If the SS treasury bonds cannot be paid, then none can be paid

[rfranklin]

How's that for shaking things up? None of the ultrawealthy get their money back from their T-bills. We just say, "We're broke! Sorry!"

And instantly, there is no deficit! It's magic.

[juajen]

1. Great point! Now, let's spread it around. I am so sick of this totally

unfair and stupid attack on ss. BTW, anybody remember what George Bush answered when Al Gore asked him if he would put ss funds in a lockbox? Please don't be mean to an old lady and ask her to do research. I can do the research, but flub when trying to transfer it. I am truly tecnologically challenged. That's why I never volunteer to be a mod.

[jtown1123]

13. Krugman had a really good piece on this today:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/cockroach-ideas/

[ljm2002]

2. Absolutely spot-on!

I have been trying to make that point for months: the so-called "IOUs" in the SS Trust Fund are U.S. Treasury Bonds, backed by the "full faith and credit" of the United States. If they are worthless, then that makes the full faith and credit of the U.S. worthless -- in other words, bankrupt.

But you put it in terms that are even better: if we're going to default on U.S. Treasury Bonds, then let's default on theirs first.

I like it.

[Recursion]

3. Except that Congress can simply tell the trustees not to redeem them

They can't really do that to other bondholders.

[yodermon]

4. "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law..shall not be questioned."

14th amendment.

[loudsue]

5. The social security cap has GOT to be raised. It would fund social security PERMANENTLY.

They are just trying to PROTECT THE HIGHEST PAID workers...again...protecting the rich!!! It has to stop.

Social security STOPS taking 6.2% out of gross wages after a person makes $106,800. WHY? WHY??? The ONLY reason is because after making $106,800 per year there is a ... what... HARDSHIP?? If they continued to take the same 6.2% even if someones paycheck reaches $1 million per year...which they should do... then there would be so fucking much money in social security we'd never have to worry again.

[Statistical]

8. Because benefits are based on amount paid in and it was intended to be insurance not a windfall. n/t

[rfranklin]

9. Hardly a windfall...

and if you live long you just may collect a lot more than the maximum contributor who drops dead at 67. So what?

[Statistical]

14. That is why contributions are capped.

To avoid a windfall for the rich who live a very long time.

What you get out of SS is based directly on what you contribute.

Contribute more - get paid more.
Contribute less - get paid less.

Now the system has a structure making is progressive. The relationship isn't linear but your benefit is directly based on contribution. Since the intent was to provide insurance not a windfall the contribution was capped.

[appal_jack]

6. k&r

Rec. Rec. A thousand times, Rec.

:)

-app

[Statistical]

7. Pension funds (including every public pension in the country)

are on of the largest holders of T-bonds in the world.

Just saying.

That like of argument might not be the best way to protected Social Security.

[rfranklin]

10. Its just a way of getting their attention...

like grabbing their testicles in a Visegrip!

[Sonicwall]

11. Revolution will not be televised

but there will be a revolution removing elite a-holes out of power, into prison for 35 years.

Then the tax rates will be adjusted accordingly. Millionaires will be paying through their nose at a 90% rate. FDR levels.

Anyone caught trying to offshore money will be sentenced to hard labor for 25 years, all assets forfeited.

[nomb]

12. Handing over freshly printed money satisfies the debt. It's that easy.

Of course printing fresh money has it's own issues - but paying off bonds is never in doubt as long as they're denominated in dollars.