Actually, that's not true. SS is solvent until 2042 as of
last count, and the long term viability trend is going up
not down. That doesn't mean it should be ignored.


Vic Smith wrote:
Most people don't look at the accounting behind SS.
Manipulation of monies in different ledgers is standard accounting
practice.
Current SS taxes taken directly from a dishwashers paycheck are being
spent as general revenues, while debt is being run up, some of it to
subsidize tax cuts for oil companies, no less. The same SS paycheck
money is entered into the SS ledgers for later repayment to SS
contributors.

My understanding is that the 'surplus' SS revenue, ie
whatever money they take in from SS taxes over and above
immediate payouts to SS benefits, is spent as general
revenue. The SS surplus is what they've been using to mask
the true size of the debt for decades.



Any one who pays SS taxes already has a facsimile individual SS
account and gets a statement each year as to total paycheck
contributions and likely benefits he is entitled to retrieve. The gov
backs up the accounts with bonds. These debt bonds are in essence no
different than the bonds the gov issues to the Chinese commies.

Right... this seems to really PO a number of right-wing
peasant types, who insist that U.S. bonds are "worthless paper."



... If
the Chinese commies expect to collect on U.S. debt, and the oil
companies expect to collect on their U.S. tax cuts, you can damn well
rest assured that Americans who contribute cash out of their paychecks
to SS expect to likewise collect.
Anybody who doesn't expect their SS money back is a sucker, pure and
simple.

If the U.S. gov't defaults on a major portion of it's debt
(*our* debt even though most of us never agreed to it) then
there will be a LOT of trouble that will make squabbling
over Social Security become trivial.




I find it facinating that we can get our panties in a bunch about some
global warming models that may predict a melt down of the ice caps in
a century or two and we ignore a financial melt down that WILL happen
in a decade or two.

The problem here is that a lot of people apparently can't do
math.


Partly. The other problem is they listen to Wall Street BS.

Among others

The propaganda effect is tremendous. Hence you hear an insurance plan
(SS) which has operated successfully for the better part of a century,
and backed by the U.S. government, called a "Ponzi Scheme."

Well, it is a Ponzi scheme, only legal.

Wall Street got directly into the pocket of workers with 401's, whose
funds are commonly raped by fund managers and their Wall Street
cronies. Some do ok and some don't, but it's a gamble. SS isn't a
gamble.

BINGO!
That's the point that all the supporters of President Bush's
recent attempt to loot SS cannot stand to utter. Social
Security can't be compared to investment performance because
it's not an investment.



... It may need modification in the future as it has in the past,
but can never leave certain minimum payout, and government guarantee.
You betcha Wall Street wants that 15% combo from every employer/worker
paycheck going right into the accounts they control.

Yep... with kickbacks to the PACs of the politicians who
help them get their mitts on it. Vice President Cheney was
gloating about this rather openly.


I'm all for savings/investment, but want control. Having seen a
number of 401k offerings, the investment options are limited and
unattractive compared to the open market. That non-competiveness
isn't accidental.


It's part of what you pay for a supervised... and supposedly
safer... retirement investment. FWIW I agree with you.



If the gov tries to screw SS, add ****ed off retirees, massed for the
"20 Million Geezer March on Washington."


But they're all terrorist-coddling fag libby-rulls, just
like AARP and the AMA and DIA and U.N. and the Supreme Court
(except for one brief moment in fall of 2000) and those
generals in the Pentagon who actually wanted a force on the
ground large enough to stabilize Iraq after the invasion.



BTW, polling shows the so-called Tsunami which tossed the Republicans
from the Congress was caused by a number of complaints, and I think
one I saw said 42% Iraq, 39% economy. If the Dems don't address that,
they'll be tossed out next cycle.


I just hope they'll act in good faith and not indulge in
partisan muscle-flexing, witch-hunting, and squandering
supertanker-loads of our hard-earned tax dollars.

DSK