Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

exboyfil

(17,862 posts)
18. Spot on analysis
Fri Dec 30, 2011, 05:50 PM
Dec 2011

I will go even one more step. What if obligations can be voted away by a simple majority in Congress and a presidential signature? Obviously you can default on any debt, but would some future Congress view a default on S.S. debt differently than to your other creditors? What would the markets think of such an approach? Would it become harder to to obtain debt in the future or easier? My guess would be it might be easier. I am not saying that it will happen, but the only way it will not happen involves the political will of the people. Already working class folks have gotten a taste of 2% less withholdings. This was simply an awful idea. Second only to the idea of a Trust Fund without covenants in place to stop additional debt from being acquired.

How about a joint proposal to scrap S.S. and raise the minimum wage by 7.5%? Immediately working class folks will have a huge boost in their incomes (15%). 20 years ago my Law professor asked who would opt out of S.S. if they could. When I made a lot less money, I raised my hand. 20 years later I might still raise my hand (I still have another 19 years of working life until I draw S.S., and I will be able to conservatively save more than the benefit in that time with the money from the withholdings). Before you criticize me ask the California teachers if they would raise their hands to being rolled into S.S. instead of their current retirement system (or in addition to their current retirement system)?

Frankly I think S.S. should apply to all income and the rates should be adjusted downward to reflect a pay as you go. Trust Fund should be drawn down once the economy gets better, but the first step is to lift the cap.

S.S. is not insolvent, but its biggest (only) debtor may be or may act like it is with impunity.

It would have been helpful if the President hadn't idiotically made deficit hysteria.. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #1
Count on DU to have someone try to turn anything into a smear on Obama. TheWraith Dec 2011 #3
it only took one post for a lame anti-obama smear to show up. ahh.. DU... dionysus Dec 2011 #10
Who would trust the administration to protect Social Security at this point? girl gone mad Dec 2011 #20
Yes, the meme of the imaginary Social Security cuts returns. TheWraith Dec 2011 #25
What you've written is outside of my point. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #27
No one has argued that? There have been DOZENS of assertions of that just on DU. TheWraith Dec 2011 #36
... elleng Dec 2011 #5
k&r rhett o rick Dec 2011 #2
Thank you. It really irked me that every Republican presidential candidate said "we all know ... Scuba Dec 2011 #4
For being so relatively simple, a LOT of people don't understand it. TheWraith Dec 2011 #11
you are correct. Plus, where some of this meme came from was when FICA revenues fell short of wiggs Dec 2011 #6
Good fact PATRICK Dec 2011 #8
Bingo. Going into red ink is the entire point of the Trust Fund. TheWraith Dec 2011 #9
Thanks, Wraith! elleng Dec 2011 #7
Glad I could help your mood. :) nt TheWraith Dec 2011 #12
Where is the money kept for the trust fund? Snake Alchemist Dec 2011 #13
Well, THAT should stop Republican demagoguery and fear-mongering on the subject gratuitous Dec 2011 #14
There is no "shorter full benefits horizon." TheWraith Dec 2011 #15
Define "insolvent" econoclast Dec 2011 #16
Spot on analysis exboyfil Dec 2011 #18
Nice..... sendero Dec 2011 #19
Our reserve currency status is not very important in the scheme of things. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #22
I disagree.. sendero Dec 2011 #33
The US doesn't borrow. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #21
By that definition, there is no such thing as solvency for Social Security. TheWraith Dec 2011 #35
Some Investment lacrew Dec 2011 #17
Try fact-checking yourself. You just come off as knowing nothing. TheWraith Dec 2011 #26
EXACTLY!!! It pure GOP bull shit JUST like the GOP under the Bush administration put the USPS Justice wanted Dec 2011 #23
Two words: unified budget joshcryer Dec 2011 #24
At some point government income is going to have to exceed government expenditures.. Fumesucker Dec 2011 #28
Investing the social security trust fund in government securities was a stupid move Taitertots Dec 2011 #29
Your plan has to assume that income taxes on the rich could have been raised instead muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #31
Why couldn't they increase the tax rate for the rich? Taitertots Dec 2011 #32
Perhaps it should muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #34
I don't buy into the counter productive framing imposed on the situation Taitertots Dec 2011 #38
Sorry, but that's a big load of Republican talking points. TheWraith Dec 2011 #37
The money was taken from the workers to support huge tax decreases on the wealthy Taitertots Dec 2011 #39
Yes, it's got a trust fund Yo_Mama Dec 2011 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Let's try this again: No,...»Reply #18