Social Sec will stay solvent for 20 years... *IF* we pay off 1/3 of the National Debt

[flacaltenn]

It's a MONUMENT LIE that the "trust fund" holds US treasury bonds.. The only thing in the drawer of the trust is a book with an accounting entry for an "interdepartmental transfer" of the stolen surplus and promise to repay.

At the end of every SS Admin yearly statement -- buried in the back pages you'll find something similiar to...... .





Or you can take the bad news from anyone of a number of CBO files..



About "being invested in US Treasury Bonds.. Not at all.. They are "special issue", non-saleable, non-transferable...... That is ---- an IOU...



You have been ROBBED.. You are being LIED TO --- and now you are paying TWICE for the robbery..

BillyRock --- NY Carbineer --------

Yes -- I'm quoting myself.. Because I'm tired of folks propagating the lie that the Trust fund has anything of value in it.. No cash, No US treasury bonds --- just an accounting entry representing a grand larceny that would send ANY group of corporate execs to PRISON for 7 to 10..

CURRENT TAXPAYERS pay when the trust has negative cash flow like in 2010 and 11.. Robbing them TWICE for the same benefit and charging THEM interest for the crime..

The Trust Fund is composed of US treasury securities. They have every bit as much value as any other bond sold by the US.

If the Trust Fund has no value, where did the money come from that made up the difference between payroll tax revenues and benefit obligations in the last couple years?

If there no Trust Fund, why wasn't everyone on SS shorted in their checks for the last 2 or 3 years?

Thanks for censoring most of my post.. You can stomp your heels, whine up a storm.. The SS surplus was SPENT without putting ANYTHING of value into the trust fund. No US Treasury bonds --- just "special issue" accounting memos like the link I provided from the SSA says..

When the fund went NEGATIVE in 2010, CURRENT taxpayers made up the diff. OR the Treasury issued NEW DEBT which is liability --- not an ASSET --- to current and future taxpayers. I don't know why you insist on propagating a myth that even the SSA and the CBO and FORMER HEADS of SSA have already acknowledged.

Congress is giving these agencies cover to continue the lie about the trust fund. They should be in cuffs for forcing YOU to pay TWICE with interest for the same SS deficit dollar in 2010.

 

[JakeStarkey]

OK, then, flacaltenn, since Congress is not going to end SS, we must raise the taxable income, install means testing, let you and others opt out without collecting your taxes, and let's move on.

 

[flacaltenn]

If you ask me 20 years ago, I would have gladly given up 1/2 of my future entitlement to get a 1/4 break on my SS "premium". Plenty of money would have been left in my FICA account "for the needy"..

Instead you let Congress suck the last of the SS surplus dry with nothing to show for it.

Nobody wants to slam the door on reciepients now.. But your klan did a bang-up job WASTING the end of the surplus when it COULD HAVE USED to defer future fund liabilities by doing exactly that. At the time, the Demoncrats SCREAMED that that was equivalent to "ending SS". It wasn't.. It was a plan to save YOU and the current taxpayers money NOW today --- when the fund NEEDS extra income..

 

[AmazonTania]

Nobody has yet lost their wealth to Social Security. Millions of Americans have depended on it to provide a safety net when they were too old to work

Considering that you have to live to be 105 to collect 100% of what you paid into Social Security, that's not true. The average couple pays $598,000 into social security and can expect to collect at least $556,000 if they both live to be 85.

http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/41...dicare-Taxes-and-Benefits-Over-a-Lifetime.pdf

No other investment strategy provides negative returns continually for participants, except Social Security. Any other business model would have been brought up on charges of fraud.

For working Americans, the concept of retirement did not exist before Social Security

People saved for their retirement or invested before Social Security. Social Security was created because it was assumed people were too stupid to do it on their own.

so when the republicans passed laws that deregulated the banks

Which laws were that? Do you know the difference between deregulations, misregulations and no-regulation?

an you lost every dime you made, now whose the stupid one ???you or me ??? who has social security to stay alive ... you republicans really do say the stupidest shit ...

I didn't lose a thing. I was bailed out, just like I expected the Government to do full principle and interest, while you are still collecting negative returns from your social security.

Making money is unfamiliar to you. I understand that.

 

[AmazonTania]

Social security is not broke, it has run surpluses since its birth.

No. No it hasn't. Sure, one deficit during the 1980's. It could be considered a fluke. But three consecutive years from 2010 - 2012, and a projected cash-flow deficit in 2013...

Yeah, Social Security is running dry.

How can Social Security be 'running dry' if the Trust Fund balance continues to increase?

I already explained it to you, or rather you unknowingly explained it to yourself and then I explained it in greater detail... The projected interest earnings is greater than the non-interest income deficit. That is what is increasing the trust fund, not surpluses. The key word again is projected. There is no money going into that trust fund. It is just what the Trust Fund is projected to earn.

Again, if you are going to let the government take whatever you make on your 'so called' trust fund, you could at least learn about how it works. I mean, it's your money. Find out what the Government is doing with it...

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you ask me 20 years ago, I would have gladly given up 1/2 of my future entitlement to get a 1/4 break on my SS "premium". Plenty of money would have been left in my FICA account "for the needy"..

Instead you let Congress suck the last of the SS surplus dry with nothing to show for it.

Nobody wants to slam the door on reciepients now.. But your klan did a bang-up job WASTING the end of the surplus when it COULD HAVE USED to defer future fund liabilities by doing exactly that. At the time, the Demoncrats SCREAMED that that was equivalent to "ending SS". It wasn't.. It was a plan to save YOU and the current taxpayers money NOW today --- when the fund NEEDS extra income..

You klan may have, flacaltenn, wasted everything on Prescription Drug Senior Program, NCLB, and two wars off the budget.

What we need is the government to pay back what is taken for the slush fund and use only those funds for SS.

Convince them.

 

[AmazonTania]

It has worked for 75 years and will work for another 75 with some minor adjustments

All good things eventually come to an end, for better or for worse. But I'm sure it can work for an extended period of time if the public is willing to allow the Government to rob citizens of their wealth.

do you always have your head in your ass??? it sure looks like it

Now that you've mentioned it, I do. That's where I keep my trust fund. It provides greater yields, positive returns and I can withdrawal anytime I please. I can actually retire very wealthy, while you scrap together 2 pennies on your social security check wondering when your next day off is.

 

[AmazonTania]

A wee bit misinformed, aren't we? Social Security has ran a deficit for 3 consecutive years now.

Every year, the Government borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund, by law, and uses the extra funds to fund the general budget where the Government can spend the money how it wants to spend it. The following year, every year, the government takes in a bigger portion in Social Security taxes but it has to pay the interest on these bonds. This money has already spent so the money is taken from the general budget and used to help pay beneficiaries. The more beneficiaries, the more revenue accumulates, the more the Government borrows, the greater the interest.

Eventually, majority of the revenue collected will be consumed in interest payments alone, leaving the rest to pay out some beneficiaries, creating a cash-flow deficit. A cash-flow deficit means that the Treasury can no longer cover interest payments to the Social Security fund by issuing bonds. Instead, Social Security has paid out beneficiaries by using the General Budget.

Social Security is obligated by law to take whatever surpluses remain and invest them. It cannot do this because there are no surpluses, it is currently running a deficit. Just because the Social Security Administration is forced to acquire funds from other parts of the General Budget doesn't make this any less of a deficit. You really don't have a clue how Social Security works, but I can only assume you expect to collect 100% what you paid into it when you have retired. Well, good luck with that.

You're an idiot.

Let me quote directly from the Trustees Report:

"Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period.

The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers.

Redemption of trust fund asset reserves by the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset Social Security’s annual aggregate cash-flow deficits.

Since the cash-flow deficit will be less than interest earnings through 2020, reserves of the combined trust funds measured in current dollars will continue to grow...."

Trustees Report Summary

They are talking about a cash-flow deficit, which is not a draw down of principal. The Trust Fund is still growing and will, as it says above, continue to grow until 2020, and that's if nothing is done.

Even if SS was adjusted only to keep the cash flow deficit lower than the annual earned interest, it could run forever.

and when we vote out these worthless republicans and tea baggers we will see the social security trust fund get bigger .... do to more people working ... the only reason we are stagnant is because of republicans and tea baggers

What? Two full years of a super majority and eight years in the White House not enough time to create jobs?

 

[MikeK]

Obama twice now said Social Security has no assets and can only pay current benefits by borrowing.

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is merely a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2033. That's another twenty-one years. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

 

[AmazonTania]

Obama twice now said Social Security has no assets and can only pay current benefits by borrowing.

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2037. That's another twenty-four years. So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

All you've done was just explained how Social Security works, in theory. You haven't explained why it was 'secure and solvent.'

Then again, I don't really expect you to, because it's not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No. No it hasn't. Sure, one deficit during the 1980's. It could be considered a fluke. But three consecutive years from 2010 - 2012, and a projected cash-flow deficit in 2013...

Yeah, Social Security is running dry.

How can Social Security be 'running dry' if the Trust Fund balance continues to increase?

I already explained it to you, or rather you unknowingly explained it to yourself and then I explained it in greater detail... The projected interest earnings is greater than the non-interest income deficit. That is what is increasing the trust fund, not surpluses. The key word again is projected. There is no money going into that trust fund. It is just what the Trust Fund is projected to earn.

Again, if you are going to let the government take whatever you make on your 'so called' trust fund, you could at least learn about how it works. I mean, it's your money. Find out what the Government is doing with it...

Taking in more than you pay out is a surplus.

Why weren't beneficiaries's payments cut in the last 2 years if there wasn't enough money in payroll taxes to pay all benefits?

 

[NYcarbineer]

BillyRock --- NY Carbineer --------

Yes -- I'm quoting myself.. Because I'm tired of folks propagating the lie that the Trust fund has anything of value in it.. No cash, No US treasury bonds --- just an accounting entry representing a grand larceny that would send ANY group of corporate execs to PRISON for 7 to 10..

CURRENT TAXPAYERS pay when the trust has negative cash flow like in 2010 and 11.. Robbing them TWICE for the same benefit and charging THEM interest for the crime..

The Trust Fund is composed of US treasury securities. They have every bit as much value as any other bond sold by the US.

If the Trust Fund has no value, where did the money come from that made up the difference between payroll tax revenues and benefit obligations in the last couple years?

If there no Trust Fund, why wasn't everyone on SS shorted in their checks for the last 2 or 3 years?

Thanks for censoring most of my post.. You can stomp your heels, whine up a storm.. The SS surplus was SPENT without putting ANYTHING of value into the trust fund. No US Treasury bonds --- just "special issue" accounting memos like the link I provided from the SSA says..

When the fund went NEGATIVE in 2010, CURRENT taxpayers made up the diff. OR the Treasury issued NEW DEBT which is liability --- not an ASSET --- to current and future taxpayers. I don't know why you insist on propagating a myth that even the SSA and the CBO and FORMER HEADS of SSA have already acknowledged.

Congress is giving these agencies to continue the lie about the trust fund. They should be in cuffs for forcing YOU to pay TWICE with interest for the same SS deficit dollar in 2010.

Of course taxpayers paid the difference. That's because taxpayers borrowed the Trust Fund assets. THAT'S HOW THE TRUST FUND EARNS INTEREST.

In the last 2 years the SS drew some of the earned interest out of the Trust Fund assets to supplement the year's payroll tax revenues to pay recipients.

That is no different than you would do if you had retirement money invested somewhere and decided to draw off some of the annual earned interest to supplement your pension, or whatever.

Why is that so difficult for you simpletons to understand?

 

[AmazonTania]

How can Social Security be 'running dry' if the Trust Fund balance continues to increase?

I already explained it to you, or rather you unknowingly explained it to yourself and then I explained it in greater detail... The projected interest earnings is greater than the non-interest income deficit. That is what is increasing the trust fund, not surpluses. The key word again is projected. There is no money going into that trust fund. It is just what the Trust Fund is projected to earn.

Again, if you are going to let the government take whatever you make on your 'so called' trust fund, you could at least learn about how it works. I mean, it's your money. Find out what the Government is doing with it...

Taking in more than you pay out is a surplus.

Why weren't beneficiaries's payments cut in the last 2 years if there wasn't enough money in payroll taxes to pay all benefits?

You should know the Government well enough to know it's not going to cut anything if outlays exceeds it's revenue. Not in a meaningful way that matters, anyway. And if you don't remember, you provided that information as well. The Government is using Trust Fund Asset Reserves from the General Fund to meet their social security obligations, and has been doing so for three years. That's not a true surplus.

The program can accumulate $600 Billion, have $650 Billion worth of expenditures and use $60 billion from the General Fund to cover the difference. You can claim that you have a surplus, but you know that $60 billion is borrowed and you'll have to pay it back later. Adding the Trust Fund deficits together with the Asset Reverses does not create a surplus. That's just faulty math. The only thing increasing the trust fund are the projected interest earnings accumulated from borrowing from the Reserves. There is no money going to the trust at all, and in a few short years, the deficits will grow far greater than any surplus and interest combined. And then what?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I already explained it to you, or rather you unknowingly explained it to yourself and then I explained it in greater detail... The projected interest earnings is greater than the non-interest income deficit. That is what is increasing the trust fund, not surpluses. The key word again is projected. There is no money going into that trust fund. It is just what the Trust Fund is projected to earn.

Again, if you are going to let the government take whatever you make on your 'so called' trust fund, you could at least learn about how it works. I mean, it's your money. Find out what the Government is doing with it...

Taking in more than you pay out is a surplus.

Why weren't beneficiaries's payments cut in the last 2 years if there wasn't enough money in payroll taxes to pay all benefits?

You should know the Government well enough to know it's not going to cut anything if outlays exceeds it's revenue. Not in a meaningful way that matters, anyway. And if you don't remember, you provided that information as well. The Government is using Trust Fund Asset Reserves from the General Fund to meet their social security obligations, and has been doing so for three years. That's not a true surplus.

The program can accumulate $600 Billion, have $650 Billion worth of expenditures and use $60 billion from the General Fund to cover the difference. You can claim that you have a surplus, but you know that $60 billion is borrowed and you'll have to pay it back later. Adding the Trust Fund deficits together with the Asset Reverses does not create a surplus. That's just faulty math. The only thing increasing the trust fund are the projected interest earnings accumulated from borrowing from the Reserves. There is no money going to the trust at all, and in a few short years, the deficits will grow far greater than any surplus and interest combined. And then what?

Only if you believe that the federal government would default on its obligations to the Trust Fund does anything you say have any credibility.

The SS trust fund is the creditor. The federal government's general fund is the debtor.

The general fund owes SS money no differently than it owes any bondholders money.

 

[AmazonTania]

Taking in more than you pay out is a surplus.

Why weren't beneficiaries's payments cut in the last 2 years if there wasn't enough money in payroll taxes to pay all benefits?

You should know the Government well enough to know it's not going to cut anything if outlays exceeds it's revenue. Not in a meaningful way that matters, anyway. And if you don't remember, you provided that information as well. The Government is using Trust Fund Asset Reserves from the General Fund to meet their social security obligations, and has been doing so for three years. That's not a true surplus.

The program can accumulate $600 Billion, have $650 Billion worth of expenditures and use $60 billion from the General Fund to cover the difference. You can claim that you have a surplus, but you know that $60 billion is borrowed and you'll have to pay it back later. Adding the Trust Fund deficits together with the Asset Reverses does not create a surplus. That's just faulty math. The only thing increasing the trust fund are the projected interest earnings accumulated from borrowing from the Reserves. There is no money going to the trust at all, and in a few short years, the deficits will grow far greater than any surplus and interest combined. And then what?

Only if you believe that the federal government would default on its obligations to the Trust Fund does anything you say have any credibility.

The SS trust fund is the creditor. The federal government's general fund is the debtor.

The general fund owes SS money no differently than it owes any bondholders money.

The US Bond Market is merely paying off old investors with new investors, just like Social Security. The United States has not paid a single bill since World War I or something. Each time a bond is close to maturity, it sells another, and any talk about failing to increase the debt ceiling means that the world's greatest economy/government will default on a messily 3 million dollar treasury. It believe it will default. It has already defaulted once on it's obligations in the past. I don't see why the Trust Fund will be any different. The Government has already demonstrated that they're not above touching your hard-earned moulah.

Granted, I believe that the United States is more likely to default on it's obligations to Foreign Creditors than the Trust Fund. But this madness will end eventually, and it won't be a matter of 'if', either.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You should know the Government well enough to know it's not going to cut anything if outlays exceeds it's revenue. Not in a meaningful way that matters, anyway. And if you don't remember, you provided that information as well. The Government is using Trust Fund Asset Reserves from the General Fund to meet their social security obligations, and has been doing so for three years. That's not a true surplus.

The program can accumulate $600 Billion, have $650 Billion worth of expenditures and use $60 billion from the General Fund to cover the difference. You can claim that you have a surplus, but you know that $60 billion is borrowed and you'll have to pay it back later. Adding the Trust Fund deficits together with the Asset Reverses does not create a surplus. That's just faulty math. The only thing increasing the trust fund are the projected interest earnings accumulated from borrowing from the Reserves. There is no money going to the trust at all, and in a few short years, the deficits will grow far greater than any surplus and interest combined. And then what?

Only if you believe that the federal government would default on its obligations to the Trust Fund does anything you say have any credibility.

The SS trust fund is the creditor. The federal government's general fund is the debtor.

The general fund owes SS money no differently than it owes any bondholders money.

The US Bond Market is merely paying off old investors with new investors, just like Social Security. The United States has not paid a single bill since World War I or something. Each time a bond is close to maturity, it sells another, and any talk about failing to increase the debt ceiling means that the world's greatest economy/government will default on a messily 3 million dollar treasury. It believe it will default. It has already defaulted once on it's obligations in the past. I don't see why the Trust Fund will be any different. The Government has already demonstrated that they're not above touching your hard-earned moulah.

Granted, I believe that the United States is more likely to default on it's obligations to Foreign Creditors than the Trust Fund. But this madness will end eventually, and it won't be a matter of 'if', either.

They will wait till the last minute like they did in '83 and then they'll
'fix' SS for a few more decades.

 

[MikeK]

Obama twice now said Social Security has no assets and can only pay current benefits by borrowing.

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2037. That's another twenty-four years. So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

All you've done was just explained how Social Security works, in theory. You haven't explained why it was 'secure and solvent.'

Then again, I don't really expect you to, because it's not.

The Social Security Fund is an amount of money collected by the government via our FICA contributions (paycheck deductions). The government owes this money to existing and future recipients. The Fund presently ensures continuous payouts at the present rate until 2033 with no adjustments to the program. So there is plenty of time within the next twenty years to adjust the program and extend its future solvency indefinitely.

One way to adjust it is to bring the eligibility age up to date in accordance with the present life expectancy projection. (We are living longer today than when the program was conceived, so this would be an equitable adjustment.)

Another way to adjust it is to eliminate the cutoff cap, which is the existing point at which the FICA contributions (paycheck deductions) are discontinued.

Another way to adjust it is impose a means test which would be based on one's personal assets. For example, a suggested projection of this means test which I read about would reduce my present Social Security allotment by $200 a month, which I wouldn't miss (although my grandkids would). If it means preserving the program for those who really need it, I really don't mind. These adjustments would be progressive depending on individual means. Those who are worth millions and have absolutely no need for a monthly allotment would receive none.

One way or another, Social Security will remain secure and solvent. So don't pay attention to the doomsday propagandists who make up these Chicken Little warnings.

Is that a clearer explanation? If not, go here for more details: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

 

[flacaltenn]

Obama twice now said Social Security has no assets and can only pay current benefits by borrowing.

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is merely a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2033. That's another twenty-one years. Trustees Report Summary So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

Ahh.. The usual SS robbery deniers are all here now...

There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Treasury at the end of the year.. It's MORE than all spent you moron.. THe surplus was ROBBED from you and NOTHING OF VALUE was left in it's place.. All the bookkeeping entries at SSA couldn't buy you a fudge sundae.

SS went BROKE in 2010 -- 7 years ahead of projections.. Largely because your Dear Leader started to STEAL from the premiums and knows nothing about fixing broken ass economies. It was negative by about $40Bill a year for 2010, 2011, and 2012.. Those deficits were not taken out of some lockbox piggy bank. The Treasury charged CURRENT and FUTURE taxpayers for the difference. So when Obama said he "didn't know if the SS checks would go out" --- he wasn't just threatening Seniors and making them pee their pants for POLITICAL purposes --- he DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY to pay the checks.

Time for the lies to end and for the last Japanese warriors to surrender... You "denialist holdouts" ought to get mad finally when you realize how duped you've been..

Hang on.. I've got a box of Rolex watches out in the car I want you to see. My brother has to get rid of excess inventory and I can sell you one for about $260...

 

[AmazonTania]

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2037. That's another twenty-four years. So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

All you've done was just explained how Social Security works, in theory. You haven't explained why it was 'secure and solvent.'

Then again, I don't really expect you to, because it's not.

The Social Security Fund is an amount of money collected by the government via our FICA contributions (paycheck deductions). The government owes this money to existing and future recipients. The Fund presently ensures continuous payouts at the present rate until 2033 with no adjustments to the program. So there is plenty of time within the next twenty years to adjust the program and extend its future solvency indefinitely.

One way to adjust it is to bring the eligibility age up to date in accordance with the present life expectancy projection. (We are living longer today than when the program was conceived, so this would be an equitable adjustment.)

Another way to adjust it is to eliminate the cutoff cap, which is the existing point at which the FICA contributions (paycheck deductions) are discontinued.

Another way to adjust it is impose a means test which would be based on one's personal assets. For example, a suggested projection of this means test which I read about would reduce my present Social Security allotment by $200 a month, which I wouldn't miss (although my grandkids would). If it means preserving the program for those who really need it, I really don't mind. These adjustments would be progressive depending on individual means. Those who are worth millions and have absolutely no need for a monthly allotment would receive none.

If we are tweaking it, then it is not exactly secure or solvent, is it... Some of these suggests have either been done or proposed, and it isn't working. Aside from the fact that it isn't politically possible to do. Many of tried to implement reforms to social security for nearly two decades. This trust fund is only being funded through the Government's ability to tax people, and as interest rates and beneficiaries increase, the Government's ability to control Social Security decreases.

Social Security started running deficits 8 years before it was projected to start by the Government Accountability Office. I wouldn't suggest waiting around a until the problem becomes worse. In just a few short years, the cash-flow deficits will exceed both interest and surpluses combined. After that there will be no way to raise Social Security funds without having to pay off the Treasury obligations.

One way or another, Social Security will remain secure and solvent. So don't pay attention to the doomsday propagandists who make up these Chicken Little warnings.

Is that a clearer explanation? If not, go here for more details: Trustees Report Summary

Your own source even explains why it's not solvent. So I'm not sure you've read it thoroughly or fully understood it. The Trustee's Report calls action ASAP, not twenty-some-odd-years from now. It's right there in the first sentence of the second paragraph.

‘Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits”

And then the report concludes.

“Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.”

 

[flacaltenn]

The Trust Fund is composed of US treasury securities. They have every bit as much value as any other bond sold by the US.

If the Trust Fund has no value, where did the money come from that made up the difference between payroll tax revenues and benefit obligations in the last couple years?

If there no Trust Fund, why wasn't everyone on SS shorted in their checks for the last 2 or 3 years?

Thanks for censoring most of my post.. You can stomp your heels, whine up a storm.. The SS surplus was SPENT without putting ANYTHING of value into the trust fund. No US Treasury bonds --- just "special issue" accounting memos like the link I provided from the SSA says..

When the fund went NEGATIVE in 2010, CURRENT taxpayers made up the diff. OR the Treasury issued NEW DEBT which is liability --- not an ASSET --- to current and future taxpayers. I don't know why you insist on propagating a myth that even the SSA and the CBO and FORMER HEADS of SSA have already acknowledged.

Congress is giving these agencies to continue the lie about the trust fund. They should be in cuffs for forcing YOU to pay TWICE with interest for the same SS deficit dollar in 2010.

Of course taxpayers paid the difference. That's because taxpayers borrowed the Trust Fund assets. THAT'S HOW THE TRUST FUND EARNS INTEREST.

In the last 2 years the SS drew some of the earned interest out of the Trust Fund assets to supplement the year's payroll tax revenues to pay recipients.

That is no different than you would do if you had retirement money invested somewhere and decided to draw off some of the annual earned interest to supplement your pension, or whatever.

Why is that so difficult for you simpletons to understand?

What part of "the SURPLUS money was STOLEN and NOTHING of value left in its place except DEBT for future taxpayers." don't you understand. You think this "interest" is suppose to make the victims feel better? WHere the fuck is the PRINCIPLE then?

Oh yeah --- future taxpayers and their grandkids will paying that.

How smart is it really to pay current SS deficit dollars to SS recipients with dollars that cost the current taxpayer 1.25 or 1.30 ?? eh???

You've paid that current SS deficit dollar TWICE now.. Once when it was stolen out of your paycheck back in the 80s and squandered on mohair subsidies. And NOW you're paying it AGAIN TODAY so that some senior in Chicago can give his nephew a birthday check.

What a deal..