time to save the American Government's finances.

[jonathankaplan]

I had intended to list the planks one by one, but first, it will make less sense, and seem less cohesively thought out, if I do it that way, so here are the main planks affecting Finance

Comments

[adb_jaeger]

When SS was first designed and the 65 year old age requirement was established, the average female Life expectancy (and they weren't even a big part of the work force yet) was barely 65. The average male life expectancy was just 62. So, the average American worker was not expected to survive long enough to reach social security eligibility.

I'm sure you know this, but that's not the number you care about.

The number you care about is more along the lines of "how long does someone who has survived to 62 expect to live"?

[jpmassar]

To be clear: the average American worker was indeed expected to survive long enough to reach social security eligibility. It's just that lots more people died before they became old enough to be workers.

[jonathankaplan]

Thanks JP,
You are correct, of course. I gave a more full reply to your response when I replied above.
Thanks again.

[jonathankaplan]

As both you and JP point out, the distribution of the ages/death is more important than the simple number. Back then, many more infants died. It took three people reaching 80 years old to outweigh one infant mortality, statistically. So, yes, perhaps people were expected to live longer than 65

[prock]

Military, Social Security, Medicare and Interest

Looking at pretty pictures:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

Interest really isn't "too" big a deal (esp since we can lend at negative interest rates!). Top six are:

Military
Social Security
Unemployment benefits
Medicare, etc
Medicaid, etc
Interest

[jonathankaplan]

I don't expect we will be able to receive such cheap interest considerations for too long into the future. A lot of the lending is in 2 year instruments or shorter, so when they come due, someday they will roll into higher interest instruments, and then, the interest component of the budget could shoot up.

Unemployment is a bit pumped up now compared to a more normal budget, but still, you are right.

I was lumping all the Medi-Stuff together.

Thanks.

[prock]

I don't expect we will be able to receive such cheap interest considerations for too long into the future.

Actually, I think being able to do so is part of the long term plan. There's nothing quite like borrowing dollars at an annual rate 2.5%, while the dollar slides at 3% per year.

[pfrimshot]

- "this merger benefits everyone"

This would benefit Canada how, exactly?

[adb_jaeger]

You got your hockey medal. Time to pay!

[pfrimshot]

You can have it, if you can win it. I encourage you to try ('cause that game was a lot of fun to watch!)

[adb_jaeger]

Yes, yes it was. I can't believe Bettman is still on the fence about 2014.

[prock]

Replying to your fixes

[corwyn_ap]

" If we are interested in being able to act quickly and decisively against countries developing nuclear weapons, Afghanistan is a perfect place to be as it borders both Iran and Pakistan"

What do you view as being the action that needs to happen quickly and decisively against nuclear weapons?

I don't see massive troops entrenched on the ground hundreds of miles away as being much more useful than a carrier group, or bombers in hangars at home, for that matter. The nuclear threat is not one which responds well to long term troop deployments. And might exacerbate the problem rather than reduce it.

[prock]

"What do you view as being the action that needs to happen quickly and decisively against nuclear weapons?"

I'm not sure you're asking the right person. That's not my view. Speaking generally, the ability to strike quickly and with a varied set of options has a lot of value. Without a base in the region, we lose both speed and many tactical options.

I'm not thrilled with a lot of our overseas deployment ...

[freelikebeer]

but there is some merit to employing the strategic encirclement that is our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. It deters the monkey-in-the-middle from doing anything drastic, quickly.

My seat of the pants guess is that we are ten years away from being able to deploy a robust, alternate strategy. We are working on it in drips and drabs, though.

[jonathankaplan]

Of course you are right, but who wants to talk about the 800 trillion pound gorilla in the room. Just talking about him makes the market nervous. Deleveraging is coming, whether the gorilla wants it or not.
Okay, say no more.
Thanks.