re: #24 Rightwingconspirator

Since S/S has an accounting as you call it, and a projected shortfall by 2017 due to falling revenues, the above will soon become mere academic distinctions. (CBO numbers) While it may be entertaining to find where pudits are wrong, it’s cheap wentertrainment, that reflects on the media pundits enjoy (cable TV) more than anything else. Perhaps we should address your question to those legislators on economic or S/S oversight committees. Why anyone on the intel or foreign relation committee would need a detailed understanding in the absence of s/s legislation is questionable.

Whether we account for this in the regular budget, or hold it separate, it’s the very same Federal Government doing what it does by law. It’s the very same revenue base to draw from.

Unless you expect S/S to change, s/s withholding from paychecks will have to increase. Or outlays will be cut. Means testing, changing the age, whatever may be chosen, is not yet visible in the current political landscape.

Entitlements are the deficit elephant in the room in the coming years no matter how you do your accounting.

In the effort to walk a path towards a destination, the first step must be taken.
This “step” of a SS discussion is proving more difficult than I had contemplated.
It appears that readers find it difficult to not convolute this “step” (question).

Having stated the obvious, yes, I do expect the logistics of SS to be altered. The final step to that destination must be taken, thus I will try to get this back on the path.

The purpose of THIS step is to remind us that SS is NOT part of the federal deficit. It is a stand-alone fund, which has never been actuarially sound for many reasons including, but not limited to improper design, greed, eligibility, uses of the funds, et cetera.

As will be shown, the SS set-up is a fraud upon the workers who pay into it.

STEPS:
1) The SS trust fund’s surplus or deficit has nothing to do with the federal deficit, except for a fraudulent effort as a facade to mitigate the federal deficit. The “unified” presentation is a classic convolution.

2) What is SS?

3) Should we have a SS?

4) If we agree that there should be SS, how should it be funded?

Simple = good
Convolution = not too good

CONCEPT: If we recognize a problem, we should attempt to resolve by analyzing the problem, discussing options, and finding the stipulated best option.

mz