programs will not provide them with any incentive to do so. If they were responsible people then it would provide incentive, but the whole reason why we need these programs is because people are not responsible enough. Hate it all you want. There is no simple solution. It is not as black and white as you wish it were and I know the thought of it being so complicated is very disturbing but that's the way it is.. If it were that simple and everyone just magically became these really responsible people after taking away entitlement programs then we would never have had a need to create them in the first place because there was a time when we didn't have them and for some reason we still had a shit load of people that are irresponsible and effecting the lives of others who had nothing to do with their irresponsible lives.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Specop 007
What incentive do they have to do so? They know they get Medicaid, Medicare and SS. We have effectively removed any driving reason to plan for our own lives.

People are lazy. People are greedy. People are often irresponsible. People have a lot of trouble thinking past square one. They are even worse at actually preparing for anything past square one let alone fully preparing for the rest of their lives when they become too elderly to work.

I made this argument in another thread, but it appears that I need to make it here too. That is, no matter how little the government helps us out, nothing is going to make these people more fiscally responsible. Removing these kinds of programs will not provide them with any incentive to do so. If they were responsible people then it would provide incentive, but the whole reason why we need these programs is because people are not responsible enough. Hate it all you want. There is no simple solution. It is not as black and white as you wish it were and I know the thought of it being so complicated is very disturbing but that's the way it is.. If it were that simple and everyone just magically became these really responsible people after taking away entitlement programs then we would never have had a need to create them in the first place because there was a time when we didn't have them and for some reason we still had a shit load of people that are irresponsible and effecting the lives of others who had nothing to do with their irresponsible lives.

Actually, there is a simple solution. A few, actually. First, stop trying to blunt the pain of stupidity. Take for example the current "mortgage crisis". I oppose any bail-out because if someone bought way more house than they can afford with some crazy ARM loan which has started climbing every year, let'em get foreclosed. It may hurt in the short-term, but you can be reasonably certain they'll make a smarter choice next time. When being stupid hurts more, people will be less stupid.

But you're probably saying that when someone hits 70 with no retirement funds, it's a little late for them to recover from their error. And you're probably right. So we might as well do what we already do, and continue with a form of "forced" retirement planning, like SS. Only this time, give everyone a contractual right to their deposits (their OWN deposits and no one else's), so that by the time everyone hits 65 or 70 or whatever, everyone will have something. Furthermore, if someone dies before they hit retirement but worked 20-30+ years putting money in an account, that can pass on to their children, giving even the working poor a source of intergenerational wealth. (Did you know that currently, a single mom can work a menial job for 30+ years, the whole time contributing to SS, and if she died the day she retired, taking nothing from SS, she'd leave nothing to her children if they were 18+? And yet, with any private retirement account like many of the rich have, they'd have had full inheritance rights? ) In other words, privatize SS.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
-snip-
OK, here you go:

In the case of Flemming v. Nestor [363 U.S. 603 (1960)], the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of what SS was. They held:

-snip-
The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to "spend money in aid of the general welfare,'"

. But each worker's benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.

Thus, the Court clearly held that payments into SS were a tax, not any sort of deposit or premium, and workers had no contractual right to any proceeds from the program.

I belive the system should be changed to dis-allow benefits to retirees who don't need them. E.g., those with incomes of at least twice the poverty level income.

If it is a social insurance, as the SCOTUS ruled, I see no need to provide benefits to those who are not needy.

And the SCOTUS has ruled we have NO legal expectation of of receiving SS benefits even if we paid in.

Raising the age of retirement is an inferior alternative, as it only increases the class of elderly who are poor and will require other assistance.

And, IIRC eligibility for medicare is dependant upon eligibility for SS Old Age and Retirement Benefits. We'd have a bunch of old people with NO health insurance (that medicare provides). I'm pretty sure greeters at Walmart don't get health insurance coverage.

Fern

Edit: Fixed typo

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Actually, there is a simple solution. A few, actually. First, stop trying to blunt the pain of stupidity. Take for example the current "mortgage crisis". I oppose any bail-out because if someone bought way more house than they can afford with some crazy ARM loan which has started climbing every year, let'em get foreclosed. It may hurt in the short-term, but you can be reasonably certain they'll make a smarter choice next time. When being stupid hurts more, people will be less stupid.

But you're probably saying that when someone hits 70 with no retirement funds, it's a little late for them to recover from their error. And you're probably right. So we might as well do what we already do, and continue with a form of "forced" retirement planning, like SS. Only this time, give everyone a contractual right to their deposits (their OWN deposits and no one else's), so that by the time everyone hits 65 or 70 or whatever, everyone will have something. Furthermore, if someone dies before they hit retirement but worked 20-30+ years putting money in an account, that can pass on to their children, giving even the working poor a source of intergenerational wealth. (Did you know that currently, a single mom can work a menial job for 30+ years, the whole time contributing to SS, and if she died the day she retired, taking nothing from SS, she'd leave nothing to her children if they were 18+? And yet, with any private retirement account like many of the rich have, they'd have had full inheritance rights? ) In other words, privatize SS.

You cannot privatize it alone. A lot more needs to be considered. For example, you got a lot of people on disability that either cannot work or barely can work during their lives. Where is their money going to come from? Then you need to consider whether or not the poor people will have enough to sustain themselves for the remainder of their lives once they become elderly. Will it be enough or will they starve?

Also, in regards to your statement about "blunting the pain of stupidity", I assume you are referring to pretty much anything which results in some kind of entitlement program. There is a very good reason why we have these programs. Rather than go into detail here, refer to this thread where I present my argument throughout the first page (might extend into page 2 later *shrug*). While this argument does not state what I would believe would happen if the elderly did not have a means to preserve themselves, it does hit most of the other entitlement programs generally speaking.


Thread

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Fern
If it is a social insurance, as the SCOTUS ruled, I see no need to provide benefits to those who are not needy.

I believe we're heading that way eventually. Something's got to give. I remember Ross Perot giving a speech broadcast on NPR back before he ran for pres. in '92. He stated it was absurd the gov't was sending him ~$1000 just because he'd turned 65. Said something like "I'm worth over a billion dollars! I don't need the money!" Got a pretty good laugh from the crowd too. I think we'll see means testing at some point.

And the SCOTUS has ruled we have legal expectation of of receiving SS benefits even if we paid in.

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Maybe you meant to say "NO legal expectation"? They clearly said there's no contractual right. Sure, there's an expectation, but that's not a right.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

I'm not sure where you're getting that. Maybe you meant to say "NO legal expectation"? They clearly said there's no contractual right. Sure, there's an expectation, but that's not a right.

Yep, typo. I meant to say "NO".

Fern

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You cannot privatize it alone. A lot more needs to be considered. For example, you got a lot of people on disability that either cannot work or barely can work during their lives. Where is their money going to come from? Then you need to consider whether or not the poor people will have enough to sustain themselves for the remainder of their lives once they become elderly. Will it be enough or will they starve?

Ultimately, I don't know, and honestly, it's not really my concern. It's not that I don't care about the unfortunate - I actually do a fair bit of volunteer work, contribute to several charities financially, and send financial assistance to various extended family members. Some years, caring for my loved ones requires several hundred hours of overtime, but hey, you do what you must. However, one thing I won't do is pretend my problems should be yours too. Looks like we differ on that.

Edit: And by the way, you do your kid (and future generations) no favors digging a nice financial hole for them by heaping benefits on the elderly. We can have this "I'm more compassionate than you" pissing match all you want, but someone's got to pay for your all-abiding sense of charity.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

plan

I read it, but I am having trouble grasping the advantage of using it over SS. Mostly, I just want to know one thing. What will the difference be by using a TSP like system instead of SS for those elderly who lived their lives in lower income brackets and currently do not have any money to support themselves and their children do not have any money either?

main advantage is that TSP is fully funded, rather than pay as you go. because of that, it can never be insolvent. also, it can take advantage of compound interest. however, unlike SS, there isn't a defined benefit. of course, what good is a defined benefit when congress can cut it at any time?

obviously we'd have to have a transition system. regardless of whether we modify the current system with higher taxes/lower benefits, or move to a fully funded system like TSP, someone is going to get screwed. frankly, if i know i'm going to get screwed i'd at least like to have the system fixed forever by making it like TSP.

i saw a remark from a senator a few years back (i think one of the new york ones?), along the lines of, no one would nowadays, knowing the power of compound interest, would set up SS the way it is set up.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

plan

I read it, but I am having trouble grasping the advantage of using it over SS. Mostly, I just want to know one thing. What will the difference be by using a TSP like system instead of SS for those elderly who lived their lives in lower income brackets and currently do not have any money to support themselves and their children do not have any money either?

main advantage is that TSP is fully funded, rather than pay as you go. because of that, it can never be insolvent. also, it can take advantage of compound interest.

I haven't had a chance to read up on it. What is it invested into and at what rate of "average" interest does it return? Is it privately invested (I assume it is)?

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I,m not a McCain supporter but I agree with his comments, what has become of SS is a disgrace. If SS had been left alone as originally designed(with occasional adjustments to retirement age based on lifespans) everything would be fine, but what we see today is the shell of a program after 50+ yrs of inept legeslation and down right theft that turned it into Washingtons cookie jar.

And I'm sick of the youngster's un informed perception that it's the old stealing from the young that's just ignorant. It's been 50yrs of politico's stealing from the general public, nothing more nothing less. It's our political system that's broken not SS.

And all you young wize men claiming "I'll never need SS, I'm smart enough to take care of myself" HA!! Just like the generations before you, you overestimate the wealth you will aquire during your working career, you underestimate the rate of inflation that will occur throughout your career and retirement years, and you will underestimate the cost of retirement, and you underestimate your lifespan.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

plan

I read it, but I am having trouble grasping the advantage of using it over SS. Mostly, I just want to know one thing. What will the difference be by using a TSP like system instead of SS for those elderly who lived their lives in lower income brackets and currently do not have any money to support themselves and their children do not have any money either?

main advantage is that TSP is fully funded, rather than pay as you go. because of that, it can never be insolvent. also, it can take advantage of compound interest.

I haven't had a chance to read up on it. What is it invested into and at what rate of "average" interest does it return? Is it privately invested (I assume it is)?

There's a choice of funds in the TSP, 5 I think. The fund options, historic rates of return, etc., are all available at www.tsp.gov. It's basically the 401K for fed. employees. And a great model for how a privatized social security program could work.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

plan

I read it, but I am having trouble grasping the advantage of using it over SS. Mostly, I just want to know one thing. What will the difference be by using a TSP like system instead of SS for those elderly who lived their lives in lower income brackets and currently do not have any money to support themselves and their children do not have any money either?

main advantage is that TSP is fully funded, rather than pay as you go. because of that, it can never be insolvent. also, it can take advantage of compound interest.

I haven't had a chance to read up on it. What is it invested into and at what rate of "average" interest does it return? Is it privately invested (I assume it is)?

There's a choice of funds in the TSP, 5 I think. The fund options, historic rates of return, etc., are all available at www.tsp.gov. It's basically the 401K for fed. employees. And a great model for how a privatized social security program could work.

Thanks. I had to step out and didn't have time to look. Sounds like a great plan, assuming the markets don't continue the decade long stagnant move they have been on. I'll read up on it later...stepping out again.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: ElFenix

plan

I read it, but I am having trouble grasping the advantage of using it over SS. Mostly, I just want to know one thing. What will the difference be by using a TSP like system instead of SS for those elderly who lived their lives in lower income brackets and currently do not have any money to support themselves and their children do not have any money either?

main advantage is that TSP is fully funded, rather than pay as you go. because of that, it can never be insolvent. also, it can take advantage of compound interest.

I haven't had a chance to read up on it. What is it invested into and at what rate of "average" interest does it return? Is it privately invested (I assume it is)?

There's a choice of funds in the TSP, 5 I think. The fund options, historic rates of return, etc., are all available at www.tsp.gov. It's basically the 401K for fed. employees. And a great model for how a privatized social security program could work.

Thanks. I had to step out and didn't have time to look. Sounds like a great plan, assuming the markets don't continue the decade long stagnant move they have been on. I'll read up on it later...stepping out again.

This is probably the best option for reforming SS. They even added a new plan to the TSP that automatically sets your risk level based on your age. So even those that think they are too dumb to invest will have a good option.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: charrison


This is probably the best option for reforming SS. They even added a new plan to the TSP that automatically sets your risk level based on your age. So even those that think they are too dumb to invest will have a good option.

It does sound like a good plan. With that said, I would recommend a phase in for people who are 25 or more years away from retirement as we all can see what a short term (10 years of fewer) market can be like. Maybe 100% for those 25 years or further, 75% for those 20-25 years, 50% for those 15-20 years, 25% for those 10-15 years and leave it as it is for those less than 10 years.

Or you could simply give an option to opt out of SS and receive a lump sum invested into an account and take your chances with the market even on a short term basis.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: charrison


This is probably the best option for reforming SS. They even added a new plan to the TSP that automatically sets your risk level based on your age. So even those that think they are too dumb to invest will have a good option.

It does sound like a good plan. With that said, I would recommend a phase in for people who are 25 or more years away from retirement as we all can see what a short term (10 years of fewer) market can be like. Maybe 100% for those 25 years or further, 75% for those 20-25 years, 50% for those 15-20 years, 25% for those 10-15 years and leave it as it is for those less than 10 years.

Or you could simply give an option to opt out of SS and receive a lump sum invested into an account and take your chances with the market even on a short term basis.

That sounds like a reasonable option, however there will have to be interim financing to make it work as seniors are relying on payments from us youngins. I really wish the democrats would have allowed there to be some serious debate on this topic a few years ago....