SS dies in 2017??!

[Embar Angylwrath]

How much would be made right now by eliminating the caps?

If Congress can't keep its hands off the money pile now, what makes you think they'll be able to resist an even bigger pile?

[Kulaf]

How much could be saved by needs based testing before payout?

That has been proposed by democrats before. Guess who opposed it?

Actually the first person I ever heard propose this was Ross Perot.....but by all means I would love to read who on the Democratic side proposed it.

[Lurker]

What? But this is impossible! Just a six months ago the great fiscal conservative minds of the board, Finglefinn and Embar, were dazzling all of us with their brilliance on this very topic.

But the problems with SS do not stem from spending the extra tax monies collected. The single HUGE problem will SS going forward is that one day in the future, SS tax income (the collection of funds) will be less than the outlays (expenditure of funds). Plain and simple.

So all that crap about the government stealing money from SS and causing it to go broke is a bunch of horse shit. The problem lies with the funding model, which requires an increasing population rate and stable longevity metric.

While it's true there is a slight problem with the funding model that will require either a small payroll tax increase, a small increase in the retirement age, or both, it's not true that the government borrowing two trillion (so far) from the system isn't making the problem much worse. The bonds (which are the social security trust fund) issued to cover that borrowed money are part of the national debt and will need to be repaid in the future.

The stuff about "robbing the SS fund" is rhetoric.

Not if we drive ourselves so far into debt that we default on the bonds. That 'borrowed' payroll tax money is being used in part to pay for your tax cuts and to fund the war, among other things. I've tried to make this point many times and the 'fiscal conservatives' on this board just refuse to get it. They'd much rather whine about how unfair their tax burden is.

And then Embar dropped out of the conversation. There really is no level of being wrong that could force some of the "conservatives" on this board to rethink their views, is there? And yeah, that's a rhetorical question.

[Flunkie]

When you start talking about needs based testing, then you are talking about converting SS from a government run supplimental retirement fund to a tax. There might as well not be a seperate withholding on your paystub if it's just a tax. There are plenty of people that don't really need it, and many don't need it bacause they planned out their retirement in spite of the governement taking an extra percentage of their income for future retirement. Those people might not need it but they deserve every penny they can get out of it. If the people who do need the money had been forced the put the money that went into SS into a private retirement account, they would receive, by far, more money than SS will ever pay out to them. I think the return on SS invetment was estimated at 1 or 2%. The SS system is one of the biggest ripoffs to citizens in the history of the country. FDR and his three legged stool! Bah, because of SS, most idiots ignored their personal responibility to invest (Leg 1) and then the pension systems disappeared from most corporations (Leg 2), now Leg 3 is about to fall off the stool.

I'm sort of looking forward to playing back Bush's State of the Union address where he talked about the future problems with SS and privitization when the shit hit the fan. The Dems booed up a storm everytime he said there was an impending crisis. The Dems act as if this problem will just go away. For all Bush's faults, he at least raised the issue. The only real problem is that he has been so beat up and focused on Iraq, that he never pushed the agenda. Once the Dems got control, the debate was over anyway I guess. We need a Supersize Me or Sicko type movie to come out about this to wake people up to the reality of what is comming.

[Partha]

Shorter Flunkie: Yep, it's all the unwashed masses' fault. And hands off my money.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Partha -

Please answer my previous question. If you think Congress can't keep its hands off the SS fund now, why do you think giving them an even bigger fund (eliminating caps) is the answer?

[Klast Brell]

Hey embar if congress cant keeps it's hands off the SS fund what makes you think there is any money in there right now?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Hey embar if congress cant keeps it's hands off the SS fund what makes you think there is any money in there right now?

I don't get your point. Are you saying that Congress has managed the SS fund appropriately?

[Partha]

Partha -

Please answer my previous question. If you think Congress can't keep its hands off the SS fund now, why do you think giving them an even bigger fund (eliminating caps) is the answer?

Because I don't think eliminating Social Security is the answer, and I don't think privatizing Social Security (thereby giving control of it to the same people who brought you Bear Stearns) is the answer, either.

So why do you favor eliminating it? Or why do you favor leaving it in the hands of unregulated plutocrats with no other mission than to line their pockets?

[Embar Angylwrath]

That really didn't address the question. So let me phrase it another way... do you think that by giving Congress more money for SS through the elimination of caps,that it will solve the problem? Do you think more money is less temptation?

[Flunkie]

Just so everyone is perfectly clear on what the Government does:

You pay money into Social Security.

By existing Federal law that money goes to buying Treasuries.

Congress spends all of the money (and more) from the proceeds of the Treasury purchases every year.

When the amount going into buying Treasuries is less than what Social Security must pay out, the Government is supposed to do the reverse. That is, the Treasuries are supposed to be redeemed by the Social Security Administration and the proceeds are used to pay out to the recipients.

So where does the money come from to redeem the Treasuries? The Governement can take it from the budget or they can just print the money. Either way the Government and the economy will be fucked like a Tijuana crack-whore.

To solve the problem, you have to take it out of Government hands. I'd rather take my chances on a Bear-Stearns fiasco reducing my returns by a tiny percentage than let the Government run the system and give me 1 or 2% at best, maybe nothing at worst. And don't try to give me any cock and bull story that people would lose all their money in an Enron or Bear Stearns situation; that's complete bullshit, you know it, I know it and the American people know it.

[Ddrak]

The real problem is SS is invested in treasuries. That just makes the whole investment about as useful as an Enron retirement plan.

Dd

[Partha]

That really didn't address the question. So let me phrase it another way... do you think that by giving Congress more money for SS through the elimination of caps,that it will solve the problem? Do you think more money is less temptation?

It absolutely addressed the question, and you can answer mine before moving your goalposts. Your dishonest debating tactics get real old.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Nice try at the deflecto-dodge.

Your answer said something like "because I don't want to eliminate SS". I never asked you if SS should be eliminated. I asked you why you though giving more money to Congress would stop them from mismanaging the fund, when they haven't been able to do that so far.

[Lurker]

Mismanaging the fund? I thought you were fully behind the war and the tax cuts, Embar. The money going to those two expenditures -expenditures you cheered- in large part caused the Bush deficits. I know you "fiscal conservatives" have trouble with the concept, but decisions do have consequences.

[Kulaf]

You mean like the decision to create social security in the first place? Those kinds of decisions?

[Partha]

Your answer said something like "because I don't want to eliminate SS". I never asked you if SS should be eliminated. I asked you why you though giving more money to Congress would stop them from mismanaging the fund, when they haven't been able to do that so far.

Oh, I see...you want to know what the meaning of 'is' is.

You've already repeatedly shown your hostility towards Social Security on this board. Am I supposed to assume that you NOW favor keeping it as a government program? Don't think so. And since leaving it as is without Soylent Green is untenable and you don't want to expand it, logically you either want to make it a giveaway of government money to financial institutions or you want to destroy it. Which is it?

[Embar Angylwrath]

Your answer said something like "because I don't want to eliminate SS". I never asked you if SS should be eliminated. I asked you why you though giving more money to Congress would stop them from mismanaging the fund, when they haven't been able to do that so far.

Oh, I see...you want to know what the meaning of 'is' is.

You've already repeatedly shown your hostility towards Social Security on this board. Am I supposed to assume that you NOW favor keeping it as a government program? Don't think so. And since leaving it as is without Soylent Green is untenable and you don't want to expand it, logically you either want to make it a giveaway of government money to financial institutions or you want to destroy it. Which is it?

Again.. nice two-step dodge.

What does my opinion about SS have to do with your opinion? Absolutely nothing. Interesting that you're trying so hard to not address the question.

[Partha]

You haven't addressed mine, either. Nice projection.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Are you waiting on my answer to your secondary question before you answer my primary question? Do you want to couch your response based on my reply? Is that your hesitation in directly addressing the original question?