American Warmonger

Oh, you know how it goes. If it isn't dealt with properly now, eventually it will fall apart. When that happens the dems will blame the republicans, and specifically that evil "W". And then they will quickly raise taxes yet again, because that is their solution to almost everything.

What "solution" has been offered by the right? You do understand that they no longer claim that diverting payroll taxes into private accounts does not do anything to head off insolvency problems, right? In fact, they are on record stating that they do not. Hence "ownership" has become the new focus.

How is it fair to offer no plan to address solvency yourself while simultaneously berating the other side for not offering one themselves?

Despite that, Democrats have offered solutions (should one be needed . . . keep in mind that the numbers the GAO uses to predict the 2041 "bankruptcy date" assume an historically low 1.9% GDP growth. Just because someone yells "crisis" does not necessarily mean A: there really is one or B: you must address it or C: you must dismantle the current system). Yes, Patty, one of those solutions requires additional tax revenue. Any tax increase has been rejected out of hand by the Republicans, however. They say "no" to a proposal on one hand while claiming we have no proposal on the other. Figure that.

Other scenarios require small adjustments in retirement age or benefits, restructuring of income growth numbers, raising/eliminating the income cap, etc. Again, any of these could be employed, or a mixture of them, if we were serious in addressing solvency past the baby boomer's demographic hump.

It is my opinion however that the Republicans pushing this issue are not in fact serious about that particular problem. What they are concerned with is eliminating the foundation of SS, and thereby ending the system as we know it.

Waht is not true is to state that "Democrats criticise without offering a solution". To state that is to compare apples with oranges. Democrats do have solutions to solvency, but what they are actually criticising is the elimination of the "security" in Social Security. Republicans point to the solvency problem (if it is one), propose a "solution" that (by their own admission) has nothing to do with solvency at all, and berate the other side for not addressing solvency (even though they did) and not embracing their plan to undermine the program altogether.

"At least we have a plan" seems to be the new talking point. But "a plan for what?" is the question.

Let me ask you this . . . what is the Republicans plan to push back the 2041 date?

Is there one? Hint: No.

Everything you accuse the Dems of in this post comes right back at the Republicans as well.

"You do understand that they no longer claim that diverting payroll taxes into private accounts does not do anything to head off insolvency problems, right?" was supposed to read; "You do understand that they no longer claim that diverting payroll taxes into private accounts does anything to head off insolvency problems, right?"

Oops. Double-negatives.

YES! I knew I'd pull you out of the woodwork with SS!

Gimmie a few. I'm at work and doing a food run.

Almotst forgot, congrats on your new job.

Any "solution" by the government that requires a tax hike will be rejected out of hand be me personally. Not that anyone gives a hoot what I think.

It's been my experience that the government pretty much does whatever it wants. What "we the people" want hasn't been relevant for a long time. What we know about politicians is only what they choose to tell us, and that information is always misleading. So we vote for the candiate that tells us what we want to hear, and they proceed to do whatever floats their boat. Why on earth would I want to give MORE money to people like.

I don't pretend to be smart enough to know if the republican's ideas are good ones or not. What I do know is that throwing good money after bad is NOT a good idea.

Okay, first off the challenge was to find the Democratic answer. It was not to counter the argument with another argument. (Which fallacy was that? Straw-man I think it was?)

You provided no democratic solution. I will provide one utilizing the plan under attack: Private accounts.

Private accounts do not directly effect the outcome of Social Security. This is true. They do have an indirect effect though. First, you may want to go read my college research paper as reference and come back.

(Now before you come back at me and claim the entire paper was worthless remember that this has passed the eyes of multiple professors, both liberal and conservative.)

So here we go, PSAs not directly effect SS but reduce the required funds for the total SS pool located in the general fund. In addition to that, based on the stock market over the 50 years leading up to the new millenium, will increase above and beyond the SS COLA by 8.73% (removing the 1% processing fee based on the TSP structure.)

That 8.73% will provide an anual increase to the SS structure on the whole as I doubt this money will be removed from the general fund. The money will earn it's anual interest and move on to the retirement generation.

Additionally, (this part is just my idea) you could skim another percent or two off the top of the younger generation's PSA payout just to ensure the current SS can remain intact.

The effect on the stock market as a whole would be insignificant at best. While the stock market deals in trillions of dollars as a whole the influx of funds would only amount to around 202 billion, if utilized to its fullest.

~~~

I am well aware of the two methods used in the past to try and patch social security (upping the age and increasing the tax) but both of them cause increased stressors on GDP. This is the "fix-a-flat" that the senators are referring to. How many "patches" are needed until we start looking at the engine cyliders that are going bad?

Almost forgot, security in SS:

If the stock market crashes to the point of effecting personal accounts CEOs of fortune 500 companies will be eating cat food along side the elderly. There will be much bigger fish to fry than social security...like which country to become part of, Mexico or Canada?

"congrats on your new job"

Thank you. Lemme know if you need a car.

"YES! I knew I'd pull you out of the woodwork with SS!"

If a response by me is that exciting to you, you could have started by not banning me in the first place. But water under the bridge.

Patty: "What I do know is that throwing good money after bad is NOT a good idea."

What is the "bad" in this case. The whole concept of Social Security?

. . . the rest later. Sleepy time.

That was me (duh). Your new comment system does not "remember" me, even when I tell it to, Jeremy.

Comments doesn't remember me either, and also doesn't like my little doggie picture.

The U.S. government, (and probably all governments) are notorious for being wasteful with tax dollars. There is no fiscal responsibility, and no accountability. Our government is like an addict. Always begging for or demanding more money for food, shelter or clothing, but spending it on the drug of their choice. That is unacceptable to me, and I will not support it.

I don't know if democrats are less responsible than republicans. What I do know is that in my home state the republicans are trying to pass a law requiring government performance audits, and the democrats are fighting it tooth and nail. If they are being responsibe with OUR money what are they afraid of?

From all my perusing of dem sites, blogs, DU, Congressional homepages, etc, the "ideas" boil down to:
1. raise taxes. So, lets take more money away from people now that they cannot do something with to plan for their retirement.
2. raise the retirement age. They cannot really explain how this can do more then be a temporary fix, or a fix at all.
3. raise the earnings rate for to above $80k, but don't give those people any of the money
4. Complain
5. obstruct.
6. whine.

If I remember correctly, the Dems didn't like Clinton's plan all that much, either. Less money for the Gov, specifically Dems, if they ever regain power, to spend out of that money collected.

None of them offer anything substantive. And I dare them to prove me wrong.