SS dies in 2017??!

[Harlowe]

You two sure do like to dance together. =)

[Embar Angylwrath]

Its more like me beating a mule into a place he's afraid to go.

[Ariannda Kusanagi]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to choke down the truth, even if it's obviously in his own best interest ?

[Embar Angylwrath]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't force him to choke down the truth, even if it's obviously in his own best interest ?

Holy juxtaposed metaphors, Batman!

[Partha]

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?

I did directly answer your question...you just didn't like my answer.

There are not many options. Leave it be? No. Eliminate it? No. Privatize it? I laugh.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I didn't ask you what should be done with SS. I asked you if you thought that giving Congress more money would all of a sudden make them change the way they handle the SS fund. Its a yes or no question.

[Partha]

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?

I asked the first question. Then I had the courtesy to answer your reply question...twice...and you keep moving your goalposts.

Maybe you should heal thyself, physician.

[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?

I asked the first question. Then I had the courtesy to answer your reply question...twice...and you keep moving your goalposts.

Maybe you should heal thyself, physician.

What question is that.. the rhetorical one about eliminating caps? Honestly, I don't know, do you?

Now, do you think you might have an opinion on what Congress would do if we poured more money into a system they've mismanaged to this point?

[Partha]

Honestly? I think they'd do better than unelected solons whose only mission is to line their pockets and the pockets of their shareholders.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Honestly? I think they'd do better than unelected solons whose only mission is to line their pockets and the pockets of their shareholders.

You're still dancing around the question Partha. I didn't ask who would be better, did I? I asked if you think giving Congress more money would change the way they manage the SS fund.

[Partha]

Probably not. But ya know what? If they mismanage it, we can fire them. Can't do it to an unelected head of a finance company.

Ya know what else? Government, unlike private business, doesn't have to please stockholders, and you don't set yourself up for multimillion dollar bonuses in government by diddling with the program like a CEO can.

There are some programs where privatization makes sense. Social Security isn't one of them. Privatize Social Security and the profits will make the California electricity scam look like peanuts. The businessmen WILL cheat, too. They always do.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Finally... a direct answer.

So if you want to keep SS in the hands of the government, and really "firing" them hasn't stopped the money grab, has it? There have been a lot of Congressional sessions, with Congressmen coming and going, and the pattern of how Congress manages the SS fund hasn't changed over the years.

So if giving them more money won't change anything, and they are unable to change themselves, and we haven't been able to seat a Congress that can manage it... what is your solution?

[Partha]

Because I don't believe it's been 'mismanaged' all that badly, frankly. And knowing that a simple futures trader can swipe $7 billion, energy execs can cost a state a whole lot more while lining their pockets, and CEO's can build golden parachutes that make 75 grand in a freezer look like small potatoes while their companies burn.

Quite frankly, I trust business leaders less than I do government officials. My 'solution' is to eliminate the regressive part of the tax while adjusting the retirement age to reflect the fact that 65 isn't that old anymore.

[Kulaf]

Ya know what else? Government, unlike private business, doesn't have to please stockholders, and you don't set yourself up for multimillion dollar bonuses in government by diddling with the program like a CEO can.

I'll file that useful bit of information away for the next time you ever draw inferences between a political candidate and a company.

[Partha]

Yeah, I'm sure I'll see that one right in between Faux News links from ya.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Personally, I'm for a mixed solution. I favor a means test for SS, and a diversification of funding mechanisms in both private industry and government accounts. I also favor a law that would prohibit Congress from borrowing against the SS fund, or removing any surplus.

[Harlowe]

I also favor a law that would prohibit Congress from borrowing against the SS fund, or removing any surplus.

I agree with you there, I also think Partha makes a good point.

And knowing that a simple futures trader can swipe $7 billion, energy execs can cost a state a whole lot more while lining their pockets, and CEO's can build golden parachutes that make 75 grand in a freezer look like small potatoes while their companies burn.

Quite frankly, I trust business leaders less than I do government officials. My 'solution' is to eliminate the regressive part of the tax while adjusting the retirement age to reflect the fact that 65 isn't that old anymore.

[Embar Angylwrath]

The solution to that is don't put the privatized part into just one companies hands. Spread out the risk through the use of mixed funds (like mutuals), managed by special divisions in trading houses. In exchange for being able to manage the funds, the trading houses would have to agree to certain investment limitations. THe big 'ol boogey man that Partha trots out about the rogue trader wiping out granny's nest egg isn't plausible if the system is set yp with checks and balances, and spreads the risk.

[Partha]

Social Security is not a 401k, Embar.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Social Security is not a 401k, Embar.

But it could be.