<< Mike Pollak wrote: "What? You meaning "putting money in the trust fund" has all been one enormous fraud? That's it's been used to milk extra taxes out of working people in order to pay for huge tax cuts for the rich, once under Reagan and now again under Bush? Without doing *one goddam thing* to save Social Security? What pompous ranting fraud ever convinced the American public this was a good idea? Was it . . Daniel Patrick Moynihan? And was it because it because he was a complete ignoranums or a lying sack of shit? . . . "
mbs: Calm down Mikey. The fund is not a fraud. It's a record of contributions in excess of cost, and this record has great political import, IMO. What happens to the cash is on the Gov, not on Soc Sec.
Whether Moynihan screws us is not a foregone conclusion. I think there's a 50-50 chance the Commission will block the Bushies. Not great odds, to be sure.
The recent tax cut defeat has got me thinking
that perhaps a diversion of the Trust Fund surplus
into a single account that held private-sector
assets wouldn't be such a bad thing. This would
not have to be limited to stocks, obviously. The
lack of tangible assets arguably makes use of
the surplus for lousy tax cuts more feasible.
It would be another matter for the Fund to sell
off actual financial assets to finance a tax
cut.
>>
I never thought the Trust Fund was a fraud, but I fear that Moynihan is a lying sack of shit. I read him as declaring no intentions of using the fund for the purpose it is intended.
But your comments are making me adopt a wait-see attitude.
What sort of tangible assets are you thinking of? And how do you think Moynihan et al will counter the idea of individual accounts vs a government trust fund?
I kind of hate to disagree with you but, as I see it, what is being proposed is a kind of 401(k) savings plan in place of a real pension. It ends Social Security by attrition, just as most (many) people will realize very little out of their 401(k)'s.
-- John K. Taber