Wrong. The money you get back is adjusted for the level of salaries at the time you retire. In real terms, it's worth quite a bit more than the money anyone could possibly put in, because over the long term, salaries rise more than inflation. Even now. As for "monetizing" the debt, also wrong. It's invested in Treasuries because they're the safest thing to invest in. Period, the end. Or haven't you seen the results of the latest 2 year auction? Your post amounts to fact-free doom-mongering.
i will support you in your qwest for less spending. i insist we do cuts in order of most wastfull spending first. i would even put social security on that list once we exaust all other items on that list. here is my list: military $700 billion cut in half. supplemental war spending iraq and afgan. 100 billion a year.gone. farm subsidies.gone. corporate tax shelters. gone. religious tax exemption. gone. seperate veterans health system. gone. once you get through all of these talk to me about social security cuts.
I'm afraid not sir. The government data that is used to adjust for inflation is horribly off. Almost every economist agrees to that. Only the extent of how far off it is is where they disagree. Buying treasuries? LOL. Dude, the money is gone. It's not there. Show me the account that says social security on it. Why do you think they call it "an unfunded entitlement"? Note the key word "unfunded" in there. We currently owe close to 70 trillion in unfunded entitlements that includes social security, medicare and medicaid. Oy vey.
Cut them? I would get rid all of them. Too bad nobody on the left has any desire to join me in that. You know the democrats have controlled the congress and therefore the budget since 2006 and none of those things have been cut.
I'm not disagreeing with you there. This is not a right vs left thing. You asked me what I would cut and I told you. You asked me what I would do about social security and I told you. The only candidate that I believe will make good on his word to do these things are Ron Paul. All the other republicans are chicken shit to actually follow through on their promises.
yes. but my problem with you is you attacked me as a big spending liberal in support of these terrible social programs like social security and never once mentioned republican favored cuts at all until i pressed you. this thread was never about spending in the first place. it only asked the question. did the bush tax cuts work and if so should we continue them? all the data shows they did not work and so we probably should end them at least for the rich.
End them? No, that is why I brought up the spending. Vhehn listen to me please. We can raise taxes to 100% on the rich. We can confiscate 100% of their assets. It won't matter. They follow the formula called (n + 1). N being whatever they collect. They will always spend more then they collect. It does not matter what they collect. In order to fix the problem you have to fix the spending component. Not the collecting component. That is why I brought it up. You think not extending the Bush tax cuts is a solution to a problem. I say it's not. It's simply a class warfare technique to convince the poor that you are on the side by socking it to the rich. It's a ruse Vhehn and you know it. It's three card monty. And yes I portrayed you as a big spending liberal because in all the threads your answer to everything is spend more money. You and most on the left support keynesian economics which has now proven to be an absolute failure all across the world. It simply doesn't work. I stand by my comments.
So how do you contend that letting the government waste the money instead of letting the people who made it keep will make things better? Can you please give me specific examples of where the government has been an efficient delivery mechanism of anything. The politicians always want more money to throw at the populous so they can continue to get re-elected and line their pockets (on both sides dems and repubs). Its not hard to figure out that everyone's vote counts the same so you take from the minority and give to the majority and the majority keeps you in power. I this system creates disincentives for productivity. It is easier for people to live off the government handouts than it is to take risks and work hard. How does wealth redistribution via the government mechanism work? Please explain.