🚀 go-pugleaf

mikeq@freddy.CNA.TEK.COM (Mike Quigley) writes:

>>	"eliminating Social Security Benefits for just one year would
>>	completely pay for the deficit."
>>
>>Yes, but those benefits are paid completely out of FICA payroll taxes,
>>i.e., taxes that -- in theory -- are earmarked to pay these benefits.
>>
>>If the feds did their accounting honestly, the Social Security income
>>and payments would be on a separate budget and wouldn't be part of this
>>discussion.

>Town Hall had a discussion on SS the other night. One critic said that
>the SS ``trust'' fund is completely gone. Empty! Kaput! Drained! The SS drone
>just looked sheepish and said something to the effect that congress
>will always come to the rescue of the SS system.

>Within 15 years, it will take two working people to support every person
>on SS.

>If you're under 50, may as well kiss-off SS, unless you actually DO trust your
>government!

The Social Security fund is actuall in the black these days and THAT'S why
eliminating the benefits for just one year *might* help to pay for the
defecit, if and ONLY if the funds for that year were earmarked for payment
of the defecit.

The real problem, as you alluded to, is the SS fund *possibly* running out
of bucks by the time Clinton's generation reaches retirement and SS 
eligibility age.

allen