S-C-A-M.

R-I-P-O-F-F.

That's SS.

The only remaining question is, why do Democrats support a scam ripoff like SS ?

Ain't nobody secure….never have been….and never will be.

Two things here. One is the priority thing. Policing the world or attending to the needs of Americans? Which is more important to Americans? We need to reduce defense spending by half over ten years and increase capital gains taxes, income taxes on the rich, payroll taxes on the rich and I wouldn't even be against going back to all the income tax rates of the Clinton era.

And secondly, King, you can say what you will about SS, but at the end of the day the U.S. government is legally bound to pay for those T-bills. You don't like it because, eventually, when those T-bills are cashed, it will be on borrowed money. But it's just like any other country cashing in the T-bills they own…..what are we going to do? renege?

America has plenty of money to right the ship…..there's just no will, no balls.

And where does the "return from the federal government" come from, frank ?

We're almost there.

Now remember that the last people to get the Swine Flu shots will be those on Medicare. Does that not sound like a good way to get rid of many Medicare people? Ah yes, these clowns have it all figured out, even how to thin the ranks faster than new ones hit the age.

No, I don't call it pay as you go. It was pay as you go before 1982, with the rate and the cap adjusted yearly to equalize SS the amount paid out in benefits and the amount it took in taxes. The rate was half what it now is and it didn't take a huge income to hit the cap where tax deductions stopped sometime in the second half of the year. When I got my first paycheck after the reform, I thought the change was pretty drastic.

I know all that money has been spent previously, but since SS invested the money in T bills, SS is due the return from the federal government, just as any investor. In fact, since SS benefits help predominantly lower income Americans, perhaps they should be first in line.

No doubt politician's lie, but when Gore was speaking of the "lockbox", the government's budget was in surplus. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he thought it would be a good time to head off an impending problem. But you didn't answer my question. How did you know that Gore was just kidding?

It's like Obama on the campaign trail saying he wasn't going to force people to buy health care insurance. Now, of course, he's going to force people to buy health care insurance.

But why do you keep going on about 1982 reform, which changed NOTHING really ? Yes, the government keeps raising the payroll tax rate. It HAS to, to cover up the scam. Government has raised the payroll tax rate many times. That should tell you right there that something is seriously amiss with SS. If SS funds were actually invested, they'd be earning interest and the payroll tax rate could be kept low. That's what happens with every other trust fund in existence. Instead, we're being ripped off.

Looking at it from your viewpoint, SS is still in surplus, because the payroll taxes still exceed the payouts to retirees. You call that pay-as-you-go, but it's really just Ponzi, because, for the twentieth time, the government SPENDS THOSE SURPLUSES as general revenue. Again, there's no reserve, no trust fund, no nothing, except IOU's (future claims on taxpayers in the form of T-bonds).

I can't even believe we're arguing about this. SS is Ponzi 101.

But..I…just…can't…let…this….pass……

"The problem is that the deficit spending of the government has diverted SS surpluses to the general fund"

What SS surpluses ? There aren't any. There haven't been any. SS funds have been going into the general fund and being spent practically forever, by design. That's the whole problem. No trust fund, just an SS payroll tax (regular income tax) and a welfare program. No trust fund, no investment for retirement, nada. It's criminal, just like what Bernie Madoff was doing was criminal. It's the exact same thing Madoff was doing, as a matter of fact.

And you know Gore was just kidding. The last thing the Dems want to do is put SS funds in a lockbox. That would expose the scam they've been running on Americans for decades (along with exposing more of the true size of the deficit). The GOP proposed legislation within the last couple years to put SS in a lockbox, and the Dems voted it down.

Mr. Frye,
Thank you, but I think that the major problem with government is that Congress has to whore themselves to accumulate campaign funds. So what we get is hacks with no principles who are in over their heads on most of what they vote about. As to the civil servants who actually do the day to day running of the government, my concern is the revolving door between government and the very institutions that they are supposed to regulate.

Mr. King,
Sorry that I forgot to tell you that I appreciated the balance in you post, you were indeed as critical of the Republicans as the Democrats. I am also glad that you have acknowledged the difference in size between corporations and government. But there is also a difference in their missions. Businesses have a singular mission, to make profit. Government has a multitude of missions to fulfill, all at the same time. So government is not only bigger, but infinitely more complex.

Of course, I can't let your remark about SS being a criminal operation. There is nothing wrong with SS. SS has functioned as designed and its funding is sound, still bringing in more than it spends. The problem is that the deficit spending of the government has diverted SS surpluses to the general fund. Of course when Gore called for securing SS funds in a "lockbox" during the 2000 campaign, he was derided. Now the government finds itself in the position of parents who have spent their children's college funds, having to repay for its profligacy.

I disagree. Government and corporations are very similar. It's just that government is bigger, a lot bigger.

I think government creates as many problems as it solves. for example, SS/Medicare addressed problems, but also created the massive unsustainable liability problem we have, and entitlements are now about 60% of the budget that we have to support via higher taxes (another problem). Not to mention that SS is a criminal operation. Plus, government is force. Corporations don't force you to buy their products. It's YOUR choice.

Corporations do exist to make a profit, but corporations solve all kinds of problems. Our food, cars, gas, houses, clothing, jobs, etc. It was industry that made America the strongest nation on earth. It wasn't government that did it (though government has a legitimate role in planning and oversight. That's why it's called 'government' in the first place). The genius of our country was in limiting government and promoting liberty (ideas we seem to be abandoining).

Not sure I follow the Rev re Myopia. Should low taxes be accompanied by high spending?

And how exactly did the Reverend "remind me of Clinton's success ?" I also singled Clinton and his GOP Congress out as an example of more fiscally responsible government. Did you even read my post, or are you just answering on liberal autopilot ?

I'm in agreement with you about how bad deficit spending is (especially when it's institutional and occurs every year), but when the government doubles in size, as it has under Bush and Obama, I have a difficult time blaming it on 10% tax cuts. If we were paying for all our deficits, we'd have the highest tax rates in American history right now, as I mentioned to the Reverend.

Tax increases aren't a permanent solution to our problem. We can't double the size of government and then just propose simple-minded solutions like "let the rich pay for it." Continual tax increases will bring down the economy just like continual government spending increases will. The only answer is to get government under control.

I'm thinking that if I reach the age to receive Medicare, it probably won't look anything like it does now. The boomers are going to swamp the system.

First of all, I didn't "argue exclusively for spending cuts," and we most definitiely don't have "some of the lowest tax rates in the last 100 years," but if we don't get spending under control, our country won't recover for several decades. It astounds me that some people don't see the doubling of the size of the federal government in a little over a decade as a problem. Apparently, you're one of those. We'll soon be in an almost constant state of recession/depression. Our national debt is almost 100% of GDP, and our household debt isn't in much better shape. If you add in unfunded liabilities (money committed to spend but not paid for. That increased by over $6 TRILLION in 2008), then each American household is in debt to the tune of about $680,000. The only myopia would come with NOT seeing spending as a very serious problem. Spending borrowed money is the ultimate economic illusion of our time. It's creates a false prosperity that is about to come crashing down around our ears.

I think you would agree with me that federal deficts, the national debt, and unfunded liabilities are taxes incurred but not yet paid. We have to pay them sometime, and when we don't pay them, the debt piles up, and we have to pay interest in addition to the principal.

If you add the federal debt on top of our tax revenues (the real amount of taxes incurred), then you'll see we have the HIGHEST tax rates incurred in history. We just aren't paying them. We're leaving them for future taxpayers to deal with. In essence, we are spending future taxpayer dollars so we can live better. Pretty immoral, don't you think ? See the following chart on the Tax Freedom Day website for a graphical representation of what I'm talking about.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday/

Cutting spending is job one, but nobody is currently doing that job. We are only adding to our problems. We are continuing down that unsustainable fiscal path like lemmings heading toward the cliff. It takes a wilfull act of blindness not to see it.

Although it's my opinion that we are already overtaxed, I wouldn't have a big problem with returning to the Clinton tax rates under the circumstances, until we get our financial house in order. Unfortunately, the Clinton tax rates won't come close to covering the gap. Spending has to be slashed, or else.