So why aren't these guys challenging Republicans when they propose a payroll tax vacation. It just seems that if you're going to play this game, you have to maintain some consistency.

The most worrying thing is that O keeps talking about SS being in "crisis". If he manages to "fix"(ie destroy) SS I'm done with the dem party.

Why can't everyone get on the same page about the facts? We can disagree over the best path but facts are facts.

It doesn't matter where the money comes from. The people who are retired have to be supported by the people who are working.

Does anyone disagree with that statement?

If we are spending $100 on social security payments then the people working today are paying $100, either through taxes or borrowing, to support people who are retired.

Sometime in the near future, the amount we pay to retirees will be higher than we collect in social security taxes.

So, at that point, we will have to take money from the general fund to pay for the social security payments.

Now, it seems to me that we made an agreement back in the 80's that we would raise more money than needed from social security taxes and we agreed that when the time comes, we will take money from the general fund to pay social security when the social security tax does not cover the payments.

The Republicans can't have it both ways by saying that we taxed poor people more than we had to from 1983 through 2015 and now that the poor people are not paying enough, we will cut benefits to those poor people after 2015. (People who pay social security taxes are poorer than people who pay income taxes.)

On the other hand, Democrats can't claim that the money to pay for retired people 15 years from now will not be coming from the taxes paid by the people who are actually working in 2024. Tax revenue will have to go up in 2024 to cover the shortfall in social security payments. Just like taxes will have to go up in the future to cover the maturity of Treasury Notes.

Facts are facts

neil wilson on February 2, 2009 at 10:20 says: "Facts are facts"

Facts are only facts for the corporate media when the rethugnicans say they are facts! WTF does truth have to do with it!

Neil forgets that the job of the corporate media is to be an echo chamber & amplifier for rethug talking points. Rethug talking points have no need to be based on truth.

neil wilson, we appreciate that you think we're all simpletons and don't understand how this all works, but your "facts" are missing a key piece of context: the idea of baby boomers prepaying social security was to prepare for the demographic period of baby boomer retirement so that the taxpayers of 2024 didn't have to shoulder the whole burden.

george bush and the republican party spent those dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy, a reverse robin hood ploy of shocking dimensions that the likes of david gregory don't even seem to be aware occurred.

so yes, the general fund is going to have to reimburse the social security trust fund: this is a direct outcome of george bush and the republican party lying about the "lockbox" in 2000 and not a problem of social security at all.

when people discuss this as a social security problem, they are lying, pure and simple. that, too, is a fact.

Why the surprise? The way our illustrious and over paid media pundits work is that they read the last thing someone wrote or said on a subject and then propel that propaganda forward. They do not research or investigate...that is why all of the network/cable programs look/sound the same except for different moderators and guests...course I havef way too much time on my hands to view these day after day because I do not have a job, children to care for, or any meaningful social life...I am sure that those in charge count on the fact that most folks tune in to one or another of these sad excuses for news shows and seldom see the similarity. We have no investigative media...and those who are on air are too lazy (or busy smoozing contacts) to care...

Thank-you Howard. Taking facts out of context is the mainstay of liars.
It's like saying wow that snow sure is white. Incontrovertably the truth but does it tell you how deep it is?

Social security solvency is not the issue. There is some chance, even without changes, that social security will be able to keep its promises long term. Medicare solvency is the problem. Its funding problems are in the near term. Opponents of both programs like to discuss the programs together as if they presented the same solvency problems. That's not true.

The solvency issue for social security is whether the government will raise taxes to repay the amount the government has borrowed from social secirity since 1986. Our friend Greenspan recommended then that social security taxes be raised to create a surplus that would cushion the cost to the government when baby boomers started to retire after 2010. Those surplus were invested in government iou's which helped reduce the size of the federal deficit each year. Beginning in 2019 or so, the government will have to pay back those IOU's in order to enable social security to pay benefits to retirees. Since that means higher taxes, a larger deficit or reducing benefits -- its clear why you hear that benefits must be reduced. If that happens, the investment the middle class has been making since 1986 thru higher payroll taxes will have been wiped out. The beneficiaries of Greenspan's "reforms" -- no surprise here -- are the rich who got outsized tax reductions during the Bush years, but who escape the additional taxes needed to repay the amount borrowed from social security.

David Gregory: Sarah Palin will almost certainly challenge Obama when his term ends in 2010.

Many of us will not be living when this century ends in 2078.

Gregory reportedly signed a 10 year contract at Meet the Press which will hopefully expire in 2010.

Glad to see from the comments that at least some of the population understands the facts concerning social security despite the media's constant attempts to decieve the public. i have been thinking a lot about Obama's call to responsibility in his inaugeration speech. The press has been particularly irresponsible during the last 8 years and maybe it is time to take a look at the first amendment. The whole thing on social security is doubly irresposible because we are in the midst of a rather severe recession. Does anybody think that folks in their 40's, 50's and 60's are going to spend more money when talking heads keep telling them that social security is unsustainable?

The widespread myth that social security is in imminent crisis represents one of the great public relations triumphs of the last half-century.

A couple of points worth adding to those made above: 1)Social security is projected to start running an operating deficit in 2017, but it will continue to be in the black for another 10 years because of interest earnings. 2) The fact that tax revenues may eventually have to rise to pay off notes held in the SS trust fund doesn't represent a problem of SS insolvency, it represents a problem of the federal budget's insolvency. Since when have US Treasuries been considered anything less than a sacred obligation of the US government?

Uhm, just a thought, doesn't our general fund take in less than it pays out right now?

I mean, it's fun to think about problems that may happen in the future, but for now, one of the things propping up the general fund is the surplus in...social security. Maybe, just maybe, we could worry about the bit of government that's in severe deficit and debt right now, rather than the bit that's in surplus and credit right now.

Oh, and speaking of credit, weren't all those social security loans to the general fund covered by the full faith and credit of the United States? Didn't that used to mean something, or am I just dreaming?

The people who are retired have to be supported by the people who are working.
Does anyone disagree with that statement?

To judge by their actions, nearly the entire Republican Party disagrees.

The Republican idea, as nearly as I can discern, is that the people who are retired have to be supported by their own investments in the securities offered by corporations, because the people who are still working will be Republicans who resent taxation and regard wealth transfer as theft.

And if the people who are retired have failed to save and invest, or have invested unwisely, or are just unlucky -- let them eat cake.

"Medicare solvency is the problem. Its funding problems are in the near term."

And medicare's projected problems aren't really problems with medicare as much as problems with the entire US health care system.

And the media isn't taking David Gregory to task, why?

Also, it may not be worthwhile to consider Social Security a debt as if money borrowed by a financier. We effectively "promise" future generations we will defend them, maintain basic services, build and maintain roads and communications lines, etc year after year indefinitely - and will have to pay for them then. But no one treats that like a "debt" we owe a bank, and we understand it will be paid for out of the revenues collected in those future years. Maybe we should consider Social Security the same way?

PS: Drop that damn FICA cap entirely and there will be plenty of money for SS payments for decades!

tyrannogenius

Sorry, meant "money borrowed from a financier."

george bush and the republican party spent those dollars on tax cuts for the wealthy, a reverse robin hood ploy of shocking dimensions that the likes of david gregory don't even seem to be aware occurred.

...even as he benefited from those same tax cuts.

I suppose this is yet another argument in favor of putting SS money into the 100% reliable, never ever failed, never ever will fail stock market, right?

Oh, never mind.

-Z

I know there is a trust fund that owns Treasuries. It will keep social security solvent until the 40's or even far longer.

The fact still remains that taxes are going to have to go up because social security will run a deficit within 10 years.

The flip side is that taxes, other than social security, were lower than they otherwise needed to be since 1983 because the social security taxes were higher than the amount spent.

Please tell me where I am wrong!!!!

I guess when David Gregory inherited Tim Russert's desk, the douche bag came with it.

Looking it at, I probably should have said "Tim Russert's chair"