If Social Security is in "crisis"??

[kentuck]

Surely the politicians in Washington do not intend to borrow another $200 billion from it again this year? Surely they would not continue to take money out of the SS fund to pay for other "things" if it is in "crisis"? Right?

Since they are admitting that they are having a difficult time paying it back, I see no reason why they should have to continue to borrow anymore from the SS fund. Wouldn't that only put it into a deeper "crisis"? Stop taking money out of the SS fund today. Isn't that a fair request? After all, the SS fund does not belong to either Party in Washington, it belongs to the working people of this country.

[damntexdem]

1. Yeah, what a train wreck -- it could have shortfalls in a quarter of a century.

Quick, quick, panic now!

Shock doctrine? I swear this is more like a shark doctrine.

[gratuitous]

2. Ah yes, a "crisis"

Sort of like, if you're in Kansas driving west, you're in danger of plunging into the Pacific Ocean.

[kentuck]

3. It's in "crisis" but....

they can't wait to get their paws on it. Maybe they can give another taxcut with it?

[mmonk]

4. Nope, our democracy of sorts is.

When it matters not which way you vote or what party member counts are, the government heads only in one direction, you understand what I mean.

[kentuck]

5. I do understand what you mean...

All I have is my vote.

[firehorse]

6. Don't worry, its in a lock box.

[kentuck]

7. It should have been in a lock box.

People laughed but Al Gore was right.