Grassley, Bush to discuss Social Security overhaul

[papau]

http://www.dmregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050106/NEWS09/501060395/1001/NEWS

Grassley, Bush to discuss Social Security overhaul

The Iowa senator and the president meet today about an overhaul of the retirement benefits system.

By JANE NORMAN REGISTER STAFF WRITER

Washington, D.C. - Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa is set to meet today, one-on-one, with President Bush to discuss a Social Security overhaul, and Grassley said he will urge a slow and bipartisan approach on the politically sensitive issue.<snip>

Grassley declined to comment on whether that is a concept he would favor, but he pointed out that fewer workers are available to cover payments to those drawing benefits, as Americans live longer and the birth rate declines

"We just have got to educate the public about that, that there's been overpromises made based upon statistics that have changed through no fault of anybody in Congress," he said..<snip>

If no changes are made, expected benefits would have to be cut by about 30 percent by 2042, he said.

Grassley said that even though he wants to go slow on Social Security change, "it needs to be done this year."

[Wapsie B]

1. Just raise the ceiling on the FICA withholding.

It's around $87k now. Just double it or eliminate it altogether. No muss no fuss.

[ThomasJackson]

5. do the math...

i have to keep giving out these free math lessons.

the PRESENT VALUE of the defecit in the SS system is 3.5Trillion Dollars. that means we need 3.5 trillion dollars TODAY to make the system whole.
(please, no replys about how the system is solvent till 2042. those estimates are all based on the redemption of quasi-treasury securities held by the trust fund ... redemeed by the us treasury dept. for those not keeping up with current events .... we don't have 3.5 trillion dollars .... the current defecit is 500 billion or thereabouts.)

Now, according to the IRS/Treasury department, the total amount of income over 87000 USD was 1.8trillion dollars last year. eliminating the cap means that that income is taxed at 12.5%. bust out the calculators to find that that yields 230 billion dollars a year in taxes. This would help .... but still leave over 3 trillion dollars unfunded.

lets have a rational discussion about the issue and not just stick out head in the sand.

[denverbill]

7. Pshaw. Deficits don't matter. Ask any Republican.

Otherwise, why would they have cut taxes twice in the face of the biggest budgets deficits in history. We'll just cut taxes some more to make more money for the government and everything will be hunky-dory.

[pinniped]

20. Greenspan also said deficits didn't matter.

This was before the (s)election.

[brokensymmetry]

8. That right?

You know this, as a certainty? You know the details of the models used - including projections of interest rates, mortality, and job creation?

Or are you merely repeating something that you heard, or read, or seem to recall hearing somewhere, sometime?

A rational discussion begins with a thorough disclosure of the parameters in the model being used to make the projection. Let's see those parameters.

[Strelnikov_]

9. If The GOP Is Assuming Default On The SS Trust

as a part of their rationale for SS overhaul, then they need to come out right out and say it.

We will then see how much the working people of this country like funding more tax cuts for the rich.

One other bit of hypocrisy I like about the Greed Only Party, every time there is a study that shows the middle class pays more tax % wise as the rich, the GOP screams that SS is not a tax, it is a retirement fund. But now with the SS reform push, this money is no longer there, because it was spent as tax revenue.

[ThomasJackson]

10. actually, thats kind of the point.

nobody .... except a few oddballs here... is assumng default.

and the Reps have a point. well, maybe not a point, but a consistency at least : if SSI is a retirement fund,( as always argued ) then it should run like a real retirement plan....hence private accounts.

[Casey73]

11. Private accounts

Social Security is similar to a "traditional" pension plan, a defined benefit plan. Most of these plans do not use private accounts where each individual has their own account. They use a pooled account.

[ThomasJackson]

13. too true

if SS was a defined benefit plan in the private sector, the directors would be in jail. defined benefit plans require adequate funding and SS is FAR from adequately funded. that's the problem.

[Strelnikov_]

21. How Can You Say That SS Is Not Adequately Funded

When it is solvent out to 2042-2052, and able to continue at a 75% benefit thereafter, all with NO change.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Strelnikov_]

25. So, You Agree That SS Is Solvent And Adequately Funded

Considering that even by the SS admins own pessimistic forecasts it is currently SOLVENT and ADEQUATELY FUNDED out to 2042.

How many private pension plans would be worried about their plan if there is a possibility of a 25% benefit reduction 38 years out? My bet, None. And you would probably be laughed out of the boardroom if you raised the concern.

[ThomasJackson]

34. actually no.

i'd be laughrd out if i proposed a pay as u go plan. SS LOOKS like a defined benefit plan....but has not NEARLY the assets that a real defined benefits plan should have to cover it's future expenses. it is ... by definition... a ponzi scheme where early participants are paid out from the contributions of later participants.

[AZCat]

36. No - it is not a Ponzi scheme

Because participants drop out of the SS pool (when they die) the problems inherent to a Ponzi scheme are not present in SS.


Just another RW talking point, I'm afraid.

[ThomasJackson]

40. hardly

there are differences, but subtle ones. in general .... according to the securities and exchange commission:

In the classic "pyramid" scheme, participants attempt to make money solely by recruiting new participants into the program. The hallmark of these schemes is the promise of sky-high returns in a short period of time for doing nothing other than handing over your money and getting others to do the same.

The fraudsters behind a pyramid scheme may go to great lengths to make the program look like a legitimate multi-level marketing program. But despite their claims to have legitimate products or services to sell, these fraudsters simply use money coming in from new recruits to pay off early stage investors. But eventually the pyramid will collapse. At some point the schemes get too big, the promoter cannot raise enough money from new investors to pay earlier investors, and many people lose their money

[ProfessorPlum]

44. How does that have any relationship to SS?

Everybody pays into SS, everyone gets paid out of SS. Hardly a Ponzi scheme. Plus, many people coming after the original participants get "more" in real benefits than the original participants. Again, nothing like a Ponzi scheme.

Shouting "Ponzi scheme" about SS is a right wing standard, though. Personally, I think the Stock Market bears much more resemblance to a pyramid scheme than does SS.

[ThomasJackson]

53. free to think

you are free to think anything you wish. however, since its inception, SS has NEVER done anything but "use money coming in from new recruits to pay off early stage investors." that's how it works!!! that's how ponzi and pyramid schemes work!!! what do u want from me. that's the definition.

during periods when income exceeds payments, those excess funds are used to reduce the current defecit by giving the cash to the treasury in exchange for quasi treasury securities. if it was a real retirement plan, ALL of the current contributions would be invested in earning assets, not just the extra bits.

it was made to sound like a retirement plan ... still uses the rubric of retirement plans...send out statements showing how much i've contributed and what returns i can expect based on my contributions. if you ask a senior cit. or soon to be senior they'll tell you something like "hell, it's my money!!!"

but, it doesn't work that way. and because it works like a pyramid scheme .... it's suffering the same difficulties as a pyramid when the more recent tranches of participants are smaller than the last.

[ProfessorPlum]

55. I can prove you are wrong instantly

When Social Security was created, money from current workers was paid to people who never paid a dime into the system.

And there are lots of people who pay into the system and then are hit by a bus and never collect.

You are right when you say that people are wrong when they say "it's my money". They would be more correct to say "I paid in and I expect to get similar benefits to those that I provided for others". But then again, what fucking difference does that make? Does their ignorance on this rather minor point mean the whole system is a fraud? (hint: no)

[AZCat]

45. That's a description of a pyramid scheme - and totally inappropriate here

Since the participants in SS don't induce others to participate (through them) there is no parallel between SS and a pyramid scheme.

[ThomasJackson]

43. watch your wording...

if i was one of the tin-foil hat brigade i'd look at your post and run off saying ..... the liberals want to fix SS by killing old people!!!!!

[ProfessorPlum]

46. Gee, that would make a lot of sense

One might equally postulate that greedheads want to fix SS by ending it. And that would actually be the truth.

[AZCat]

48. Do you work for Fox News or the NYT?

'Cause that seems like an appropriate action for an employee of said institutions.

If you're not, then please - keep the tinfoil on the baked goods, where it serves a purpose.

[Strelnikov_]

38. SS Is Not A Retirement Plan, It Is Retirement Insurance Administered

by the Federal Government.

If you want a private retirement account, take 4% of your earnings, go to a financial institution, and open one up.

Also, your statement that SS is a ponzi scheme implies that the SS trust will not be honored.

[ThomasJackson]

41. not at all

it implies that the problems are real and structural. that's all.

[cornermouse]

12. Can non-rich people afford to lose their retirement?

That's the real question if you want to privatize retirement and the answer to that question is pretty clear, especially when you look at all the corporate fraud that is going on now.

[Strelnikov_]

19. Oddballs Like Paul Krugman, Oddballs Like You

To quote you:

“ . . .(please, no replys about how the system is solvent till 2042. those estimates are all based on the redemption of quasi-treasury securities held by the trust fund ... redemeed by the us treasury dept. for those not keeping up with current events .... we don't have 3.5 trillion dollars .... the current defecit is 500 billion or thereabouts.)”

To quote Paul Krugman:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/opinion/04krugman.html?oref=login&hp

"So where's the imminent crisis? Privatizers say the trust fund doesn't count because it's invested in U.S. government bonds, which are "meaningless i.o.u.'s."

The only way any SS changes can be justified at this time is if it is assumed that the monies in the trust fund are gone, thus the 2018 insolvency date. Otherwise, SS is solvent until 2042 per the SS Administrations own report, and 2052 per the CBO. And after these dates, a 75% benefit could still be paid.

I see no problem. Let's wait 15 years and take a look at things then.

Also, SS is not a retirement plan, it is retirement insurance to ensure that those who fall on hard luck have something to survive on in old age. Don't believe in hard luck? Ever heard the saying "There But For The Grace Of God Go I"?

If you are looking for things to fix, I suggest you concentrate on:

1) IraqNam
2) Energy drawdown due to peaking of fossil fuel energy resources.
3) General Federal Budget starting with Medicare costs.

Oh, that's right, none of the above put's working people's hard earned money into the pockets of Wall Street investors.

[ThomasJackson]

22. krugman

interview, Nov 2003:

Krugman: ... What we have is the prospect of deficits that are not temporary. The last estimate is, of the $500 billion-plus deficit, only about $60 or $70 billion would go away even if the economy does recover. And it's much worse once the baby boomers retire, which happens in about 10 years. We have the finances of a banana republic right now. If current tax rates and current programs continue, at some point the U.S. government will simply be unable to pay its debts -- and long before that point happens, industries will pull the plug.

...

McNally: Let me get this straight. You're not saying that we will actually go bankrupt, but that we are too dependent on foreign investors and at some point, they'll say: "You know what, I'm putting my money elsewhere."

Krugman: Well, in fact, that does produce something that looks like bankruptcy. When you have a huge debt, not only do you have to pay interest on it, but you have to keep rolling it over. The point comes when investors say: "I don't trust these Americans. They don't seem to be responsible." Then all of a sudden you cannot raise the money to service the debt when it comes due.

ENd interview exceprt.

So Krugman is being less than honest in one of these two quotes .... either it is very bad ( his nov '03 quote & my position ) or it's a not a big deal ( his more recent slant that you quote ) since there has been no dramatic economic boom since nov'03 .... he's clearly lying to one of us. I happen to think that krugman is a political hack and a less than stellar economist and says what he thinks will get his column quoted this week by the talking heads. So maybe he's lying to us both.

[Strelnikov_]

29. Guess I'm Just Too Dumb To Be A Reich-Winger

I think Krugman is being perfectly consistent.

Again, from the Jan. 4 editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/04/opinion/04krugman.html?oref=login&oref=login&hp

"There are only two things that could endanger Social Security's ability to pay benefits before the trust fund runs out. One would be a fiscal crisis that led the U.S. to default on all its debts. The other would be legislation specifically repudiating the general fund's debts to retirees.

That is, we can't have a Social Security crisis without a general fiscal crisis - unless Congress declares that debts to foreign bondholders must be honored, but that promises to older Americans, who have spent most of their working lives paying extra payroll taxes to build up the trust fund, don't count.

Politically, that seems far-fetched. A general fiscal crisis, on the other hand, is a real possibility - but not because of Social Security. In fact, the Bush administration's scaremongering over Social Security is in large part an effort to distract the public from the real fiscal danger. "


Oh, and a snippet from Krugmans biography. Does not sound like a 'less than stellar economist' to me.


"Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

Mr. Krugman is the author or editor of 20 books and more than 200 papers in professional journals and edited volumes. His professional reputation rests largely on work in international trade and finance; he is one of the founders of the "new trade theory," a major rethinking of the theory of international trade. In recognition of that work, in 1991 the American Economic Association awarded him its John Bates Clark medal, a prize given every two years to "that economist under forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic knowledge." Mr. Krugman's current academic research is focused on economic and currency crises. "

[ThomasJackson]

30. that's consistent?

in the same article he says A. "there is no problem lets wait"

and B: "we could have a general fiscal crisis" that's an economist for u.

and what ... no repudiation of my assertion that he's a political hack only interested in getting his name mentioned?

[Strelnikov_]

35. His Position Is That The Condition Of The Fed Budget Is What Threatens SS

So fix the budget, and SS is fixed by default.

And no, I do not feel that he is a political hack. He seems to be a reluctant political commentator, driven by the sheer incompetence of the current administration.

As I heard him say in an interview a couple of years ago, he was pilloried by the left when he started doing his columns in the late 90's which generally dealt with free-market economics. It was not until he became concerned with the direction of the administration that the political angle entered.

Of course, this is not consistent with the Reich-Wing spin on him.

[ThomasJackson]

47. halle - fing -luiah

someone admits that SS is threatened!!!! yes I agree whole heartedly. and it is the conditions of this years and many many prior years of defecits that exacerbated the problem. yes!!!! and .... looking out further, being deep in debt will make rolling over the debt to the SS trust fund very difficult. THATS what I've been saying.

[ProfessorPlum]

49. Of course it is threatened - by the GOP which has wanted to kill it

for decades.

As I wrote on another post, the GOP sez:
"We're going to kill SS. Therefore it is in danger. Therefore you should let us kill it."

Another way of looking at the IOU fear-scam is this:

IF at some point in the future, the federal government is so irresponsible with the revenue and spending for the general fund (perhaps, for example, issuing huge tax cuts for the very rich, income tax cuts for top earners, elimination of the inheritance tax, reduction of taxes on investment income, while at the same time starting massively expensive, unnecessary foreign wars, in which war profiteers misappropriate nauseating amounts of taxpayer money), IF the finances of the general fund are driven into a ditch

AND

IF the government ends up relying so heavily on its wage tax income for general fund expenses that they decide that they need to declare a “crisis” so that they can justify killing off Social Security, allowing the greedheads in charge of the country to screw over retired people (current and future)

AND

IF the people of this country let them do it

THEN Social Security really is at risk if its only assets are IOUs.

[Strelnikov_]

57. I Agree. Due To The Criminal Mismanagement Of The Current Administration

in particular, and the GOP in general, SS is threatened, along with the all of the other institutions of this great Nation.

Not going to do much good to 'fix' SS if the Federal Govt. files bankruptcy, or most of us are dead due to a Reich-Wing precipitated war.

What kind of returns do you think the stock market is going to yield in the era of peak oil hyper-inflation?

Yes, SS could always be improved, what can't? But are you seriously saying that SS is a more pressing problem than:

1) IraqNam
2) Energy
3) The Federal and current-accounts deficits.

[davekriss]

54. You (TJ) appear to me to be dishonest or misinformed

Krugman, in the November 2003 article, is talking about overall debt and deficits, not the social security system.

I understand, I think, what you are getting at: You are claiming that the USG will not be able to redeem the special treasury bonds of the social security trust fund when they become due without then taking on huge new tax and debt burdens.

Maybe, then, the solution is to reverse the two huge tax cuts George Bush made in his first term that benefit a small segment of the U.S. population, and instead continue taxes as they were under the Clinton administration and thereby have paid down the USG debt to such a level that there'd be, in 2005 dollars, perhaps $300 billion plus per year available for redemption (the $300b in interest payments we won't have to make). Add to that the suggestion above to lift the earnings ceiling and we're talking about $500 billion plus a year to fill the social security cash flow gap. We'd be able to raise benefits!! Instead, GWB and the republinazis decided to give away multiple trillions in uncollected taxes to fund a false prosperity for a thin sliver of the U.S. population (a sliver that hardly needed more to maintain their prosperous lifestyles). Disgusting!

In your own words the net present value of the ss shortfall is $3 trillion. That's aggregate between 2018 and 2075, yes? (2018 is the first year that a funding gap is forecast.) Well, the George Bush tax cuts are valued at between $2 to $3 trillion just for 2000 to 2010!! You do the math!!!

[ProfessorPlum]

56. Fantastic

The SS fund should always be compared to Bushco's tax cuts. In every breath. Excellent post.

[antigop]

65. Tax cuts and prescription drug bill MORE THAN 5 TIMES SS Shortfall

http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm

>>The tax cuts and the prescription drug bill were the
President's two principal domestic priorities during his first term.
Together, these policies will cost at least five times as much over
the next 75 years as the Social Security shortfall (if the tax cuts
are made permanent). In other words, the President's domestic policy
initiatives will have resulted in fiscal problems much larger than the problem that he now says he wants to address.

We should note that this comparison uses the Social Security
projections of the Social Security Trustees. CBO, in contrast,
projects that the Social Security shortfall will be only a little over half as large as the Trustees do; CBO places the shortfall at 0.4 percent of GDP over the 75-year period. If one uses the CBO
projection of the Social Security shortfall rather than the
Trustee's projection, the cost of the tax cuts themselves is five
times the size of the Social Security shortfall and the combined cost
of the tax cuts and drug benefit is about 8.5 times the size of the
Social Security shortfall.
>>

[Strelnikov_]

58. So By 2075 SS Will Have Run Up A $3 T Deficit At Current Benefit Levels

While the much heralded Medicare drug benefit, enacted last year, will run up a $10 T deficit over the same period.

I wonder if they have the same kind of 'fix' planned for SS.

[Jose Diablo]

37. Tell us, what do you mean "a few oddballs here"? n/t

[Strelnikov_]

63. Guess He Decided He Was An Oddball Too

Mr. ThomasJackson now sez:

"IF. IF. IF. Where, pray tell, is the money coming from to pay the IOU's. if you 're not keeping up with current events, the current budget defecit is 500Bill. or so. How hard is THAT to understand?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1126426&mesg_id=1130756&page=

[chomskysright]

64. reason #2 why Bush's plan sucks......

TEN REASONS WHY PRESIDENT BUSH'S PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IS A BAD IDEA

1. WHO WANTS THE CHANGE? Wall Street wants privatization in order reap a windfall profit. Everyone else should be very suspicious. If the stock market goes down, your benefits go down.

2. WHY DOES WALL STREET WANT THE CHANGE? In the background, beyond private accounts, are various proposals to cut guaranteed Social Security
benefits in the future.

3. BUT WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANOTHER DEPRESSION AS IN 1929: wrong: In 1973-74, the stock
market lost 48 percent of its value. The stock market is a very dangerous place to put money

4. WHO DOES NOT WANT THE CHANGE? AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, is coming out
strongly against President Bush's plan to allow private individual accounts
within Social Security.

5. HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY? transitioning to private accounts could cost $2 trillion.

6. WHERE WOULD THAT MONEY COME FROM? our taxes will have to be increased to make Bush's proposed plan work.

7. HOW EFFICIENT IS THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM NOW? More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead.

8. OTHER COUNTRIES MUST HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY AND MAYBE THOSE ARE BETTER? wrong: Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. A privatized system will take money from your Social Security check.

9. SHOULD YOU BE WORRIED THAT YOU WILL NOT HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY? Nothing is going to change, in terms of benefits, for people near your retirement age.

10. WHO TAXED SOCIAL SECURITY TO BEGIN WITH? Ronald Reagan, a Republican, began the taxation on Social Security in 1983.

There is no Social Security crisis, just as there were no weapons of mass destruction. Social Security has provided a lifeline to millions of Americans with
millions of checks, and in more than 60 years has never missed a payment—and this track record can continue. Social Security is basically a sound system
that can meet 100 percent of its obligations for the next 39 years, and with responsible changes it can continue to do so indefinitely

[amandabeech]

68. And if those increases in the SS tax that occurred in the '80s

and funded much of the SS Trust Fund will not be paid back when needed, with interest, then those SS tax increases were merely an income tax increase for those in the middle and lower brackets.

If the Trust Fund money is not paid back, then I think that huge surcharges in upper brackets and on investment income are in order in order to even out the tax burden.

[TahitiNut]

15. Manure. Read ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2894430

[Mountainman]

16. We can spend 3.what ever trillion on a useless war why not on people?

You give me shit fits.

We have money for anything we want as long as it is war war war,

[cosmicdot]

18. $3.5 trillion - that's almost the amount of money unaccounted for at DoD

sure would be nice if that money could be found - how does $3.3 trillion go missing?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0305/S00158.htm

http://www.whereisthemoney.org/

SS is not broke, but it will be after Bush-Cheney ** finish with it.

[wicket]

26. you've certainly got the right-wing talking points down pat

:eyes:

[TheKingfish]

27. lies lies lies

The SS has a surplus not a deficit. The fact that the surplus was stolen to pay for other things is not the fault of the SS system.

[ThomasJackson]

31. fault?!?

WHO CARES WHO'S FAULT IT WAS?!?! Plenty of blame to go around. The point is that there is no cash.

[TheKingfish]

33. So disband the Military since its causing a budget crisis

[amandabeech]

67. $230 billion a year adds up, though.

$230 billion a year at 4% interest rate pays off the $3.5 trillion ($3,500 billion)present value in 16 years according to my HP calculator.

What is this math-challenged person missing?

[proudbluestater]

70. His plan to END Social Security will cost 1-2 trillion.

How do you pay for that? SS is not broke.

Broke:

HUGE Deficit run up by this president, after inheriting a SURPLUS

Neverending war in Iraq, following by other counties at the behest of the neocon regime.

Election fraud

Civil Liberties

GITMO

Abu Ghraib

The dollar which has lost 1/3 of its value thanks to *

The media, being solely owned by the Republicans

Prescription drug costs

Lack of Health Insurance

FCC


NOT BROKE

Legal System (1% of the health care dollar goes to malpractice ins.)

Social Security

Medicare

Everything * touches turns to shit. Why does he not address today's problems FIRST and leave the rest the hell alone?

[xray s]

2. The 'falling birth rate' arguement is also bullshit

If the workforce needs more workers there are plenty of people who want to come to the US to work. The birthrate in the US has nothing to do with the ability to have an adequate taxpaying workforce to support social security in the future.

[papau]

4. True - indeed the ONLY MEASURE is the ACTUARY"S REPORT

and that says no problem

and they do factor in the lower birth rate.

But who wants real numbers and the financial results arising therefrom?

We would rather discuss partial truths such as low birth rate and the just assert/claim that this means we have a problem.

[durablend]

3. What's there to "discuss"?

Just clean it out and abolish it already...you're not fooling anyone that isn't drunk on Kool-Aid :eyes:

[Massachusetts]

6. Just Bu$hco smoke in mirrors.

Beware of Bu$hco!

Ya pet him and he'll bite. Woof

[newscott]

14. They're trying to recruit Grassley to

put a moderate face on it.

Just like the snookered Kennedy on the Ed Reform.

[Mountainman]

17. The real argument is this ....................

Do we follow the conservative dogma and get rid of all social programs or do we use tax money to make a more just society.

That is the 8000 lb gorilla in the room. Anything a repub says about government spending is all about helping themselves to more of the government welfare for the rich.

We will continue to pay taxes but get less and less for it while repub contributors will pay less tax and get more and more from the government.

The battle is not whether social security is solvent or not the battle is over who will benefit from the policies of the government. So I don't want to hear from right wingers about it unless they are willing to bring us back to the position we were in before 2000. Surplus!

[proudbluestater]

71. Could not have said it better myself

The government goal is to end ALL social programs and transfer the savings to the rich, thus eliminating that pesky middle class who might have otherwise been able to pay for a college education for their children. No middle class = lots more lower class to fight the wars of the rich since there is no other option to make a living in this country anymore with the jobs being shipped off left and right.

[napi21]

24. Simple cure is for the Feds to repay the IOU's!

The SS program was initiated to be an insurance program for the "FEW" that lived past age 65. Since the life expectancy is now 83, perhaps the age eligibility should be raised to 70 instead of 67. The wage cap had been adjusted upward several times as average wages continue to increase, and should be revisited again.

If the IOU's were repaid, the wage cap adjusted and the eligibility age adjusted, there would not be a problem with SS viability to infinity. How hard is that to understand???

[ThomasJackson]

32. duh

IF. IF. IF. Where, pray tell, is the money coming from to pay the IOU's. if you 're not keeping up with current events, the current budget defecit is 500Bill. or so. How hard is THAT to understand?

[ProfessorPlum]

42. So of all the bondholders to whom the US owes money

Foreign governments, foreign investors, rich domestic bondholders, corporations and pension funds and all of the vast numbers of people who own bonds,

the first bonds you would default on in a time of crisis would be those held by SS? Which is currently running a huge surplus? And which will benefit every American to some degree, and the downtrodden and infirm even more?

Uh uh.

Gee, where could we get more money? Hmmm. That's a poser. Maybe we could TAX THE RICH!!

We've eliminated the inheritance tax, massively reduced taxes on investment income, ridiculously lowered taxes on high earners. And the rich get so much more out of this government than the poor do - the FAA to regulate the planes they fly on, the SEC to regulate the investments they make their filthy money on . .. I could go on and on. Shove your moaning of SS. That's the least of our worries.

[Casey73]

59. Where is the money coming from?

They should just borrow more. What's a little deficit anyway?

[Strelnikov_]

61. So You Now Agree With Prof. Krugman

So you are back to saying that the SS 'Crises' is due to mismanagement of the Federal budget, and that the solution would be to fix the Federal budget, with resultant strengthening of SS.

Hey, I can get on board with that.

Also, welcome to the so-called DU oddball class!!

To quote you in an earlier post:

"nobody .... except a few oddballs here... is assumng default."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1126426&mesg_id=1127485&page=

To quote you in your most recent post:

"IF. IF. IF. Where, pray tell, is the money coming from to pay the IOU's."

[TheKingfish]

69. hey Thomas Jackson

just curious who did you vote for in pres. election?

[lovuian]

28. Let me make these easy!!! Take Social Security away from Voters

and they are going to royally get pisst off!!!

They won't take the streets for War but they will take the streets for social security!!!

This is the retirements and livlihoods of Americans!!!

[Bragi]

39. Looks "on stragedy" to me

Wasn't there an article posted here yesterday about a memo from the White House where they wanted to create the sense of crisis around SS to justify cutting benefits for lower income people?

I think Grassley's comments and his meeting are just this strategy being implemented.

If there were any reporters with journalistic integrity in Washington, they'd have asked him about the strategy, but that isn't likely, is it?

- B

[ProfessorPlum]

50. If the GOP really wanted to "save" SS

They could just, I don't know, raise taxes a little.

Say, 1% on top earners income, as a special "thank you" to the country that made them so rich.

Or, re-establish the inheritance tax, and put that money toward paying down the debt to the SS fund.

Or, raising taxes on investment income. After all, the rich in this country don't mind pitching in to help widows and children and disabled people and the infirm, do they? Do they really?

"saving" SS by creating an "every man for himself" system goes back to the bad old days when there was no SS.

[Strelnikov_]

62. Or Simply Raising The Upper Income Limit

They sure are doing a lot of hand wringing about wage indexing of benefits, the argument being that wages have historically increased faster than inflation.

I don't see this logic being applied to the upper limit of SS taxable wages, though. That is, maybe the upper limit has lagged behind wage growth.

[ProfessorPlum]

51. We really are in a "Tinkerbell" moment with SS

The system itself is fine, but the GOP has everyone snowed into thinking it is coughing up blood.

All we need to do to save the system is to have confidence in it.

If we all clap our hands . . .

[ProfessorPlum]

52. SS must really be in crisis

Since Bush has waited almost 4 years to even address it, after it was a big part of his 2000 campaign.

Way to respond quickly, Herr Bush.

[KansDem]

60. George W. Bush--the man who will fix Social Security...

...like he fixed Iraq.

I can't believe people might buy this bullshit!!!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

66. The correct word is "plot" instead of "discuss."

[ashmanonar]

72. but but but

the thing i don't understand, maybe i'm dumb, and i'm sure taht i don't know much about SS bc i'm only in college (so correct me if i'm wrong)...but if we transfer to private accounts, and stop paying the benefits to teh current retirees...the current retirees don't have private accounts, where do their benefits come from?

it seems like whenever someone wants to change a system as big and complicated as SS, there's always the problem of conversion...how does the system change over?

there's the big question, and who knows the answer?