People say that President Bush’s Social Security reform proposals are courageous.

A small minority, since polls show that most Americans say it is a crock of shit.

Come on Steve, cut the man a break. We all know there is politics at play here, Bush is trying to get some support for the reform, and since the democrats are being obstinant little asses, he's got to compromise his own bill by himself. I'll take whatever form I can get. This indexing plan still seems better to me then doing nothing at all.

If you're going to call for him to just end the system altogether, while you're at it, why don't we complain if he refuses to genetically engineer cherry trees that grow money, and promises that your flatulence will smell like roses.

No less a major lib than Michael Kinsley has called the President "courageous", "honest", and "highly progressive",for his social security plan. I am sure that Um Yeah loves everything else that Kinsley spouts. Just not this.

I just did a quick and dirty figure to demonstrate how rich $25,000 is for a single person. I tried to be conservative in my numbers. Actually, in the State of New Hampshire, some of these numbers will run a lot higher.

Rent - $700, Car Pmt - $300, Electric - $60, Telephone - $50, Heat/Oil - $75, Cable - $30, Gasoline$30. This is all on a monthly basis. Add all this up and on a yearly basis, this comes out to $14,940. Now, take the supposed “rich” man making $25,000 per year and reduce that by Social Security, Fed Income Tax, State Income Tax and Medicare, which usually amounts to about 25% of your income, and you’re left with $18,750 net income. Reduce that net income by the expenses listed above and you’re left with $3,810. Now, $3,810 is what is left, and that doesn’t even include medical or dental insurance, life insurance, car insurance, renters insurance, etc. It’s not unreasonable to think that a “rich” person would have these insurances to cover their “vast wealth.” The company I work for requires a $60 contribution to a single person medical plan, $15 contribution to the dental plan, my auto insurance is $50, my life insurance is $45, my home-owners insurance is $250/year. That adds up to $2,290 annually. Subtract that from the aforementioned $3,810 and you’re left with $1,520 or $126 per month.

That’s $126 remaining per month to dump into your 401k plan, savings account, groceries, auto maintenance, etc. Indeed, $25,000 is exceptionally rich and I am glad we have people making millions of dollars telling us how fortunate we are. IMHO, this is pathetic. I would prefer that my state followed Massachusetts lead and offered a retirement system in place of social security.

And for the record, I support individual retirement accounts. I think it's about time that people be given some modicum of responsibility in managing their own retirement accounts. I also don't have a problem with indexing per se, but when you design a program based a false understanding of wealth, then the whole thing is bound to fail. Maybe their is some politicking going on, but this is just absurd. If it's the democrats who are driving this then I say they can shove it up their collective asses. If President Bush is the one driving this, then he can do the same.

Bush has said a bizzillion times that he's laying out concepts and not details. It's all open for debate! He's trying to get the democrats to understand he's open to negotiation and willing to work with them, otherwise it's likely that no reform at all will happen.

I sure as hell don't want 'nothing' to be done until 2016, which is when I think things REALLY start to go poorly because even though the system won't be broke, the senate doesn't have the cash to return what they borrowed. I also don't want to wait till 2012 and let (god knows who will be in office) in charge of it, I want it fixed now with Bush in charge. He's trying to open a dialogue, it is silly to condemn him for that because it's neccessary.

I've been hearing alot about the fact that this thing can't be "painless". Somebody will have to suffer a bit. Seems logical to me. How else do you fix something so screwed up?

I'm not condemning him..., I'm debating. I don't know that Bush initiated this $25,000 lunacy, as I clearly said. Perhaps is was Dems forcing this stance, but one thing is for sure..., I'm not going to debate with you or anyone else that $25k is rich because it's NOT. To think otherwise is sheer lunacy. Like I said, I'm glad we have people making millions of dollars telling us how lucky we are. I bet Congress won't be touching their own retirement plans whatsoever. That's part of the problem. Congress has no personal interest in social security except for the votes that it buys them.

Glad to see that I'm still in the "ultra-rich" category.....and that after not reading all that UY takes issue with one single insignificant red herring detail that he thinks is wrong...disregarding the pertinent information.

Good thing I don't pay SocSec taxes any more.....but to screw the "rich" and give the proceeds to the not-rich is a crime and I am certainly not with Bush on this notion IF he pushes it forward.....but I think he was pandering to the liberal notion of fucking over hard working individuals out of their hard-earned cash and giving it to the slugs of society.

Sarge - What income braket is denoted by "slugs"?

This isn't a new agenda for "W."

It has been "bend over middle class" from the beginning.

It's good to see you're starting to come up to speed.

It is laughable for responders to blame Bush's proposals on any pandering to "liberals". What happened to all of that "political capital" that red staters gave to Bush? And doesn't his party control both houses of congress? Why pander to liberals?

The basic question that no one wants to ask or answer is this: Is social security something that should be continued?

For all of the plans (has there actually been a complete plan that spells everything out?) offered by Bush, not one has actually addressed the solvency issue, whatever solvency means in this context.

To suggest otherwise is simply denial.

The real bottom line is this: If citizens do not want to pay any taxes, then let's dismantle the government. But if all of you rich people (i.e. making 25K or more) think that the government should provide some services for the common good (and not merely be business boosters or henchmen to protect those that already have wealth), then step up to the plate and pay for it.

But you can't pick and choose. The common good is not going to be a laundry list of any particular factions priorities, but a compromise meant to serve the greater good.

The real problem is that our government has been taken over by sportsmen, i.e. the only point is to win and maintain one's power, without any view to what is the common good.

Let's have a discussion about the common good for once, instead of all this talk about morals and private affairs, which should be left each individual's conscience and whatever religious (or non-religious) value system held by such individual.

The problem with social security is the deficit spending that's going on and the more straightforward rip-off of the disappearing middle class accomplished by the tax cuts for the rich.

Let me ask you and your readers: Any of the wealth trickle down to you? Have you gotten a raise even slightly proportional to the windfalls given to the rich and powerful?

And still you think this President is about morals and virtue?

This is about money and power, pure and simple.

I love the assumption that people who don't have enough to retire on are in that position because they are lazy. Wow. I hope you never experience the life disasters that can cause good people to lose it all.

Okay, maybe no sees the pink elephant in the room but I do. According to experts, if those who invest in personal accounts do not return 3% over inflation, they'll make considerably less than they would have in social security. When Bush revealed this wonderful plan that so few really question, did he mention what assurances the government will make in case people lose their shirts in the stock market? As far as price indexing is concerned, I don't understand how republicans who are so against welfare and helping the lower-class in any way, are now so dead set on making social security a welfare program. And in 15 years, some Republican president will propose cuts in the social security program just like....ahem...Medicard

did he mention what assurances the government will make in case people lose their shirts in the stock market?

Hey Ayana...

first of all, the Stock Market is risky, and anyone who doesn't feel comfortable with it, DOESN'T HAVE TO.

second, historically, the stock market has yielded an average of around 7% return. Social Security, 2%. We know that Soc.Sec. is going down a dangerous road, so, the question eeveryone ought to ask themselves is which is riskier? The Stock Market, or the current System of Social Security? Of course, anyone can "lose their shirts" in the stock market, it's a gamble--however, it is an equal, if not, greater gamble, with an equal or greater amount risk involved in not reform Social Security in some fashion, or else lots and lots of lots of people will lose their shirts.

DOESN'T HAVE TO.

That doesnt mean it wont affect the rest of the fund.

I pay my taxes and I don't generally complain about the taxes I pay, but social security is different than taxation to fund the government. Social Security is a joke. I was taxed $118 for social security during my last bi-weekly pay period. Assuming a 1.5% annual wage increase / cost of living increase until I retire at age 65, I will have paid into the Social Security fund more than $200,000. Using an investment calculator at www.gabelli.com, if I invested 5.9% of my income (social security withholding) into a fund with an annual return of 6%, I would have generated over $1,000,000 toward retirement. A 6% return is considered conservative. Now I ask you, why should I support social security over privatized accounts similar to a 401k plan. Um Yeah would tell you that I should be contributing to both social security and a 401k plan, which I currently am, but in essence, I am flushing $800,000 down Uncle Sam’s toilet because I could be investing it in my own retirement.

Yes, I think we should do away with Social Security. I think a mandatory investment equal to what we currently pay in social security into a conservative fund with a conservative return would be more beneficial to retirees in the long run. Hell, there are credit unions that will give you a 6% return on your savings accounts. We’re not talking a risky undertaking here. Yes, there would be enormous transition costs, but a more secure retirement plan would be fundamentally good for all Americans. There are 300 million Americans in the United States. An average increase in taxes of $500 per year, per American would generate $150 billion dollars. That sounds like a pretty reasonable return to me. Give up $500 for a few years to fix social security so that I might have $1,000,000 when it comes time to retire. Granted, I’m not 18 years old, so my total retirement fund would be considerably less. I’ve lost 12 years pissing my money away to social security. Of course, this is all very simplified. It would likely take more than $500 per year for a number of years in order to make the transition, but I would gladly pay it knowing that we were making progress. How did Massachusetts manage to do away with social security without incurring an enormous deficit? The point is, it can be done and it should be done.

It's true, the stock market is a risk. Any investment is a risk. Hell, tell me social security isn't a risk. Here's what you need to keep in mind, if I have been contributing to a conservative market fund for the past 40 years, and I have amassed a sizable retirement of $1,000,000 and suddenly the stock market crashes, I'm screwed right. Wrong. First, say the stock market crashes so far that all stocks are only worth 50% their original value. That's a huge crash but I still have $500,000 dollars left and, as a responsible investor, I know the stock market will recover with time. The safest thing to do in that situation is to withdraw only what I need and let the stock market recover. As the stock market recovers, so will my retirement. Even at $500,000 though, I've still got a much higher return on my investment than I would have had with social security. Do you really think 401k's would still be around if it were that risky a venture. Absolutely not. The key to investing in the stock market safely is diversification and ANY fund used by 401K plans are heavily diversified.

matt, need I tell you that the "slugs of society" are those that aren't really IN an income bracket, pay ZERO taxes, and live off of those that work damned hard for their weekly paycheck.....people who pay ZERO taxes, yet live under the municipal services that they don't pay for (fire, police, schools, etc...they pay NOTHING for it)...THEY are the slugs.

JNE, the rest of Massachusetts pay their share of SS taxes, but State employees don't pay a dime into that screwed up Ponzi scheme......investing in the market instead, and retirees currently collect 80% of the average of their 3 highest salary years...plus healthcare, etc...but you gotta give a minimum of 10 years to the state to be vested.

Damn....I forgot that today was a day to argue like UY. Everything everyone else just said is crap.

JNE, I agree with your math. I also believe you are choosing to leave out the social part of the program. If you didn't make it to retirement age and lets say you were disabled, how much would you be paid for the remainder of your life? If you have children and were to die or get killed how much support would they receive?

It's easy to look at the negative side of this, but how do we stop the politicians (all parties involved) from continuing on a path that will destroy the current system. There are no details because the president doesn't have any, and probably can't come up with any. There isn't a back-up plan and "W" should quit wasting tax dollars flying around the country until he comes up with details that work.

This is at best a gracious way (if you can refer to the POTUS as gracious) of "W" backing away from a plan that is doomed without saying he is wrong.

ONE DOLLAR invested in the S&P 500 in 1926 would be worth around $2,260 now, including reinvested dividends. That's reality.

Russ, first let me say that I have rarely met a disabled person who was incapable of earning a wage. Regardless though, larger retirement accounts will naturally result in larger cash withdrawals. Investment withdrawals are taxable. If all retirees are utilizing investment withdrawals, then cash flow to Uncle Sam is also higher. In addition, investments passed down through inheritance are also subject to inheritance taxes. Rather than tossing these monies back into the general fund, some of it could be set aside for "social" programs. This is just one quick idea. I'm sure there are other ways, but this was the first to come to mind.

JNE: That mandatory savings idea is right on the money. I don't like that the govt. has to mandate anything, but facts and facts and the facts are that there are a certain percentage of people who, if left to their own devices, will piss away every dime, leading the lefties to cry that this is the reason why we NEED Social Security. We don't NEED it. Get rid of it and replace it with a mandatory retirement savings plan.

Sarge - I'm curious, what percentage do you think the _slugs_ suck out of the system? I understand that it would be unfair for people to draw out what they didn't earn, but I'm not aware this is much of a problem.

Social Security isn't broken. It needs a touchup. We already have private accounts - thats called an IRA.

Speaking of pissing away..How many righties do you think "may" have savings accounts? Care to post the stats? Given the SUV credit card covered by the Chinese national debt....good luck!

With all the info in the econ mags who do you think is benefiting from "Ws" plan. The wealthy conservatives are even giving "Ws" plan the thumbs down and they have nothing to lose by saying yes or no.

If it's a toss up between losing seats in the 06 election and Ws SS overhaul, who do you think is going to lose?

OH HARK, maybe we'll get both!!

pay ZERO taxes

Thats income taxes shithead.

Matt: If you don't think SS is broken, you're high buddy. It was designed broken. The first woman to collect benefits put 17 bucks in and took $22,000 out. What do you call that if not broken? And, congratulations, dude: You know that an IRA is a private retirement savings account. But you're pretty damn naive an certainly not grounded in reality if you think that pissing $350 a month down the Social Security rat hole doesn't negatively affect my ability to save money in an IRA. I say, give me that $350 a month back because it's mine and it's better for me to have it to save than to have it transferred to someone else. Wake up and get a clue, dude. SS is the biggest scam going.

Matt: Sorry, I misspoke. It's not $350, it's $700 a month. I forgot about the half that my employer contributes that would be going to me. I'm thinking I could put together a pretty nice, fat IRA nest egg if I had that $8400 a year to invest.

Steve --

Don't worry! W's long term plan is certainly to do away with Social Security. But you can't kill Social Security.

What you can kill is a "third payroll tax" that mainly pays benefits to the poor.

Keep the faith, good buddy. There's a big ol' bull's eye on the back of Social Security, and Big W. is takin' dead aim!

"Rich" isn't the right word to define a person making 25,000 a year, however, the Social Security benefits have gotta be cut. Anyone in my age group (does anyone still use Gen X anymore?!) should have known, as I always have, it's a ponzi scheme that couldn't hold up and should have been saving on their own. Of course, while we're paying into the scheme, that makes personal saving harder to do...

Don't worry Steve, you would just piss the $700 away instead of investing it and us taxpayers would fund your retirement anyway.

Steve - SS isn't just a retirement plan. I know this pisses you off to no end but it is still beneficial to society. There are many, many cases where a retirement plan doesn't cover honest, hardworking people that need help. (or what some people around here refer to as "slugs")

Further, SS does make good investment sense. Its the safest investment around because it is backed by the federal government. Yes, it is a good idea to invest beyond that, particularly in higher yield funds.

mattk... now that is a naive statement. I would say that social security is one of the most risky investments around. I get an annual report of how much my social security would be at retirement. It's currently around $16,000 per year. I'm in the income bracket that would lose about $6,000 to $7,000 if social security indexing took effect. I'd lose more than 1/3rd of my money. How is that safe? How is that good investing.

I didn't realize that the employer matches social security Steve. Is that true?

JNE - SS wasn't a risky investment before Bush had his eyes on it...

Yet more demagoguery. As you approach the retirement age, your savings would be pulled out of the market and hedged. The only way you can 'loose your shirt' with an immensely diversified investment fund, over a LONG term period, is if the entire stock market tanks for 50 years.

If the entire stock market tanks for 50 years, we've got bigger problems then retirement accounts.

I got news for you: If the stock market tanks for 50 years straight, our economy will be in such a piss-poor state you can bet your shirtless ass that the entitlement programs will get cut too. People who had money in SS instead of the stock market won't get anything EITHER because we'll all be fighting over stale bread in that scenario.

You know what else will screw you over with Private Accounts? Asteroids! If a giant asteriod hits the planet earth and wipes out all life, and you have a 'private account', your retirement will NEVER be payed out to you and you won't get your money!

Maybe the democrats should start warning people about that one. Private Accounts Mr President?!? It's obvious you don't care about asteroid collision survivors or you'd never recommend such a thing!

Social Security will always be a risky investment because it is not driven by the U.S. economy. It is driven by politicians, most of whom have no background in accounting. The stock market is highly diversified and a significant drop in a highly diversified portfolio will ONLY occur if the entire market tanks. With social security, you're only as diversified as two party politics will allow.

Social security is a retirement stipend whereas a personal retirement account would fully fund a retirement. Social Security derives ALL of it's money from taxation (i.e., the little people), whereas invested retirement accounts would derive the majority of it's money from market growth (i.e., big business). Fully funded retirements would mean seniors could afford medical expenses easier, essentially reducing the burden of medicare funding and prescription drug costs. Even a modest retirement fund, invested from age 18 to 65, would grow to a significant retirement nest egg. Ever seen the interest on a $1 million savings account? Average savings interest is around 2-3%. That's 20k to 30k per year in interest alone.

I have already discussed the possibilities of pre-retirement funding for the disabled. This could be done simply by taxing invesment withdrawals, which would increase exponentially if all retirements were invested. In addition, odds are, most retirees will NEVER utilize their entire retirement account meaning the remainder will pass to other family members through inheritance. Inheritance tax revenue to increase significantly and would also help fund those "social" programs like disability. This is not a dead end road. Social security is.

Just for the record, I said "driven by the U.S. economy." I should have said "driven by the WORLD ECONOMY," because many funds are increasing investments in larger growth foreign markets.

Sorry matt....I'm not gonna make up figures on slugs for you to call bullshit. I identify that they're there, nothing more. As for the "best deal around", I've got a better deal....MAssachusetts state retirement.....backed by the state....run by the state retirement board, which allows a percentage (I don't know the exact percentage) to be invested into the market and I get 80% of the average of my highest 3 years salaries.....backed by the State. If you don't call that a "better deal"....then I want some of what you're smoking. UY is gonna typically call 2 words into question......disregarding the fact that slugs don't pay taxes at all (state or federal)......and a MINIMUM amount of SS taxes (since they don't really make any money)....definately less than they're gonna receive on the other end in government benefits for slugs programs.

I am hoping President Bush won't change S.S., but I trust him. He has never lied to us before, so why shouldn't we all trust him now. I have had to work hard all my life and I am 45 now, with no savings. Do the rest of you think this will work out alright? I am really scared!

I identify that they're there, nothing more.

I refuse to go over arguments I have gone over here a million times and Sarge bitches and moans.

Sarge the Nazi Sympathizer labels whole groups of people as untermenschen and cries foul when you call him on it.

What a sloppy diseased vagina he is.

Sarge - I'm sorry, but just because you think the slugs exist doesn't mean they matter. I'm sure there are one or two out there - as there are in any system, but that does not mean there is reason to destroy the system.

You're right, the Mass system does sound good, although it doesn't sound too much like what Bush has been proposing.

Bush's priorities have been. 1) convince people social security is broken when its not. then, if that works 2) replace it with something. who knows what.

Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill upset some people recently simply by telling the truth. He had the temerity to say that the Social Security Trust Fund has no tangible assets. It’s empty.

Such candor is not rewarded in Washington, D.C., the balderdash capital of the world. One of those who got upset was Rep. Charles Rangel, ranking Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee. Of course the Trust Fund has tangible assets, Rangel said. It’s full of government bonds. What could be more tangible than that?

Rangel was either showing his penchant for demagoguery or his ignorance. Tough call. O’Neill is right. The Trust Fund is a figment of our collective imagination. There’s no “there” there. It doesn’t exist.

Every cent that the American people pay in FICA payroll taxes is immediately spent. Anything left over after the current retirees are paid off goes into the general treasury where it is used, first, to make up any operating shortfall, and then to pay the government’s creditors. The Social Security Trust Fund is credited for that money in the form of nonnegotiable bonds that purportedly earn interest.

What if there was no trust fund at all? When FICA revenues fell short of retiree benefits, as they will in about 15 years, the government would have four options: cut benefits, cut other spending, raise taxes, or borrow.

But under the current system, when revenues fall short the government will still have to cut benefits, cut other spending, raise taxes, or borrow.

In other words, there’s no difference between having the trust fund and not having it. It’s worse than a fiction. It’s a lie. Rangel may believe Social Security holds tangible assets, but no one else who has taken a close look could possibly think that. From the start, Social Security propagandists, led by Franklin Roosevelt, have tried to make the American people believe the system was like any private-sector pension program. They called taxes — i.e., forced exactions under threat of imprisonment — “contributions” and conjured up the phony-baloney trust fund. They wanted us to think that the money we “contribute” is put away for us individually, somehow invested so that when we retire we can draw a return on our money. Nonsense! There can’t be a return: our money is consumed and gone forever. All the politicians really promise is that when we retire they will tax someone else and give that money to us. I guess you could say that Social Security really does hold tangible assets: the taxpayers. But that sounds more like a hostage-taking or slavery than a pension program.

They also made Americans believe that employers contributed to the system. What a crock! It only appears that workers “contribute” about 6 percent of their wages, matched by a like amount from their employers. In reality there is no way that employers can make a contribution. Anything they pay is simply another form of compensation to their workers. If there were no Social Security, that cash would go directly to employees. The employer contribution is another illusion in a thoroughly dishonest system.

It is true that the system “worked” for a long time. That is, retirees for many years collected more in benefits than they ever paid in while working. That’s because the postwar baby boom supplied many more workers than there were retirees and politicians strove to buy votes from senior citizens by taxing workers ever more and raising benefits ever higher. But that party is about to end. Before long there will be about two workers for each retiree. Something will have to give. Will the working generation put up with dramatically higher payroll or income taxes to support the retired boomers? Or will they demand that other government spending be cut? As the government consumes more and more scarce resources, how will Americans respond to the resulting slower economic growth or even stagnation?

These vexing questions are what FDR and his New Deal bequeathed to us. Maybe that new monument on the Washington Mall should have been dedicated to Charles Ponzi. Sheldon Richman – senior fellow at The Future of Freedom Foundation in Fairfax, Va.

UY...all you have is lies about me and anything I've ever said so what medication are you missing?

That's right...SS isn't broken TODAY...but leave the Democrat "There's nothing wrong with SS" rhetoric at the door. In 4 years, the "peak" of SS revenue is gonna turn downward...that's Problem #1 because when it DOES turn downward, the government is gonna have to either cut other programs that the current SS SURPLUS funds or raise income taxes to cover what the SS surplus does not. You DO know that any SS surplus goes into the general spending don't you? SO, either those programs are gonna get cut OR income taxes are gonna have to be raised to make up the difference of the smaller surplus.

Problem #2 is that around the year 2018 (the exact year fluctuates with the economy), IF NOTHING IS DONE BEFOREHAND, there will be a shortfall in yearly SS revenue (more going out than coming in). So, at that time, not only are those programs that are funded by the SS surplus gonna be unfunded by SS surpluses that are no longer there at all, but SS as it is cannot be fully funded by SS revenues.....so SS taxes will have to up or SS benefits will have to be cut.

Problem #3 is that somewhere around the decade 2042-2052 (when those in their 30's now will be retiring), depending on the economy, IF THERE WAS A SOCIAL SECURITY "TRUST FUND"....it would be insolvent (not able to cover the debts). However, since there is no "trust fund"....it's really a moot point.....surpluses go into the general spending, not a lock-box.

Please don't even bother with the whole red herring that pertains to a reduction of benefits to 75%....since NO DEMOCRAT would ever propose a reduction of benefits by 25%....it's misdirection that Democrats have dimwits like UY sold on....and it's a pile of crap BECAUSE no Democrat would ever cut benefits....hell, Democrats harp on Republicans for cutting the rate of increase of a program and they CALL it a cut (which it isn't), why would they ever go with a 25% reduction in the program?

As for matt thinking that my Mass. retirement is nothing like Bush's proposal.....think "investing a small portion in the market" in this case, 2%....the only difference in that aspect is that I don't control the investing....the State retirement board does. ....and you've not paid attention to what Bush has proposed if you think he's trying to get rid of SS and replace it with something else. The ONLY changes proposed thus far have been allowing the People to take 4% (four friggin' percent)...IF THEY WANT TO...of what they pay in and invest it at a higher yield than the current 1% over inflation that SS gets.

Feel free to keep up the mantra of "There's nothing wrong" all you want....but it won't make it the truth. Funny....Bill Clinton knew there was going to be the same exact problem with SS.....and talked about it in his '99 SOTUA.....straight from the ex-POTUS's own mouth.

Today, Social Security is strong, but by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. By 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted and Social Security will be unable to pay the full benefits older Americans have been promised.

Sarge - Sorry but the 2018 date doesn't have much meaning. Oh no, in 2018 more money will be going out that coming in - it will be operating under a deficit....just like the rest of our government! Does our government cut spending when it lacks money. Doesn't seem like it - that not what bush is doing.

I believe in 2040 somewhere we would need to make a small cut in benifits for the program to be permanently solvent.

I'm not arguing that SS is necessarily the best system. But its _not_ broken.

But wait....apparently I'm not allowed to say that a dem would cut benifits. Come on, stop being so partisan...

...and when clinton left office, SS was magically fine again. Probably had to do with the booming economy...

Steve, while I strongly disagree with you, I at least respect your honesty in saying you wish to do away with Social Security altogether. The putz in the White House is too much of a chicken-shit to come right out with it, even though I HIGHLY suspect that is his (and most Conservative's) wish.

Mattk, I know you don't read my posts, apparently you don't read JNE's either. Where do you think this magic money is going to come from when congress finds out it has to pay it back?

Androminos, I wouldn't mind seeing SS go away, but I'm not for just killing it outright. To dissolve the program, I think the government would have to bite the bullet and pay out exactly what it owes to everyone who's payed in (just stop taking new money in) and do this even if it means printing new money, therefor massive inflation. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I don't think Bush wants to simply kill the system (without repaying what's due) any more then I do. You may disagree. But criticize him all you like, the democrats are just as guilty as ANY republican might be in that regard. The dem's are too chicken-shit to come out and say it: They want to redistribute everyones wealth so everyone has the same amount of money, and they want everyone to get their checks from the government so that the government controls everything and everyone is indebted to it. THATS why they oppose private accounts, NOT because they think it won't work, but because they're not socialist. The rest is fear mongering. But they won't come out and say that they oppose private accounts because they desperately beleive the government needs to have MORE control over your finances, and this would mean less, and because they want MORE wealth redistribution through a LARGER SS system.

I HIGHLY suspect that there are more then a few democrats who wouldn't mind getting to a point where everyone pays 100% of their income in taxes, and then the government gives all the money back through 'programs'.

They want to redistribute everyones wealth so everyone has the same amount of money, and they want everyone to get their checks from the government so that the government controls everything and everyone is indebted to it.

Yeah thats it. /Sarcasm

Democrats are against private accounts because they do nothing but add more debt, weaken SS and thanks to the whole clawback concept wont even be that lucrative.

You want a private account then make one no ones stopping you.

I HIGHLY suspect that there are more then a few democrats who wouldn't mind getting to a point where everyone pays 100% of their income in taxes,

Well lets see. You got Republicans who apparently view the gilded age as something to emulate and then many of your religous nuts want to take us back the middle ages.

Im not going to even use the qualifier suspect thats the plain truth.

MJohnson - Where does the magic money come from that our government operates on _now_? We have a deficit. The financial status of our government is far worse than Social Security.

Anything you have to say about the dems seems to be driven by pure paranoia. The dems are against private accounts for a pure, simple, and logical reason - Bush hasn't presented a working system yet.

The dems are certainly for programs that, in effect, redistribute weath. You seem to think that is their goal. The rich in society have profitted most off of society - so tax them the most. Yes, some money does find its way into the hands of the poor, but you benefit from this as well. Do you want vast ghettos of poor people in your city? Take a look at Brazil if you'd like to live in a country like that. People need to be provided with the basics otherwise society becomes unstable.

The problem with me starting my own retirement account, which I already have, is that I pay in roughly $240, matched by my employer for another $240. That's a total of $480 per month that is going to social security. $480 a month that I should be investing in my own retirement at a growth rate that will FULLY fund my retirement. I would think the Democrats would be all for this. What better way is there to redistribute wealth than by piggybacking retirement funds on the growth of industry and big business. Social security would never pay out over a million dollars toward my retirement, but a personal retirement account would. Do the math. The interest alone on 1 million dollars would pay out $20,000 to $30,000 annually. Will social security do that?

Social security PARTIALLY funds retirement by taking money from one American and redistributing it to another.

Invested retirement funds could FULLY fund retirement by taking money from the RICHEST corporations in America and redistributing it to to every American taxpayer.

What makes more sense, taking money from one little man and giving it to another little man or taking money from industry and big business and giving it to the little man?

The problem is that everyone is waiting for George Bush to propose a plan. In the meantime, you're still throwing your complete support behind a system that is set up to fail. Get off the Democratic bandwagon. There is logic in what I am saying. Forget that it is George Bush. Forget Republican or Democratic politics. Take a look at the big picture and at what makes the most sense. There is no doubt that scrapping social security would be painful. In the meantime, there are retirees that would still have to benefit from what they've been told they'd receive. Give it to them. It'll hurt at first, but with each passing year, that number will get smaller and smaller and smaller. As retirement accounts grew larger, social security would fade into obscurity. Some social programs would still have to be maintained, such as disability, but there are ways to fund those programs as well. I've described several ways in my previous postings. I'm sure there are many more.

mattk... there is no magic money. A deficit results in debt... plain and simple. Do you want to just fund retirement with a bunch of IOUs?

Actually, now that I think about it, that's what we've been doing all along. We've been taking surplus social security revenue, placing it into the General Fund and putting an IOU in the so called, "Trust Fund." The problem is that, when outgoing social security payments exceed incoming social security revenue, then the "Trust Fund" has to be repaid from the General Fund... meaning the taxpayer. When that happens... either the taxpayers start contributing more, programs get cut or the government borrows money... regardless of how it's done... somebody is going to suffer.

why is it okay to fund the government with IOUs and not SS?

Didn't Reagan discover that deficits don't matter?

Because individual lives depend on social security. Families depend on social security. People who gave their money to the governmnet, trusting them fund their retirements. It's a falsehood to say that there is a "trust fund" when there is no such thing. There's a whole bunch of non-negotiable bonds that must be paid back from the general fund. The government has been stealing from the taxpayer by "borrowing" from social security because it's not the government who has to pay the "trust fund" back..., it's the taxpayer. We'll borrow your retirement money now, and raise your taxes later to pay back the money we borrowed. The governmnent has been base dealing this country for years. Eventually, someone is going to have to pay it back.

Since we are on the subject of funding.

One of the reasons why Clinton was hellbent on creating a surplus was to prefund SS, presumably the reason why W was so hellbent on creating an enormous deficit was to engineer a crisis.

Its in great shape for another few decades if it wasnt for W's crappy economic policies it would be solvent even beyond that, even if that wasnt the case his plan does not solve anything.

And seeing how the surplus was funneled into the general fund and replaced by non-negotiable bonds with interest... the entire idea of a surplus was nothing more than funny money. When the time came to cash in the bonds, where do you think the money would come from... the general fund. The "Trust Fund" was nothing more than a government funded IOU. If the general fund has relied on social security surplus for years, what's going to happen when they have to start paying it back. Benefits get cut and taxes go up.

All Bush did was reduce the surplus and give Americans back their hard earned money. After all, it doesn't seem fair to require taxpayers to pay for the same benefits twice.

And seeing how the surplus was funneled into the general fund and replaced by non-negotiable bonds with interest... the entire idea of a surplus was nothing more than funny money

THOSE ARE US GOVERMENT BONDS.

SUPPOSEDLY ONE OF THE SAFEST INVESTMENTS IN THE WORLD.

You and miscreants like Dumbya really dont know how fucking stupid you are being when you speak of them like so much toilet tissue.

All Bush did was reduce the surplus and give Americans back their hard earned money.

WHAT HE DID was force the nations debts onto children and future children. You want wars how the hell do you think they get paid for?

Um Yeah, first of all, I don't want wars. I support the war, but I don't want it. There's a difference.

Second, US Goverment Bonds are safe because they're backed by the taxpayer. There will always be taxpayers. If the government can't repay them, they raise your taxes. They're meaningless in the social security "trust fund" because the money that backed them has already been spent. When it comes right down to it, the government is going to have to pay out social security whether there is a bond in the trust fund or not. That means money will be channeled from the general fund into social security. This will mean an overall loss of revenue in the general fund that needs to be made up and that means the taxpayer will be paying more into the pot. Money that is already spent will not magically reappear in the social security "trust fund" when the need arises. So yes, when it comes to filling the "trust fund" with government bonds, we might as well be filling it with toilet paper scribed with the letters I, O and U.

That's 2.6 trillion dollars in I.O.U.'s. The US Government Bonds DO NOT represent real assets. The only asset the US Government has is the taxpayer.

WHAT HE DID was force the nations debts onto children and future children. You want wars how the hell do you think they get paid for?

Every President since FDR has been doing that by supporting social security.

Every President since FDR has been doing that by supporting social security.

Except for cases in the very beggining people have been by and large been getting what they have put in.

Try harder JNE.

You're absolutely right Um Yeah, people have been getting their money... and their has been a surplus almost the entire time too. That surplus has been channeled into the general fund since FDR. The government has been spending that surplus since FDR. There IS NO SURPLUS, so when that surplus is needed, the "children and their children's children" are going to have to pick up the tab. The "children and their children's children" are going to have to pay back what the government has been spending for decades. I don't have to try harder. The facts are the facts. There is NO MONEY in the social security trust fund. There is only a 2.6 trillion dollar debt that needs to be repaid in order to continue supporting social security. That's 2.6 trillion dollars that, had it been invested in diversified retirement funds, would be funding retirements long past 2018 or 2040 or even 2100 for that matter.

There IS NO SURPLUS,

There was. There isnt anymore, thanks to your buddy W.

There has never been a cash surplus... the surplus you dems keep saying Bush has destroyed has always, since the instroduction of social security, been used to purchase non-negotiable bonds (IOUs) so that the "surplus" can be funnelled into the general fund. Get this through your thick skull. FDR designed it this way. It has always been this way. The surplus has never been depostited in any trust fund and their has never been any real asset from that trust fund. Social security with a trust fund is exactly the same thing as social security without one. The trust fund is meaningless. 2.6 trillion dollars in IOU's. Where do you suppose the government is going to come up with the money to repay social security. President Bush did not put us in a 2.6 trillion dollar hole. Every single politician who has supported social security since FDR has done that.

Better idea-the birth benefit combined with the long term effects of compound interest by Paul Snow! Give each child a 10,000 investment bond at birth, legal citizens only please. Four million children per year are born in the US, so 40 billion per year (at 6% interest over 65 years, you get 441,000). As soon as the person starts their working career, have them contribute 10% towards their retirement and a life insurance/disability policy when they get married (to cover the SS survivor benefit). Cost of labor is lessened to the employer, US citizens are more competitive, we go from hundreds of billions in SS to a 40 billion cost per year. Everyone gets the same start, everyone decides where they end up.

There has never been a cash surplus

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/new/html/Tue_Oct_24_155324_2000.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/president012099.htm

Lets just say you werent misinformed and there was never really a surplus (ill give you the point that a lot of it was projected etc. but nevertheless there was cash). Either way Clinton balanced the budget and didnt cause the largest deficit ever like W.

The first on-budget surplus excluding Social Security and Medicare. The budget surplus excluding the Social Security and Medicare surpluses was $58 billion in FY 2000. This is the only budget surplus on this basis since Medicare was established in 1965. -- Quoted from link supplied by Um Yeah

That’s $58 Billion that was spent as part of the general fund and replaced in the trust fund with non-negotiable bonds. Like I said, when it comes time to cash in those bonds, that’s $58 billion in additional taxation to cover the repayment.

America has paid down $363 billion in debt held by the public over the last three years, the largest debt pay-down ever. -- Also quoted from link supplied by Um Yeah.

Sure he did, and if the “surplus” social security was $58 billion per year, then that $363 billion debt reduction consisted of $174 billion in social security “surplus.” In essence, not a debt reduction at all, but rather, a transfer of debt. Now the debt is sitting in the social security “trust fund.”

Look, since the day the social security program took effect, ALL SURPLUS revenue has been used to purchase US Government Bonds. This is a fact that just cannot be argued with. The money used to purchase the bonds gets spent as part of the general fund. Some day soon, the government is going to have to start paying back those debts. This is the year 2014 that everyone keeps talking about, give or take. When that happens, the government is going to have to find a way to come up with $2.6 trillion dollars. There are very limited ways to come up with that money. They can cut benefits, they can increase taxation, they can use their money authority, or they can borrow. As any financially savvy person knows, borrowing money to pay back debt is not a good practice. The only way the money authority can have any effect is to print more money and reduce the value of the dollar. That leaves cutting benefits and increasing taxation. Since the government can’t cut 100% of all social security benefits…, increased taxation is inevitable. Therefore, that’s $2.6 trillion dollars that my generation and my children’s generation are going to have to pay back to social security.

With regard to Clinton’s 1999 State of the Union speech, sure, me made proposals to bolster social security over the course of 15 years. That doesn’t change the fact that the system has ALWAYS been designed to spend excess social security revenue. Clinton would have had to change that basic aspect of the social security program to have had any real effect on it. I don’t deny that Clinton did some good things while he was in office. Indeed, I think he did…, but the issue is about social security and the program, as is, sucks balls.

JNE SS has been in the black for years and will continue to be for decades even as is.

Try again.

matt....show me a Democrat that would even insinuate cutting benefits to SocSec.

...and when clinton left office, SS was magically fine again. Probably had to do with the booming economy...

Take a polisci course and you'll see that, during POTUS elections, NOBODY TALKS ABOUT TOUCHING SOCSEC......it's called the political 3rd rail for a reason. Partisan my ass....SocSec had the exact same problem in 2000 that it did in 1998, 2004, 2005, 1960...YOU pick a year. I know it must be difficult to think 30-40 years in advance, but denying the problem is not the way to addressing fixing it.....and no, a minor cut in benefits WHEN THE PROBLEM HITS, is not only a non-argument since nobody is going to want to cut benefits on those that tend to vote in higher percentages (3rd rail), but it's a non-fix...delaying the inevitable.

Funny how a State that pulls out of SocSec can have a retirement program that doesn't need fixing.

Of course it's in the black... it will be until sometime around 2040. You want to know why? The trust fund will have accumulated approx 2.6 trillion dollars by 2014. The problem is that all 2.6 trillion dollars has already been spent. Therefore, social security will begin drawing revenue from the general fund around 2014. So yes, social security will appear to be in the black until such time as 2.6 trillion dollars is repaid by the taxpayer... through non-FICA taxation.

Let me ask you a question. Where is the 2.6 trillion dollars going to come from to replace all the US Government Bonds that are in the trust fund? Think about it. There is no 2.6 trillion dollars because it's already been spent. It has bolstered the general fund for decades. Sometime around 2014, social security is going to have to start tapping the trust fund and cashing in bonds. These bonds cannot be sold to the public. They can only be cashed in by the US Government.

Here are two good resources:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/SocialSecurity/bg1827.cfm

http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-16-99.html

Um Yeah, whether you believe it or not, this is the way social security works. The only problem I have with you not wanting to see the truth is that ignorance perpetuates the problem. On the Heritage Foundation article, I urge you to read all 20 pages, however you should specifically review the "TRUST FUND" section since this is the biggest misconception of all.

And just in case you don't like those two resources, here's a third from a source I know you like.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund

Quoted from the Wikipedia:

These [Trust Fund] balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other Trust Fund expenditures – but only in a bookkeeping sense. ... They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large Trust Fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

The Social Security system is primarily a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system. In the early 1980s, however, projections indicated that the eventual retirement of the numerous members of the post-World War II baby boom would cause expenses to exceed revenues. Accordingly, the Social Security tax was increased in 1983 so that it would be greater than necessary to pay for current expenditures, thus accumulating a reserve that could be drawn upon when necessary. The surplus is accounted for in the Social Security Trust Fund. As of the end of calendar year 2004, the accumulated surplus stood at approximately $1.7 trillion. [1] (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html) Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2018 or 2019. Thereafter, there will be a shortfall that will be made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds. [2] (http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/larry_eichel/10671774.htm) The Trust Fund will gradually be drawn upon to cover the difference between tax receipts and benefit payments. It will be completely depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office).

it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government"

The above is why I get so pissed when W talks about the "IOUs" as so much toilet tissue.

Read the article, doesnt exactly support you.

JNE, don't waste your time. Even if Um Yeah was listening (and he's not, he's only here to argue with you) he still couldn't understand economics 101 if his life depended on it.

It's funny... you only cited the part that substantiated your argument and you leave the part out that flushes your argument down the toilet.

It holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government."

The government backs the bonds by taking money from the general fund... duh. Who do you think puts money into the general fund? The taxpayer. What do you think happens when social security begins cashing in 2.6 trillion dollars in bonds? It's going to leave a 2.6 trillion dollar gap in the general fund. It's going to leave a gap that will need to be replaced. They replace it by increasing taxation.

It's an incredibly underhanded system. The government has been spending ALL OF THE SURPLUS SOCIAL SECURITY since 1935... and even more so since 1983. The 1983 increase in social security tax was a deceptive increase because all it did was increase the government debt to the trust fund. All that money that was suppose to bolster social security was SPENT BY THE GOVERNMENT and replaced by IOU's. It was all bullshit. It has always been bullshit. The government is double taxing people for social security.

It's like giving someone 50 bucks to buy you a pair of shoes, but they go out and spend the 50 dollars on dinner instead and then come back and ask you for another $50 to buy your shoes. It's deceptive and that is exactly what the government is doing.

No, no, no....UY is right and everyone else is wrong....because he said so. Dimwits can't understand that the "trust fund" has already been spent and that any "dipping into the trust fund" that the SocSec administration does is really "dipping into the GENERAL FUND".....it's too abstract an idea for the brainless to understand.

FYI, dipshit....THAT is why W said the IOUs are equated with toilet paper.....because they ARE and the current POTUS understands that THERE IS NO TRUST FUND....other than what's found in each year's general fund.

In around 4 years, when the yearly surplus becomes smaller than the previous year's surplus.....which programs that are currently funded by the surplus are you gonna advocate for budget cuts?

In around 2018 when the surplus is no longer coming in at all (ie...normal SocSec benefits start cutting into the "surplus" that has always gone into the general fund, bu no longer is) ...which programs that were funded by the surplus are you gonna advocate to be cut entirely?

In around 2042, when there is no "trust fund" left to conver the benefits promised (and you've already cut the programs that used to be paid for by the surpluses)....which SocSec benefits do you advocate get cut?

....and for those that're too dimwitted to understand it: "backed by the full faith and credit of the government" only means that YOU pay for it by bending over again and again and again to keep refilling the general fund that's gonna pay for those T-bonds and US securities that weere given to the SocSecAdmin in lieu of the $1.7 trillion in cash that Congress has already spent from the non-trust-fund..

Stock tip....buy Johnson & Johnson....the makers of KY.

you leave the part out that flushes your argument down the toilet.

The part you quoted?

It didnt flush down anything.

Um Yeah, the part that flushes your argument down the toilet is as follows:

"They [trust fund bonds] do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures."

The bonds are backed by the taxpayer. The government has already spent the money. The money will have to be repaid by increasing taxation. Period.

This is the problem with allowing people to have a vote when they don't know the reality of the issue. In addition to requiring citizenship for voters, I think we should require a basic competency of knowledge on the subject. Take a test... if you pass, then you can vote on the topic. Yes, I know how unAmerican this statement is, but come on... this has nothing to do with being a Republican, Democrat or a Purple Monkey. This has to do with a basic understanding of how the system works. This is EXACTLY how it works. The fact that Um Yeah can sit there and argue this astounds me. He seems to think all that cash is sitting in some government bank account somewhere, ready to be accessed at any time. It's not. It's going to be repaid by taxing the American people for something they've already been taxed for. All the government bonds are are promises to increase taxation when the time comes.

Unlike a typical private pension plan, the Social Security Trust Fund does not hold any marketable assets to secure workers' paid-in contributions. Instead, it holds non-negotiable United States Treasury bonds and U.S. securities backed "by the full faith and credit of the government".

Thing is you cant wrap your head around is that the money being in US Securities does not make SS bankrupt. Your argument has no merit.

.....and, oh mighty dipshit, WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM THAT BACKS THOSE TREASURY BONDS AND U.S. SECURITIES COME FROM?

You think they just got this pile of money set aside in some friggin non-descript treasury building in DC....with a little note on top that says..."Teddy 'Mary Jo' Kennedy is NOT to spend this money because it's set aside for SocSec in 30 years." No, childish know-nothing......that money comes out of the general funds for THAT FISCAL YEAR. It's really an easy concept, IF you can put the bong down for half a minute.

Every time I wonder how dumb can you get, you say something else...

WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM THAT BACKS THOSE TREASURY BONDS AND U.S. SECURITIES COME FROM?

From taxpayers like us just like everything else. Just like Wars and that Laser Light Show known as SDI.

I dont smoke pot Sarge, BTW Hows your meth habit treating you?

Um Yeah, and I suppose that you think it is ok to pay your social security tax, let the government spend it on something else entirely and then retax you for money they already took from you so they can cover the expense the tax was originally suppose to have been for. That's pure and simple bullshit. It remains that way because the United States is filled with a bunch of sheep who just want someone to shephard them around.

JNE - OF COURSE HE DOES! He's a democrat. Heck, he probably wants to tax us 3 times. Or 11. Or however many they can get away with.

Nice red herrings, dipfuck......you forgot one thing that JNE just said, but without the angry, hateful capitilization that I'm gonna use:

WE'VE ALREADY PAID FOR "TRUST FUND" THROUGH SOCSEC TAXES, WHICH WERE USED FOR NON-SOCSEC PROGRAMS........WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN THE FULL SHORTFALL COMES IN 2018, WE'LL HAVE TO PAY AGAIN FOR THE SAME THING.....let alone when the "surplus" is smaller in 4 years....we're now gonna have to be taxed extra elsewhere to fund those programs that are currently funded by the "surplus".

Of course, if you're still a student at that point, you won't care about being double-taxed THEN either.

and I suppose that you think it is ok to pay your social security tax, let the government spend it on something else entirely and then retax you for money they already took from you so they can cover the expense the tax was originally suppose to have been for.

Bush's plan will not fix anything you described all it will do is cut benefits and increase the debt owed.

You and MJ can continue your little circle jerk.

Um Dipshit, ANYTHING you do to fix the system INEVITABLY MUST include increased debt, benefit cuts, tax raises, or some combination of the 3.

And unless we would like to totally destroy our economy, and show everyone just how trivial the CURRENT debt is compared to what it will be, the neccessary tax hikes and benefit cuts are going to make SS SUCK. SUCK BIG TIME.

Personal Accounts are a BETTER SYSTEM that people will be allowed to voluntarily replace SS with, so SS getting trashed won't affect them as greatly. Deny the inevitable all you want, the SS system as it is today WILL NOT WORK, it's heading toward a disaster. What don't you understand?

Personal Accounts are a BETTER SYSTEM

You mean the thing W is prattling about.

It really is not a better system and it solves nothing.

Um Yeah, have I said ANYTHING in ANY of my posts about promoting Bush's plan. I don't like Bush's plan. I think he's pussy-footing around with a system that sucks. I would like to see social security totally replaced with a system that mandates people to invest in THEIR OWN retirement... with disability being paid through taxation collected on capital gains of investment withdrawals and on inheritance of said retirement funds. I was never promoting Bush's plan. I'm am simply saying that people need to recognize that social security is a scam. Pure and simple. There are better solutions than social security.

have I said ANYTHING in ANY of my posts about promoting Bush's plan. I don't like Bush's plan.

Um ok, then I really do give up.

You may as well as go and ram your head against a brick wall.

I'm educating people as to the reality of social security. I don't feel like I'm beating my head against the wall. Through this blog and editorials in my local paper... I have probably reached ten thousand people and more. If some of those people are as tenacious as I am, then they will educate still others. That is how word gets around. That is what I am doing.

I'm educating people as to the reality of social security.

You really arent though.

Check out Reefer Madness by Eric Schlosser really thought provoking.

lol... sorry for the error in my last post.

The only person not being educated is Mike Sutcliffe. Everyone else is a little more reasonable than you are.

The only person here that's unedumacated about SS is you UY. Have you even admitted that there is a problem yet? (depends on what the definition of "is" is?) All your Democrat lackeys have at least come THAT far to admitting that at this tim eor back in '99 when Clinton brought it up....have YOU?

Ironic....I informed my self-admittedly-ignorant girlfriend last night as to what happens to the SS surplus (she had no clue about it)....and she was PISSED about it, more pissed at herself for just going along with her liberal notion that everything was alright with the Ponzi scheme.....or at least that there was no problem big enough to look at.

People that admit that there will be a shortfall starting in about 15 years AND that the IOUs in teh "lock-box" will run out twenty years or so later have still forgotten that in 4 years, there's gonna be the first effects of the screwed up program called SocSec. Of course, THIS problem was manufactured due to the surpluses being sucked dry by the gubmint to fund other things. Well, in around 4 years, that surplus will start getting smaller each year.....so those programs currently funded by the surplus will have to either be cut, or will have to suck funding from some other place......and it's gonna be the taxpayers that get stuck with it.

Or we could just all ignore it because it's 4 years from now. Nuttin' to see here move along...

Have you even admitted that there is a problem yet?

Well yeah, but dont let the fact the problem doesnt come for another few decades stop you from going W's horrible plan.