Here's the picture Shogun was trying to post:
Note that the green part is SS. Note, further, how it stops growing in 2030 and never goes north of ~6% of GDP. The bars look scary in the aggregate*, but who would look at this chart and say "the green part, that's your problem?" Nobody in the sighted community.
In the context of the federal budget, SS is not a killer. Medicare is. That is not because it's a bloated government program, but because the growth in medical costs will dwarf everything else over the next several decades.
Lemme say that again,
slowly in bold:
the growth in medical costs will dwarf everything else over the next several decades.
This is important, cause 99% of people who fret over the deficit talk big about waste, earmarks, porkulus, SS, etc. But that's chickenfeed. Medical spending is the only game in town. Real talk.
Social Security is not sustainable at currently scheduled levels over the long term with current tax rates without large infusions of additional revenue. There will be a growing shortfall once the trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2041.
Just saying, if they don't make changes, you or I might not see much or anything from SS. SS was never meant to be the only thing people used to retire on anyway.
I saw the math back when Dubya was pushing private stock accounts back in '05 (what a shame
that didn't pan out) and without any change in taxes, SS benefits would be cut back by 20-25%. Which means SS could still pay out 75-80% of the current benefit schedule, which somehow becomes "ZOMG bankrupt won't see a penny" in the translation from numbers to talking points.
In any case, if you want to keep the current payout schedule, all it takes is either uncapping FICA (the only flat tax proposal right-wingers ever oppose) or some combination of greater wage equality and more immigration.
spoiler (click to show/hide)
*That burgundy slice of the chart is BS. It's interest payments on the federal debt, under the assumption that revenues remain constant, even as they're outstripped by expenditures to the tune of 40% of GDP. The only reason to make that assumption (and to include interest payments in a graph meant to clarify future entitlement spending trends) is to make the graph scarier. WTF, Bush era GAO?
