We 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 won’t) alter the climate for Washington’s stalemated budget debate. The study demolishes the widespread notion that older Americans need exceptional protection against spending cuts because they’re poorer and more vulnerable than everyone else. Coupled with the elderly’s 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 doesn’t 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 it’s 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 they’ve 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
= new reply since forum marked as read
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? 
