Here is the budget, rounded off for dummies

30% Social Security

30% Defense

10% Medicare

10% Medicaid

10% Interest on the debt

10% Everything else

Every year, we are short by about 20%.

How do we solve the problem? One thing is obvious...whining about "earmarks" and "pork", which are some little fraction of a percent in the "Everything else" category, is meaningless. That would be like trying to pull yourself out of forclosure and tens of thousands in credit card debt by clipping a few coupons on Sunday morning. In reality, you have to tackle the big ticket items, such as your mortgage and car payments. Likewise, there is no serious way to address the budget without tackling entitlements and defense.

My personal solution? Split the difference: a 10% across-the-board increase in all taxes, and a 10% cut in spending on every program. Any change from that new baseline would have to be revenue neutral. That would be equally hated by both parties and more or less equally spread the pain across all Americans....but at least we would quite screwing our kids over.

Now that would be a new change in politics.

Not to be too picky about it, but Social Security is about $600 billion and is fully funded by our payroll taxes. So if you start looking at expenditures that are funded by income taxes (both individual and corporate) and by borrowing, it makes it a bit easier to pick your targets.

Non SSN budget.

defense homeland sec etc....30%

medicare 16%

Unemp & welfare 14%

medicaid 9%

interest on the debt 12%

how about this.

0% socialist security

0% mediscare

0% unemployment and welfare

a 50% cut in taxes

that'd be nice. the fed gubmint has no place in my retirement, medical care, unemployment or welfare.

I've been paying into social security since I was 14. Are you telling me that I'm out of luck?

Run for office on that platform...see how far you get.

'I've been paying into social security since I was 14. Are you telling me that I'm out of luck?'

i say the gubmint should cut you a check for the monies you've put into the scheme plus some interest and wean your sorry ass.

The money that was paid in to SS was based upon a law. I obeyed the law. If you think it would be possible to pay out all that people my age have paid in then you are the sorry ass....since math is an important skill.

You are using a false type of accounting. The government could claim, for example, that the income tax was foremost a military tax, and then go about claiming the military was "fully funded" and even running a surplus. Indeed, we could pair up any tax and any spending project this way if we wanted, in order to protect that spending program by claiming it was "fully funded".

In reality, that distinction is meaningless. Money comes in, we spend it on things. We spend about 20% more than we bring it, though this fluctuates based on the economic winds.

There is no reason to bring up detailed numbers. Anyone who really cares can go read the budget themselves. But people don't remember numbers like 12%, 22% blah blah. My first point is the vast majority of our money is spent on just a few things, and if we are going to deal with budget issues, those programs are the ones that need to be addressed. My second point is that the problem is really big, and big changes will be required to fix it.

I'm cool with this. A real debate among the presidential candidates would be to actually discuss whether any of the promises of the Great Society ever came true. Or, whether, in fact, the opposite of what was predicted by the 60's liberals is what really resulted. Wouldn't that be interesting?

'I've been paying into social security since I was 14. Are you telling me that I'm out of luck?'

i say the gubmint should cut you a check for the monies you've put into the scheme plus some interest and wean your sorry ass.

That's a false picture of how Social Security works. Today's revenues go to today's retirees. An individual's SS taxes don't go into some account for that individual for later use; it goes straight out to today's beneficiaries (or at least most of it does; whatever is left over becomes a part of the SS "surplus" which will be drawn on when the baby boomers retire).

And the next generation of workers will pay for the benefits of the next generation of retirees--assuming enough Americans want to continue the program, and the worker-beneficiary ratio is high enough to maintain it.

'That's a false picture of how Social Security works.'

i know how the ponzi scheme works alright. i say that if you need your hand held by the gubmint, then by god the gubmint should hold you hand. just not with my money.

my pappy always bickers how the good old days were so much easier. back then, they really didn't think about budgets, wars (well, ww2 just finished anyway), etc. back then, you'd take a good look at the candidates' mug and see which one you liked best and that would usually turn out okay. very elementary, but i just wanted to point out how things are so complicated these pollclash.com​, they slated an obama vs. mccain video of sorts, showing how they wish to set their tone. the gist i got out of it is revolution vs. evolution. being young and silly, i go for revolution: i go for O. who knows? maybe a clean slate is all we really need.

If you are already retired, or close to it, maybe you'll get your money back. If not, good luck...all we are arguing about is how big the size of the shafting you'll get. I am a dozen years away from full retirement, will have a quarter of a mil (that's right, I know this from SS info) over 50 years in the system, and there's no way I'll get my "principle" let alone "principle and interest" back from the system. Social Security once was a welfare program, designed to lift the poorest of the poor into mere poverty, and it is inevitable that it will be that way again. Unless we want to impoverish our kids and grandkids.

invested. So when the boomer retire, you have an IOU,not cash to pay them with.

You may be right but I'm not about to sign up for Irving's idea that I just walk away from what I've paid in. I disagree with you that it was a welfare program. It was always intended as a retirement program. It only amounted to "welfare" in the years that people were retiring without having ever paid in.

There are a number of other ways to stabilize the program. If you have retirement income over $100k then perhaps you should not receive SS payments. If you never paid in, you should get nothing. I have a relative on my wife's side who has schizophrenia and is fully disabled. He has not had a job since he was about 20 and he is 55 now. He qualifies as a survivor. That is $800 per month. That is welfare, in my view, and shouldn't be part of SS.

You and I are in the same boat. I'm 55 and can retire at 62. I have been paying the max into SS for the last 20 years. SS payments will be about half of my retirement income. It is my money and I'm not about to go along with Irving because he doesn't want to pay into the system. He can always do us all a favor and move to a country he approves of more than this one, since all he does is bitch about what communists we all are.