The Goat Pen

I don't think that notion that Social Security is being "raided" is all that usefull. It is a trust fund, one of several held by the Federal Government, and most of the money collected under the Social Security portion of the payroll tax goes to purchase Treasury Securities. That is the sense in which Social Security funds go to fund general government expenditures.

What is more interesting, and I've never been able to understand, is the whole "off-budget," "on-budget" treatment of SS by government accounting and budgetary practice. Its been off and on over the years and is very confusing.

For one thing, it is very difficult to determine how and to what extent SS is a part of the deficit (let alone whether it should be) and its impact on the governmental balance sheet. If you've gott a good reasoned source or explanation for that one I'd like to read it.

sardis wrote:You can argue whether waterboarding is torture. You can argue that we should not use torture to get information. But to argue that torture isn't effective is refuting thousands of years of history...

its torture in as much as we convicted Japanese military personnel for doing it to our American POWs immediately after WWII

>Not long ago SS was a cash cow that funded a portion of the federal deficit. Not any longer.

It wasn't meant to do that.

eCat wrote:how could benefits grow that steadily in just a few years?

The number of people collecting is steadily growing.

You can argue whether waterboarding is torture. You can argue that we should not use torture to get information. But to argue that torture isn't effective is refuting thousands of years of history...

Huh? Every credible research paper I've read on the issue states that torture provides so much convoluted, false and/or uncorroborated "testimony" that it is essentially useless.

For one thing, it is very difficult to determine how and to what extent SS is a part of the deficit (let alone whether it should be) and its impact on the governmental balance sheet. If you've gott a good reasoned source or explanation for that one I'd like to read it

Not off the top of the grey matter (not that much of a policy wonk...just a investment finance guy), but I think I may be able to pull something that clears things up a bit.

This is govt we're talking about, though, so the reasons may not ever be truly clear.

Thanks Bkyln: I would definitely read it.

Bklyn wrote:Baby Boomers coming online? Not really sure. I need to research more.

Beyond that, however, is the issue that many people don't know regarding how SS has been raided throughout time to fund our deficits. As a result, Congress has made SS more dangerous than it should have been. The problem has not really been SS as much as it has been The Hill using SS surplus revenues to plug other holes. Now, SS itself has been made the boogeyman.

Absolutely. SS is not a problem. It's the IOU"s the general revenue has to pay to SS now that is the problem.

SS is still in surplus. I think until 2037. That the government uses the social security payroll revenues elsewhere is not a problem by definition. Its not like the surplus funds could be stored under a mattress.

The issue still gets back to the difficult to understand budget-deficit-debt issue. As long as there is a deficit, there will always be a debt. That is what is so irritating about the once and future budget-deficit-debt problem (or crisis if you wish) debate taking place. The politicians make up all these grand schemes for a short term fix when there is no short term fix. The solutions to the various budget problems need to be solved over time, not in big disruptive chunks. And the decisions need to be sustained over some time.

Small adjustments in social security revenue 'now' would alleviate the potential shortfall in 20 years with little difficulty. But planning ahead is increasingly difficult/impossible for our political parties to sign on to. They, particularly the Republicans, love the sexy, moralistic, and impractical "solutions." And they are religiously against any taxes, let alone tax increases.

eCat wrote:
how could benefits grow that steadily in just a few years?

More social security recipiants
More Medicare costs
More unemployed
more money to save those facing foreclosure

I wasn't really questioning that they were growing , just that ist a perfectly defined even increase year over year. It seemed a bit to formulaic

eCat wrote:I wasn't really questioning that they were growing , just that ist a perfectly defined even increase year over year. It seemed a bit to formulaic

Yeah, a year-to-year basis would be making a few assumptions. Boom-bust cycles in the economy confound any attempt at a straight line look.

Newt Gingrich's Greatest Enemy Continues to Be Himself

Sarah Palin isn't all idiocy and Grizzly Mama platitudes, supposedly

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/pri ... alin/8492/

Yes she is.

Some see her and say "There must be more to her than that!"

And I say, nay nay, there is less. Far far less.

If gas prices jump hours after the price of oil jumps, why don't gas prices fall hours after oil prices fall? Such a fucking scam.

Bklyn wrote:Sarah Palin isn't all idiocy and Grizzly Mama platitudes, supposedly

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/pri ... alin/8492/

interesting read on her. I wonder what those hard core supporters would think when they learned she sided with the democrats to increase corporate taxes?

eCat wrote: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/pri ... alin/8492/


interesting read on her. I wonder what those hard core supporters would think when they learned she sided with the democrats to increase corporate taxes?

you're assuming that they'll let facts influence their decision

This new Ohio governor is really starting to get on my nerves.

What did he do now?