D.J. Tice: As a nest egg, Social Security has cracked. But we knew that.

  • Article by: D.J. Tice , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 18, 2009 - 11:57 AM

To patch it, we're going to have to make an honest-to-goodness claim on the federal budget.

  • 14
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
rhankinsOct. 17, 0910:48 PM

The system is a bit of a mess, but there's another way to look at it: forget about dollars and cents and years and deficits; those things just cloud the issue, and it's too easy to skew the numbers. The fact is, the proportion of people who are working to those who are retired is decreasing. Retirees need things that are produced by those who are working, so either proportionally more of the stuff from those who are working is going to go to them, or retirees are going to get proportionally less stuff -- or some combination of the two. No accounting tricks can change that simple fact. The question is simply one of allocation and fairness. The government can't produce more stuff; it can only decide who gets more and who gets less.

7
2
IkontaOct. 17, 0911:49 PM

Mr Tice, "where oh where" do you get your info? Another "silly" article about "nothing". As you should know, the SS fund has been raided for years by the "Inside the Beltway" rats. ...... and the "Wall Street" rats would like nothing better than getting their claws on the remainder and the dwindling new money "coming in". Ummm... let's see now ...... if employment levels were back to normal and the US did some more mfg ...... would there be a problem? I don't think so. Regards.

13
2
JudelingOct. 17, 0911:59 PM

Pop the Cap. Problem solved.

11
1
jusmeeOct. 18, 09 6:48 AM

Nothing was done to prevent this largely because WE have been bushwacked, not once, but twice. And i'll say it again, the wealthy simply need to pay more in taxes! Something/everything is wrong when individuals can get millions/billions in bonuses. Close the gap!

15
3
pagemarshOct. 18, 09 8:02 AM

I'd like to see more reports regarding why Social Security as a government provided fund for the elderly was included in the general budget as a way of curbing any anxieties people had about huge government spending on war some 30 years ago. By including social security, not only could it appear that the US government was spending more on its citizens and not on war, but also it made social security more vulnerable. Finally.... the retirement age has to be raised. Yeah, I don't like the idea of having to work until I am in my 70s, but frankly, social security shouldn't be for people that are living long beyond the age when they can retire. This should have been discussed years ago, but like most people older than me, no one touched the topic and left it for younger generations to worry about. Thank you as always.

7
3
hiramfosterOct. 18, 09 8:27 AM

Social Security has it's problems. Medicare and Medicaid have problems that are a great deal worse. But both are symptoms of the real challenge that faces this country, the aging of the population. That's the real issue we must, recognize, understand and deal with.

7
2
humphydumphyOct. 18, 09 8:38 AM

Would have been fine for many years to come. The beloved LBJ and his Liberal friends decided to loot the Social Security Fund to fight the "War on Poverty". Until 1965 SS funds were intact and separate from the General Fund.........PS Poverty won. Buy rocking chair stocks,

4
9
ConservitiveOct. 18, 09 9:27 AM

Let's continue pushing for the government to take over health care since they are doing so well with Social Security. And all of us Medicare recipients are REALLY excited about "reallocating" $400,000,000,000 to pay for a "public Option" concurrently with adding 27-47 MILLION to healthcare and no new doctors!! Yea, go government!!

5
5
worldcitizenOct. 18, 09 9:59 AM

This is a class war, pitting the person who wants that second Mercedes with someone who can't afford their prescription. It's not that there isn't plenty of money (Wall street is still giving out millions in bonuses). It's how our wealth is allocated.

4
3
editor25Oct. 18, 0910:09 AM

DJ says: "Democrats greeted former President George W. Bush's 2005 attempt to put Social Security restructuring on the agenda..." Ah, no, Bush tried to force SS beneficiaries to put their money in the stock market, which would have cost the SS Admin at least $1.5 trillion up front, since current SS taxes pay for now-retired peoples' benefits, and that money would have to be replaced somehow. If he had been successful we all know citizens would've lost their shirts in the market. Either DJ didn't know that, or is deliberately ignoring it. That is the kind of dishonest discourse we've come to expect from Mr Tice.

5
4

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

question of the day

Poll: What was your biggest Olympics disappointment?

Weekly Question