Ok, I'll buy that, l123. The plan's designers nobly attempted to take only what they expected to need to finance the program. Occam Razor says yes, and overrides Tinfoil Hat. Thanks.

So, here we are, decades later, and the estimations made by the designers and the changes have brought us to this point. The program's not sustainable, and some more changes need to be made. A list of changes has been suggested: deferring the start date, increasing the contribution rate, increasing the income ceiling on qualifying income, means testing recipients, and others, I'm sure, since these were just off the top of my head.

What should be done then? And, more importantly, HOW can it/they be done? All I see is a tragic game of political hot potato, passing the buck, "I don't want to be the one to __________" where __________ is increase taxes, take money from seniors, upset the apple cart, ....

It shows a weakness of political character to fail to discuss this. I don't hold any individual responsible for *solving* it, but ffs, somebody's got to start and encourage the conversation.

The bully pulpit is a magnificent megaphone for such a purpose, but not the only one. We have people whose *job* is to make this stuff work, our Congressmen and Congresswomen. And I should think that there are experts in this field, commonly and disparagingly known as bureaucrats, who have much to offer.

Why must we wait? What is more important than fixing this? Now!

Previous proposals have included:
1. Increase the payroll tax rate
2. Raise the taxable wage cap
3. Raise the retirement age
4. Create mandatory investment accounts

http://money.cnn.com/2006/06/19/reti.../lms_proposal/

And then there is this from fact check during the debates:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/...l_Security.htm

It will be discussed when the hot potato is not hot anymore. When no one cares if the apple cart is upset. It is a big deal to "take money from seniors" because the seniors care. But a lot of people your age, and all of the people my age, don't expect to ever see any money. They can't take my SS money away from me, because I don't ever expect to have any. So in another 20 years or so, we can genuinely look at changing the system without setting off the populace. Until then, there are people who will get mad at any changes, with enough political clout to drown any serious movement in any direction. But you won't be able to make me mad about any changes, because it doesn't matter to me whether I get $0 at 65, or 75, or 85; or whether I get $0 because I make a little too much, or too much, or way too much money; or whether I get $0 because I have my own personal investments, or other government-mandated ones.

The biggest and most influential voting block is the baby boom generation and will be for some time to come. It will be easy to terrify them into doing nothing by simply presenting any proposed changes as a take away.

I firmly believe that the best thing for the country would be to just step up and say "Social Security will cease to exist in its current form for anyone who has not yet reached their 35th birthday on X date. Those between 35 and 55 will have the option between the current social security system and the new program. Anyone under 35 is automatically enrolled in the new program."

The new program is, of course, individual accounts. An established percentage of personal income will go into the individual's account where it will be invested according to their wishes. They will not be directly invested into the markets but rather time horizon funds similar to what the government has in place for the military, etc. (essentially a series of index funds) None of those funds are designed for outstanding growth, but over a 20-40 year period, all will vastly outperform what we are currently getting from the social security system. Individuals will receive what they have in their accounts at retirement age just as they do from their IRA's. Some will have more, some will have less based on their choices for their funds.

This won't happen of course because the politicians like having the "you're gonna be poor and eat dog food" boogeyman to point at. They are supported by the tinfoil lunatics like tw that see a conspiracy behind every bush or a bush behind every idea. The idea will be shot down by a vigorous campaign of misinformation and scare tactics.

but it would work.

Eventually the government will have to step up and say, "the money is gone folks" and pull funds from somewhere. Better sooner rather than later as time will only make the shortfall greater.

No politician will let the program fail. We have repeatedly demonstrated how such programs get protected and sustained. Government plays games with money (bonds, deficit spending, print money, lower interest rates, etc) that make the problem appear solved. Then economics takes revenge numerous years later in dollar depreciation, inflation, etc so that everyone suffers to pay for that program. That way, irresponsible actions by one administration get imposed on everyone years later. The problem is solved by simply mortgaging it. Then popular opinion blames the current administration and Congress.

SS was never at risk. At risk is this nation's future standards of living. Just another example of mortgaging their future to pay for our mistakes.

Damm, I could almost read that one tw. I missed where you tried to blame Bush for all of our ill wills, maybe you forgot. Or just maybe you came to your senses and realized the trouble started a long time ago.

must you poke?

I agree, good post, but I don't agree with the opening point: that no politician will let it fail. It's failing now--it just hasn't ground to a halt yet.

l123's post is excellent, and contains the best clearest point yet:
sooner is better.

I can't disagree with you, I think it is in the grinding to a halt stages as well. One day we are going to wake up and a bunch of hard working folk will not be covered. I think it is important to find a way to infuse more into it sooner than later.

TheMercenary can't grasp anything longer than a sound byte. Bird's of a feather ... George Jr and TheMercenary - mental midgets - people who knew Saddam had WMDs because a sound byte proved it. People so brainwashed as to even fear a simplest question: When do we go after bin Laden?

Another post duplicating what TheMercenary has been posting routinely. When too dumb to understand a simple concept, TheMercenary attacks the messenger. Mental midgets do that - TheMercenary and George Jr's wacko extremists.

Again TheMercenary ignores posted facts - instead attacks the messenger. Classic Rush Limbaugh (wacko extremist) tactics.

What chu talking bout Willis. I said it almost made sense, I mean for a wacko. But hey it really did have a beginning, a middle, and an end with out all the talk like you just broke out of the local mental hospital and were low on your meds. Now the other posts, I really can't vouch for them.:3eye:

And again TheMercenary cannot stick to facts. Well it was simplifed down to a sound byte. So TheMercenary

Come tw. Post your answer for all to see. You stated it now show us the facts.:rolleyes:

It is failing only if rules of accounting are applied. Ross Perot was quite clear about this decades ago. Government routinely perverts responsible spending by numerous (previously cited) techniques. One reason why: government investment instruments always have a highest credit rating. If government defaults (goes the theory), then the entire economy fails. Therefore government can print as much money, investment grade bonds, and emergency spending bills as necessary. Any attempt to require responsible budgets are now subverted by Presidential signings (Cheney has the dictatorship he wanted). As bad as SS looks using accepted accounting standards, the reality is that attitude: "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter".

Such irresponsible spending (spending the SS fund, FAA Trust fund, Highway Trust fund, etc without leaving any IOUs) has depreciated the dollar to 60%. No problem, says this administration. This administration claimed a lower dollar is good for the economy. Recently, a change of heart. A lower dollar has radically increased cost of living (without a corresponding increase in core inflation). Techniques and symptoms that can protect the SS fund at the expense of other things now considered less important (including the nation's standards of living).

Money will never be gone (even though technically it was gone long ago). SS is the third rail that nobody will touch. Moreso, too many Americans don't have the necessary knowledge, responsibility, and desire to do as lookout123 has suggested. There is no viable replacement for SS for too many reasons. A program so necessary in America that we will undermine the entire economy to maintain that legacy system.

Greatest threat to SS and other national programs is wild spending even outside the budget. The $3trillion for "Mission Accomplished" does not appear in a budget. But we will run up those bills anyway using the same accounting techniques that also preserve SS. We can do this because nobody in government or the public seriously worries about massive deficits and creative accounting. Same games that also permitted Enron and current financial market meltdown.