Replies

Precisely!

Demographics is destiny. Privitization cannot succeed; neither can the present system of transfer payments.

There are only two solutions. Either (1) cut payments, or (2) increase retirement age substantially.

Neither will happen.

I have said for at least a decade that the only plausible solution to the enormous social security debt which will eventually exist in our lifetime is to apply the same general bankruptcy principles to the federal government as are applied to other enterprises.

The fed.gov't. has or will have debts to social security recipients which it cannot ever hope to pay under any anticipated circumstances. But it does have substantial assets. For one thing, it owns 1/3 of all the real estate in the United States.

The fed. gov't. should:

1. Inventory all of its assets.

2. Do an appraisal of its assets (assess a value).

3. Itemize all of its debts.

4. Assign a value to its debts.

5. Prioritize its assets in order of what is necessary to conduct its essential functions.

6. Prioritize its debts in order of which classes have a greater entitlement to repayment.

7. Dispose of non-essential assets.

8. Pay off higher priority claims - 100 cents on the dollar if possible but otherwise as close as can be done.

9. Pay off lower priority claims at a lesser rate or declare them defaulted upon and discharged in bankruptcy.

Any bankruptcy lawyers out there could expound upon the recognized bankruptcy process and how it might be applied to an admittedly bankrupt federal government.

Embarking down this road will require a recognition that the government has debts -- social security payments -- which it cannot hope to pay. Either cutting payments or raising retirement rates (same thing) or increasing taxes is not an option. There is only so much blood in the turnip.

However problematical applying bankruptcy principles to this situation might be, it is far preferable to the only other likely outcome: intergenerational warfare.

How much am I bid for the Grand Canyon?

There are only two solutions. Either (1) cut payments, or (2) increase retirement age substantially.

Do you mean increase retirement age for the Boomers? If you were born after 1969, you already have to wait until you're 70. (I don't have any problem with the Boomers waiting a few more years. If they expect their children to make the sacrifice, they should be willing to sacrifice as well.)

Once, I felt sorry for the "working" elderly. I thought of these little old, blue-haired ladies struggling through their arthritis to get through a day at a supermarket checkout.

Then it hit me; if they're really disabled, they can already get benefits. If they're strong and healthy and have no savings or retirement why should they expect *me* to support them? (Soft-headded, immature liberal grows up, starts thinking and stops feeling quite so much...)