re: #25 mikiesmoky2

my responses in italics just for clarity.

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).

Presuming efforts to present the answer as we readers wish to is unhelpful in a number of ways. One of those is you underestimate the normal latitude the questioner should give a blogger to answer.

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.

Fraud? Really? Meh, mere hyperbole.

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.

I find it a topic that begs that level of latitude in answers presented.

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
Pun intended here-Oversimplified. There are possibilities of sophistication and depth that can all too easily be dismissed as convolution.

CONCEPT: If we recognize a problem, we should attempt to resolve by analyzing the problem, discussing options, and finding the stipulated best option.
Flattery of the obvious here?
mz