CBO and Social Security

Hard to say. The income-outgo problem would still exist, but the funds would be available immediately rather than forcing deficit spending. In any retirement account, if you pay out more than you pay in, you'll run out of money eventually, but if you'd borrowed against your account, now you not only need the money, but you have to pay it back to yourself before you can take it out.

The upside is that, presumably, you got value out of the money you borrowed. So it's like having a fixed income but buying a ton of stuff on credit, so now your credit card payment is equal to your fixed income, leaving you nothing to live on. You lived the high life up until that point, though!

Oh, if only life really worked that way. Then the bankers who tore apart the country's housing market for their own profits would be swimming with the fishes right now, and rightfully so.

edited 27th Jan '11 9:55:39 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Makes sense. Which is why I don't vote for people here that tried to justify raiding the relief fund.

Curious which politicians are in favor of raiding the SS fund. Anyone got data on that?

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Politicians are in favor of whatever they can get away with. Since the general public doesn't actually understand how Social Security works, they can get away with this.

edited 27th Jan '11 10:34:13 AM by silver2195

Currently taking a break from the site. See my user page for more information.

Just look and see which politicians added the most to the national debt. Pretty easy stuff. More than anything it's been the over-reliance on supply side economics that have caused the US debt issues. The two biggest modern increases have been under Reagan, and under Bush II. (Although to be fair, part of the latter is due to the financial meltdown just before he left office)

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve

He ran huge deficits during his entire term in office. The recession only happened late in his final year.

Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's Play

and sadly, you're both right

there was a "reduction" in tax income (tax cuts) for ten years, then there was this big military kerfuffle that lasted a very long time

and then there was the confluence of ninja loans, negative amortization lending, and mortgage backed security derivatives (and the rapid devaluation of such) and then, what $3,000,000,000,000+ in propping up the banking system

and here was me thinking "conservatives" didn't like moral hazards. but apparently keynesianism is the exception

The terrible downside to multiple identities: multiple tax returns

Right, because God forbid we give money to people who will spend it on things, rather than invest it back into their pet politicians.

Keynesian economics might have been the way out of the recession, but Republican stonewalling in Congress forced it to go out the door in a stupidly half-assed way. The bailout of the financial system, however poor a taste it may have left in conservatives' mouths (never mind that Bush is the one who passed it), saved our economy from complete and utter collapse, and of the $700 billion that was spent on TARP, the government has gotten back or is likely to recover all but $25 billion or so, which makes it one of the cheapest recovery programs in U.S. history.

Anyway, back on topic, the recession didn't do anything to Social Security that wasn't already going to happen; it just accelerated it a bit.

edited 28th Jan '11 8:19:01 AM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I'm just surprised that iwth Baby Boomers fixing to die off in the next few decades (including my parents ), the drain on the fund would be reduced by a corresponding amount. Gen X folks aren't going to start hitting retirement for about a decade and some change, also. Plus, once BB's start dying off, the Gen X children *may* get some estate money to sock away for their own retirement, making it hopefully simpler for their eventual retirement...

Or something, just turning it over in my mind here.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

Considering the baby boomers just started reaching retirement age....

"Allah may guide their bullets, but Jesus helps those who aim down the sights."

They're the ones primarily pushing the drain on the fund into the foreseeable future.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Well on the point of borrowing against Social Security, which is the primary reason why it became a ponzi scheme (because in other countries, it's invested money in safe holdings in order to generate enough interest so that it pays itself off... like how a pension fund works), many countries mitigated the issue by creating a separate agency for handling pensions. That is, an arms-length, crown/state corporation, whose shares are owned by the government but not run by the government. You can't easily take their money without a really corrupt government (and if it's that corrupt, you're screwed already).

Generations, sadly, aren't like straight lines marching through time. There're a good number of Americans at every possible age right now, from just born up until retirement age. Every year a lot of people retire. It's not like we can ride it out until the baby boomers start dying and then have a few years before the next generation starts claiming benefits - there're new people drawing on the system every year.

BTW, I'm a chick.

^ Understood - but there is a surge in numbers depending on the year of birth.

Happiness is zero-gee with a sinus cold.

I'm generally in favor of divorcing elected officials from power over money, I approve.

Fight smart, not fair.