# Social Security debate (again): Whats to be done? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 26, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610 "2005-05-26T15:10:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/1 "2005-05-26T15:10:55Z")
Myself, I’m still undecided on the whole Social Security issue, though I’ll be honest and say I’m leaning more towards the idea of an individual accounts CHOICE than…well, whatever the Democrats aren’t currently proposing (or than ‘lets just keep the status quo and see what happens’). Perhaps I’m wrong though and the Democrats really DO have a plan…if so, here is the place to put it. If they don’t, then perhaps some Dem dopers would like to propose something on what can be done about the Social Security system. From reading on [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) today it seems that there is a blitz of misinformation streaming out of the Dems these days about the whole issue. There are actually 2 separate articles there discussing Dem misinformation…and to my mind [this one](http://www.factcheck.org/article319.html) is a wopper, as multiple Senators appearently are using the calculator discussed in the article to ‘prove’ their point. > [@](#): > > Summary > > Democrats have been using a web-based “calculator” to generate individualized answers to the question, “How much will you lose under Bush privatization plan?” For young, low-wage workers it projects cuts of up to 50% in benefits. And a $1-million TV advertising campaign is amplifying the claim, saying, “Look below the surface (of Bush’s plan) and you’ll find benefit checks cut almost in half.” > > In fact, the calculator is rigged. We find it is based on a number of false assumptions and deceptive comparisons. For one thing, it assumes that stocks will yield average returns of only 3 percent per year above inflation. The historical average is close to 7 percent. > > The calculator’s authors claim that they use the same assumption used by the Congressional Budget Office. Actually, CBO projects a 6.8 percent gain. I found this especially disturbing: > [@](#): > > What CBO Says > > To justify their lowball 3 percent figure, the calculator’s authors state that it is “the same assumption used by the CBO for its Social Security analysis.” That’s not entirely true. > > It’s a fact that the Congressional Budget Office did publish a study of a proposed system of individual accounts in which it used a “risk-adjusted” figure of 3 percent for one part of its analysis. But in another part of the same study the CBO assumed that stocks would return an average of 6.8 percent. A series of 500 different computer simulations of possible future outcomes showed a very low likelihood that actual future returns would be as low as 3 percent, and a decent probability that returns would be even better than 7 percent. > > The “risk-adjusted” figure is an arcane concept that we won’t attempt to dissect here, except to say that it is essentially equal to the expected return on risk-free, interest-bearing Treasury securities. And by using that figure in one set of calculations, CBO was not predicting stock gains of a measly 3 percent over inflation. That would be a massive turn for the worst in the economy. > > Just to be sure about that, we checked with the CBO’s director, Douglas Holtz-Eakin: > > [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org): Does CBO’s use of a 3 percent “risk-adjusted” figure constitute a prediction by CBO that equities (stocks) will return only 3 percent in the future? > > Holtz-Eakin: That’s the way its been portrayed. That’s wrong. We assume that equities will return 6.8 percent in the future. Obviously if you calculate future benifits at a 3% return (instead of 5, 6, or more depending on who’s projection you believe), and then compare it to the current system (which is not supportable past the 2040’s if memory serves) then you are going to get your ‘50%’ cut in benifits. But…well, if you have to use this kind of misinformation, doesn’t that kind of say something in itself? I mean…if the Republican plan (such as it is…I STILL haven’t heard Bush et al actually nail down exactly what they are going to do, though I might have missed it…I’ve been out of the country for quite a while and only recently back where I have internet access) is REALLY that bad, why do they need to use this kind of misinformation to demonize it? Anyway, what I’d like to come away from this thread with is an idea of what can be done (if anything) to ‘save’ the Social Security system. Whats the ‘best’ plan…what should be done? What is the ‘best’ plan coming from your party of choice? What do you see as wrong with said plan coming from the opposition parties (which ever they may be to you)? -XT ---
**Author:** ![yanceylebeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yanceylebeef/32/12290_2.png) [@yanceylebeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yanceylebeef)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/2 "2005-05-26T15:18:58Z")
The Democrats don’t need a plan, because Social Security doesn’t need fixing. Simply overturning the tax cuts Bush pushed through in his first term will keep the system solvent for the forseeable future. To paraphrase the arguably partisan, but factually correct Josh Marshall, the only problem with social security lies in the presidents runaway spending. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/3 "2005-05-26T15:24:33Z")
In the spirit of fairness, [here](http://www.factcheck.org/article313.html) is a good debunk of a pro-Bush group exaggerating the current state of SS: [QUOTE] In a new TV ad, Progress for America exaggerates the true state of Social Security’s finances by comparing it to the Titanic. The ad claims the system will go “bankrupt” if nothing is done and that we must rescue the program “before it hits the iceberg.” Actually, neutral experts predict the system can pay between 70 and 80 percent of currently scheduled benefits even if the Trust Fund is exhausted, which isn’t predicted to happen for another 37 years, at least. The ad also touts Bush’s plan for “voluntary personal retirement accounts” as though that would improve the system’s finances. But even the White House now acknowledges that individual accounts alone do nothing to fix the system’s long-term financial shortfall. [QUOTE] > [@](#): > > Social Security isn’t the Titanic > > The ad opens by showing an iceberg on screen while an ominous voice says, “Some people say Social Security is not in trouble. Just like some people thought the Titanic was unsinkable.” The announcer continues to say that soon the system “will be in the red, spending more than it takes in.” > > It’s true that under current law, the Trustees predict that the system will pay out more than it collects in taxes in the year 2018, at which point it will require money from general tax revenues to cover benefits owed to retirees. However the ad says, “If nothing is done, it will go bankrupt,” and we’ve said before that the use of the term “bankrupt” could give the wrong impression. Although the word has been used by Democrats and even journalists in the past, it could still be easily misunderstood since Social Security will not go out of business, nor will it disappear like a sunken ship. The system would continue to pay benefits – just not as many. > > According to the assumptions of the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary, the current system can pay out full benefits until the year 2042, when the Trust Fund will be exhausted. And even then, the chief actuary predicts that without any tax increases, Social Security can still continue to pay 73 percent of promised benefits, though that figure would fall each year thereafter, reaching only 68 percent by 2078. > > The Congressional Budget Office is even less pessimistic about the system’s finances, predicting it won’t go “in the red” with benefits exceeding taxes until 2020, two years later than the actuary predicts. CBO also projects that the Trust Fund will last an additional 10 years, drying up in 2052. At that point CBO forecasts that the system can pay 78 percent of what beneficiaries are owed under current law. > > The ad does get some basic facts right. Social Security faces mounting demographic challenges that only worsen with time as the baby boomers start to retire and birth rates continually decline. The ad correctly notes that in 1950 there were actually 16.5 workers to support each beneficiary, whereas today that ratio has fallen to only 3.3 workers. The Trustees predict the number will continue to drop so that by the time workers in their 20’s start to retire in 2040 there will be only 2 workers per beneficiary. Its so easy to mislead people (and even politicians) with statistics. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/4 "2005-05-26T15:33:11Z")
> [@yanceylebeef](#): > > The Democrats don’t need a plan, because Social Security doesn’t need fixing. > Simply overturning the tax cuts Bush pushed through in his first term will keep the system solvent for the forseeable future. > To paraphrase the arguably partisan, but factually correct Josh Marshall, the only problem with social security lies in the presidents runaway spending. Can you back any of that up as a long term solution? Because frankly it smacks of denial to me. Social Security has been in trouble for a long time…or the knowledge that it WILL be in trouble has been out there for a long time. Long before Bush and his cuts. I’m reading through another article on [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) that seems to say that even raising taxes higher than the dreaded Bush tax cuts won’t save the system long term. So…can you back up that the system really is solid, and that it was just Bush’s tax cuts that are causing the problem. In addition, can you back up your assertion that simply restoring the tax system to pre-Bush cut is enough to fix things long term (or even short term)? Thanks, XT ---
**Author:** ![yanceylebeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yanceylebeef/32/12290_2.png) [@yanceylebeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yanceylebeef)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/5 "2005-05-26T15:40:25Z")
Yes, but I’m at work right now, so it will take me a little while before I can get back to the board. yanceylebeef ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/6 "2005-05-26T15:51:30Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I STILL haven’t heard Bush et al actually nail down exactly what they are going to do, though I might have missed it… The president hasn’t laid out a specific plan, really. His approach seems to be simply trying to identify the problem and raise general awareness of it. He has said some specific things he is not willing to consider such as raising the payroll tax. He also has said some specific things he does want to do, like provide private investment accounts. However, all other reasonable options are on the table. There are drawbacks to Bush’s approach. The Democrats aren’t hesitating to tear into Bush’s “plan” as your OP points out. Their attacks are without merit, of course, if for no other reason than there is no plan to attack yet. Also, Bush looks sort of indecisive right now, and appears to be losing traction on this issue. However, if Bush did come out from the begining with a specific plan for social security than it would just give his opponents more ammunition to use against him. Whatever final solution Bush does come up with, there will be some negative element to it that can be attacked. By painting with broad brush strokes, Bush is outmanuvering his opponents in some sense. It’s clear to anyone now that the Democratic leadership and the AARP and others are opposed to any change in Social Security. They don’t care what plan Bush comes up with. * * * Social Security is a flawed program that was set up incorrectly from the begining. There should always have been private accounts. The program is regressive. It is expensive for the taxpayers and provides a horrible rate of return. This is going to keep getting worse not better. Its a bad investment that no one would choose to make in a free market. Workers have no control over their Social Security money. If they die, the contributions cannot be passed on to their family. Most younger workers do want private accounts. Most poeple correctly realize that Social Security is a failing system that’s headed for bankruptcy. Eventually, we will get a privatized account system in place. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later before the cost is more than we all can bear. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/7 "2005-05-26T15:56:22Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > So…can you back up that the system really is solid, and that it was just Bush’s tax cuts that are causing the problem. In addition, can you back up your assertion that simply restoring the tax system to pre-Bush cut is enough to fix things long term (or even short term)? Bush didn’t cut the payroll taxes that are supposed to be funding social security. The system shouldn’t need infusions of cash outside of payroll taxes to keep it from collapsing. That tax rates have any effect on social security at all is a failing of the existing system. With private accounts the rate of other taxes isn’t a factor at all. Those that opt in to the new system would see their money grow through the financial miracle of compounding interest and would retire with huge nesteggs that they have direct control of. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/8 "2005-05-26T15:59:21Z")
No worries. Just for drill I’ll post what I was talking about so you can read through it at your leasure: Yet [another](http://www.factcheck.org/article309.html) [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) article (I’m just reviewing all I missed in the past 4 months and catching up on one of my favorite sites) > [@](#): > > Summary > > Can the current Social Security system – without individual accounts – be fixed with only “a few moderate changes,” as AARP suggests in a recent newspaper ad? A look at some of proposals that have been verified by neutral experts shows that they rely more on tax increases than benefit cuts. Whether the required changes are “moderate” or not will be a matter of opinion, but readers can judge for themselves by looking at the details we present here. > > We note here that some proposals turn out to be only temporary fixes. They put the system in balance for a 75-year period immediately following enactment but leave it with a large and growing gap between benefits and taxes at the end. Worse, such “75-year fixes” actually come undone within a few years, just like the 1983 package of tax increases and benefit cuts that was supposed to solve the system’s financing problems, but didn’t. Achieving sustainable solvency requires bigger changes. > [@](#): > > In 2003, Ball proposed a combination of tax increases and one slight benefit cut that would have put the system in balance for the 75 years following enactment – but not permanently. “The (Ball) proposal would not achieve sustainable solvency,” Social Security chief actuary Stephen Goss said in an analysis that was made public on the Social Security Administration’s website. > In other words, given current long-term trends as projected by the system’s actuaries, Ball’s proposal would postpone insolvency by several decades, but not prevent it. Furthermore, the system would appear to be in balance only for a short time and actuaries would soon be projecting new 75-year deficits. > [@](#): > > Ball’s 2003 plan would start with two relatively modest changes: > > Phase in higher taxes on high-income earners . The increase would fall on the top 6% of earners, gradually raising the amount of earnings subject to the Social Security taxes to about $145,000 a year (in current dollars), up from $90,000 at present. > Trim the annual cost-of-living increases given to all beneficiaries by an estimated 0.22 per cent per year. This would be done by switching from the current inflation index to a new one devised by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which Ball calls more accurate. Ball’s sole benefit change would do about half as much as the tax increase to narrow the 75-year gap, the actuary calculated. > [@](#): > > Taken together, these two measures would cut the 75-year deficit roughly in half and postpone the exhaustion of the trust fund by 13 years. But they would still leave the system nearly as bad off at the end of the 75-year period as it is now. Overall, promised benefits would exceed taxes by just over 5 percent of payroll under Ball’s proposal (compared to 5.9 percent under current projections), and the shortfall would be growing worse each year. So, even with a tax increase on the top 6% earners AND a cut in one of the benifits the long term viability of SS seems in doubt. And there is more to his plan: > [@](#): > > So, Ball included a second and much larger tax increase in his proposal, but delayed its effect. The third part of Ball’s 2003 proposal would: > > Schedule an across-the-board tax increase, adding 2.44 percentage points to the current rate of 12.4 percent (shared equally between workers and employers), starting 35 years in the future . > Scheduling a tax increase of that size 35 years in the future might make the Ball plan seem more “moderate” to today’s voters, since most of them would be retired and no longer paying payroll taxes by the time it went into effect. That 2.44 tax increase would postpone insolvency until the end of the 75-year period, but it still wouldn’t solve the problem permanently. According to the actuary’s calculations, it would still leave promised benefits exceeding taxes by 2.71 percent of payroll in the 75th year. That would be less than half the current projected gap, but it would be growing larger each year after. This includes an across the board tax increase in 35 years…and it STILL won’t ‘fix’ the system, just extend out the time before it goes tits up. So, in 2004 he came up with a more radical system: > [@](#): > > Another Temporary Fix: Ball’s 2004 Plan > > Ball put forth another plan in 2004, also relying largely on tax increases and also failing to achieve sustainable solvency. > > His current plan starts with the same two features as the 2003 plan – a tax increase on upper-income workers and a 0.22 percent per year reduction in annual cost-of-living increases for beneficiaries. But to close the rest of the 75-year gap Ball now proposes: I won’t post the whole thing here…just their analysis of the results. > [@](#): > > Like his 2003 proposal, however, Ball’s current plan wouldn’t achieve sustainable solvency, an idea he dismisses as impractical. “I find that ridiculous,” he told [FactCheck.org](http://FactCheck.org). Ball says any number of current assumptions could turn out to be wrong and that nobody can foresee how trends will change over the next 75 years. > > But unless trends change quickly, and for the better, Ball’s proposal would leave Social Security facing another large 75-year deficit after only a few years. Ball himself acknowledges this in his own 2004 proposal: > > Robert M. Ball: We should be aware, however, that future actuarial estimates may show a substantial deficit developing as the 75-year estimating periods move further and further into the future. This is because, other things being equal, each new 75-year period is slightly more expensive than the previous one. > > That’s just what happened after 1983 when a bipartisan compromise raised taxes and made other changes that put the system in balance for the 75 years following – but not permanently. They go on with what they consider a ‘A Permanent Fix’, but I’ll let you check that out if you like. Reguardless, I think that this all adds up to requiring some fairly radical measures both on increasing taxes AND decreasing benifits to some group if the system is to be viable. Certainly I have doubts that just bringing reversing the Bush tax cuts would do much of anything to make the system viable long term. I’ll await your cites later though and go from there. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/9 "2005-05-26T16:01:30Z")
Obviously my last post was directed at yanceylebeef, not Debaser. 🙂 -XT ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/10 "2005-05-26T16:12:34Z")
Remove the cap. Otherwise, not much. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/11 "2005-05-26T16:21:12Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Remove the cap. Otherwise, not much. Wouldn’t that make the system something other than what it was originally intended? I know that ‘soak the rich’ is like the motto of the majority on this board, but removing the cap would change the very nature of Social Security. Putting aside the unfairness of it (another thing you could do if you were like minded is simply cut or eliminate SS benifits completely to anyone making above some arbitrary X income level or have Y in assets), do you think it would be a good idea to essentially make SS another welfare program? -XT ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/12 "2005-05-26T16:26:03Z")
> [@yanceylebeef](#): > > The Democrats don’t need a plan, because Social Security doesn’t need fixing. I respectfully disagree. Consider the following. In **2008** the first of the baby boomers start to retire. That means no more contributions to the system from those guys, and they begin to draw their benefits. Ouch! We are headed for a system with two workers for every retiree. Can’t sustain that for long. Something has to give. Bush destroyed the economy. This has to be true because I’ve heard it so often the last few years. Maybe that last point should be the start for a new thread. But I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the following dialogue: Leftist: Bush destroyed the economy. There’s no jobs left, just a couple of McJobs that pay $1.79 an hour. Everything has been outsourced. The deficit will kill us. Everyone will be bankrupt within the hour. Plan B: How about Social Security? Leftist: No problem, it’s guaranteed for at least 60 years. Maybe someone who believes that Bush destroyed the economy and that SS is stable could explain to me how that works. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/13 "2005-05-26T16:45:46Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Remove the cap. Otherwise, not much. Removing the cap would be a great way to pay for the transition costs to a private account system. To simply remove the cap without changing the existing system would waste the best card in our hand. It would prolong the life of Social Security but not fix any of the underlying problems with the flawed system. Also there is the simply unfairness issue. If you remove the cap are you also going to increase the payments for those who contribute huge amounts on their high incomes? Or are you just going to raise more revenue into the system and not ever pay those people back? If so, that’s unfair to them. As **xtisme** points out this would essentially make the program another kind of welfare. Public support for it would erode. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/14 "2005-05-26T16:48:26Z")
The problem is not that SS didn’t take in enough to cover future retirees; for years there were something like 17 workers for each retiree, which created an enormous surplus. The problem was, Congress and the White House couldn’t keep their hands off, so now the SS till is full of IOU’s. The problem is, no President or Congress wants to be responsible for paying back those IOU’s which would mean massive tax increases, so they have declared that there is a “crisis”, and proposed the private accounts as a way to avoid paying back the money they borrowed. The solution to the SS dilemma is to pay back the surplus by raising taxes that should never have been cut it the first place. Any other solution merely shifts responsibility from the wealthy (who benefited most by the IOU’s in the first place, and the subsequent tax cuts) to the middle class and poor. But Republican politicians, while big on “accountability” for others, rarely prescribe it for themselves. Pity. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/15 "2005-05-26T16:58:38Z")
> [@Plan B](#): > > I respectfully disagree. Consider the following. > > In **2008** the first of the baby boomers start to retire. That means no more contributions to the system from those guys, and they begin to draw their benefits. Ouch! I’m smack in the middle of the Baby Boom generation, and I’m expecting to retire around 2023. A few years past 65, but only a few. > [@](#): > > We are headed for a system with two workers for every retiree. Can’t sustain that for long. Something has to give. (a) It’ll probably be a bit higher than 2, since the Trustees project that immigration will drop off considerably before too long. That finding is controversial, to say the least. (b) What has to ‘give’ is productivity. And it has been giving, and will apparently continue to be the gift that keeps on giving. If we’d gone from 17 workers per retiree to 3 workers per retiree while staying at 1937 productivity levels, we’d have long since been up a creek. We’re not. > [@](#): > > Bush destroyed the economy. This has to be true because I’ve heard it so often the last few years. Strawman much? Of course, it’s quite possible that he might still do that. Given that a hiccup from South Korea earlier this year briefly sent the dollar tumbling, think of what would happen if we pissed off China. (I’d sleep better if I believed that people in the Administration _were_ thinking about that. But I digress.) > [@](#): > > I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had the following dialogue: > > Leftist: Bush destroyed the economy. There’s no jobs left, just a couple of McJobs that pay $1.79 an hour. Everything has been outsourced. The deficit will kill us. Everyone will be bankrupt within the hour. > Plan B: How about Social Security? > Leftist: No problem, it’s guaranteed for at least 60 years. > > Maybe someone who believes that Bush destroyed the economy and that SS is stable could explain to me how that works. Hey, we can’t help it if you spend a lot of your time talking to airheads. But there’s actually a point there. There’s a lot of choices that matter if and only if we keep our nation on a sound footing. If our economy goes into total meltdown, it won’t matter if we privatize Social Security, or stay with the existing system. If we treat our budget deficits as unfixable and the Bush tax cuts as un-undoable, then stuffing money into the Trust Fund faster than we’re already doing has no point, because we’ll be borrowing the SocSec surplus - of whatever size, for however long - and not paying it back, so there’s no sense in trying to prepay any of this. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/16 "2005-05-26T17:22:56Z")
What’s this about removing the cap being _unfair_? That comes from the same crowd who demands flat tax rates across the board in the name of that selfsame fairness. A cap removal would put that into place. Why not start with SS as an example and see how it goes? Or is that position just the old “Tax somebody else, not me” one? The SS tax is heavily regressive as it is. Removing the cap would make it less regressive, but still regressive. There should be no objection to that. ---
**Author:** ![Loopydude](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e56c9b/32.png) [@Loopydude](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopydude)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/17 "2005-05-26T17:39:52Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > [D]o you think it would be a good idea to essentially make SS another welfare program? > > -XT As opposed to a corporate welfare program, where taxation = govt.-mandated investment in stocks? I’m not in favor of making the poorest Americans line the pockets of another Ken Lay. Reducing benefits to the richest, who don’t really need it anyway, is a fine alternative to removing the cap, if that would make people happier. ---
**Author:** ![Monocracy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monocracy/32/4493_2.png) [@Monocracy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monocracy)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/18 "2005-05-26T17:46:27Z")
The Social Security System is not inherently flawed. Those that say that are just against the principle of SS, so they make up excuses on why it should be changed. The money that goes into SS equals the money that comes out of SS, minus administrative costs. Some individuals pay more than they get out, such as the rich, and those who die early. Some individuals get back more than they put it, such as the poor, those who live long lives, widows, and the disabled. I can’t remember the exact figure, but only about two thirds of SS money is used to pay retirement benefits. If SS were a totally privatized system, the taxpayers would still have to come up with one third of what SS collects to cover the non-retirement benefits that have to be paid out. The baby boom generation is just a hump we have to get over. These guys aren’t going to live forever. When they start dropping off, the ratio of retirees to workers will get better. The biggest problem that SS has is that it is owed trillions of dollars by the U.S. Government. SS is going to eventually need that money, and when it does, the U.S. Government probably will be unable to pay. It isn’t a flaw with the SS system itself, but a bad choice of who the money got lent to. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/19 "2005-05-26T17:47:29Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Reducing benefits to the richest, who don’t really need it anyway, is a fine alternative to removing the cap, if that would make people happier. Same problem. Means testing just makes the program more like another form of welfare. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610/20 "2005-05-26T17:52:21Z")
> [@Monocracy](#): > > The Social Security System is not inherently flawed. Those that say that are just against the principle of SS, so they make up excuses on why it should be changed. What is the “principle” of SS that we are against exactly? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-security-debate-again-whats-to-be-done/305610.md?page=2)