In response to:

More Evidence the Government is Running a Giant Ponzi Scheme

Galenical Wrote: Nov 30, 2012 5:48 PM
I must echo @elko-mike at 1:34 PM: Actually, I will partially shout it. According to Flemming v Nestor, SS is a TAX. Please re-read mike's comment below. It is the crucial TRUTH. There is NO "lock-box". There never was even before the Flemming decision. Folks, argue all you want over the funding of this coming fiscal disaster called SS. Elko-Mike cites the reality and it is brutal. As of 2010, SS pays out more than it is taking in. Disaster looms.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Dec 01, 2012 9:23 AM
Using Flemming v Nestor as a guidepost about anything regarding SS is dumb. Only people who loathe SS on partisan ideological grounds in the firist place do stupid stuff like that. Nestor was a Communist Party member who left the country many years prior to 1960.

If the USA defaulted on SS payments the country's credit would o in the toilet. And the people would react as violenly as if the Govt suddenly confiscated evrybody's car or some such nonsense.

Me, I'd've given Nestor SS, I'm sort of a soft touch. McCarthyites were still prettty comon in 1960.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Dec 01, 2012 10:46 AM
Galenical,

It seems like you are stitching together two different arguments. The fact that the Sup Ct has said Soc Sec is a tax, and therefore has no "lock box" of funds, means that the programs works much like other taxes/expenditures--i.e. some years it will take in more revenue than they are committed to expend, sometimes they won't. That calculation has largely to do with the state of the national economy, and simply because those numbers are on their head one year, or for a period of time, doesn't mean that they will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future. There are many reforms that could be applied to Soc Sec to address the coming problems, and I don't see anyone sticking their head in the sand.
wtmoore1 Wrote: Dec 01, 2012 10:50 AM
Republicans see a snapshot of any time revenue falls below expenditures as foretelling coming doom. Democrats see it as an opportunity to make policy adjustments and reevaluate the long-term efficacy of the program.

Just because revenues aren't where they need to be right now, and expenditures are too high, doesn't mean that is the way the calculus is going to look 10 years from now, 10 months from now, or in many cases, even 10 days from now.

Many changes can be enacted to address these types of problems. But Republicans would rather use this as yet "another" example of how government just doesn't work...
restoreliberty Wrote: Dec 02, 2012 11:33 AM
I just hope they tax the daylights out of young people and make them work until the die they die. These young folks have life so much easier than earlier generations and they deserve their opportunity to suffer extreme hardship, deprivation, and life of never ending toil. I truly think that the best solution is to do nothing that would change the lifestyle and earnings of older Americans (after all I already have my SS benefits slated to pay my country club membership each month) and instead up the taxes and retirement age on all these youth that have had life way too easy up until now. I truly support the youngest and poorest transferring their labor and earnings to support my indolent vacation filled retirement years.

The U.S. birth rate just hit a new low which has liberal media outlets like NPR pointing out that Medicare and Social Security are in trouble as a result. Why? Because the program isn't being paid for with money former workers put into the system, that's already been spent by the government, but by young people currently working.

The U.S. birth rate hit an all-time low last year, according to a report from the Pew Research Center — just 63 births per 1000 women of childbearing age.

This is a problem. Not just because...