Whether we call this a 'crisis' or not?

During the privatization debate we correctly said exactly what you're saying... that SS does not need to be privatized, it only needs some small tweaks to fix it. Now Obama has proposed a progressive proposal on such tweaks, and the left reacts like he's committed an unforgivable apostasy.

Honestly, Chuchundra... do you really think privatization is going to come storming back from the grave and -- with a Democratic congress in power -- become law, just because a Democratic politician uses the word crisis? We've got to be a little more confident than that now.

Whether we like it or not, this is a perceived problem. Whether we like it or not, many years down the line, probably decades, we do get a shortfall and that does worry people. Can we do the tweaks we said were necessary, or is the more righteous path to continue cowering in fear here?

Exactly. An analogy:

I know I'll have to replace my car every 5 to 10 years if I'm going to stay mobile. Should I panic about the three to six cars I'll need to buy over the next 30 years? Should I be all wanked about the fact that in 2037 a car will likely cost six figures? No. I'll be able to afford them as when the time comes.

There are other things to worry about, but this isn't it. Letting the opposition frame it as a "crisis" distorts the problem (to the extent that there is a problem.)

If those on SS now are getting more out than they put in, where's the $$$ coming from, and what will happen (or is happening) when the ratio of retirees to workers increases?

Laugh all you like, but then please answer me. Thx.

The productivity boost in the 90s obviated many of the long-term concerns.

. . .because tax increases that will screw the upper middle class have worked so well for Democrats before.

Even from the POV of Democratic/Willie Sutton tax ethics, it would make more sense to propose that the payroll tax be abolished altogether and that SS be paid for with general revenue--lifting the tax cap without raising benefit limits will just make it blatantly obvious that the "trust fund" is a fiction anyway and that once again the Democrats are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I have no problem with Obama "leveraging" Hillary to more liberal positions. In fact, I welcome it.

Removing the cap causes problems with the R portrayal of raising taxes. It may still work as effective propaganda, despite abundant evidence of D responsibility and R irresponsibility on fiscal matters.

They lost that battle, and they won't win it if they try to fight it again.

Obama's right on this one: raise the cap.

If Obama wins, I'm assuming we'll have both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The good faith of Republican Party officeholders will not be needed.

Ken White and I have already had this conversation, ad nauseum.

But if your response is to discuss Giuliani, who:

1) is garnering nontrivial opposition due exclusively to his pro-choice and pro-gay stance, and
2) did a complete 180 on open borders,

then my response is that reason and facts are not entering the conversation to start with. You gotta meet people on their own level.

I honestly didn't think I mischaracterized your position; I had thought your references to "moonbats" and "BDS" were pretty clear. Is there a nuance I'm missing?

Quick request for a moderator to erase the offending parenthetical.

(Note that luisalegria has explicitly endorsed the first statement, so it probably ought to stay.)