OT - Social Security

[Doug Winterburn]

And it sure _has_ worked for the Swiss...

[Mike in Mystic]

I think this put's it in the best perspective:

Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan Economic outlook and current fiscal issues Before the Committee on the Budget, U.S. House of Representatives February 25, 2004

(see full text here:

"Today, federal outlays under Social Security and Medicare amount to less than 7 percent of GDP. In December, the CBO projected that these outlays would increase to 12 percent of GDP by 2030 under current law, using assumptions about the growth of health-care costs similar to the intermediate assumptions of the Medicare trustees; when spending on Medicaid is added in, the rise in the ratio is even steeper. To be sure, the rise in these outlays relative to GDP could be financed by tax increases, but the CBO results suggest that, even if other non-interest spending is constrained fairly tightly, ensuring fiscal stability would require an overall federal tax burden well above its long-term average.

Most experts believe that the best baseline for planning purposes is to assume that the demographic shift associated with the retirement of the baby-boom generation will be permanent--that is, it will not reverse when that cohort passes away. Indeed, so long as longevity continues to increase--and assuming no significant changes in immigration or fertility rates--the proportion of elderly in the population will only rise. If this fundamental change in the age distribution materializes, we will eventually have no choice but to make significant structural adjustments in the major retirement programs. "

One other statistic I read recently but can't find the source is that the ratio of national debt to GDP is about 30% at this time. Using the latest CBO report for estimates, by 2050 the ratio will be about 200% (debt:GDP)!!!! Basically, this says that we're running an unsustainable model and have no choice but to increase the income:costs ratio substationally. I think Greenspan's suggestion to cut social security and increase the retirement age is by far the most sensible approach. If the tax and spend Democrats get their way we'll be living in a socialist state and have a 50% tax rate. God help us.

Mike

[Bill]

Kerry's wife is worth a lot more than that.

[Charlie Self]

Doug Winterburn responds:

It is, as is always the case, the gubmint grabbing the bucks and reserving the right to give the taxpayer the finger.

Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton

[Charlie Self]

Al Reid offers:

Get real. Even at $138,000 a year, before gobbling at the trough, there ain't none of them for the common working man: they don't know who, or what, the common working man is and party doesn't matter a bit.

Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton

[Charlie Self]

Really? I keep hearing great figures for her wealth, but so far I've seen no reliable stats on it.

I don't doubt she's got a lot of money, but "worth a lot more than that" is one helluva long ways from being a precise figure.

And I'd like to know where the Kerry $163,626,399 figure came from. That is so precise it has to be bullshit.

Charlie Self "There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured with what is right in America." William J. Clinton

[Al Reid]

It came from John Kerry's Financial Disclosure Form that was either prepared by or on behalf of John Kerry. Which means, that it is probably unserstated.

[Doug Miller]

But whose fault is that, if not ours? We put these bozos in office in the first place, and then we keep them there.

Benjamin Franklin was once asked how long he thought the republic would endure. He is reputed to have replied "Until the people discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury."

In the words of Walt Kelly's Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

For a copy of my TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter, send email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com

[Doug Winterburn]

Ahhh, the old change the subject ploy when you can't argue with the truth.

[Mark]

What worked for the Swiss was and is their being the bankers for the world.

[Mark]

Come on, Folks.

You know the only real way to 'fix' Social Security is to ... eliminate .... those people receiving Social Security.

[todd]

Well, you're free to make whatever point you want. The assertion that I was responding to was that if we just got Congress folks off of their pension and strictly onto SS, everything would be fine. My point was that most of these guys have a net worth (at least by the time they leave) such that what they receive from their pension is just a cherry on top. Putting them on SS isn't going to cramp their lifestyle.

todd

[todd]

population,

What is their median net worth? The real question is, how many will be millionaires by the time they leave?

todd

[Mark and Kim Smith]

[George]

Or, one I like:

"In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it."

- Alexis De Tocqueville

[Doug Winterburn]

Absolutely! I would like to see two things - ripping up of the current IOU contents of all the trust funds so that future generations don't get to pay for our excesses, and no more collection of excess SS taxes beyond what is needed to pay for current obligations so that there will not be a source for the gubmint to grab cash for IOUs and claim budget surpluses

As verification of the trust fund charade, go here:

try to explain how the deficit increased every year, even in the years the previouos administration claimed budget surpluses.

[David Hall]

????? With respect to the government, what is the difference between a "plain old IOU" and a "marketable" treasuy bond? Even if the SS fund could and did sell their "bonds" to what degree would the federal governments debt, as a whole, change? Not one bit. So it makes no difference whether we have a "lock box" with Treasury bonds, a "lock box" with plain old IOUs, or a "lock box" with nothin' but air - the total debt the feds will have to pay does not change one iota. It is all a fiction designed to confuse the non-fiscal minded into believing that there is something other than the good graces of future generations behind that Social Secutity "promise". There isn't.

Dave Hall

[Doug Winterburn]

A marketable treasury bond is one held by public and has to be accounted for in the budget as an obligation with repayment and interest terms set. The IOUs in the trust funds are only obligations of one government agency to another and are not accounted for in the budget as there is no current plan for repayment.

You are correct in that publicly held bonds will be paid with the taxes of future generations, but the intragovernmental debt represented by these IOUs has no such payment or interest assurances.

[Swingman]

No one said that things would be "fine" ... the assertion was that if the congress critters had to live by the same rules the rest of us do, that the much needed "fix" to SS would be more forthcoming.

[David Hall]

As a long time Republican who will for lack of a better choice vote for GWB this fall, I must say I would rather have "tax and spend" than the current "don't tax but still spend". The best would be a "tax until it hurts and still don't spend until that hurts too" until ALL the national debt was paid off. I detest the fact that my two little grandsons (as well as hoped for other grandkids and their progeny) will have to pay for things that my generation bought and consumed. We have no pride or self respect in leaving debt to our kids, grandkids and future generations. I detest that Bush is spending at a deficit but the Democrats just gave me the choice of him or the most liberal Democrat in the Senate. Where is Ross when we need him ;)

Dave Hall