Who says so? Congress. Who will demonstrate if they renege?

When a budget crunch happens, at least one of three things must happen to varying degrees. The backlash that I see is:-

1. Raise taxes - the employed, businesses and economists denounce this as stupid and make a monumental fuss. The appropriate Congressman are labelled as damaging the economy.
2. Cut military spending - the military, the Senate, the President and administration denounce this as damaging to the war on terror. The media, with Fox in particular, label the appropriate Congressman as undermining national safety and drown out any sensible debate.
3. Cut social services - the poor and elderly, as you identify, demonstrate. The media label the appropriate Congressman as heartless and picking on the weak.

All three are politically damaging but when the budget reaches the point where the problem cannot be ignored, it becomes a question of which is the least politically damaging. Could I imagine the US electorate thinking "I'm prepared to have less money to maintain welfare." or "A greater risk of terrorism is no excuse to let the poor and elderly suffer."? No. I envisage marginal military cuts at best. Taxes, especialy for the purposes of wealth redistribution, are unamerican. That leaves least worst action.

Unless you are arguing 3 would create more shouting than 1 or 2.

What started the discussion?

Levels of spending.

So you insisting that I dive into your land of make-believe served no purpose to further any point being made, save yours.

Option 1 WILL HAPPEN. Regardless of what you term "the fuss". first step will be to eliminate the FICA cap. I expect this to occur in the next 10 years. That will equate to a 0% impact on anyone earning 90k or less...and a 0-8% impact on people making more than this. I expect this to happen under democratic leadership.

Option 2, as I explained, has already been happening on a percentage basis for 60 years. Whether you think so or not, even with the "billions" that are passed around by the press...in the grand scale this war isn't really costing us that much in "benchmark" terms (vietnam, WW2, Korea). Remember that US GDP is 12 TRILLION and growing at 3-5% a year. Regardless of this, the US government could zero spending on all programs except SS, Medicare and interest coverage...and would still be broke in 2050 (given CBO projections).

Option 3 will also happen to varying degrees. However, the way these items were legislated leaves the current politicos extremely little power over their continued existance. These programs cannot simply be "erased", (again, your protestations to the contrary noted, though incorrect). The agency proscribes benefits to be administered. The trust is held and accounted at Public Debt away from general funds. There is no way, none, that a majority vote would make it through that would dissolve the program. (it would benefit me and many here greatly, though).

What will happen. Benefits will be delayed...making people work longer before their SS payments are received. They will eventually establish means testing so that Bill Gates and his friends will not qualify for benefits. etc.

The problem is, it is extremely likely given our government's inability to do things right, that these changes will be made so late in the game that we will still run the risk of economic collapse.

Welcome to IWETHEY!