Quote :

"The Millennial generation might..but with their love of organization and general lack of contempt for gov't... I'm not sure. "

hey! we don't all hate the government.

sadly, i think my generation will bitch and moan, but will be slow to actually act to effect change.

3/20/2008 3:42:41 PM

I would like to right NOW see an itemization on my paycheck like this:

SS tax: 7%
- Paying for your retirement: 2%, here you go, invest however you would like
- We fucked up: 5%, it goes to pay for your parents retirement and you will never see this money again. Sorry.

Signed,
George W. Bush

[Edited on March 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2008 6:59:10 PM

^bush tried to privatize a portion of it, if you recall.

3/20/2008 7:14:47 PM

Quote :

"I would gladly just let them keep all the Social Security tax I've paid without ever getting any of the benefit if they would agree not to take any more away from me."

I fully support this motion. Too bad nobody in Congress will dare to even suggest it.

[Edited on March 20, 2008 at 7:15 PM. Reason : blah]

3/20/2008 7:14:59 PM

^



[Edited on March 20, 2008 at 7:25 PM. Reason : take curve below 22, integrate. Divide by total area. We loose.]

3/20/2008 7:22:53 PM

there it goes. Riots in the streets I guarantee.


I should run for president on the platform of getting rid of social security. The rest is moot.

3/20/2008 7:27:50 PM

We should lower the voting age, but not tell the old people the purpose until after it's done.

3/20/2008 7:43:56 PM

Quote :

""I would gladly just let them keep all the Social Security tax I've paid without ever getting any of the benefit if they would agree not to take any more away from me.""

I'm quoting this again on the premise that statement is so idiotic that it alone debases O-whatever's entire argument.

3/21/2008 12:34:10 AM

and why is that?

3/21/2008 12:37:11 AM

Because he's willing to potentially forfeit decades worth of social security payment in return for nothing.

If we lived in magical fantasy politics world and SS went away say tomorrow, then that statement holds merit. But since SS will be here much longer then that, letting the government keep hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money is retarded.

3/21/2008 12:39:34 AM

well, first of all, I'm the one who said that...not Ouvre.

and what I meant was that, at age 28, I would gladly write off the money I've paid into SS since I was 17 if they'd just give me the option of stopping the bleeding.

I don't see where you got that I was talking about decades from now.



I wonder how feasible it would be to simply shitcan SS cold turkey in terms of requiring any further payment into it. Use other government funds to pay out SS's payment obligations beyond the program's self-sufficiency. It would cost a lot, but I have a feeling it would be WAY better over time, and it's not like we aren't going to have to pour a lot more money into it for the next couple of decades anyway (either that or fuck people out of their payments, which is pretty much the same thing on the opposite end)

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:49 AM. Reason : asfd]

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 12:50 AM. Reason : asdf]

3/21/2008 12:45:08 AM

Quote :

"Because he's willing to potentially forfeit decades worth of social security payment in return for nothing. If we lived in magical fantasy politics world and SS went away say tomorrow, then that statement holds merit. But since SS will be here much longer then that, letting the government keep hundreds of thousands of dollars of your money is retarded."

It's not in return for nothing, retard. It's in return for a country without economic collapse. I would gladly forfeit my "benefit" as well. Nothing retarded about it.


oh and I said it first

Quote :

"I am saying that I understand that SS will not be there when I am older and I have made provisions for that. I will be ECSTATIC the day they quit taxing me, even if I am 30, in exchange for no benefits. I would sign up in a heartbeat."

3/21/2008 7:28:49 AM

One of the key benefits of privatizing social security (and less mentioned) is the ability for the poor to pass down their accumulated wealth to subsequent generations. Currently, those who can afford supplementary private accounts (401ks, ect), can pass on their wealth to the next generation, thus providing the next generation with an added advantage. If social security were privatized and given defined property rights, the poorest generations could pass along their lifetime savings as well, further preventing a perpetually poor lineage.

3/21/2008 7:54:38 AM

^^ i agree. none of us are saying at 50 years old we'd be willing to stop paying it and get nothing in return (although it would be better for my kids at that point, and im planning on not getting any SS anyways but still). most of us are in our 20s and someone else said 'even if i am 30'

I would GLADLY let them keep it all and receive no benefit if i could stop paying it now as well. Ive been at my first full time job only since June of last year (9.5 months) and ive already paid over 5k in fica contributions.

3/21/2008 8:08:13 AM

^^ I thought that SS was a weak form of wealth redistribution.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 8:10 AM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 8:09:55 AM

^^ I'll go up on that. Even if I am 64.999999 I still would rather not receive the benefit if it means the whole thing wouldn't crash down upon itself.

3/21/2008 9:07:49 AM

1) Stop all payroll deductions for SS

2) Continue to pay current ss recepients as usual using money from the general fund.

3) For the people who have paid in but haven't retired: Issue gov't bonds or annuities for the amount of ss they would've been eligible for ages 65-75. This would be reduced by a percentage based on how many years away from age 65 you were. So a young person who has paid only a few years of ss would get much less than someone at age 55 or so.

4) Everyone not currently on SS would be responsible for their own retirement plans.

3/21/2008 9:24:42 AM

problem with 2...

The "trust fund" is full of IOUs as explained above. THere's no real money in there.

3/21/2008 9:28:00 AM

^
Yes true..there is no "trust fund". SS is currently paid out of the general fund...as it would under this plan.

As far as funding goes...if we can find the funds for the vitally necessary Iraq war, then we can find the funds to pay off existing SS recepients.

Inflation would go up as a result, but we would at last be finished with SS.

3/21/2008 9:43:38 AM

Your idea is framed in a stupid way and backpedaling from here to Key West isn't going to change that fact. What you should have said was: "I'd love for them to cease all SS deductions and entitlements immediately" so then I would just attack you for being an self righteous prick that doesn't care about millions upon millions of Americans losing hundreds of thousands of dollars deducted over a lifetime. The way you framed it, however, is actually harmful to yourself as well which reduces you to a the intellectual standing of a downy.

3/21/2008 9:59:26 AM

Quote :

"Would you entrust a greedy corporation whose only motive is profit and shareholder returns with the control of your personal healthcare knowing full well that they benefit from not helping you as often as possible? Are you for real? You want to trust the most greed of social organisms with your health? "

YES

3/21/2008 10:34:37 AM

^ I would too...

Those greedy corporations with their evil shareholders supply my computers, my house, my food, my car, my cable, my internet, my vacations, my JOB, my telephone, my bottled water, my paper, my ink, my toilet paper, and pretty much everything else... and guess what... they're not doing too bad a job of it either.

3/21/2008 11:10:23 AM

Buying insurance isn't the same as buying a computer. A computer company profits off of a computer sold and the options it can add on top of the base price. An insurance company profits by paying out as little as possible while getting as many subscribers as possible.

In the case of a computer company, their profit is directly tied with as much as possible for the consumer in providing a better product. In the case of an insurance company, their profit is directly tied to sustaining a base (a majority of which are employer based programs) while doing as little as possible for that base.

3/21/2008 11:17:00 AM

Quote :

"An insurance company profits by paying out as little as possible while getting as many subscribers as possible."

LOL economics oneOHone dumbass.


Guess what?

Quote :

"An insurance computer company profits by paying out as little as possible reducing expenses while getting as many subscribers as possible increasing revenue."

They just sell different products.

That's the DEFINITION OF PROFIT

PROFIT = REVENUE - EXPENSES


How do you maximize?

increase revenue
reduce expense

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 11:28 AM. Reason : .]

3/21/2008 11:27:28 AM

I am okay entrusting my INVESTMENTS to corporate America.

However, it's sketchy as hell to buy INSURANCE from them.

In 401k kind of things, the capital is provided by you, and you keep a balance. That makes you the boss, their job is to make more money for you. If you're getting a payment for retirement, unemployment, disability, or something, then corporate management is going to try to pay as little as possible because they're trying to make money for someone else, not you.

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 2:12 PM. Reason : ]

3/21/2008 2:11:49 PM

If the insurance market were indeed a free market (absent of the plethora of state mandates/regulations) insurance companies, like those in other, free markets, would have to compete for our money. Therefore customer satisfaction would play a huge role in all this. Take warranty expense as an example. The same profit incentives are in place for products that carry service warranties, but you do not see a "skimping" on promised benefits in the name of profits due to the potential loss in sales that would result from dissatisfied customers. If I buy a computer under warranty from HP and find out they skimp on their promises, do you think I, or others I tell, will continue to buy HP products?

Quote :

" Every individual...generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Book IV Chapter II "

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 3:20 PM. Reason : .].

[Edited on March 21, 2008 at 3:22 PM. Reason : .]

3/21/2008 3:17:39 PM

Quote :

"It looks to me that it will take one generation of Americans who are fed up enough and willing to let themselves get pretty much screwed over to get the country out from under the social security mistake."

Ummm. I'd say that anyone who goes along w/ SS at this point is willingly letting himself get screwed over

3/22/2008 12:38:22 AM

what on Earth do you mean by "goes along with"?

3/22/2008 7:19:19 AM

Who's laughing at the lock box now, bitches?

3/22/2008 9:22:57 AM

I don't even know why you're getting excited about arguing profit, Over.

Clearly insurance companies like to reward their investors.

My entire point centers around whose goals win out: Your health, or the Stockholder.

A more logical example then the completely ass backwards ones you used from unrelated industries would be to point out how auto insurance works, which is free market. Please remind, sir, what happens to your premium when you get one ticket,two tickets, three tickets or an accident costing over 2k$.

Or are you going to invent new rules of economics to argue that health insurance companies as rational actors wouldn't raise your premiums if you kept getting sick based on you being a high risk.

Any way you argue this, I will destroy you. Why? Because logically there's a direct conflict of interest between the goals of health insurance agencies and your healthcare. Direct, not related, as is the case with every other form of insurance.

3/22/2008 4:48:01 PM

But those same iron-clad rules of economics would never apply to government-rationed care, right? Tight-fisted bureaucrats (or legislators) would never, ever ration care, raise deductables, or deny coverage to fit the bottom line, right?

Because it's like, the government, man. Not some evil corporation.

3/22/2008 5:48:08 PM

If the federal government can manage to screw up:

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Prescription Drug Plan
Welfare
Food Stamps
VA Hospitals
The Tax System
Immigration
Spending
Government Schools


Then they definitely won't screw up nationalized health care, right? It'll stay within budget and give everyone all the medical care they need without long waits and without raising taxes to over 40%, right?



[Edited on March 22, 2008 at 11:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/22/2008 10:59:30 PM

Quote :

"Because logically there's a direct conflict of interest between the goals of health insurance agencies and your healthcare. Direct, not related, as is the case with every other form of insurance."

Don't use them.

That's what I thought.

Quote :

"Clearly insurance companies like to reward their investors. My entire point centers around whose goals win out: Your health, or the Stockholder. "

My God you're full of stupid.

Is "investors" and "stockholder" supposed to be a scary word now. Let me correct your quote.

Quote :

"Clearly insurance companies like to reward their investors. "

Every publicly traded company who has money invested in them, who would not exist if it were not for these investors, work to make the company profitable. Plain and simple. It's the RESPONSIBILITY to do so.

3/22/2008 11:05:45 PM

It's perfectly true that government run organizations are under less pressure to cut expenses at the cost worse care to the patient. And a government run health care system is more consistent with the Hippocratic oath.

But who the fuck is talking about a government run health care system? What Hillary and Obama have proposed is universal coverage, not government run health care.

A contractor for the government is just as likely to cut corners at a devastating risk to the patient as any other organization.

I swear to God, every single one of you are blowing a bunch of steam and nothing more.

Quote :

"But those same iron-clad rules of economics would never apply to government-rationed care, right?"

Your horribly vague "government-rationed" adjective doesn't indicate what your talking about. Government run services are usually criticized for being inefficient and incompetent, not so much so for being greedy.

Quote :

"I will destroy you"

Quote :

"My God you're full of stupid."

wow.

3/23/2008 10:38:06 AM

Quote :

"Your horribly vague "government-rationed" adjective doesn't indicate what your talking about. Government run services are usually criticized for being inefficient and incompetent, not so much so for being greedy."

I don't think "greed" is the exclusive adjective of sub-par care involving cutting corners. See, for instance, the VA, a perfect example of government-managed healthcare.

Incompetence and bureaucratic bloat are not exclusionary to cutting corners and rationing to meet budgets.

3/23/2008 10:53:57 AM

It depends on the high level management. If the individual doctors are not responsible for the budget of the hospital, then it doesn't matter if you want the budget to be something, it will explode out of control anyway.

We have been moving in the direction of the doctors being more responsible for the budget. This is what all the HMOs have been trying to do, they would much rather have responsibility for medical bills if they're the ones running the hospital.

If the thing was run by the government up one side and down the other, then I don't agree with what you're saying. I think that in that case, expenses and the size of the program are likely to just balloon out of control. But that's not what anyone is talking about. The current proposals are for some kind of "bastardized version" of government and private run health care. What would happen with that... I simply don't know.

3/23/2008 11:47:30 AM

"Universal Coverage" will lead to Universal Healthcare. period. Much of the Socialist ideology in this country is based on the premise of taking teeny-tiny chunks out of the American system at a time because it will be more palatable and less obvious as to what the final goal is. If you need proof of this, look no further than Social Security, Public Education, Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP. Hell, SCHIP, effectively, is what has lead to the demand for "Universal Coverage." SCHIP is what has made the mere notion of universal coverage palatable to the American public.

And all of this negates the fact that Universal Coverage is not what is needed. Rather, what is needed is for the government to BUTT OUT when it comes to the healthcare industry. When healthcare is affordable, people don't need insurance for the every day things.

3/25/2008 4:32:48 PM

but there's a difference between an area where you can just build a government program versus an area where there's already so much private capital sunk into. In order to turn the "Universal Coverage" into "Universal Healthcare" you would have to displace HUGE sums of money.

I mean, if you were to socialize insurance, you're going to have to pay all off all the stockholders of the insurance companies, right?

Tell me again, how much money does the federal government have? I think it was in the negative trillions.

3/27/2008 5:21:24 PM

bttt

3/30/2008 10:54:19 AM

^Theyll just print more money, duh

3/30/2008 10:58:46 AM

There is a serious misunderstanding in how Social Security works in this thread's initial post.

Yes, the trust fund is invested in U.S. government bonds. But so what? These bonds are not too different than the savings bonds your grandmama gave you for christmas as a kid. They represent obligations on the U.S. federal government and it is legally oblidged to pay those bonds. Bonds are paid off every single year without incident. The only way a crisis would occur would be if the U.S. federal government defaulted on its debt. And that doesn't seem likekly.

I would also point out that the productivity of American labor has been increasing in recent years. If this continues, payroll tax revenues will increase. The ratio of workers/dependents is irrelevant. What maters is how much each worker is earning. Therefore, as productivity increases, the "crisis" gets pushed off further into the future.

Really, Social Security is not in any immediate danger. It can be saved with a few minor reforms and we could probably live without those reforms for a few years while we sort out our current fiscal situation.

[Edited on March 30, 2008 at 11:14 AM. Reason : ``]

3/30/2008 11:14:16 AM

Quote :

"There is a serious misunderstanding in how Social Security works in this thread's initial post."

Incorrect.

Quote :

"Yes, the trust fund is invested in U.S. government bonds. But so what? These bonds are not too different than the savings bonds your grandmama gave you for christmas as a kid. They represent obligations on the U.S. federal government and it is legally oblidged to pay those bonds. Bonds are paid off every single year without incident. The only way a crisis would occur would be if the U.S. federal government defaulted on its debt. And that doesn't seem likekly."

Okay genius, a riddle for you. The government basically bought bonds from itself and already spent the money. So now how is it going to pay back that money it owes in terms of very real obligations, other than by 1) Printing more money, 2) Raising taxes, 3) "other"?

The fact is, the only thing the Trust Fund represents is an IOU - that's it. It bought the bonds from itself which essentially means it wrote an IOU to itself. Sure, their credit may be good, since welching on their own bonds means discrediting the value of all their other bonds in circulation, but that's not the point to begin with. The point is, there's no money waiting to pay for Social Security. The only thing "waiting" there is a stack of IOUs in a drawer.

So - where is this money coming from? In case you haven't noticed by now, we've already spent it.

3/30/2008 1:21:27 PM

^ You are not making any sense. We have already "spent the money"? huh? Let's try it this way.

Last year, the government spent more money than it recieved in tax reciepts--in other words it ran a deficit. To cover the difference between revenue and spending, the federal government borrowed money from investors by selling securities. These securities essentially say that if you pay the government X-ammount last year, they will pay that principal back to you plus interest within a given amount of time (the longest security is the 30 year treasury bond).

Did the US federal government already spend the money it borrowed from these investors? Yes. But that was exactly the point of borrowing the money in the first place!

Now the government pays back the interest and/or principa on many of these securities every single year without incident. It doesn't matter who owns them. If social security didn't would these securities, someone else would. Maybe investors in the U.S. or Japan or Europe.

So the fact the Social Security Trust Fund is comprised of treasury securities shouldn't bother you any more than anyone else holding treasury securities in their investment portfolio.

3/30/2008 1:46:13 PM

Quote :

"Last year, the government spent more money than it recieved in tax reciepts--in other words it ran a deficit. To cover the difference between revenue and spending, the federal government borrowed money from investors by selling securities. These securities essentially say that if you pay the government X-ammount last year, they will pay that principal back to you plus interest within a given amount of time (the longest security is the 30 year treasury bond)."

And you're an idiot if you think this is a sustainable long-term solution for managing our budgets, given that A) Annual debt service payments are now one of the larger expenditures of the Federal Government, and B) It gives other nations, who are some of the chief holders of U.S. debt, inordinate leverage over us. Or did you think the falling U.S. dollar was simply a fluke?

Quote :

"Did the US federal government already spend the money it borrowed from these investors? Yes. But that was exactly the point of borrowing the money in the first place!"

Except, ah... no. The problem is that we've spent the Social Security surplusses on - get this - something else. Now we have to start paying off those loans we took out - and this so-called "trust fund" is basically backed by a bunch of IOU's we've already taken out and spent. So, instead of "saving for a rainy day," like the "trust fund" implies, we've done the exact opposite - we spent the money.

So, I ask again - where exactly will this money to pay for this "trust fund" supposedly covering Social Security be coming from? Perhaps more debt? (That's a wildly successful idea). Higher taxes? Reduced benefits? More debt? Debase the currency?

Or hell, let's just dispose of the fiction of a "trust fund" and cut to the meat of the matter - there is no surplus to draw upon, because we've already spent it. Instead, we simply have a rising degree of unmet entitlement expenditures - which means we dip into General Revenues (either directly or by incurring yet more debt), cut benefits, or find some other "creative" way to finance it, none of which are good for our credit rating.

Quote :

"Now the government pays back the interest and/or principa on many of these securities every single year without incident. It doesn't matter who owns them. If social security didn't would these securities, someone else would. Maybe investors in the U.S. or Japan or Europe. So the fact the Social Security Trust Fund is comprised of treasury securities shouldn't bother you any more than anyone else holding treasury securities in their investment portfolio."

Once again - the fact that U.S. government securities are in the Trust Fund there isn't the issue per se - it's the fact that a debt obligation by our government is backed with its own debt. Please read this carefully. The issue is that they're worthless as far as a tool of paying the deficit on Social Security obligations. Namely because the fact that it's the government taking out a bond from itself - it's a shell game. In order to cash in those bonds to "pay" for Social Security, the government's going to need to cough up some money from General Revenues. Which essentially means those bonds are not an asset, but simply worthless at best, and an obligation at worst.

Let's look at this another way. You own a debt from someone else. That debt has value - you can call it in and redeem it. You've loaned out money and now you can demand it back. It has meaning. Now you write a debt to yourself. You spend the money. How exactly is ownership of that debt an "asset?"

[Edited on March 30, 2008 at 1:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/30/2008 1:55:31 PM

Quote :

"Once again - the fact that U.S. government securities are in the Trust Fund there isn't the issue per se - it's the fact that a debt obligation by our government is backed with its own debt. "

You're fucking double dipping here. It's like you say later, the SS trust fund is an amount of money the US government owes future recipients. BUT, this is accounted for, this 3 trillion "fund" forms a portion of our 9 trillion debt. They don't somehow borrow 2 times the amount and use an accounting trick to cover it up. We know the debt is there, as proof of this, we're talking about it right now.

The problem is we entirely don't know how much we will have to pay back out of the fund - the fund does not accurately represent the amount that will be owed. And at the same time, both political parties are trying their darnedest to royally fuck our monetary system, and the only thing they can agree on is to increase spending while decreasing taxes. And the future looks even more bleak as all three major presidential candidates champion some action by the federal government that will suck the system even more dry; a stronger presence in Iraq, and universal health care coverage.

On top of that, regardless on how you view peak oil and global warming, you might as well list off energy and most other intrinsic inputs to an economy as bleak in the long term. Short term returns and corporate and government irresponsibility have been the name of the game through the last 15 years, creating a country that is in whole living far beyond its means through the most critical time leading up to a demographic tipping point coupled with a resource crunch - the time where we should have been saving for the future we were deficit spending. Fuck fixing the system, in 5 years the government will have absolute shit for financial wiggle room.

[Edited on March 30, 2008 at 3:17 PM. Reason : ]

3/30/2008 3:16:36 PM

I just got my yearly information about my Social Security benefits, when I am eligible, I will be able to collect like $2k a month....would be nice if it would still be around by then....

3/30/2008 3:27:20 PM

^ Grab that SSA statement again.

Look for the disclaimer. It's definitely on there. Your benefits ARE NOT promised nor guaranteed.

3/30/2008 3:46:18 PM

Quote :

"You're fucking double dipping here. It's like you say later, the SS trust fund is an amount of money the US government owes future recipients. BUT, this is accounted for, this 3 trillion "fund" forms a portion of our 9 trillion debt. They don't somehow borrow 2 times the amount and use an accounting trick to cover it up. We know the debt is there, as proof of this, we're talking about it right now."

No, this is what I'm saying - we owe money to SS recipients - check. In many accounting schema, we count the "trust fund" as an asset. However, this "trust fund" is not an asset - it's a debt. One branch of the government owns a debt on the other branch. It's like your left hand writing a bond of debt to your right.

Therefore, the "trust fund" is a mirage - it's not an asset at all, it's part of the total debt of the Federal Government.

Thus, here's our problem - we have a revenue shortfall in Social Security coming up - less money in than going out. How exactly do we pay that? Well, why don't we go to the Trust Fund...

Whooops! We already spent that money. All that's left there are some IOU's saying that we're obligated to divert money from General Revenues as debt service. There's no "asset" to draw upon - only a pre-existing debt obligation. It's not "double-counting," it's simply a matter of where there's just no asset sitting there - just an obligation. It doesn't matter whether that obligation is "part" of the existing $9 trillion debt (which I don't contend otherwise), it's simply the fact that the instrument we're supposedly counting on to cover shortfalls in the immediate future isn't an asset - it's just a promise to pay from General Revenues.

Quote :

"The problem is we entirely don't know how much we will have to pay back out of the fund - the fund does not accurately represent the amount that will be owed."

Yes, I agree. The "trust fund" issue is simply the tip of the iceberg - because even if it were a real asset (which it is not), it would be quickly exhausted as payments outstrip revenues.

3/30/2008 4:23:50 PM

Stevo,

You're confused. If Social Security did not already own these treasury securities, someone else would. We would STILL have to pay them off. And we will pay them off like we have done in the past--ussually with either our higher tax revenues (as I pointed out, inflation adjusted revenues go up every year as a result of economic growth) or higher taxes or less spending on other programs or more debt.

If you want to say that any of these options are "unacceptable", then it is still not social securities problem. It's a problem debt problem faced by the entire federal government. Of course, there is really no evidence to suggest that the federal government will have a problem servicing its national debt. Interest rates are still very low and taxes are also low by historical standards (leaving room for increases).

There are some real fiscal problems, but they can be found in Medicare, Medicaid, and Iraq. Social Security is maybe 10th on the list.

3/30/2008 4:43:30 PM

Quote :

"You're confused. If Social Security did not already own these treasury securities, someone else would. We would STILL have to pay them off. And we will pay them off like we have done in the past--ussually with either our higher tax revenues (as I pointed out, inflation adjusted revenues go up every year as a result of economic growth) or higher taxes or less spending on other programs or more debt."

I think you're confusing the source of my complaint. The issue is that Social Security holds debts against our own government. Let's say Social Security owned bonds from some external agent - i.e., they bought some AAA bonds on the market, from someone other than the government. Let's say some municipalities. In this case, Social Security would have a valid asset to draw upon - namely because it's not just pushing numbers on the Federal Government's ledger.

Of course, this is the problem - this is not what's in the Trust Fund. In that case, we wouldn't have had the ability to enjoy the surplus to begin with - and since General Revenues never went into the black, there would have been no "budget surplus."

Again though, as I've said - the ability to pay these debt obligations in the Trust Fund is not my chief concern - it's the larger issue of paying the larger unmet obligations of Social Security and Medicare at large. However, my point for invoking the Trust Fund is that there's simply no asset to draw upon - so the problem is worse than it is made out to be. Immediately when revenues are outstripped by expenditures, Social Security will run a net deficit, as far as federal revenues go - the only difference is that by the ledgers, the debt service from prior bonds will be keeping it "afloat." But that money from General Revenues has to come from somewhere, and it's only going to get worse over time.

Quote :

"If you want to say that any of these options are "unacceptable", then it is still not social securities problem. It's a problem debt problem faced by the entire federal government. Of course, there is really no evidence to suggest that the federal government will have a problem servicing its national debt. Interest rates are still very low and taxes are also low by historical standards (leaving room for increases)."

I agree, and this is my point - it is a "Federal Government" problem. Namely because we're going to be drawing more and more off of General Revenues, by whatever means you care to propose, as years go on, starting immediately once SS expenses top revenues - first to pay back those bonds, which will start becoming immediately due, and then once those are exhausted, simply to pay out benefits directly.

Quote :

"There are some real fiscal problems, but they can be found in Medicare, Medicaid, and Iraq. Social Security is maybe 10th on the list."

The 75-year projection for SS stands at around $10 trillion - less than Medicare + Medicaid (around $30 trillion), but hardly inconsequential. Particularly assuming we're not doing what we're continuing to do in Iraq at its current pace for the next 75 years.

3/30/2008 4:54:00 PM