Social Security costs seen raising U.S. debt

[dArKeR]

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush's economic advisers said on Monday that an overhaul of Social Security favored by the administration would sharply increase the nation's debt load in the next several decades.

Tapping the bond markets to pay for personal retirement accounts and other reforms would increase the nation's debt-to-GDP ratio by up to 23.6 percentage points in 2036, Bush's Council of Economic Advisers said in its annual Economic Report of the President.

Under this scenario, the debt held by the public could rise by up to $4.7 trillion over the next four decades. But the new bonds would be repaid 20 years after that from program savings, eliminating Social Security's unfunded liability and reducing the tax burden in the long term, advocates say.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4221564/

[trogdor]

1. Mission accomplished!

That's what they want, right? For us to make a Sophie's Choice between more debt and killing SS? It didn't have to be this way. I just hope Bush's replacement can repair the damage in time.

[papau]

2. 60 years from now you will be better off - trust me!

So 20 years after 40 years we repay those "transition costs", retire the bonds - and have some money not needed for interest payment on the debt that we can use for social programs like day care, universal health, and education.

At least these folks try to make up for the 4% payroll tax that they are taking out of the system for private accounts - so we will borrow to pay Social Security benefits (God forbid a tax increase on the rich - or even an FIT increase that gets a few dollars from the rich to repay the monies stolen from SS these days as payroll tax surplus finances the tax cut for the rich)

To make up for funds diverted to personal accounts and shore up the underlying Social Security system we don't need no raising taxes or requiring additional worker contributions - we borrow..

and we pay off those borrowings with no raising taxes or requiring additional worker contributions because 60 years from now Bush sees future savings from Social Security because the growth in benefits would be slowed. Can we say a lower guaranteed benefit - the end of that nasty nanny state mentality?

Trust AWOL - would he lie to you?

[Mithras61]

5. That's funny! 60 Years from now...

I'll be 103 (if I'm still kickin' around).

My son will be 70 (and hopefully retired with plenty $$$ to keep him in his declining years)

If I'm lucky, my son's grandchildren will be able to look forward to a Social Security plan that takes in as much as it pays out.

Wait a minute... isn't that what we (approximately) have right now? This sounds like a change designed to bankrupt the government and/or SSA, not reduce costs to the government. If the funds taken in by the SSA had been left alone as designed in the first place, we wouldn't be in the position of having to "save" social security. Beyond that, I'd like to remind you that the SSA gets it's funding in the general budget, just like the Pentagon, HUD, etc., and that it will NOT go broke unless the government does...

[AffirmativeReaction]

3. Great idea

What's a few more trillion dollars among friends?

[shanti]

4. here we go

blame it all on that BAD BAD social security! :grr:

[0007]

6. Here's the biggest problem

[Columbia]

8. I think a comparative chart with percentage

of GDP or budget would be more helpful.

[htuttle]

7. Did ya ever notice...

...how when it comes to Bush's economic plans, we are asked to look ahead 10, 15, or more years (60?).

But when it comes to global warming, toxins in the environment, or the certainty of oil depletion, we are asked to not worry about it, since "it's a long way off..."

[flaminbats]

9. Use trillions of Social Security dollars for bibles&missionaries in Iraq

and just imagine the returns for America and the world! Not only will teaching evolution also be banned in the Republic of Georgia, but the 700 club can start recruiting wealthy Saudi oil men as members...