A financial fund entity that uses current receipts to pay past past investors, while siphoning off the excess receipts for the controlling party's use outside the actual fund itself, is known as a Ponzi Scheme (but only if you are not the Federal Government).

Additionally, in the case of Social Security, the excess being siphoned off, even were it left in place, does not and cannot meet the future needs of the fund, even with the Pollyanish financial projections used by the Social Security Administration and Congress.

And it was in 1968 this siphoning to the general budget began under the Johnson Administration (you really shouldn't be listening to Paul Krugman – he is the one that like to perpetuate the myth this started with Reagan).

Social Security is not solvent, in the traditional, financial sense of the word, or any real-world definition you wish to use. Only government-style accounting, aka lying, makes it even look remotely so.

It is a pig with lipstick. A dead pig with lipstick.

Oh, and finally, in the future please know what you are talking about when you choose to insult and denigrate me.

Isn't this the second time you've compared Phil Gramm to a terrorist? Is this really necessary? Can't we question people's policies and judgments without calling each other terrorists?

I thought TMV was above this.

All trust funds are nothing put collections of IOU. Even your savings accounts is nothing but an IOU between you and a bank. The trust fund gives the Social Security Administration a claim on future general revenue funds.

What would you propose for the social security trust fund? I doubt that you would support it being invested in the private sector or even in government owned revenue generating properties.

YOu show why it is so hard to talk about social security because most people do not know enough basic finance to even rationally discuss the issue.

It's not a failure by Social Security, it;s a failure of honest bookkeeping.

Runasim totally pwns AustinRoth. Well done.

If that can't happen now, then let's call it what it is: cheating by the government.
It's not a failure by Social Security, it;s a failure of honest bookkeeping. .

Oh Lordy, that is the funniest thing I have read in a while.

The Democrats refuse to try to do anything about Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and that if well over half of the budget. I do not see how raising income taxes fixes that problem. I also do not see how nationalizing is going to solve the problem.

Ahh… so much wrong with this paragraph.

Social security pays for itself. Medicare and Medicaid are still more efficient than private insurance. If you're worried about paying for government programs, it makes sense to raise more revenue by raising income taxes. If nationalizing Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac won't solve the problem, would you mind if they completely collapsed?

I completely agree that the farm bill is a disgrace. It's where I would also begin to look for savings.

Let met guess, you want me to say something like foreign aid while knowing that it is a small portion of the federal budget. According to the federal budget, the projected 2008 deficit is about $250 billion.

things that could be cut are the farm bill, That is 60 billion a year. You could cut defense spending (at least 50 billion a year) and you could probably zero out the education budget and give it to the states. This would be the deal for doing away with NCLB. About the only thing the feds should be doing for education is collecting data and publishing data on state and local public schools. Then there is the cutting on unneeded offices within every part such as the EEO office, the SBA office, the historians office, cut the public relations budgets, and the 8A budget. Stop treating the government like a jobs program and you will save money. Also, cut Medicaid expenditures for illegal aliens and other non-qualified individuals. That probably gets the budget deficit under 100 billion.

The Democrats refuse to try to do anything about Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and that if well over half of the budget. I do not see how raising income taxes fixes that problem. I also do not see how nationalizing is going to solve the problem.

(such as, no surprise: Bush)

I'm sure you know the massive federal deficit is contributing to the weak dollar, which in turn is contributing to the high price of oil (since petroleum is denominated in dollars). What do you think should be done–since you're opposed to tax increases–to pay down the deficit? Please be specific about any budget cuts.

Also, do you think I should vote to keep the party–the Republicans–that ran up this huge deficit in power? I ask because you seem very unhappy at the prospect of their displacement.

Thanks for your comments, by the way!!

Ahem.

I guess you do not like it when people refuse to play into the progressive nitpickers game. If the economy is in a recession, do you really think that making it much harder to get a home loan will really help? That seems to be what you are arguing. I refuse to play the game of defending the Republicans. They will totally out of power in a few months. What is important is what the Democrats will do when they gain full control of the government. That is something that you absolutely refuse to do.

I just took your argument, that the economy is bad and then used it to nitpicket Senator Obama (something I suspect that you will never do). If you look at the Washington Post you will see an article about how illegal immigration made the home loan problem worse.

Instead of nitpicking old problems (like mentioning Enron) trying writing about the coming problems (private investment in a time of increasing taxes, energy regulations, and the nationalization of the healthcare industry).

Your have written many times that the Republicans did not think about long term consequences. Please demonostrate how the Democratic Party, Democrats in Congress, and Senator Obama are thinking about the long term. Nationalizing indsutrial policy and healthcare will making deregulating the banking industry look minor in comparison.

Of course, I doubt that you really want to talk about the future. It is better repeating the same old dailykos, media matters talking points that you usually do. I guess I cannot expect nothing better from a journalist who believes that you do not need a literate public in order to sell newspapers.

For the umpteenth time, you are commenting on something that a post does not address. This inevitably includes your pathological fixation with immigration.

My post is ripe for all sorts on discussion pro and con, so I will tell you once again to stick to the subject at hand or kindly bug off. Do you understand?