'Gang of Six' revives hope for big deal in stalled debt-ceiling talks

Misterveritis said:

But they will never be repaid. We are getting somewhere. You clearly recognize that a box full of IOUs that must be made good by a third party that does not have the money nor the inclination to pay is not an asset.

Click to expand...

Raising the FICA cap to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the foreseeable future. Problem solved! :sun

for decades, the argument against raising the cap or means testing benefits was that it was very important that social security remain an insurance and not a welfare program

let aarp vice president rother make the case, may 19:

A means test for their earned benefits would erode the popular support that has sustained these programs and made them so effective in helping older households. Making Social Security more like welfare would surely lead to weaker benefits — and a growing burden on young people to support struggling elders.

Click to expand...

Social Security, Medicare Are Not Welfare - Benefits - Programs - AARP

the idea of social security as managed retirement is, after all, illusion?

fdr's most enduring contribution is in essence welfare?

our longest serving president would be very disappointed

Catawba said:

Raising the FICA cap to $180,000 makes SS solvent for the foreseeable future. Problem solved! :sun

Click to expand...

It is a lie. I think you know it. Believe it you must. Your belief won't make any difference.

Misterveritis said:

It is a lie. I think you know it. Believe it you must. Your belief won't make any difference.

Click to expand...

I have no reason to doubt the experts, and you have provided no proof to refute them. :sun

bowles-simpson, obama's 2 year fig leaf, states unequivocally all four fixes are in order if social security is to be set right

the cap, the age, the means, the bennies

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs Simpson And Bowles Release Eye-Popping Recommendations | TPMDC

a program, especially one of such staggering scale, which can't keep its fundamental promises, renewed across 5 generations, is a ripoff

To help clear up the misconceptions by many regarding Social Security ~

Top 5 Social Security Myths -

Myth: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a ‘T’). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it’ll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits–and again, that’s without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.

Myth: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than did 70 years ago.3 What’s more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly–since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.

Myth: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn’t need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here’s a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.

Myth: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn’t full of IOUs, it’s full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market–which would have been disastrous–but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.

Myth: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It’s not just wrong — it’s impossible! By law, Social Security funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can’t add one penny to the deficit"

Social Security Under Attack Again | Veterans Today

bowles-simpson deals in myths---LOL!

The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.

The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.

This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.

Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.

Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.

Click to expand...

U.S. funding for future promises lags by trillions - USATODAY.com

the fix is fourfold---caps AND means AND age AND bennies

what a ripoff

washunut said:

My sense is that the line about the cut cap and balance leading to an immediate downgrade is an outright lie. If you think not, please explain.

Click to expand...

Immediate? No? Likely yes. A cut cap balance amendment would basically mean that every time the US federal government had a recession, it would be forced to cut spending or raise taxes. Neither of which are particularly helpful and likely further reduce revenues which leads to even more cutting. It's a vicious cycle which in theory could result in insufficient revenue to service debt. On top that, because the budget is forced to balance, there is no legal capacity to build surpluses to alleviate such a problem. Such an amendment would basically hamstring the government to make good choices.