[Williams]

Well, I agree it’s unpopular but don’t we recognize social security must be cut in some way?

If conservatives won’t cut any of this stuff, savings will come from where?

[angcat]

Why don’t we cut welfare?

[Bullfrogg]

What are you going to say to that old woman
who is drawing SS from her dead husbands account?
Some of these people just have enough to pay a power bill
and medication, let alone food. So cut away at the very
subsistance say $950/month....no problem to you, right.
There are millions of old people in this pickle.

[metmom]

Well, I agree it’s unpopular but don’t we recognize social security must be cut in some way? If conservatives won’t cut any of this stuff, savings will come from where?

Hello....

SS is OUR money.

Cut welfare.

Cut subsidies.

Cut bailouts

Cut the education budget.

Cut lavish benefits for career politicians.

Cut any number of useless bureaucracies and handout programs.

The list is almost endless....

[metmom]

Well, I agree it’s unpopular but don’t we recognize social security must be cut in some way? If conservatives won’t cut any of this stuff, savings will come from where?

STOP SUBSIDIZING ILLEGALS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RC2]

The largest cut to SS could come from the using of the program for everything under the sun. Take it back to its original intent.

[justlurking]

We have to do something with Social Security. But, I don't agree that the "deficit reduction" committee should do it.

Social Security was running a surplus up until recently -- meaning that more payroll taxes were being collected than being paid in benefits. The problem is that the excess was used to fuel MORE deficit spending. The "trust fund" is nothing more than special government bonds.

Still, it represents money that people effectively loaned to the federal government, whether they wanted to do so or not. So, any cuts in Social Security have to acknowledge that it's not just another spending program.

However, even if you take that "trust fund" at face value (rather than an unfunded liability), there's still not enough to pay full benefits after the fund is exhausted about 2040. Current payroll taxes will only fund about 75% of projected benefits at that time.

I'm all for "re-balancing" Social Security, by at least bringing benefits down to a point where it can be sustained. I don't believe that increasing payroll taxes further is a solution.

But, it should be adjusted in a way that spreads the pain among everyone:

• Current beneficiaries get future reductions, perhaps in reduced COLA increases.

• Future beneficiaries get future reductions as well. But, it should be by reduction of the monthly benefit, rather than increasing the retirement age. Increasing the retirement age just increases the probability that some people will never get ANY benefit because they die early.

• Beneficiaries of Social Security that receive disproportionately a large benefit compared to their contributions (i.e. disability, survivors, etc.) should be transitioned to another support program, rather than depleting Social Security assets.

• Under no circumstances should Social Security be "means tested". If I sacrificed and invested in 401(k), IRA, etc. so that I will have a supplemental stream of income, I should not be penalized while my neighbor with the same annual salary blew it all on cars, boats, hookers, and blackjack.