No, Mr. Armey, you're not the only one worried about Social Security

Here is something new a republican trying to fighten us into letting them they do whatever they want .You people are too stupid to realize what is important so stay frightened and we will see what we can rob from you.How about this the people who benefit the most from the hard working American populace actually pay their fair share of taxes for the common good of the country.Corporations are paying their lowest share of the tax pie since the 50s.How about we penalize companies that do business in America and open up tax shelter corporate offices.Talk about a lack of patriotism.

I think the biggest scandal of the SS issue is the one that never gets mentioned...

The regressive cap on the SS tax is "fair" only if you pay out all the money that you pay in as was promised.

When the cash flow problem for SS hits in the future and we simply cut benefits, then the SS tax simply becomes a very regressive tax to fund general revenues.

That's a scandal.

We don't need to touch social security, period.

Even once the trust fund is depleted, because of the way that benefits are indexed, they will provide a higher benefit level (relative to the cost of living) than people get today.

More to the point, (using the conservative SSA estimates) Social Security benefits will rise from the current 4.2% of GDP to 6.2% of GDP in 2030...and pretty much stay there (only rising to 6.3% of GDP by 2081).

Although the Social Security trust is projected to be exhausted in 2041, by that point it won't matter. Our economy will have already a decade to adjust to the fact that 6.2% of GDP is going to Social Security benefits -- and funds from general revenues can be used to supplement social security taxes to provide full benefits.

This, of course, assumes that we follow rational budget and spending policies for the next 35 years. The real problem is going to making the adjustment between now and 2030, as Social Security benefits are inexorably rising to consume an additional 2% of CGP over and above what they do now.

The Social Security "fix" is not to touch Social Security, but to increase general revenues (i.e. raise taxes) to make sure that we can redeem the debt held by the trust fund that will be used to pay benefits without simply borrowing from other sources.

That is what was so brilliant about the Clinton surpluses -- not only did they ensure that the Trust Fund could be paid off without borrowing, there was some fear that we would have retired the rest of our national debt before it became necessary to use the surplus to redeem the debt held by the Social Security.

And its why the massive Bush fax-cat tax cuts have been such a disaster.

Justin
You suggest 'raising the retirement age a couple of decades...'. That should certainly work to provide plenty of funds. Let's see, Social Security retirement age is 65 or so, adding a couple of decades to that would mean we could retire at 85 or so. With that adjustment, Social Security could even increase the payments to those lucky enough to still be living and still be more than totally funded. Now you do say this ought to happen 'down the road' from now...

Poor phrasing on my part, I guess. (Or are you just messing with me, GLD?) I was thinking of an increase of just a few years, or maybe some sort of indexing to life expectancy that would have a similar impact, that would be decided upon now but go into effect a couple of decades in the future. Although raising the retirement age to 85 would definitely save a ton of money.

We continue to talk about Social Security, and this is good, keeps it in the mind of the average american. It's the only social program left from the New Deal that still works. It's not going broke. So why does our white collar president with a bad track record at managing anything want it to go away? That's the real question. Chomsky, along with anyone else with imagination knows the answer.

We continue to talk about Social Security, and this is good, keeps it in the mind of the average american. It's the only social program left from the New Deal that still works. It's not going broke. So why does our white collar president with a bad track record at managing anything want it to go away? That's the real question. Anyone with even a limited imagination knows the answer.
No, Social Security needs to stay, for the disabled, and the elderly. For the well being of the majority of the nation.
While on the subject of well being for the majority, why is this county, the only superpower on earth, the last industrialized nation on earth to adopt universal health care? Anyone? Pfizer, Glaxo-Wellcomb, and a few others might answer it with out saying it. This country is addicted to prescription drugs at ridiculous prices. It's illegal to get canadian generics at a fraction of the cost because it is said that they may be substandard. I smell it, and got out the hip waders, you should too, it's pretty deep. People in europe do not pay these exhorbitant prices for needed prescriptions, just us. We pad the bottom line. It's because of that corporate take over of medical care. HMO's are strangling your wallet, and you. Health insurance costs are getting out of hand, especially when you figure out how much they actually pay out. There's a reason that when excluding Microsoft, the most profitable business, is the insurance business.
Anywho, I think when it comes time to vote for our leaders in 08, we elect them on the principles that matter. They aren't gay marriage, abortion, whether or not to teach creationism in schools (we shouldn't, it's not science, it's fiction), we should elect them on where the stand on issues that really matter. Health care for all and a Social Security that doesn't go away.