DISQUS

Bring it around third and head for home: Only one group can possibly support the current system -- those who think that the overwhelming majority of people are incompetent, hedonistic dullards who cannot think beyond their next paycheck.

The so-called "trust fund" holds Treasury securities. What is a Treasury security? Nothing more than a promise to raise revenue in the future. So the "solvency" of Social Security is premised on nothing more than the promise of the federal government to raise taxes in the future.

Splendid.

Consider a counterexample. If your parents own a Treasury bond, then yes that is a future asset to you (as your parents' beneficiary).

But a mountain of IOUs exchanged between your mother and your father are not going to make your future inheritance any bigger.

Stated yet another way, putting coins in your piggy bank means something. Putting handwritten IOUs promising to pay yourself in the future means nothing.

The SSTF is exactly like that -- just empty accounting entries exchanged between two parts of the federal government, backed by absolutely nothing.

Vladimir and Estragon Explain Social Security Reform

This site attributes the quote to Anatole France.

'The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread'. Anatole France

Commentators Attacking The Orthodoxy

You are entirely correct, the Supreme Court has made it crystal clear that there is no property interest in Social Security benefits (in Wall Street parlance, benefits never "vest").

See Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960) or my post on the subject.

So when you buy something today, be sure to smile.

Until you look at the receipt and see the sales tax paid, then frown instead.

There is way too much overthinking going on here. Wireless internet access is not a public good (it's perfectly excludable). There is therefore no justification whatsoever for it to be publicly provided. Those concerned about wireless Internet access for the poor (besides having severe priority issues) should consider vouchers or a comparable program.

There is way too much overthinking going on with this issue. Wireless internet access is simply not a public good (it's perfectly excludable). There is therefore no justification whatsoever for it to be publicly provided. Those concerned about wireless Internet access for the poor (besides having severely misplaced priorities) should consider vouchers or a comparable program.

I agree -- just imagine the chilling effect in the future when a media source has a controversial story with questionable (not forged, but questionable) documents.


One thing that I think is obvious at this point is that CBS' lawyers are now seriously involved with, if not in total control of, this situation. That could become standard operating procedure if MSM fear a Congressional oversight every time they make an (honest) mistake.



One.Rotten.Apple.