Mike Lowry is "dead on". Some services must be shared by all including roads, fire, and police protection. But for able-bodied people to collect money with no obligation to work is ridiculous! I'm tired of supporting those who are physically able to work but prefer to suck the blood out of the rest of us. Share? Those of you who want to support the lazy, the aimless and the clueless - KNOCK YOURSELVES OUT! We have no issue with supporting those who are TRULY unable to work.

NO for Obama! I am tired of being taxed and taxed again. Balance the budget or do without! I am tired of Obama, his name his face and everything to do with him.

Ms. Russell I don't know what schools you attended, but you are the one with the logic shortage!!! You have misconstrued Mr. Lowery's intent! Every working American who pays taxes does contrubute to the greater good, but we workers are tired of the government giving away our taxes to those who refuse to work! Not those who are truly unable to work! We are tired of government "programs" invented to make the politician look good to his "poor" constituents! We are tired of being in debt to foreign countries and hoping they don't take action to collect. Will Obama give our country to the Chinese if they decide to collect on our ENORMOUS debt!? If you think it can't happen, rethink! You have given him the power to destroy our country through his spending programs that we cannot begin to pay. And there will be no "Bail out" for USA if that happens!! Wake up and smell the deep excrement we are in, Lady!!!

He was making a point about what it WOULD TAKE to maintain current spending, not suggesting that Obama is going to levy a 100% tax. Though I wouldn't be surprised to see a 75% suggestion(i.e. demand) from this administration, since socialist leadership in France thought it was a good idea.

This weak point of this article is lost in the very sad oversimplification of the problem, the lack of context, and the lack of comparison to past solutions. Lame.

I am curious about readers thoughts about Jude Wanniski and the Theory of Two Santa Clauses. Wanniski describes how the GOP has sold the public on increased spending and lowered taxes vis-a-vis the 'supply-side' economic theory.

We see Romney proposing a 4% increase on defense spending, mainly Navy, while promising not one dollar increase in taxes to the top tier earners.

I agree that the time for an adults-in-the-room discussion is way past due, but am not sure that anyone can get past their differences long enough to agree that Simpson-Bowles makes some sense.

Article reference above:

https://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

For those that are serious about economics, read "The Seven Fat Years" by Robert Bartley. http://www.amazon.com/The-Seven-Fat-Years-Again/dp/002874022X

Mr. Lowry offers Bartley, an icon of supply-side economics, as a 'serious' view. Good pick, here is an in depth interview with Mr. Bartley: One hour.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/26100-1

Bartley discusses seminars at NYC steakhouse, Micheal One, with Art Laffer and Jude Wanniski. Mr. Lowry you are clearly a learned man, fascinating reference.

Why the rift between Wanniski and supply-siders?
Do you concur that supply-side economics is now seen as a faulty model?

I realize that in politics, truth is seldom a viable option, but am curious about your replies.

One of the thorniest difficulties facing the US today is the inability for either side to get past disagreement, find a common point, and agree to make changes that will continue US prosperity.

Most Americans have no idea what cutting $4T in government spending actually means to them.

Zeke, your most relevant comment is "Most Americans have no idea what cutting $4T in government spending actually means to them."

That's actually the core of our problem. As long as politicians (both parties) know that, they can continue to bless us all with goodies, er, "services" that we can't pay for without printing phony money.

I am not a proponent of any "branded" philosopy, including what has become known as "supply side economics". I know only that
-- balanced budgets are good,
-- debt is bad,
-- dependency is bad and destroys motivation, and
-- government over-regulation destroys freedom.

The Bartley reference is the only in-depth discussion of the Reagan years that has made much sense. It is a deep read, as opposed to the pop-journalism that wants to reduce everything to a single, simple paragraph.

Mike,
I'd like to double-check what you know. You said:

"I know only that
-- balanced budgets are good,
-- debt is bad,
-- dependency is bad and destroys motivation, and
-- government over-regulation destroys freedom."

If balanced budgets are good, do you understand the impact on the global economy if the US were to collect an additional $1.5 Trillion in order to balance the budget of 2011? Taking that much out of the economy would devastate personal consumption as well as investment. Certainly that wouldn't be good.

If debt is bad, would you prefer Hitler? I know it is hyperbole, but how would the US have conducted WW2 without the issuance of bonds? Certainly all debt isn't bad.

Dependency is bad and destroys motivation but retirees depend on Social Security and Medicare to maintain a standard of living and.... to not die. I don't understand how this destroys their motivation. But all you retirees better buck up.

Government over-regulation destroys freedom. I don't know where to start on this one. I guess I would need examples of over-regulation destroying freedom. Perhaps regulations that felons must go to prison is a good example.

When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging.

because the economy is analogous to a hole? must everything be a lazy sound bite.

RE:Lazy sound bite.

Exactly. When confronted with an intellectually challenging point of view, most bloggers go to ground with such replies.

Fact is, Brantley is as much a part of the problem as was the men he defended, like Milliken, and other Masters of the Universe.

AMEN, Mr. Lowry!! I wish your words could be heard loud and clear to every citizen.
Maybe we could get the Credit card companies involved! They usually get paid plus interest!! Obama and his crew will never have to pay. That's why he's so generous with our "credit card"!!

The leadership (whether they are actively leading or not) is always the fall guy. It shows either no leadership or poor leadership. Clinton was able to work with a Republican Congress..... just saying.

I believe you have that wrong, Janet. The current Republican Congress has passed at least three budgets, as well as other legislation, that was stopped or killed by Sen. Harry Reid once it got to the Senate. So, don't say the Republican Congress has shown NO interest in working with President Obama. In fact, I believe that when Obama's budget was submitted to the Senate, it was voted down by both Repubs and Dems. Not one Democrat voted for it. I believe that Mr. Obama, along with Sen. Reid, have put their own personal and collective egos ahead of the greater good of rebuilding this country for everyone. Obviously, you don't get the fact that this country is broke, we have no more money, unless of course you want to ask Tiny Tim Geithner to print more for the entitlement programs that make more and more people dependent upon the government to take care of them instead of taking responsibility and accountability for themselves. I believe in a hand up, not a hand out.

And that money printing is taxation in that it promotes inflation which drives down the value of the dollars held in the hands of everyone, including the middle class and the poor!!!! And I daresay that inflation impacts the poorest among us the most.

President Obama and the Democrats had a substantial majority in the House and a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate before the 2010 elections. They could pass anything they wanted without a single vote from any Republican.

What did they do with it? They passed the "you have to wait until it passes to find out what's in it" monstrosity known as ObamaCare and pretty much nothing else. They even stopped passing budgets in the Senate, something that's required by federal law.

So don't give me your whiny 'Republicans won't work with Obama' line. When Republicans met with Obama in 2009, did he try to work with them then? No. He told them 'I won' and that he expected to get his way.

You do know that that $8 Trillion is what "We the People", GOP and Dem, use to pay mortgages, buy food, clothes and put gas in the tanks of our gas-guzzling SUVs in which we bring home our Huge Flat Panel TVs? And, you do know that Welfare Money - once spent - becomes a part of that $8 trillion? Just asking.

Math is hard, for liberals. Which part of the 'persons with income over $60,000' part did you not read? Or are you presuming that the government is going to start confiscating businesses as well? By the way, government control of private businesses is known as fascism, look it up.

I don't believe in being supported, fed, clothed, etc. by the govt. I can do that by myself quite nicely. My husband also built his business himself with no help from the govt.

Somalia. Umm. Snappy come back. More to the articles point, should "We the People" (the Government) live beyond our means. And, should half (or less) of "We the People" pay for what all the people enjoy? Those are the questions. But thanks for the Somalia tangent. It added so much.

It's such a shame that you and some of the others on this page have bought into Obama's class warfare mumbo jumbo lock, stock and barrel.

Totally wrong! Urban Myth! Congressman do not retire any differently than other government workers. Review Congressional Retirement at Senate.gov.

They certainly exempted themselves, their staff and their families from Obamacare. Why would that be???????????? hmmmmm

We're talking about able-bodied Americans who sit on their behinds and collect
"entitlements" instead of working. We are sick of supporting them. If you knew my circumstances, you would know that if I do it, anyone can - with the right attitude. Everyone is sick of watching the people in shops paying with EBT cards using Iphones and getting into big SUVs. Not to mention the big bags of chips and cookies (not a fruit or vegetable) when some of their children are already sickeningly overweight. If you want to support these people, knock yourself out, but let the rest of us primarily take care of our own families and try to build a nest egg so we don't all end up on entitlements, which is what I believe the socialists want. Yes, government workers need a rude awakening asap. Tired of supporting them, too. Do you have any idea how many retired government employees we are supporting and how many fully capable people we have on food stamps? It's ridiculous. My guess is that most people voting for Obama are on some sort of government handout or have been at some point. For those people who are TRULY needy, unable to work, and/or handicapped, we have no problem supporting them and giving them what they need. "The probem with socialism is that eventually you run out of everyone else's money". Maybe you believe in spending money you don't have, but the Conservatives don't live that way. Dianne, you are soooo right. The propaganda out there is bizarre.

For some insight on the factcheckers see:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444301704577631470493495792.html

Mike, you realize the WSJ "article" you cite is an opinion column, not factual reporting?

Byron...that's some good information...don't confuse Mike though....he thinks his opinion is fact.......

sarahl -- That's the point. Opinion columns are exactly where the "factcheckers" belong.

obfuscate much? Obamas spending inferno and debt blame still is propaganda.

Like most liberals trying to avoid the point, you're counting the 2009 budget as W's, when it was passed by Congressional Democrats and signed by Obama, 5 months late and over a month after W left office.

The national debt has increased by more than a trillion dollars every year Obama has been in office. By comparison, it took from George Washington to Ronald Reagan for the national debt to hit 1 trillion in the first place. Also, look at a graph of national debt as a percentage of GDP sometime. It's back up to 100+ percent, a level it hasn't been at since World War II.

Fin, I'm a fiscal conservative. That's my problem with current Republican party. Deficit spending under Reagan was a good policy at the time, but it ceased to be good policy once the economy had recovered and it was a devastating policy when W came to office.
Secondly. US Fiscal budgets run from October-October, so O's budget went into effect October 2010. Stimulus spending early on controlled the great recession. We were losing 780k jobs/month, early spending stabilized the economy by most analyses. It was a necessary evil.

The national debt in absolute dollars is less meaningful than Debt/GDP. The US can carry more debt when it makes more money.

The huge spike in the national debt is due to the Republican's lack of fiscal conservatism and responsibility. They drove up the debt, reduced revenues, and increased spending. Those things fail the math test. When Obama came in office, we were in a great recession and had our backs to the wall. The debt was high, but borrowing bridged the gap and stabilize the economy. I believe the Republicans borrowed for political expedience and Obama borrowed to stop the recession. That makes a big difference to a fiscal conservative, like me.

I absolutely agree that we should use the Debt/GDP ratio at the end of WW2 as guidance. We should revisit the policies and role of government that reduced the debt AND grew the US into an economic superpower between WW2 and 1982. Historical perspective and context are very important.

Byron, responding to your several thoughts, Reagan/HW did not quadruple the debt. That was done in a concerted way by Congress. Reagan asked that Income Tax Rates be reduced and that Military spending be increased. Look up the great interview with Dan Rostenkowski (after prison) where he proudly explains how the Democrats created the Reagan Deficits.

There were multiple recessions in 70-80. The 81-82 Recession is considered to be caused by the Fed's severe monetary policy to squeeze out the 12+% inflation rate. Inflation-adjusted, the entire 70s was a recession.

I certainly agree that in the last 20+ years, Congress (all parties) has been fiscally irresponsible.

Lastly, the US, coming out of WWII, had the only viable economy in the World!!! Over the next 20 years, if it was made in the world, we made it. We paid off our debts because we had no competition. We were able to payoff our debts and expand our lifestyles because we were rolling in money.

In the 60s, we lost the monopoly in Steel. In the 70s, we lost the monopoly in Autos. And so on So, I'm afraid that the policies that allowed us to pay off our debt then, probably won't be successful now. Its already evident that the solution will include a significant reduction in government services and lifestyle. Yep, 1945-1970 was the good old days. I wish everybody had been around to enjoy it.

Ernest,
It's obvious that many of us color commentators have put 100X more thought into this topic than the original cut-n-paste blogger. It's too bad we honor his shoddy blog with 140+ comments.
I went digging into most of your comments. I can't find the Rosty video you speak of, and I mostly came across Rosty calling on debt/deficit reduction. I don't think you're lying, and I don't think the Democrats were in a conspiracy. So, what's the truth? Each side is good at spin and marketing.
The origins of trickle down, the "win-win" of tax cuts, and "starve the beast" make me think these runaway deficits were acceptable damage on the part of the last 3 Repubs in exchange for the tax cut "win". It's possible that "starve the beast" was a short-term tactic where cutting taxes first forces spending cuts to control debt rather than a sinister long-term strategy that landed us in debt trouble. Regardless, it is clear that cutting taxes first will not force spending cuts no matter who is in Congress. Perhaps if Romney reversed the order of his approach, he would be more believable. For now, I see the same old, same old coming down the pipe.
My point about WW2 was that there was a lot of government involvement and taxes which makes me think that the tax rhetoric today greatly overstates the negative effects. The tech monopolies don't convince me that government doesn't have a very useful role to play because we've replaced steel with IT, high-tech, and finance, to name a few.

Byron, glad to see people digging in, questioning, doing research and not just echoing the unending Urban Myth emails that arrive in our mail boxes everyday.

First, this is not a blog. This all started with a simple, limited article by Mike Lowry. We've turned it into a blog. I'm really surprised that its not been closed-for-comment. Thanks Patch.

I could not find the Rostenkowski video either. I will continue to look. I should have left it out without the hard link. But, that was not specifically my point; which was, Congress makes all laws and allocates all money - not the President.

The most effective mechanism for controlling Government Finances is VOTING. As the Republican and Democratic Parties failed to produce any fiscally-responsible candidates, the "Tea Party" rose and worked to elect a number of hopefully fiscally-responsible congressman. And I hope that they are effective. (No I'm not a Tea Partier).

And I agree, Governments are needed. Why else would "We the People" create them or allow them to survive. But, "We the People" need to keep watch on them so they don't get off-task.

Somalia. Love it.

What Diane is trying to say is that unemployment and poverty is solely a product of laziness. Nothing else causes these conditions. Removing assistance forces people to get off their lazy butts and do something.

In assistance-free Somalia, the lifestyle of the lower class has been able to thrive and bolster the bludgeoning...er burgeoning Somali middle class.

First, as we've been told and you point out, you didn't build that business! The government built that business NOT YOU. Once again, the questions are: should "We the People" (the Government) live beyond our means? And, should half (or less) of "We the People" pay for what all the people enjoy? Do you have any answers to these questions or just more Somalia tangents?

The LESS government, the better. Big government is the mistake. As for roads, police protection, fire protection, etc, no problem. Giving handouts on an ongoing basis to those who are able to work but won't, because they prefer to sit on their behinds and collect entitlements, no way. If you are looking for a helping hand, you will find one at the end of your own arm, and there you will also find another one for helping others - who truly need your help.

J Alexander...............you're right about where the tea party meets, and that Janet's problem isn't where they meet, but with the tea party itself. I've attended the No. Fulton Tea Party meetings in local hotels, as well as the Roswell Parks Rec Ctr., which my tax $$$ helped pay for.

Diane, aren't you proud to live in a country where citizens have a right to assemble, even in public buildings paid for by taxpayers which include those same Tea Party members. I certainly don't mind and I feel that its a good use of my taxes, (and the buildings - I think they have to pay something - so we pay less tax for the building maintenance). Someday you may want to rent time/space in such a place for some of your efforts. Go right ahead! That's the American Way!!!

The Tea Party can meet anyplace they chose as far as the rest of us are concerned. Your problem is not the meeting place, it's the Tea Party. Love all of you Conservatives out there - you are the people who will save America. We can't afford to pay able-bodied people to sit on their behinds anymore. Obama needs to go. He had no resume for the job, and he is not the sharp businessman America needs.

Most people view marriage as a covenant. You know.... cleave and become one. Supporting one's spouse is normal.

Janet................why haven't you responded to my answer to your question that I built, from the ground up, a home construction and remodeling business that lasted for ten years, plus working for all of my adult life? Plus, you didn't respond to my question of why don't you ask Barney Frank and Chris Dodd about their contribution to the lack of success of the home building industry in the past four years plus? Could this be the big reason both of them "retired" from their positions in the House and the Senate? Or in other words, out of sight, out of mind? I noticed that when the questioning became too much for you to handle that you "had to go to work". Well, I happen to work all day, every day myself, but I have time to answer and respond to your questions.

Actually, I'm going out and use up all the public facilities that I can. I've paid for them for a lot longer your 30 years. But, I'll need you to stay home, work overtime, pay extra taxes, Fica, Medicare so that I can afford even more. See, you've got a convert. I'm on your side. PS-Couldn't you be using your time in a more taxable way?

Right on, Ernest.

This really comes down to a moral issue.

Ernest, I wonder if Janet will ever answer your questions. I doubt it.

Well Janet, for an English Major, your don't seems to be much of a reader. The above article is about two questions: Should "We the People" (the Government) live beyond our means. And, should half (or less) of "We the People" pay for what all the people enjoy? But clearly you don't care to discuss that. Instead, you've rambled about kids in Kindergarten, the Republican Party, Obama, grading papers, Somalia, Congressional Pay (the Urban Myth), Public facilities, being a self-employed female, Hypocrisy, Bain Capital, the North Fulton Tea Party and everything but the topic of this article. Well, to be fair, you didn't mention Clowns....yet.

Janet, discourse with you is neither informative nor useful. I'll leave you to your rant.

Amen!

And no government has very big consequences. Doesn't the dependency nation meme hinge on Medicare and SSA payments that people expect because they paid into the system when they were working?

Everyone agrees the debt is a problem, but even Reagan wouldn't cut spending in a recession. Why would Obama cut spending in a great recession? Hell, he hasn't even raised taxes. The debt problem is interesting because it was run up for 30 years, and now that we really needed the stimulus we have our hands tied.

Romney isn't going to fix he debt. He's going to add 5T to it, and he doesn't know what he'll cut. And for jokes, if he taxed the bottom half at 100%, he'd get 0.7T and have to find another 4.7T. While Obama must make cuts, I don't see Romney fixing anything.

This is my next-door neighbor, not some fictional person 100 miles away. I know her extremely well. Look up the programme for yourself!

No, actually if there is anything left of SS or Medicare when I get there, I won't get what I paid into it in real $. If I'd had the money I'd put into SS all these years instead of the govt confiscating and raiding it, I would have much more to support myself than what I'll ever get back.

Anyone deducting mortgage interest or taxes is playing by the rules that the govt set up. Your underlying assumption is that the government owns it all and that they are allowing us to have some of it back. No, it is ours to begin with. Go read Bastiat's The Law.

Stick your head back in the sand, Michael, and don't call me a liar because you refuse to acknowledge the truth. I don't receive Medicare, SS or take any illegal deductions. (and have NEVER been on unemployment one day in my life) I'm sick of supporting the able-bodied, under-retirement-age people who are not producing and receiving "entitlements". The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Roads, police protection, and fire protection are used by all; food stamps AREN'T! Some of us - thank God - still have a work ethic and would like to provide for our own families. Many of us are sick of seeing the people with EBT cards use Iphones in the grocery line then get into a big SUV. Every person I know personally voting for Barry is on some sort of "dole".

OK Michael, I am this guy. And you are also. Every year SSA sends you a letter which lists your contributions thru time to Social Security and Medicare. Since 1937, all (but enough for current payouts) money has been invested in US Government Bonds. Find any site that gives you the interest rate by year of these bonds. Do the Present/Future Value calculation (many websites) and, Voila, there is the total REAL worth today of the money that you've contributed. So, this is not government largesse. This is an Insurance Annuity exactly as you would purchase from the any financial house. For me, in 50+ years, that's over $800,000 that my money has grown to become while in the keeping of the SSA. This is not LARGESSE. This is MY MONEY.

Or what used to be MY MONEY. The Problem is that Congress began to act as though it's THEIR MONEY. They extend payouts far past the disabled, widowed and orphaned of the original plan without adjusting the input side. So, rather than receiving $32-40k payout in retirement (earnings of a conservative 4-5% on $800,000), I receive incredibly less.

Congress cleverly markets Social Security as an Entitlement as if it's the Largesse you mention. As if they're donating it to you. This, of course, should put you in their debt. When, in fact, they've done a horrible job of managing OUR MONEY entrusted to them. If they were a private enterprise, their mismanagement of OUR MONEY would have them all in prison.

SarahL - which of my facts would you dispute?

Check this chart. How much of a social welfare recipient are you?

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/March11/ChartLarge.jpg

Or are you doing it all on your own?

How about your Congressman? Is he/she grazing at the socialized healthcare trough while railing against a government take-over of healthcare?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/health-care-for-members-of-congress/

I know my man Rob "Because it is free" Woodall is. If you want to denigrate someone for taking advantage of government handouts rather than going out on the free market, he's your man.

http://youtu.be/B3ewtMeAdKk

J., don't read too much into my comments. I'm not an all or nothing kind of person and you don't seem to be either. I don't know that I favor more or less government. It depends on whats "governed". And, I do expect to see money sent Our Government spent efficiently on a Federal, State, Local and Individual basis. In short, I want to get my money's worth.

+100

We (the people) created the government. The government didn't create us. The government has nothing without taking it from someone else first, therefore they can't create anything without taking it from producers first.

Bravo Hal.

Direct hit.

Gray,

Both pol Parties have their own amount of fault for where the US economy now stands, as evidenced by this remarkably candid view from GA Congressman Jack Kingston here:

http://kingston.house.gov/news/email/show.aspx?ID=VCMAR3GK74HXEK6GE2UFFCBNYE

Fact is, the timing of fiscal worries is neither new or a conversion, in fact future US generations have their backs against an economic wall that is unyielding. China will be re-paid, few realize that Congress has already devised a 'work-out plan,' in case of default.

Happily, neither side has the luxury of spending to lure votes any longer. Perhaps the adults-in-the-room will now have room to stand up and do what they are sent to WDC to do - Make decisions.

The alternative is unthinkable; we can become Greece.

Gray, Its actually the 70's. Oh no, wait its the 30's. Oh no wait, its 1915. Oh no wait, its the 1890's, etc. The only difference is that the pace of the ups and downs seems to be quickening.

Unfortunately, you are correct - I meant THAT Greece.

Looks like YES. Tom Price is brilliant. I went to him for orthopedic issues years ago, and he is fabulous.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/atrfiles/files/files/081012-federalpledgesigners.pdf

Interesting juxtaposition that somebody can bemoan hyperpartisanship and in the next paragraph use a phrase like "trough feeders like agribidness, Big Oil and no-bid parasites like Halliburton"...
Last year, the GAO released a report stating that if we didnt do something about our debt, by the year 2020 we will be spending 92% of our budget on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt...that would leave only 8% of our budget for everything else, including "some biggies-military spending and corporate welfare"...

Jimmy, I don't know what you're worried about? So what if there's only 8% left for everything else? Timmy "TurboTax" Geithner will just have the Fed rev up the printing presses a little faster. Nothing to worry about! There's and endless supply of paper!

Clearly you don't know Tom Price. Shame. Your loss!

And, this is not the point. The point is that "Our Government" is living beyond our means. It borrows vastly. Its creates money vastly. We arrived here over time from many different political persuasions for many different reasons. Now, over time, "Our Government" needs to slow and soon reverse this process. it is not sustainable.

@J. Alexander The source is from Forbes, a legitimate publication.

C'mon Robert, even in the byline of the story the author admits he writes 'from the left'...if the same guy wrote the same article and it appeared on the Huffington Post, what would your opinion of it be?

I don't believe Tom has practised medicine in several years.

As reported in a local newspaper when Tom Price was running for office, he sold his medical practice for 2 million dollars. I believe his current worth is approx. 6 milliion dollars. These amounts are from public records . He seems to be doing very well inspite of the 2008 meltdown and recession.

I made my decision to vote for Tom Price exactly as you described. I maintain a list of legislation that is important to me and how I would vote on it if I was in congress. Tom Price is the only one that voted exactly as I would have. I've never met him. And, I'm not in agreement with some of his positions. But, on what's important to me, he voted as I would; so, I vote for him. If, in the future, he doesn't, I'll vote for someone else. For example, he voted against the $770 Billion Stimulus just as I would have. And that brings this back to point of this article of spending money that we don't have.

I dont think its not legitimate, but you have to take the writer's admitted bias into consideration when reading it...as the old saying goes, statistics can be made to say anything youwant them to...in year to year actual dollars the spending increased nominally, but as a percentage of the economy they greatly increased. Thus the huge deficits and the huge leap in debt.

Alice, your beginning statement is absolutely correct. Its not an entitlement. Social Security, from its inception, is an Annuity. All payments to Social Security are kept in the Social Security Trust Fund. This is not co-mingled with General Fund moneys. Since initiation in 1937, all excess funds are invested in US Bonds. In this way, the contributed money earns interest and continues to grow. Possible shortfalls are the result of an expansion to pay benefits that have not been earned. So, that money is not gone, it is there. You may not get as much as you'd like, but you will get what you put in if you live long enough. Unfortunately, a great deal of Urban Mythology has grown regarding Social Security. I find the Wikipedia article very informative. Or you can go straight to the Social Security Admin Website for much detail info.

Alexander...Nobody on the left or right wants to support lazy bums! And as you stated, no one has an issue with supporting the "truly handicapped and unable to work". That said, many on the "right" keep calling the 50% who pay zero in income taxes "lazy bums", "leaches" and other derogatory terms. Keep in mind, that many of them are retirees and have already paid their fair share. Keep in mind, that many of them are single parents and working poor who quite simply don't make enough to live. Keep in mind, that many people receive EBT eventhough they work (they simply make too little). Keep in mind, that EBT/Food Stamps/WIC is primarily for families with disabled members and for the chiildren.

Lastly, there are many people on the "right" who call social security an "entitlement" with a derogatory tone. SS has been a promise by us (the people/the gov't) that if you work and contribute, that the people/the gov't will provide a return in the future. It's an annuity, a promise. Many on the "right" want to break that promise. Join me in rejecting those that think of SS as welfare, those that want to break that promise.

Janet...You're right in that the current retirees (and their parents) are drawing more from SS and Medicare than they contributed. There are many reasons for this situation including: longer life spans, underfunding from day one, additional added benefits, and lower population growth rate.

The system was originally set up as a "pay as you go" system whereby the initial beneficiaries paid virtually zero into the system yet received benefits for decade(s). In the beginning there were 150 workers for each beneficiary and thus little was needed from each worker. Over time, that ratio has decreased to 3 to 1.

The idea behind SS remains noble. It recognizes that if you worked and contributed to society that you shouldn't starve or be homeless in retirement.

The issue isn't that SS is bad. The issue is how to fund SS. The funding method is broken. Easy solutions include:

1. Increasing the tax rate
2. Increasing the compensation subject to SS/Medi
3. Combination of 1 and 2
4. Decreasing the rate and subjecting all income (at least more income) to SS/Medi
5. Applying a "means" test (i.e. wealthy need not apply)
6. Breaking the promise by cutting benefits and/or eliminating the programs.

My opinion...1 through 5 above. Problem solved.

J Alexander- I don't think that SS should be need based. But here is another thought: why does the nonworking spouse (usually women) get SS based on her spouse's contributions? I just got my statement and if I had a spouse he would be entitled to a tidy sum. Let's assume , he never worked, never paid a dime and I got to write him off as a tax deduction for the length of our marriage. Why is the spouse entitled to anything if they didn't contribute? Same for Medicare? And why would children below the age of 18 be entitled to SS when their parents reach the age to collect SS. I know of a man who is 64, going to collect his SS, getting a divorce and the soon to be exwife will get child support from him for his young children (3rd marriage for him) and SS because of his age. This is crazy. Just a few thoughts on why SS has some problems. And I am sure if you check, there are just as many spouses who are conservative collecting from their husbands or wives SS as their are liberals.

Janet...The reason that a spouse can draw off of the other spouse is that Congress deems the money earned by one as earned by both for SS purposes. Let's assume for a moment that the was no SS. The working spouse could save that money and when he/she died, the surviving spouse would get that saved money. SS works in a similar fashion.

As to surviving children, the same general principle applies. The parent paid into the system and the system will help support the surviving child until age 18. This benefit was added well after the creation of SS.

With all due respect Ernest, as valuable a reference as Wikipedia often is, it isnt always right...'Pay as you' go is exactly how SS works...the 'trust fund' exists only as a pile of IOUs from the treasury...The money collected from working people this year is paid out to SS recipients this year.
Since the '60's, surpluses have been transferred to the general fund and an IOU placed in the 'trust fund' along with an IOU for the interest at treasury bond rates...as you previously noted, the interest rate peaked at 12% (very briefly) in the late '70's (when all the other interest rates peaked) but historically it is aound 6%...
When SS began, there were about 16 workers per retiree...as of this year that ratio has declined to about 2.5 workers per retiree. As boomers retire in greater numbers, and live longer than previous generations, that ratio will continue to drop. Eventually, the number of retirees will outnumber the workers, and the treasury will have to start making good on those IOUs. Last I heard, that day will come in the next 20 yrs. According to Social Security, in 2012 that unfunded liability is currently about $8.6 Trillion...
The only solution I can see is a phased withdrawal of the program...Anybody over 55 gets the full ride they were promised. 55 and younger get percentages less until you get to maybe 35 yrs. Those folks have enough working life in front of them to make up the difference.
And yes, I fall into that age category.

To reinforce my comments above about getting facts, here are a couple of links to SSA that shine a bright light.

Trust Fund Data: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a1.html

Investment........: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cgi-bin/transactions.cgi

These and many more facts are available right on the website.

Ernest, if you're going to stake your claim 'on facts', it would be a really good idea for you to look at all of them, not just the ones that FDR fed to you and others 80 years ago...I've read the original law and am also aware that it has had dozens of changes over the years- not the least of which have added people to the SS rolls for disability or other reasons, changed the funding and payout mechanisms or re-directed surpluses...you can read about some of the major changes here:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/crs9436.pdf
When you're done with that, you can go learn what the term "unfunded liability" means. While your 'trust fund' contains $2.7 Trillion in IOUs, it also has hanging over its head nearly $9 Trillion in UNFUNDED liabilities. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2012/tr2012.pdf see page 14+ for details...
To save time, lets just say that 'unfunded' means THERE IS NO MONEY THERE. (Caps for emphasis, I'm not shouting at you). That means there is no vault in the basement of the SS building that is stuffed full of government bonds that can be redeemed as needed, regardless of your interpretation of the original 1937 law. There is nothing there except an IOU from the Treasury, and currently you and your family owe that trust fund some $73,000...
If you want further confirmation, you can read what the US Chamber of Commerce says about it : http://www.uschamber.com/issues/retirementpension/socialsecurity/trust-fund-myth

And if you're feeling really masochistic, since you like wikipedia so much, read what they have to say about the 'pay as you go' concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
See the section titled 'History'...

Welcome to the club Jimmy. Now that you see the actual Law and SSA's own evaluations of itself contained in these documents, you can see how messed up it is specifically. Stunning isn't it? Now, we can have a real, hopefully constructive discussion of these specifics.

For example, in a separate sub-thread, Janet noted that divorced wage-earners get 100% SS benefits and their divorced spouses get another 50%. Its even more messed up. If the wage-earner had multiple spouses (10+ year marriage) then each can receive an additional 50% of that benefit when the wage-earner retires or dies. One wage-earner could result in a 300% liability. Now, that's something specific that we can fix. And as you've learned from your reading, nothing like that was in the original law and, when it was changed, no effective adjustment in contribution or distribution - hence one of the many Unfunded Liabilities.

As you read, there is page after page of this. It is not hidden. it is not obscured. It is right there in black and white. Each one needs to be reviewed and satisfactory adjustment made else that "Projected Unfunded Liability" will become "Unfunded Social Security Retirement Check". It wasn't correctly done to begin with; the time to fix it is now.

So, pick something specific and tell me how you think we ought to fix it.

From Wikipedia, Social Security Trust Fund / History that you referenced:

"The Social Security system is primarily a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system."

In the paragraph immediately above, it says:

"The trust funds run surpluses in that the amount paid in by current workers is more than the amount paid out to current beneficiaries. These surpluses are given to the U.S. Treasury (...) in exchange for special U.S. government securities, which are deposited into the trust funds."

Further, "Pay-as-you-go" is a hot link to Wikipedia's page on PAYGO which says

"PAYGO is the practice in the United States of financing expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowed."

From SSA's page titled "Ponzi Schemes vs. Social Security" at http://www.ssa.gov/history/ponzi.htm, look down the page to Pay-As-You-Go for their explanation.

Specifically, in 2011, SSA received $698+ billion. Of that, they paid $603+ billion in benefits. The difference of $95+ billion was put into the Social Security Trust Fund which then contained $2,524+ billion (ie $2.524 triilion). Almost all of which is invested in US Bonds which you call "IOUs".

And they are IOUs. That's what a mortgage or a car loan is. With a country though, if they default on their bonds, their currency is destroyed also - e.g. Greece now, Germany 1920s. Lets not let it get there!

I guess I misread something you wrote earlier and took it for a defense of the current system...I've been in 'the club' for many years...I knew SS was screwed up 30 years ago and would gladly have opted out of it then if I could have...
I think I mentioned my idea for fixing it...start pro-rating benefits according to age, eventually weaning everybody off the system. The federal government has no business in the retirement business.

Thanks Jimmy. I agree that throwing out many of the current ideas are necessary; but, I don't think that we need to throw out everything. If I ruled the world, I'd establish a system starting as follows (though its negotiable).

1 Pay-As-You-Earn System - must be. Almost all people don't have the discipline to save first. The amount and how/who might hold/invest the funds are separate questions.

2. Old Age, Death or Disability - only available then. Its focused on this (as it is now). Funds to do other things can be established separately

So far, these ideas are no different than Social Security then or now. So, help me out. What would you (anybody) add to the above list or change in the current Social Security. Here's something suggested by Janet.

3. One Account/One Amount. The value of the account is fixed by the Wage-Earner and all claimants must divide this among themselves. None of this "you get 100% of the whole, they get 50% and so do some others". If this subsequently creates hardships, then "they" need to apply to the hardship programs.

Wha'cha think?

J. Alexander I believe that staying at home and caring for young children is an honorable profession. I have been an active feminist since college and those two sentences are not in conflict with each other. I just happen to think that if you put 2 piggy banks on the dresser and for 40 years you put money into one of them and nothing into the other when you break them open, one of them is going to be empty. And it is impossible to get money from that bank. So if women want, need , prefer to stay at home (and I am good with that- I work hard for women to have that choice among other choices in their lives), then perhaps we need to require women to deposit money into that piggy bank over the course of their lives so that they can withdraw it later. They are a tax deduction in the joint tax return so they are given some sort of dollar value. I have volunteered in our community for over 39 years. , And while it has made my life a rich one qualitatively it has not enhanced my quantitative bank account. My job and self employment has done that for me. As for deadbeats on EBT cards etc I agree with you. However, I think that you will find that the percentage of abusers on assistance is quite low and that the system serves a useful role in our society.

Janet, if you look at the numbers, this SSA Spouse, Children payout is not as large in dollars as it seems to be in principle. Check out the link to Spousal Benefits at SSA - http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/yourspouse.htm and the subsequent link(s) regarding children etc. and the data on the different benefits paid. This is the "Insurance" portion of SS, that sees Husband and Stay-at-Home Wife as a family unit which is earning income, paying FICA and raising children. I think that that's the principle you refer to.

The above SSA page shows that the non-money earning spouse can get up to 50% of the money-earning spouses benefit upon that spouses retirement, disability or death. And, children age 18 or less get benefits. However, the most that a family (husband, wife, children) can get, in total, is 150% (may go up to 180% with disabled children). And, the children fall off at ~18. I, personally, don't have a problem with that. Except, that spreading 100% of the workers benefit (instead of 150%), in principle, makes more sense.

But, did you know that every spouse (10 years of marriage of more) of that wage earner is entitled to half the wage-earners benefit amount starting when the wage-earner can/does retire. So, someone gets married/divorced every 10 years and each of those spouses can get 50%.

These are some of the real issues that nibble away at SS. Good point.