If you have "no place to go," come here!

Tennessee Caller 'Calls Out' Economist Alice Rivlin On C-Span's Washington Journal

Alexa's picture

Occasionally a Washington Insider gets "called-out" on their deceipt by omission. Dr Rivlin did not challenge the caller's assertion.

Instead, she appeals to bipartisanship and "shared sacrifice." She doesn't address the caller's grievance that she failed to point out the monetary loss that Social Security beneficiaries suffer, when there is an age increase in the Full Retirement Age (FRA).

No votes yet


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on


Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

This one, has a small blue screen that shows on front page. (In my browser, anyway.)

When I click on the Title, or the link to this comment box, it does open to the correct C-Span clip above.

Will take this down, as soon as you see it. Hoped if you saw this, you would know what to do to fix it (maybe).

I'll delete it (or you obviously can, after you look it).

Guess I'll just have to be a "commenter." Can't imagine why I can no longer post videos in Quick Hits, or the blog section.

I'll check back and delete this, if you don't take it down. Thanks.

Submitted by lambert on

It's weird embedding code, really huge. The site will automagically break posts in two parts so that one part can appear on the front page. Unfortunately, in this case it broke the embedding code into two parts, hence the blue box.

The answer (now that we know what the problen is) is to tell the site where to break the post, instead of letting the site do it automatically.

Therefore, after you paste in the embedding code, position your cursor AFTER it and then click the icon with the A/b on it. That will put the break where we want it.

Sounds way more complex than it is! And no, we don't want thiese very valuable posts buried in comments.

Submitted by hipparchia on

so it was the page break thingy that was breaking things!

Submitted by lambert on

... after the end of the embedding code. Normallly that has not been an issue but the C-Span embedded code seems unusually large.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

I believe that I understand what you just said (about the pagebreak, etc.). I'll hope to try it out on the caller's "means testing" comment, and Rivlin's reply tomorrow. [The Caller talked for two minutes before Dr. Rivlin got a chance to reply. So Rivlin's reply will be posted with the next segment of the clip.]

What a relief that I'll still be able to post C-Span videos. There are several videos of fiscal cliff forums [much more important than these clips] that I hope "to clip" for posting.

Sorry to be so much hassle, lately. Luckily for you, we'll be away awhile, so you can get some rest! ;)

gizzardboy's picture
Submitted by gizzardboy on

I had not heard this statistic before, but it may be accurate as far as it goes. It is not the full picture, however. On the other end, there is a gain in benefits for every year longer people live and collect Social Security.

I'm collecting benefits, myself, every month. Here is the simple math: If I live to be 80, that is 80 - 66 (when I started collecting) = 14 years times $1000/mo times 12 months a year. That comes out to $168,000 in lifetime bennies (not counting CPA or the real inflation rate).

If I live to 90 the same math (90-66 = 24 X $1000 X 12) comes out to $288,000!! I'm shooting for 90! I'm just one person getting less the the maximum benefit, but you can see what an increase in lifespan can do to costs of the system.

Alexa's picture
Submitted by Alexa on

Can't speak to your exact "loss" due to the cuts enacted in 1983, without more knowledge of your exact circumstance (age that you began receiving your Social Security benefits, etc).

I will be putting up another clip when I return from a trip. Probably should have waited so that they would be up back-to-back, and would make more sense.

Bottom line, if you're drawing now, the cuts coming down the pike will only affect your COLA for Social Security and the taxes you pay will possibly increase due to this same change in the CPI-Index.

But everyone else (depending on how it's written) could lose up to 35% of their monthly benefit check.

Here's an excerpt from Rep Jan Schakowsky's Reuter's opinion piece dated October 24, 2012:

For future retirees, all these changes taken together would reduce the average annual benefit for middle-income workers – those with annual earnings of $43,000 to $69,000 – by up to 35 percent.

Trust me. Whatever you are collecting today, you would have collected more had the 1983 Greenspan Commission not enacted the age increase, which the caller correctly described as being between 6-!2-7% decrease PER YEAR that the FRA (Full Retirement Age) is raised. And that was only one of the cuts they enacted. And they also doubled the payroll contribution, so you lost money there, as well.

At any rate, you'll be FAR BETTER OFF than the bulk of Boomers, when they retire if "Bowles-Simpson" is enacted.

And I can't imagine that anything we can do, will stop it now.