good to see you back, Hal. I think "d oaway with social security" is a bit of an overstatement, but I am also not convinved there is a "crisis" that requires privatization to "fix" it. Your arguments are persuasive. Thanks!

What puzzles me is how during the Clinton administration the Democrats were raving about how Social Security had been looted and needed to be expanded and enhanced and made more durable, yet now those same legislators are blissfully claiming that the system is doing great and will last for decades with no modifications and needs to be left alone alltogether.

Dave

Thanks, Eric.

But I'm not sure I'm quite back yet - I upgraded my Mac to Panther 10.3.7 about an hour ago and can only say !#$@!#@$%!.

Not really :-)

Actually, it's only a few add-ins that don't quite work right with the latest and greatest and I'm sure there are upgrades for them online. This was the smoothest upgrade I'm made on a Mac in the 19 years I've been doing it.

Love this damned machine :-)

What puzzles me, Dave, is how you apparently have no concept of what is going on with the Social Security trust fund but feel free to comment on it. Free speech is a wonderful thing, but relevant speech is even better - you should try it some time.

I have not heard of anyone claiming, blissfully or not, that "the system is doing great and will last for decades with no modifications and needs to be left alone alltogether."

Did you not read a single word of my post? Which parts gave you the most difficulty? I'd be glad to help you through them.

I know those right-wing talking points obviate the need for thought, but some of them are invalid, as was the case with the one you used as the basis of your post.

>>I have not heard of anyone claiming, blissfully or not, that "the system is doing great and will last for decades with no modifications and needs to be left alone alltogether."<<

Have you been living in a cave, Hal? This is the Democrat party line position right now. I hear quotes to that effect from Democrat leaders on the TV or radio several times a day. Rather than accusing me of not reading your post, perhaps you should spend some time keeping up with what your compatriots are saying.

You yourself point out that there are problems with the system and you propose non-privatization solutions. Democrat leaders don't agree with you. They don't think there are any problems or that solutions are needed - even though they had the opposite positions 5 or 6 years ago.

Let me help bring you up to date on the party line position on Social Security so you can bond with your compatriots. Here are some quotes for you:

Charles Rangel
"The facts prove that there is no imminent crisis with Social Security. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says Social Security can pay full benefits for nearly 50 years,"

Robert Matsui (D-Calif)
"radical reforms are unnecessary."

Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
"Instead of leadership on the challenges facing Social Security, we have seen the Administration hyping a crisis"

Tim Ryan (D-OH)
"Without any changes to the current system, Social Security will have the resources to pay 100 percent of benefits for almost 50 years."

Former Representative Barbara Kennelly
"Social Security can fully meet it obligations through 2042 when the last of the baby boomers will already be 78 years old."

Michael Weisbrot, Center for Economic Policy Research
"There are plenty of economic problems to worry about, but Social Security is not one of them."

I can get more if you want, but these are representative. The 'social security is just fine' line is now the official programmed response of Democrat leaders to calls for reform. Did you not get your memo?

Dave

Your quotes prove my point, Dave.

Nobody is "blissfully claiming that the system is doing great and will last for decades with no modifications and needs to be left alone alltogether."

Instead, they're facing the situation realistically rather than fear-mongering like yuor glorious leader and his Stepfordish acolytes are.

Not to mention righties in the wild making asinine claims with no substance.

Ok, you read those quotes which clearly say the system you suggested fixing is doing just fine, and then you say that they didn't say what you just read. Ok, never mind. You seem to be suffering from a critical reality disconnect.

Here's a stat for you to consider. Based on the current rate of population growth, by 2070 the amount paid out yearly by Social Security at the current level of per-person obligation will exceed the entirely yearly income of the government. That should be fun.

Dave

Hal, I think your biggest problem in implementing these plans will convincing the nation's teachers to move from their private investment/pension plan to join SS. You did realize that public school teachers don't pay into the system, right?

Federal workers *do* (mostly) pay into Social Security - including most Congresscritters. That change occurred back in the 80's. The last Fed employees who won't pay into SS will probably retire within the next few (5 -7) years.

Your quotes are essentially a pack of lies, Dave, even though they may be accurate transcriptions.

Some, you have simply misread:

Rangel is correct and does not say what you say.

Matsui is perfectly correct and does not say what you say.

Pomeroy is exactly right and does not say what you say.

Ryan's statement is a fact, and he says nothing like what you say.

You have taken Ryan's statement out of context to communicate a meaning that promotes your agenda rather than what he was saying. The context is a page whose first paragraph includes: "We want to save, strengthen, and secure Social Security for the future. We have to address the challenges facing the program, to make sure that every American worker gets the benefits they paid for."

Ryan clearly recognizes that there's a problem and that something should be done. He rightly objects to the administration proposals as making the problem worse, not better.

Kennelly's next two sentences are: "We need to move beyond the debate about privatization and towards solvency. There is ample time to have a more inclusive and open discussion with the American people." She obviously recognizes the problem.

LOL, so all the democrats I quoted are lying? All the soundbytes on the news are lies and distortions?

>>I don't don't know who Weisbrot is but he is one does have his head up his armpit. But he's the exception that proves the rule: 'nobody' is running around saying that "the system is doing great and will last for decades with no modifications and needs to be left alone alltogether.<<

Then I suggest you go out and find out who Weisbrot is and stop parading your ignorance. He's the leading Democrat theorist on Social Security and it's his numbers and his analysis which all of these democrat legislators are getting their assessment of Social Security from.

>>You either knew the truth and were being deliberately "disingenuous" or you're a cat's-paw of the right.

Either way, you're no longer a "trusted source" and I'm not going to waste any more time.<<

The cool thing about the truth is that you can deny it all you want and ignore it all you want, but it remains the truth.

I guarantee that if you listen to the radio for a full day or watch CNN for a full day you will hear more than one Democrat leader say exactly what I've quoted them as saying. I'm not picking up selected quotes and taking them out of context the entire party is saying the same thing and it's their official position on SS.

Dave

Apparently I wasn't clear enough, Dave.

The Deomocrats are telling the truth: pulling a few words out of context is lying.

>>The Deomocrats are telling the truth: pulling a few words out of context is lying.<<

Sheesh. Make up your mind. So now you agree with the party line that Social Security is fine for 40 or 50 more years and so there's no need for reform? That seems to run counter to your original post.

And if you go back and actually read the quotes I included at the source, you know as well as I do that I could have quoted way more and the overall thrust would have been the same. The quotes are not out of context, they are representative of the entire body of statements on this issue.

I leave you with one more quote:

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid:
"We have leaders who love to create crises that don't exist. Social Security isn't a crisis. For more than 50 years, we're going to be just fine,"

Please, tell me how I'm misenterpreting this one.

Dave

You have to love this pinko Newspeak. Much like the Ministry of Love, their words are exactly backwards from reality.

See, giving the government your retirement money to squander on buying votes in the next election gives you "social security." The money has not been saved, let alone invested. Congress has no legal requirement to pay anything, which is good cause they're not going to have it to pay.

On the other hand, letting people keep some of their money, buying stuff in their own name that they can have and hold- that's destroying social security. Having a nest egg that you could pass on to your children- that's doubleplusungood to the socialists who begrudge people making any claim to their own income.

Diane Feinstein:
"I don't believe there's a financial crisis, I think to put this out there as a financial crisis right now is misleading."

Official Statement from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid:
" the Social Security Trust Fund will be solvent for almost 50 years, and even after that it will continue to pay 80 percent of benefits. Social Security faces real challenges, but is not in crisis."

I'm just wondering how a trust fund with no money in it is going to stay solvent for 50 years when the system will start running at a deficit in 14 years and there's nowhere to get the needed money to make up that deficit except by raising taxes or cutting benefits.

Dave

That's simple Dave, just rollback Bush's tax cut giveaway to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, then Social Security will be solvent and we can afford free socialized medicine- and we will finally achieve harmony between the races.

Also, if we would just raise taxes on The Rich, we could give money to the Hamas charities to help the poor Palestinians, and Al Qaeda would pack it in and we'd have Peace on Earth.

Why, oh why, didn't the American people have the good sense to elect John Kerry president?

LOL Al. In my bleary eyed state when I saw you wrote 'raise taxes on the Rich' I accidentally misread it as 'take axes to the rich'.

Dave

Hal on Jan 25:

"I have not heard of anyone claiming, blissfully or not, that "the system is doing great and will last for decades with no modifications and needs to be left alone alltogether."

Hal on Dec 21:

"To get a true picture of what's going on, start with the fact that there is no Social Security crisis, neither now nor looming off in the distance.

Let me repeat that, because it's the opposite of what Bush is telling you:

There is no Social Security crisis!"

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/12/21/153127.php

So what's your point, Dan?

There is no Social Security crisis.

Wanna hear it again? THERE IS NO F-ING SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS!!!

Got it?

Or are you still mesmerized by the emanations form the White House?

Bush has to do something in his second term to cover his awful first term. And it's not just Democrats against changing the Social Security setup at this time...there's a whole lot of Republicans against it too...

...and a whole lot of Democrats, particularly young working ones, who sense the impending doom, who are for it.

Right on, Dan. I was just reading some polling info on this. Here it is:

A recent poll form Opinion Dynamics yielded these results:

The poll asked:
"Should people have the choice to invest a small amount privately?"
YES - 60%, NO - 27%

"Would you privately invest some of your Social Security money?"
Total Population - 55%
30 and Younger - 71%
30-45 Years of Age - 69%
46-55 Years of Age - 51%
56-64 Years of Age - 48%
65 and Older - 33%

"Should people have the choice to invest a small amount privately?"
Democrats - 53% Yes/37% No
Republicans - 71% Yes/12% No
Independents - 55% Yes/34% No

Dave

Hal: Wanna hear it again? THERE IS NO F-ING SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS!!!

Yeah, Dan. You should know by now that the crisis is only on Mondays and Wednesdays. On Tuesdays, Thursdays and Weekends theres 'reason for concern' and on Fridays there's no crisis at all, but it returns on Saturday. I believe that's what Hal is saying with his contradictory posts.

"Most American workers want to preserve Social Security but are losing confidence that it will survive long enough to pay promised benefits when they retire, according to an AARP survey released on Monday.

The survey also indicated that Americans are divided over President Bush's proposal to create individual investment accounts under Social Security but turn strongly against it when told about potentially negative consequences.

The survey of 1,501 adults age 30 and older found that two-thirds, 66 percent, support keeping Social Security as close to the current system as possible. Yet only a little more than a third of non-retirees - 37 percent - said they were at least somewhat confident "that Social Security will be there for them when they retire," AARP found.

About 43 percent favored individual accounts while 47 percent opposed them, the survey found. When asked if they would still favor accounts if that meant a cut in guaranteed monthly benefits, support dwindled to 27 percent."

I would simply like to know what Bush's specific proposal is. There's been virtually no details leaked except the general terms of "social security must be reformed."

I'm hoping that we've heard so little because they want to work out a really solid, well-documented system before they propose anything.

Interesting how the AARP's study produced such different results from the Opinion Dynamics survey. And what a shocker that it fits so well with their agenda - the 'never change anything, just give us more money' agenda.

Dave

Dave

Or perhaps the Opinion Dynamics poll was suited to their agenda? They do polling for Fox News, correct? Hmmm...

I think it fairly unlikely that Bush will be able to complete the vast overhaul he seeks to implement. If just a handful of Republicans go against it, it's doomed.

>>Or perhaps the Opinion Dynamics poll was suited to their agenda? They do polling for Fox News, correct? Hmmm...<<

I don't know their specific affiliations. I thought they were an independent pollster for hire.

But I do know that I inherently mistrust the AARP. I feel about them the same way I do about the teachers unions. They're out for themselves and screw the rest of society.

Dave

The Goebbels/Rove style of communications seems to have made a real impression on you, Dave. You, like them, keep pushing the same lie in the face of facts.

I did read the original source materials and they, like my own posts, do not say "there's no problem, nothing should be done," and will never say that no matter how much you persist with the misleading claims.

Instead, all say "it's not a crisis despite Bush's fear-mongering, and the problems can be fixed without destroying the system through privatization."

Even Weisbrot, who makes some really off-the-wall statements looking for sound-bites and press to sell his book, has the same position:

Weisbrot sees a need for changes to address the eventual shortfall, but not ones as drastic or as immediate as those advocated by supporters of privatization.

First, he suggested, "leave it alone until the public has a chance to figure it out." (Articles like these can only cover some of the critical issues involved in the reform debate.)

Then consider tax increases on higher income earners. In the next five to 10 years, he suggested, raise the cap on income subject to Social Security tax. For 2005, it's the first $90,000 of wages.

"Payroll tax no longer captures as much income of wage earners as it did 20 years ago," Weisbrot said, noting that today 85 percent of payroll is subject to Social Security tax versus 90 percent in 1982.

That's because more of national income goes to earners making more than the income cap for Social Security. Raising that cap "gets you a long way" toward taking care of the shortfall, he said. [43% of the way with AARP's suggested cap, see above]

Beyond that, he suggested repealing some of the recent tax cuts and earmarking the money for Social Security, and, if necessary, raising the payroll tax by one or two percentage points in coming decades. [Social Security: Crisis? What crisis? 01/12/05]

You know, when you bring out the Hitlerian comparisons people almost immediately start classifying you as an irrelevant crank.

As for the democrat position on this, I stand by my myriad quotes. Again, listen to what they're saying. I know that what you say is a correct representation of what the Democrat position SHOULD be, no question. But wha they are saying publicly, again and again, as a group - is that there is no problem with social security.

Dave

is that there is no problem with social security.

No Dave, what they're saying is there is no crisis. There is a big difference.

True enough, Spidey. Should have said crisis, though some of them sure sound like they're going farther than that. Of course they're dead wrong, but that is what they're saying.

Dave

Wrong again, Dave. Twice.

The Hitlerian fantasy is yours, not mine. I mentioned Goebbels only because he is widely recognized as perhaps the best practitioner of propaganda in the last century, if not longer. As a communications specialist for several decades myself, my judgment is that Karl Rove is at least his equal, perhaps even better.

As for your "myriad quotes," you misrepresent them.

Check the source material again and you'll find that none of those speakers hold the position that "there is no problem with social security." Reading their statements then making the claims you do seems to me to be an abject failure to comprehend simple English, partisan blindness, or wilful mis-characterization.

In any case, wrong.

You keep insisting that the quotes are taken out of context, but in almost all those examples the quotes are short, specific answers to specific questions. There is no larger context. This is what they've said. At other times they may have said different things on the subject, but their soundbyte answers are conveying a specific intentional message.

Why is it so difficult for you to admit that the dems are putting out a deliberate campaign of misrepresenting the SS situation for political reasons? It's pretty obvious that this is what's going on.

Dave

Why is it so difficult for you to understand what the Democrats are saying?

They are saying that Bush is misrepresenting the situation as a crisis when it is not.

Is English your first language, or did you pick up some few bits of it later in life?

I'm not having any trouble understanding it at all. You just seem to be having trouble accepting it. But that's ok. I'm used to giving up on discussion with leftists who live in an ongoing state of denial.

Dave

"Why is it so difficult for you to admit that the dems are putting out a deliberate campaign of misrepresenting the SS situation for political reasons?"

Yeah, Bush and the Republicans are in no way doing that, right Dave? ;)

Well, Bush's conception of the situation as a crisis is much closer to the truth than the dems 'don't worry, be happy' perspective. It's still a crisis if it's a few years off and every year we delay massively increases the ultimate cost. Have you been reading the other thread on this? Every year we delay increases that $2 Trillion cost to fix the system by about $600 billion. That makes it a crisis. It's pay a lot now and fix it or go with the democrats and pay a backbreakingly enormous amount a few years down the road.

Dave

Dave, you need to start thinking for yourself instead of just parroting what your Maximum Leaders spoon into your brain.

They're misleading you.

Like that $11 trillion shortfall that Bush and Cheney have been feeding you and the other gullibles, and you mentioned in the other thread as being the shortfall in 78 years.

Commonsense should have told you that if the shortfall is going to be $3.7 trillion in 75 years, there is no way in hell or on god's good green earth that this could possibly jump to $11 trillion in 3 more years.

Use your head, man.

Hal. I just go to the source and get the facts. My leader is Ron Paul and he's not even a still quiet voice inside my head.

Maybe you should stop discussing this topic since you seem to be unable to accept the facts when presented with them.

And it's not $11 Trillion in 78 years. Now that I've looked into it more it's closer to $27 Trillion over that period.

Dave

It seems that your source is on drugs and fantasizing the numbers.

You might want to intervene.

Hal, my source is the Social Security Administration Trustees. If they're on drugs that would come as a great surprise to me.

Their calculations are also confirmed by studies done by independent groups like The Heritage Foundation and The Cato Institute. But I guess they all might be on drugs too - Cato does favor drug legalization after all.

In fact, I bet anyone who doesn't have confidence in Social Security is on drugs. I bet I'm no drugs. Someone probably slipped them into my oatmeal.

Dave

The Social Security Trustees, even though most are Bush appointees, say the SS deficit will be $3.7 trillion in the normal 75-year life-span projection.

Any actuary will tell you even that number has a huge amount of uncertainty, but it's at least a number that can be worked with.

Any other projections are simply politcally-inspired pipe-dreams, considered meaningful only by the gullible.

Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Then you must be blissful, Hal. Go read the Trustees report. It's available in PDF format.

Dave

Couldn't think of anything say, Dave?

I have the report and its assumptions here.

You're deluded.

Hal- if saying that there is a crisis is hyperbole or bull, then saying that the new American Dream is no social security.

The Bush plan calls for the ability to move a whopping 4% of the 12.4% taken from our incomes. A shift that small is hardly worth mentioning.

I am not in favor of the Bush plan. I am opposed to using the force of government to extract 12.4% of my income into a program to be managed by anyone other than me, whether the manager be government of Wall Street.

Wrong again, Dave (doesn't that get tiresome? Do you think it will stop when you finally get to high school?)

Bush wants to take 4% from the 6.2% taken from your paycheck - that's 64% of it.

While the other half of the deduction paid by employers is part of their payroll expense, we don't know what he's going to do there. I can make an educated guess, though - business will lobby because it's "unfair" to make them pay in when workers don't have to, and this 4% will, in some span of time, be done away with. Workers will continue to pay 4%, businesses won't.

The bottom line is that nearly 2/3rds of Social Security funding will disappear.

As will Social Security.

Which will make many on the right very happy, but that's a debate that should be had.

The Bush way of sneaking it through without revealing the whole picture is dishonest.

So how can anyone trust Bush, regardless of their party affiliation? What ever happened to commonsense?

Never mind - the education system is a different issue.

But easily as badly mismanaged.

Hal- sling your arrow at me on this one, not Dave. (Besides, the high school jab wasn't very nice.)

I did the math and saw that, yup, I was wrong. It is 6.2% that I surrender to Social Security. The 12.4% figure must have been used in stats I had seen because the employer contributes a matching amount.

I will stick to my guns on the crisis nature of the future of Social Security if left alone, using the common sense you touted above. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. It would be outlawed if private business tried to do it. Ponzi schemes invariably collapse, because they count on ever more contributers entering the system, outstripping those cashing in. Unless there is a wave of immigration or the birth rate ramps up, you bet the federal government will be burdened mightily. Common sense. What differs in this case is that this Ponzi scheme does not stand alone.

Let's assume that you got it spot on correct, and Bush succeeds in taking away 2/3 of the funding. So what? You are assuming that Social Security is funded by dollars in, dollars out. It isn't so, and the ongoing transfers of the surplusses and shifting those dollars to cover myriad other programs over the years is the proof. Tax dollars, no matter what they are ostensibly for, are thrown into the hopper and meted out here, there, and everywhere. If Social Security taxes don't cover the payouts, they will be covered by revenues captured by other means.

I think it would be wonderful if Social Security was strictly its own account, with only the funds in there to back it. That would require a hell of a lot more careful thought and, gasp, planning on the part of its administrators.

Those in disagreement with the Bush plan and genuinely interested in preserving the system have yet to offer much beyond the Democratic strategy of doing nothing to alter the system. So far, I'm not seeing any proposals, from Democrats or from you, Hal. Plenty o' bitching, though.

Hal, I realize you were confused when you thought you were responding to me. But I'm not surprised. I'll answer you a bit anyway.

Hal: Wrong again, Dave (doesn't that get tiresome? Do you think it will stop when you finally get to high school?)

Ah, to be in High School again. If only I could put all those advanced degrees and years of grad school away and enjoy my innocence once again. Then I might be able to read Hal's silly rantings and not feel compelled to debunk them.

Hal: Bush wants to take 4% from the 6.2% taken from your paycheck - that's 64% of it.

Out of curiosity, where do you think my employer gets his 'matching' 6.2% from? He takes it out of my salary in advance. Make no mistake, the employee ends up paying all 12.4 percent no matter how it's presented.

Hal: While the other half of the deduction paid by employers is part of their payroll expense, we don't know what he's going to do there. I can make an educated guess, though - business will lobby because it's "unfair" to make them pay in when workers don't have to, and this 4% will, in some span of time, be done away with. Workers will continue to pay 4%, businesses won't. The bottom line is that nearly 2/3rds of Social Security funding will disappear.

Absolute groundless supposition. They haven't tried to do away with it thus far, why would it change? It's still the same situation. They just take it out of the employee's salary up front.

Hal: The Bush way of sneaking it through without revealing the whole picture is dishonest.
So how can anyone trust Bush, regardless of their party affiliation? What ever happened to commonsense?

Because right now he isn't lying to us, you are. And common sense makes it blatantly obvious that an investment system will provide a better return than a bogus government insurance scam.

Dave

Sorry for the misdirection, Mike, but the comment was so off the mark it had to be Dave aned I didn't bother reading the name on it.

Nobody is saying "do nothing." You might want to read the original post at the top of this page and any number of other sources.

If you want to change the nature of how SS works - or eliminate it entirely - that's a different discussion. And I'm sure we'll have it when you're elected to higher office, which I'm certain you will be.

In the meantime, we have to deal with what we've got. Using "privatization" as a cloak for destroying SS is not the way to go.

My supposition is grounded on Bush's history of lying and his fiscal incompetence.

If Bush does manage to push "privatization" of Social Security through, get back to me in a decade so I can say: "I told you so."

Dave says: Out of curiosity, where do you think my employer gets his 'matching' 6.2% from? He takes it out of my salary in advance. Make no mistake, the employee ends up paying all 12.4 percent no matter how it's presented.

Wrong.

The match does not come out of the employee's paycheck, it is an extra expense for the employer (kind of like health benefits, if your employer is kind enough to pay your health premiums). Some would argue that if the employer didn't have to pay the match, the employees would get paid more, but I think most employers would pay the employees the same and add the savings to their bottom line. For minimum wage workers, this is almost certainly the case.

Hal: My supposition is grounded on Bush's history of lying and his fiscal incompetence.

You see, you lose all credibility here. The first part of your statement is just your opinion unsupported by evidence and the second is as yet unproven, and I'd suggest that so far the evidence supports the viability of Bush's basic ideas on the economy. What he's done with the economy may not be to your liking, but I think it's worked the way he wanted it to.

Hal: If Bush does manage to push "privatization" of Social Security through, get back to me in a decade so I can say: "I told you so."

Here's some good news for you, Hal. After doing even more research and thinking on this subject and crunching some of the numbers myself in massive excel spreadsheets I'm not convinced that Bush's plan is a good idea at all. The actual figure I see coming down the road is something like a whopping $60-70 trillion cost for the current system before the end of the century unless we have some sort of plague that just kills everyone over the age of 50, or massive cutbacks, or enormous SS tax increase. A half-measure like Bush's current proposal won't address the root problem. We need to scrap the current system alltogether for everyone under 50 and start them over again from scratch with a 100% private investment fund system. It's really the only solution.

Dave

Most Republicans seem to be ideologically opposed to the whole idea of Social Security. They hate it even more because it has been a policy success for the Democrats. They also hate it because it provides a safety net to the less fortunate (disabled people, children, and lower income). Why aren't they honest and come right out and say they want to get rid of it?

Could it be because the system has actually worked for 75 years and has been extremely popular? Apparently it doesn't work politically for Republicans to call for the removal of Social Security.

Yes, Social Security needs to be strengthened. But why would the Republicans want to strengthen it? In their hearts they want to destroy it. So, how better to destroy it than by presenting a privatization scheme (that will ultimately destroy it) that they can try to sell to the American people as a "solution" for the financial problems of the system. This removes both the "social" from the system by denying that we are all ultimately in this together and the "security" from the system by betting all our futures on the stock market. Lets see: "social security" minus "social" minus "security" equals ... zero.

Social security needs to be strengthened, to be sure. But in my experience, it is not prudent to hire the fox to guard the henhouse.

$60-$70 trillion? Can you provide a reference of one person besides yourself that thinks that is a reasonable estimate?

Roy: $60-$70 trillion? Can you provide a reference of one person besides yourself that thinks that is a reasonable estimate?

I didn't say it was a reasonable estimate, but it is a possible outcome. If nothing were done to deal with the problems of the system between now and 2080 and it kept paying full benefits for that entire time the amount by which outflow would exceed income at that point would be $60 trillion. The $37 trillion figure which some have said is outrageous is based on cutting benefits to 80%. The $11 trillion figure which is commonly accepted is based on a combination of cutting benefits AND increasing the payroll tax gradually over the next 75 years. the $3.7 billion figure that Democrats are using is pure, unadulterated fantasy.

All of this is spelled out specifically in the SSA Trustees Report, so it's not just someone's opinion, it's the official position of the SSA. Most people don't have the patience to read the 200+ page monster apparently.

Dave

Roy: They also hate it because it provides a safety net to the less fortunate (disabled people, children, and lower income).

That's right, Republicans are devils in human form who hate children and the poor and the handicapped. That's why they out donate Democrats to charity 2 to 1. That's why they want to help people get out of poverty and advance themselves instead of keeping them eternally dependent on a paternalistic state.

Roy: Why aren't they honest and come right out and say they want to get rid of it?

Because if we do then some lying Democrat zombie will come along and say we hate children and cripples. Sound familiar?

Dave