Enlarge Congress?

[Reds4Life]

I'd prefer the option of putting some of the money in private accounts. It makes sense, why limit returns? The average return with Social Security is 2%, which in many cases isn't even enough to keep up with the inflation rate. Even if you go with something risk free, like government bonds, the return rate is historically double that, around 4% at least.

The Presidents plan seems to be VERY popular with younger workers (early 20's to mid 30's). Almost everyone I know in that age range loves the idea and is pulling for it to happen. Even people in their 40's and 50's I know like the idea. Sadly many seniors believe the mantra that Bush is trying to take your Social Security check away, which is 100% false. The program is totally optional, if you like the current system you can stay in it. For those who want some options however, I think it's a great idea.

[pedro]

So you and some guy at the Washington Post think Social Security is in good shape. Anyone else on this forum think it's in good shape?

I certainly don't think calling a system that is projected to be fully funded for the next 37 years "in crisis" is very accurate.

[LawFive]

Double or Triple Congress? Crazy. Each member already gets close to a $1 million budget each year for staff, travel, office needs, etc. Where does that money come from? Us. The 435 members we have now have a hard enough time getting anything done. Multiply that times two or three, and every congressional day would be like trying to drive from Downtown Cincy up I-75 at 5:00 pm. For the non-locals, thats oftentimes a 90 minute drive to go 20 miles.

[MuEconRedLeg]

I certainly don't think calling a system that is projected to be fully funded for the next 37 years "in crisis" is very accurate.

But, the point the opposition to reform will not address is the fact that it is not "fully funded" on its own. It is funded as long as the trust fund is funded. But, the problem is the trust fund is full of bonds that are obligations of the general revenue (i.e. all the money for Congress to divvy out).

This means as we move forward with Social Security we young workers will have to pay SS through a payroll tax and then through our income taxes. This starts at about 2017 and I have seen estimates that it will eventually take 1/3 of our incomes just to pay Social Security without paying for everything else. To me that is a crisis!

We can sit around today a say it is not a problem, because we do not like President Bush, but when I am about 35 I am going to be wondering where in the heck my money is going!

[Redsfaithful]

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

Interesting Data:

Top ten highest concentrations of Social Security beneficiaries as a percentage of a state's population ...

West Virginia 22.4%
Maine 20.1%
Arkansas 19.9%
Florida 19.6%
Pennsylvania 19.3%
Alabama 19.3%
Kentucky 18.7%
Iowa 18.5%
Mississippi 18.5%
Missouri 18.1%

Worst demographic for President Bush on Social Security, by age ...

In the new Washington Post/ABC poll, President Bush has a 38% approval rating on Social Security and a 55% disapproval. 7% have no opinion.

Which is his worst age bracket? 18-30 year olds. They give him 33% approval/60% disapproval.

[Rojo]

Anyone else on this forum think it's in good shape?

Count me in. Also the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Trustees.

[Rojo]

Doubling congress might bring in 2-3 more independents, but not a whole lot.

With all due respect, if Congress expanded to a 1-100,000 ratio, San Francisco alone (pop. 800K) would add 2-3 independents.

Its sad to me to see how far we've wandered away from the ideals of the founding fathers.

[MuEconRedLeg]

Count me in. Also the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Trustees.

Deficit expanding transfer payments.

With all due respect, if Congress expanded to a 1-100,000 ratio, San Francisco alone (pop. 800K) would add 2-3 independents.

Which would be diluted by the 15 Democrats and 3 Republicans WV sends.

ts sad to me to see how far we've wandered away from the ideals of the founding fathers.

Exactly, income tax, payroll tax, astronomical government spending, and expanding government have to go.

[pedro]

But, the point the opposition to reform will not address is the fact that it is not "fully funded" on its own. It is funded as long as the trust fund is funded. But, the problem is the trust fund is full of bonds that are obligations of the general revenue (i.e. all the money for Congress to divvy out).

This means as we move forward with Social Security we young workers will have to pay SS through a payroll tax and then through our income taxes. This starts at about 2017 and I have seen estimates that it will eventually take 1/3 of our incomes just to pay Social Security without paying for everything else. To me that is a crisis!

We can sit around today a say it is not a problem, because we do not like President Bush, but when I am about 35 I am going to be wondering where in the heck my money is going!

Can you elaborate on the way the trust fund is funded? I'm just trying to fully understand what you are saying. thanks.

[Rojo]

Which would be diluted by the 15 Democrats and 3 Republicans WV sends.

There are 435 members in the House and 100 in the Senate. Now which has more blacks? latinos? independents? Which represents the far ends of the spectrum better?

Its real simple -- the smaller the districts, the greater the diversity.

[TC81190]

Heh heh heh...this thread title has the word 'enlarge' in it.

[paintmered]

Heh heh heh...this thread title has the word 'enlarge' in it.

gO rEDZ!! :dflynn: :dflynn:

[TC81190]

Merely kidding good fellow. :MandJ:

[Phoenix]

Count me in. Also the Congressional Budget Office and the Social Security Trustees.

You would think differently if you understood the demographics of this aging country.

[REDREAD]

With all due respect, if Congress expanded to a 1-100,000 ratio, San Francisco alone (pop. 800K) would add 2-3 independents.

Its sad to me to see how far we've wandered away from the ideals of the founding fathers.

I don't doubt that, I was assuming that expansion wouldn't be so extreme that SF got 8 reps on its own..

If you expanded to a 1-100k ratio, that means we'd have roughly 3000 representatives, right ? (Based on the US population of approximately 300 million.)

Man, that is WAY too many congressmen, at least IMO