Re: [Pen-l] Social security

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Dec 21, 2008, at 2:53 PM, David B. Shemano wrote:

> At some point in time, if we continue on our present path, ss  
> expenditures will exceed ss taxes.  At this point, general tax  
> revenues are supposed to start paying ss expenditures (i.e. pay  
> those T-bills the SSA is supposedly holding).  This, tautologically,  
> means that the Congress will have to reduce or eliminate non-ss  
> expenditures that would have been funded in the absence of the ss  
> obligation, unless Congress is willing to raise non-ss taxes.

On the other hand, if all the dire predictions about SS's bankruptcy  
don't come to pass - and I think they won't - then there won't be much  
of a problem, will there?

> I am all for "insurance against poverty," whatever that means.

Using government money to keep people from being poor. That's not  
complicated, is it?

>   I don't believe that is what social security as presently  
> constituted is.  It is simply a scheme to increase present  
> government revenues to pay for present government expenditures.

Easy for you to say. For most elderly people, SS is about all they've  
got.

Doug

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l