What was the point?

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.

Not being American it is entirely possible that my analysis of US culture or budget is incorrect. Your explanations do change the basis of my analysis.

So, welfare spending dwarfs military spending so much that zero military spending still wouldn't solve the problem. Alas, a 0-8% tax on the rich, locking out of the rich and delaying payment is nowhere near enough $80 trillion either. Ouch!

That strikes me that the military won't be heavily cut as there's little point in fighting a hard, political battle that still won't solve the problem. A combination of tax and welfare cuts, then. Since the budget continues to be out of balance with no effort to fix that, by the time action is taken, a workable tax raise on a $12 trillion economy isn't going to cover it. Double ouch!

That leaves the economic-collapsing tax, as you say, or cutting welfare. Both a working economy and a working welfare are mandatory. Mandatory is relative. Which will cause the least riots? I can't see welfare surviving.

Welcome to IWETHEY!