Posted on 05/27/2006 3:13:08 PM PDT by K-oneTexas
Amen Herman, amen! Most of Congress lives in some kind of la-la land.
If I understand this correctly, the 2040 date is utterly meaningless because it presumes having money that has already been spent, and the true date we need to focus on is 2017, the day Social Security - which in the hands of Congress spent all the cash intended to fulfill future promises - no longer receives more in revenue than it pays out.
Social Security will be bankrupt in 11 years, then, smack in the middle of the retirement of the baby boomers. I hope not too many of those retirements are depending on SS income.
(Yes, they're exempt from SS)
L
Do you know anyone who would actually continue to pay SS taxes if given the option not to (and who isn't looking to retire in the next year or two)?
No it wouldn't. Overall tax revenues to the Treasury will increase.
""Good way to protect money intended for savings or investment is not to spend it. But that's just me."
The only legal way for Congress to do anything to improve the Solvency of the Social Security Program is to return the "surplus" to the taxpayers, preferably in the form of private retirement savings accounts."
Hense, if they are returning it then, they wouldn't be spending it. The whole point is that they can't be trusted, AND firstly, its not their money. Better if they kept their mits off our money in the first place.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.