Skip to main content

View Diary: Should Americans Forgive the $2.5 Trillion Borrowed From Social Security? (181 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's really impossible and pointless (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leftreborn

    to predict what will happen beyond 30 years. Birth rates, workforce participation, economic activity and retiree health and economic needs will change in ways that we simply can't predict, such that things might be much worse than we predict by 2040, or much better. There's just no way to tell.

    What we CAN do, though, and I believe should do, is reform our social safety net system such that it won't really matter, by increasing, not decreasing benefits, and funding it by making our tax system more progressive. Sure, that'll cost the rich. But I fucking don't give a fucking damn about their fucking whinging.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:58:13 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Couple of funny anecdotes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kovie, blue muon, bewert

      Republicans in Congress were badgering Harry Reid about the need to reform Social Security because of some future disaster they were predicting.  They kept asking him when he was going to do something about it and finally he blurted out, "20 years from now."

      At the same time, Republicans were badgering Nancy Pelosi the same way.  After being asked over and over when she was going to do something about Social Security she blurted out, "Never.  Is that good enough for you?"  

      I don't know if these stories are true but they do make me laugh.

      "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves." - Abraham Lincoln

      by leftreborn on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 08:51:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even if the SSTF runs out of money in 20 years (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leftreborn

        if we don't make any changes to SS, no one's asking what happens after that. Does SS remain in permanent deficit, or are we talking 5, 10, 15 years of deficit, following by another 10-20 or more years of surplus due to more people working than retiring again, and if so, doesn't this suggest a financialization solution to SS's supposed "crisis" in 20 years that doesn't need to involve benefits cuts?

        Seriously, have these people never heard of future value amortization?

        Obviously, they have, because it's precisely what was used to justify supply-side tax cuts that would supposedly pay for themselves.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 09:21:40 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just to add (0+ / 0-)

        It just occured to me that we could possibly avoid having the SSTF run out of money in 20 years merely by investing in the economy over that period to an extent and in a manner likely to generate sufficient extra payroll tax revenues to close that deficit, at present rates and with the cap continued to be adjusted upward according to present formulas and not otherwise lifted. And even if this won't be enough to completely avoid a future deficit, it's more than likely to push it well beyond 20 years. Why aren't Dems saying this?

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 09:33:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (124)
  • Community (62)
  • Bernie Sanders (44)
  • Elections (33)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • 2016 (27)
  • Climate Change (26)
  • Culture (26)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • Environment (22)
  • Science (21)
  • Spam (17)
  • Labor (17)
  • Law (17)
  • Media (17)
  • Republicans (17)
  • Barack Obama (16)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (15)
  • White House (14)
  • International (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site