Obama’s Budget

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Seems like the budget does meet the parameters Republicans have been talking about--everything's paid for, plenty of spending cuts in social programs. About the only thing the GOP doesn't seem to like is that it is taking a step toward putting the tax burden back where it belongs. The approach of the President seems to be to put things forward, whether there's a chance of them getting passed or not, and then very publicly offer the Republicans the opportunity to put forth their own plan if they don't like the one the President has proposed. Whether that gets anything passed or not, it puts the GOP in the position of having to do something. I don't think it will take the country's voters very long to get really tired of the Boehner-McConnell Congress, which already sits at a less than 20% job approval rating.

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

Thankfully, it doesn't come up with some massive reduction in Social Security or another privatization Ponzi scheme.

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[Dave Roberts]

If the cap were lifted on contributions to $250,000 annually (indexed to inflation), Social Security would have real money. Also, if administrations would keep their hands out of the trust funds, there would be much more there for more generations. Isn't this where Bush 43 borrowed for his wars?

[William Thornton]

Keith knows better. Ponzi means there are no actual funds and 'investors' are paid with new 'investor' funds.
My SS deposit comes from gummit current revenues and borrowing, not any invested accounts.

I don't think there is any chance of major change, just higher taxes and diminishing benefits.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

Advocacy site Keith. So, SS surplus buys gummit bonds, loans money to pay current obligations with 'guarantee' to repay self in future with...gummit funds. Shell game. I'm not a SS doomsdayer, BTW. As long as gummit can tax, they will send the checks. I predict that a way will be found to manipulate the indexing and obligate gummit in future to repay with less valuable dollars than those paid in.

But all this is a sideshow.

Would you mind explaining how privitazation could be defined as a Ponzi scheme?

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

[William Thornton]

[Dave Roberts]

William is right in the sense that the trust fund began with little in it and relied in the beginning on worker contributions to fund benefits. However, since WWII, the fund has built considerable reserves. My biggest problem is that a "trust fund" speaks of an inviolability for those funds. The problem is that Congress can't keep its cotton pickin' hands off the funds and leave them in trust.