Lets have a Social Security adjustment just like the Congress and Senate has. They don’t even have to tell us anymore how much money they are giving themselves each year.

I’m no genius, but I can see we aren’t doing our part by letting these people stay and represent us. I thought they were suppose to do what the majority of the people they represent wants. That ain’t happening folks sorry to say.

Just fed up

In this way, we are simply moving existing debt to the social security trust fund, and NOT GOING FURTHER INTO DEBT!!!!

It is precisely the fact that we go further into debt each time that we consider the fund to be “raided”. The rest is immaterial.

Eric, continue the discussion & remind FICA payers they have no control over the `peoples pension.`
It`s the Constitution that should be defended, since it doesn`t authorize Socialist Insecurity as a function of the central government.
It`s FICA payers who should be defended, since they`re forced to put their own money at risk of being forfeited to the government, it they don`t live to collect any benefits, or have no eligible survivors.
President Reagan`s budget director, David Stockman, offered a great solution to address this corrupt policy…`if the Securities & Exchange Commission had jurisdiction over the Executive & Legislative branches, many of us would be in jail.` Amen.
Wasn`t Mr. Madoff charged by the SEC?
Please send an email address for Bill Cohan.

Here’s the problem. Social Security is not something I pay for for me. Because it is not, the system is financially unsustainable.

Every single payment I make is paid to an unknown individual that is retired. When I retire, my children will do the same.

The biggest problem with SS/Medicare is the demographics are based on unrealistic estimates of life exptectancy. Currently, SSA estimates expectancy to rise 11.8 years this century. This rate is up from a little over 9 years in 2003. It is a moving target.

Sadly, during the nineteenth century life expectancy increased 12 year, and during the twentieth, 29 years. Over the course of the next two centuries there is not much doubt life expectancy will increase. Short of war and pestilence, life expectancy will move over 100 years and likely exceed 140 years. There is no tax based solution that will support these metrics that would not also condemn the economy to serdom.

T

We have a government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich!!
Not what Lincoln suggested in his day. The politicians are just the puppets of the extremely rich who really really call the shots from behind closed doors!! Who knows maybe they are pushing all of us to see how far they can go with their raping the working class of America!!

Having said that, I disagree that the system of investing in Treasuries is any kind of scam. How will they cover those Treasuries? The same way they pay interest and principal on any other Treasuries they issue. Treasuries are still considered the safest investment in the world (unless you want Swiss bonds, and there aren’t enough of them to make a difference). In fact, Treasuries are considered safer than ever these days. Is there an alternative? I don’t see one that’s politically doable. What else would the surplus be invested in? The GOP think they have an answer: private accounts, which I would characterize as welfare for Wall Street and inappropriate for people of low or moderate income.

I personally think we should revisit those New Deal ideas about investing the surplus in the real economy. But that’s not likely to happen soon. In the meantime, Treasuries are OK with me. Treasuries are basically an investment in the government’s stewardship of the economy, which means its ability to keep the economy growing, thus increasing tax revenues and maintaining its ability to service the debt (not to mention supply services and benefits the public needs). The best way to address concerns about the government’s ability to service those Treasuries, then, would be to agitate for economic policies that create good jobs in this country, instead of policies that encourage companies to outsource them.

As to the retirement age being raised and benefits cut, I disagree that either of these things has to happen. The solution here, too, is to adopt economic policies that grow the economy. That means more payroll tax revenue, which means less pressure on Social Security. The 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act were supposed to solve Social Security’s long-term funding problem. The reason they didn’t was not because of the baby boomers’ retirement – that was already predicted – but because wages have stagnated in this country for most of the last 40 years. That was not anticipated. If Congress wants to “save” Social Security, the best way is to give American workers a raise.

I just read the People’s Pension. I disagree with some of what you’ve written, but I really respect the amount of time and effort you put into the book. I think it’s a good history and I feel like I learned a lot by reading it.

Maybe I am missing something but it seems to me that Social Security would not be an issue if the Government hadn’t spent the excess it was collecting when the ratio of workers to retirees was 18-to-1 in 1950 to 4-to-1 in 1965 to 2-to-1 by 1990. Would it? Why did they do that? Was that really necessary? Putting the excess in US Treasuries and then spending the cash? That appears to have been a huge mistake, and quite frankly a scam of sorts.

How will they cover those Treasuries? Print money? Or even worse raise taxes? We the people have already been taxed to provide the money. They’ll tax us again to fix a problem that they caused? I want to live in a country that helps people that are less fortunate and provides a leg up. But it’s outrageous that the retirement age has to be raised and benefits cut due to the Government’s unethical, incompetent behavior. And if they raise taxes to cover their blunder it’s even more of a scam than I thought. What a mess. Shame on them.

Jim