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

[flacaltenn]

You're wrong. It was from those securities that the Trust Fund raised the cash to supplement the cash flow from the payroll taxes collected to pay recipients the last couple years.

That's how it works. The Trust Fund is one big savings account, where the savings accrue interest,

and where the Trust Fund can go to make withdrawals if need be to pay its obligations to Social Security recipients.

You're really ignoring every fact I post.. I posted statements from BOTH the SSA and CBO saying (essentially) that nothing of VALUE COMES OUT of the Trust Fund..

No withdrawals.. No investment.. Deficits are covered by "raising taxes, cutting benefits, or issuing NEW debt"....

If we can't get beyond that -- and you can't read --- we're at an impasse due to your learning capabilities..

You want to see those quotes again??

You're and idiot and you're wrong. You don't get that the 'value' of the Trust Fund is the simple fact that the federal government OUTSIDE THE TRUST FUND owes the Trust Fund the money it borrowed,

and the interest on that money.

The Trust Fund earns about 100 billion a year in interest.

Government promises to REPAY SS participants. They did not specify with what. They are repaying by shifting IOUs to real liabilities on the taxpayers. The "interest" will be wiped out by the interest on financing the new debt..

Try that trick with REAL US Treasury Bond holders. Oh , Ok ,,,, here's your principle and interest back --- and then hand them a NEW US Treasury bond...

Tell us what happens.... Me "the idiot"??? I'd be pissed...

 

[Flopper]

Meaning that those "special issues" are SUBORDINATE to the MARKETABLE securities that the US is selling..

That's not true. There is no such thing as subordinate government debt. All government debt carries the same priority. You're presumption that the government would pay foreign holders of treasury bills above non-marketable securities such as savings bonds, special issue treasuries, zero interest certificates, is pure supposition on your part as such action would require an act of Congress.

Like other U.S. government debt obligations, the government bonds held by the trust funds are guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. To escape paying either principal or interest on the "special" bonds held by the trust funds, the government would have to default on these obligations. This cannot be done by executive order or by the Social Security Administration. The Congress would have to pass legislation to repudiate these particular government bonds. (See Title II, Section 201 of the 1935 law)

Since you do not recognize the fact that Congress has passed legislation that puts special issue treasury bonds on par with all other government debt, further discussion is pointless.

 

[flacaltenn]

Meaning that those "special issues" are SUBORDINATE to the MARKETABLE securities that the US is selling..

That's not true. There is no such thing as subordinate government debt. All government debt carries the same priority. You're presumption that the government would pay foreign holders of treasury bills above non-marketable securities such as savings bonds, special issue treasuries, zero interest certificates, is pure supposition on your part as such action would require an act of Congress.

Like other U.S. government debt obligations, the government bonds held by the trust funds are guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. To escape paying either principal or interest on the "special" bonds held by the trust funds, the government would have to default on these obligations. This cannot be done by executive order or by the Social Security Administration. The Congress would have to pass legislation to repudiate these particular government bonds. (See Title II, Section 201 of the 1935 law)

Since you do not recognize the fact that Congress has passed legislation that puts special issue treasury bonds on par with all other government debt, further discussion is pointless.

"Default" on Social Security obligations is a wide open opportunity. Congress WOULD reduce benefits, impose means testing, raise the cap on taxation or just reduce benefits. Essentially avoiding payments on those IOUs. Especially if making payments on those SSA obligations would jeopardize the sale of MORE US Treasuries..

Like I said -- the paper in the Trust Fund is a moral obligation only.. And Congress knows all the loopholes in morality..

 

[Flopper]

Meaning that those "special issues" are SUBORDINATE to the MARKETABLE securities that the US is selling..

That's not true. There is no such thing as subordinate government debt. All government debt carries the same priority. You're presumption that the government would pay foreign holders of treasury bills above non-marketable securities such as savings bonds, special issue treasuries, zero interest certificates, is pure supposition on your part as such action would require an act of Congress.

Like other U.S. government debt obligations, the government bonds held by the trust funds are guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. To escape paying either principal or interest on the "special" bonds held by the trust funds, the government would have to default on these obligations. This cannot be done by executive order or by the Social Security Administration. The Congress would have to pass legislation to repudiate these particular government bonds. (See Title II, Section 201 of the 1935 law)

Since you do not recognize the fact that Congress has passed legislation that puts special issue treasury bonds on par with all other government debt, further discussion is pointless.

"Default" on Social Security obligations is a wide open opportunity. Congress WOULD reduce benefits, impose means testing, raise the cap on taxation or just reduce benefits. Essentially avoiding payments on those IOUs. Especially if making payments on those SSA obligations would jeopardize the sale of MORE US Treasuries..

Like I said -- the paper in the Trust Fund is a moral obligation only.. And Congress knows all the loopholes in morality..

Reducing benefits benefits does not remove the government's obligation to pay interest or redeem the bonds if needed. The fund would continue to grow and congress would eventually restore benefits. Since all assets of the fund are invested in government debt, it would continue to be part the national debt and continue to grow as interest is reinvested.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're really ignoring every fact I post.. I posted statements from BOTH the SSA and CBO saying (essentially) that nothing of VALUE COMES OUT of the Trust Fund..

No withdrawals.. No investment.. Deficits are covered by "raising taxes, cutting benefits, or issuing NEW debt"....

If we can't get beyond that -- and you can't read --- we're at an impasse due to your learning capabilities..

You want to see those quotes again??

You're and idiot and you're wrong. You don't get that the 'value' of the Trust Fund is the simple fact that the federal government OUTSIDE THE TRUST FUND owes the Trust Fund the money it borrowed,

and the interest on that money.

The Trust Fund earns about 100 billion a year in interest.

Government promises to REPAY SS participants. They did not specify with what. They are repaying by shifting IOUs to real liabilities on the taxpayers. The "interest" will be wiped out by the interest on financing the new debt..

Try that trick with REAL US Treasury Bond holders. Oh , Ok ,,,, here's your principle and interest back --- and then hand them a NEW US Treasury bond...

Tell us what happens.... Me "the idiot"??? I'd be pissed...

When did SS stop paying eligible recipients the money they were/are owed?

 

[flacaltenn]

That's not true. There is no such thing as subordinate government debt. All government debt carries the same priority. You're presumption that the government would pay foreign holders of treasury bills above non-marketable securities such as savings bonds, special issue treasuries, zero interest certificates, is pure supposition on your part as such action would require an act of Congress.

Like other U.S. government debt obligations, the government bonds held by the trust funds are guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. To escape paying either principal or interest on the "special" bonds held by the trust funds, the government would have to default on these obligations. This cannot be done by executive order or by the Social Security Administration. The Congress would have to pass legislation to repudiate these particular government bonds. (See Title II, Section 201 of the 1935 law)

Since you do not recognize the fact that Congress has passed legislation that puts special issue treasury bonds on par with all other government debt, further discussion is pointless.

"Default" on Social Security obligations is a wide open opportunity. Congress WOULD reduce benefits, impose means testing, raise the cap on taxation or just reduce benefits. Essentially avoiding payments on those IOUs. Especially if making payments on those SSA obligations would jeopardize the sale of MORE US Treasuries..

Like I said -- the paper in the Trust Fund is a moral obligation only.. And Congress knows all the loopholes in morality..

Reducing benefits benefits does not remove the government's obligation to pay interest or redeem the bonds if needed. The fund would continue to grow and congress would eventually restore benefits. Since all assets of the fund are invested in government debt, it would continue to be part the national debt and continue to grow as interest is reinvested.

That's the cleverness of the OP statement for this thread. Maybe you need to go read it again.. To honor all benefits and NOT screw over "the rich" to raise the caps, the payment of the projected deficits amounts to 1/3 of the TOTAL US DEBT..

The OP asks if it's even LIKELY that will be paid. The answer is no... It won't in a climate where just bumping up the debt ceiling takes a month and a lot of snarling threats.. Folks are tired of turning this economic engine into a money printing machine.

Reality is reducing benefits or means testing directly reduces the payment of those IOUs required. That is IN PRACTICE --- equal to a default on the program. There is no other logical way to look at it. If they can't pay those IOUs, they can minimize their liability.

The fund will NOT continue to grow now. Not with $70Bill deficits projected for 6 years before they LEAP in the $100s of Billions.. But it doesn't matter HOW MUCH worthless paper is in the account. Doesn't change the ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS to pay the agreed amount with new debt issuance.

The OP is correct.. There is NOT a willingness to honor those IOUs in total.. Even the folks here arguing that SS is flush with investment are willing to change the deal..

My question to you is ------- WHY do you support raising the caps and means testings and benefit changes IF you truly believe that Congress did nothing wrong and gave you a WONDERFUL investment worth $Trills in cash?

If I was stupid enough to believe that fairy tale ---- I wouldn't even PONDER making changes to the program...

 

[flacaltenn]

You keep equating US Treasuries with an interdepartmental IOU..

If I BUY US treasuries, I can sell them to ANYONE -- ANYTIME.. The "credits" in the SS Trust Fund are non-transferable, non-negotiable... There is NO market to recognize their value (other than the moral value I mentioned). The GOVT can't even sell this worthless paper to raise cash..

You think the govt CREATES value? Makes a PROFIT? To the taxpayer --- ANY BOND THEY ISSUE is a liability... Taxpayers gave them MONEY -- Taxpayers got a liability... You ARE the primary source of revenue for the govt. It's not like I give SW Airlines $20K to help them buy a plane. They don't need my taxes in order to perform on that bond. If SW Air was paying off bond-holders by issuing more bonds ---- NO ONE would be stupid enough to loan them money.

Therefore when it comes time to collect on these IOUs and the issuer says "SURE just let me charge YOUR credit card for the pay-out" -- you have no recourse.. They are worthless for GENERATING CASH when the GOVT is eyeballs in debt.

BTW: Where does your Soc Sec check stand with respect to OTHER debt-holders?? It's WAAAY down the list. Because you have no DEFINED benefits, Congress can smite you with a single vote. MOST REAL US GOVT debt is owned by other COUNTRIES and major international banks. A default of $1 on a REAL govt Treasury bond would set off a chain of events that would tank this country.. A partial default or reduction of your SS benefits? Mehhh, CHina might stop buying wads of them, but they're not concerned about our internal societal benefits programs. (contrary to Flopper's assertion that a partial default on SS payments would be viewed the same as a default on REAL bonds.)

Why do you think Obama made seniors change their Depends with his statement about "not knowing if the SS checks would go out"?? Because the REAL BOND holders are gonna get paid first.. I guarandamteeit..

Saying that those IOU's which are actually treasury bills, are not a real firm asset is like saying that the dollars in your wallet are just "Paper" and only worth the cost of printing. Those IOU's carry the same guarantee that marketable government securities carry, savings bonds, and a number of other government securities carry, "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government." The government has just as much obligation to pay back the bonds and interest to the Social Security trust fund as they do to any other bondholders. If that's not good enough for you, then you better find yourself another country. Oh, you better look pretty hard because most of those countries have investments in US government securities.

The question to flacal needs to be, why would bonds held by the Trust Fund need to be transferable? Hell, savings bonds are non-transferable securities.

If those were REAL bonds -- they could be sold on the market for CASH... REAL cash to pay checks with.. Simple as that.. They would be debt ALREADY issued and accounted for.
Instead, Congress avoided the appearance of running up the debt by hiding a ton of it OFF-BOOK in this fictious account. So NOW -- when SS draws on it -- the debt gets REISSUED as REAL bonds and simply moved into the VISIBLE part of the bookkeeping. If that were Tyco -- somebody would be going to jail...

Actually -- to understand why I have this bee in my shorts -- let's look at what SHOULD have done with the Surplus all along.. Instead of STEALING the surplus and issuing an IOU, the money should have been used TO BUY EXISTING bonds from countries and banks already holding ISSUED bonds. That in effect, would be "buying down the debt". So that today -- not only would there be real PAID FOR bonds that could be sold again for cash --- but the National Debt would be about $4Trill less.

When you consider that better and honest option -- you begin to see where the anger comes from when folks believe there is value in the current fairytale.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[After just ONE LIFETIME, SSA faces a monumental crisis that was never addressed. Your observation that SSA was SUPPOSED to be "self-supporting" and "pay as you go" is now suddenly DENIED by Progressives and apologists for the criminal behaviour of the program mgt. By denying that the program is pay as you go -- these folks DENY that FICA tax income is anything different from General tax revenue.

We WILL ISSUE NEW DEBT to cover the shortfalls. So in no way will we be able to pay off 1/3 of the current debt.. We will simply SHIFT the debt from "off-book" to "on-book".

Little Acorn -- the solution WAS SIMPLE --- but it was never even considered..
We SHOULD HAVE used ALL of the SS surplus to buy up EXISTING debt that was ALREADY out in the MARKET --- REAL US Treasuries already issued.. That would have REDUCED our current total debt by about $3Trillion dollars.

OR --- we should have the surplus to buy down future reciepients by allowing them to save a portion of their payments equal to the surplus..

Plenty of rational REAL solutions existed. The thieves were not interested.

SS does effectively 'buy up' US debt. Every dollar of SS revenue that is loaned to the government is one less dollar the government has to borrow somewhere else.

 

[flacaltenn]

[After just ONE LIFETIME, SSA faces a monumental crisis that was never addressed. Your observation that SSA was SUPPOSED to be "self-supporting" and "pay as you go" is now suddenly DENIED by Progressives and apologists for the criminal behaviour of the program mgt. By denying that the program is pay as you go -- these folks DENY that FICA tax income is anything different from General tax revenue.

We WILL ISSUE NEW DEBT to cover the shortfalls. So in no way will we be able to pay off 1/3 of the current debt.. We will simply SHIFT the debt from "off-book" to "on-book".

Little Acorn -- the solution WAS SIMPLE --- but it was never even considered..
We SHOULD HAVE used ALL of the SS surplus to buy up EXISTING debt that was ALREADY out in the MARKET --- REAL US Treasuries already issued.. That would have REDUCED our current total debt by about $3Trillion dollars.

OR --- we should have the surplus to buy down future reciepients by allowing them to save a portion of their payments equal to the surplus..

Plenty of rational REAL solutions existed. The thieves were not interested.

SS does effectively 'buy up' US debt. Every dollar of SS revenue that is loaned to the government is one less dollar the government has to borrow somewhere else.

Now that's CERTIFIED bullshit.. Stealing that surplus FUELED deficit spending. Even the vaunted Clinton "balanced budget" was balanced on the back of the SS surplus. Wasn't considered debt then --- so why do we have to pay it NOW?

Congress is not allowed to MAKE INVESTMENTS or to hold over "a profit".. When the money comes in --- it gets budgeted and blown away..

Do you consider it ethical to BUDGET the govt EXPECTING to collect SS FICA surplus? As though it was like any other income?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[After just ONE LIFETIME, SSA faces a monumental crisis that was never addressed. Your observation that SSA was SUPPOSED to be "self-supporting" and "pay as you go" is now suddenly DENIED by Progressives and apologists for the criminal behaviour of the program mgt. By denying that the program is pay as you go -- these folks DENY that FICA tax income is anything different from General tax revenue.

We WILL ISSUE NEW DEBT to cover the shortfalls. So in no way will we be able to pay off 1/3 of the current debt.. We will simply SHIFT the debt from "off-book" to "on-book".

Little Acorn -- the solution WAS SIMPLE --- but it was never even considered..
We SHOULD HAVE used ALL of the SS surplus to buy up EXISTING debt that was ALREADY out in the MARKET --- REAL US Treasuries already issued.. That would have REDUCED our current total debt by about $3Trillion dollars.

OR --- we should have the surplus to buy down future reciepients by allowing them to save a portion of their payments equal to the surplus..

Plenty of rational REAL solutions existed. The thieves were not interested.

SS does effectively 'buy up' US debt. Every dollar of SS revenue that is loaned to the government is one less dollar the government has to borrow somewhere else.

Now that's CERTIFIED bullshit.. Stealing that surplus FUELED deficit spending. Even the vaunted Clinton "balanced budget" was balanced on the back of the SS surplus. Wasn't considered debt then --- so why do we have to pay it NOW?

Congress is not allowed to MAKE INVESTMENTS or to hold over "a profit".. When the money comes in --- it gets budgeted and blown away..

Do you consider it ethical to BUDGET the govt EXPECTING to collect SS FICA surplus? As though it was like any other income?

When could the US ever not find buyers for our bonds?

 

[flacaltenn]

SS does effectively 'buy up' US debt. Every dollar of SS revenue that is loaned to the government is one less dollar the government has to borrow somewhere else.

Now that's CERTIFIED bullshit.. Stealing that surplus FUELED deficit spending. Even the vaunted Clinton "balanced budget" was balanced on the back of the SS surplus. Wasn't considered debt then --- so why do we have to pay it NOW?

Congress is not allowed to MAKE INVESTMENTS or to hold over "a profit".. When the money comes in --- it gets budgeted and blown away..

Do you consider it ethical to BUDGET the govt EXPECTING to collect SS FICA surplus? As though it was like any other income?

When could the US ever not find buyers for our bonds?

You familiar with QE1 thru QE4 thru QE15.. What do you think THAT IS?? We are buying our OWN DEBT.. Why do you think that is???

 

[thereisnospoon]

when social security was first implemented in the 1930s, the government assigned the "retirement age" to be 65. After that, you could start drawing benefits.

By some strange coincidence, the average age of death in the 1930s was..... 65.

Meaning, half the people who would pay in all their lives, would never draw out a dime, except for death benefits.

And the rest wouldn't draw out very much before they, too, kicked off.

Social security was designed to be "self-supporting"... For that time. With no thought of what might change in the future... Like medical science advancing enough to enable people to live a lot longer.

Btw, all the money you've paid in, has already been spent. In the ss trust fund is nothing but ious from the government. Remember obama's statements a year or so ago, that if the debt ceiling wasn't raised, social security checks couldn't be written to its benefits recipients?

The money has been "borrowed" by other government agencies, and spent. All the money being paid out as benefits to retirees, is coming from the money you and i are paying in now. None of it is being saved for us. This is the defining characteristic of a ponzi scheme.

Which brings us to the other issue.

Remember the other predictions various govt officials have made, saying that ss will be "solvent" for the next 15 or 20 or 30 years (depending on which politician you listen to)? They mean that they will be able to pay retirees their scheduled benefits from that money supposedly in the trust fund, until then.

But all the trust fund money has been "borrowed", and is gone. This means that those agencies that "borrowed" it, have to pay back all the money by that deadline (15 or 20 or etc. Years from now), so it can be paid out to retirees that need it. And of course, if they are going to be replenishing the trust funds this way, they can't borrow any more while they're paying it back.

So, how much money is owed to the ss trust fund and other such govt-held trust funds?

Answer: 30.1% of the entire national debt is owed to these trust funds. That's $4.7 trillion. (see reference below.)

that's how much must be paid back into the ss trust fund and other such funds, to keep them "solvent" for that long.

Has anyone heard of any plans to pay off 30% of the national debt within the next 15 years? Or 20? Or.....?

Neither have i.

Next time someone tells you how solvent the social security trust fund is, or any other government trust fund, show him the numbers and see what he says then.

Reference: See current and back issues: overview: Daily treasury statement: Publications & guidance: Financial management service . Pick a recent date, and and look under "intergovernmental holdings".

so, has anyone heard of any plans by the government to pay off 30% of the national debt in 15, 20, or etc. Years?

lol!!! No!!!!

 

[Flopper]

"Default" on Social Security obligations is a wide open opportunity. Congress WOULD reduce benefits, impose means testing, raise the cap on taxation or just reduce benefits. Essentially avoiding payments on those IOUs. Especially if making payments on those SSA obligations would jeopardize the sale of MORE US Treasuries..

Like I said -- the paper in the Trust Fund is a moral obligation only.. And Congress knows all the loopholes in morality..

Reducing benefits benefits does not remove the government's obligation to pay interest or redeem the bonds if needed. The fund would continue to grow and congress would eventually restore benefits. Since all assets of the fund are invested in government debt, it would continue to be part the national debt and continue to grow as interest is reinvested.

That's the cleverness of the OP statement for this thread. Maybe you need to go read it again.. To honor all benefits and NOT screw over "the rich" to raise the caps, the payment of the projected deficits amounts to 1/3 of the TOTAL US DEBT..

The OP asks if it's even LIKELY that will be paid. The answer is no... It won't in a climate where just bumping up the debt ceiling takes a month and a lot of snarling threats.. Folks are tired of turning this economic engine into a money printing machine.

Reality is reducing benefits or means testing directly reduces the payment of those IOUs required. That is IN PRACTICE --- equal to a default on the program. There is no other logical way to look at it. If they can't pay those IOUs, they can minimize their liability.

The fund will NOT continue to grow now. Not with $70Bill deficits projected for 6 years before they LEAP in the $100s of Billions.. But it doesn't matter HOW MUCH worthless paper is in the account. Doesn't change the ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS to pay the agreed amount with new debt issuance.

The OP is correct.. There is NOT a willingness to honor those IOUs in total.. Even the folks here arguing that SS is flush with investment are willing to change the deal..

My question to you is ------- WHY do you support raising the caps and means testings and benefit changes IF you truly believe that Congress did nothing wrong and gave you a WONDERFUL investment worth $Trills in cash?

If I was stupid enough to believe that fairy tale ---- I wouldn't even PONDER making changes to the program...

Social Security has enough money to pay benefits in full through 2033, after which time recipients will receive only about three-quarters of what they should. There are only two ways to fix the problem. Cut benefits and/or raise payroll taxes.

Obama's proposed chained CPI proposal would be a benefit cut because it would reduce benefit payment increases due to inflation but it would add 17 years to the life of the fund extending it's life to 2050. I think that is better proposal than means testing; beside means testing would never get through congress.

 

[flacaltenn]

Reducing benefits benefits does not remove the government's obligation to pay interest or redeem the bonds if needed. The fund would continue to grow and congress would eventually restore benefits. Since all assets of the fund are invested in government debt, it would continue to be part the national debt and continue to grow as interest is reinvested.

That's the cleverness of the OP statement for this thread. Maybe you need to go read it again.. To honor all benefits and NOT screw over "the rich" to raise the caps, the payment of the projected deficits amounts to 1/3 of the TOTAL US DEBT..

The OP asks if it's even LIKELY that will be paid. The answer is no... It won't in a climate where just bumping up the debt ceiling takes a month and a lot of snarling threats.. Folks are tired of turning this economic engine into a money printing machine.

Reality is reducing benefits or means testing directly reduces the payment of those IOUs required. That is IN PRACTICE --- equal to a default on the program. There is no other logical way to look at it. If they can't pay those IOUs, they can minimize their liability.

The fund will NOT continue to grow now. Not with $70Bill deficits projected for 6 years before they LEAP in the $100s of Billions.. But it doesn't matter HOW MUCH worthless paper is in the account. Doesn't change the ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS to pay the agreed amount with new debt issuance.

The OP is correct.. There is NOT a willingness to honor those IOUs in total.. Even the folks here arguing that SS is flush with investment are willing to change the deal..

My question to you is ------- WHY do you support raising the caps and means testings and benefit changes IF you truly believe that Congress did nothing wrong and gave you a WONDERFUL investment worth $Trills in cash?

If I was stupid enough to believe that fairy tale ---- I wouldn't even PONDER making changes to the program...

Social Security has enough money to pay benefits in full through 2033, after which time recipients will receive only about three-quarters of what they should. There are only two ways to fix the problem. Cut benefits and/or raise payroll taxes.

Obama's proposed chained CPI proposal would be a benefit cut because it would reduce benefit payment increases due to inflation but it would add 17 years to the life of the fund extending it's life to 2050. I think that is better proposal than means testing; beside means testing would never get through congress.

Social Security has no money to make it thru THIS MONTH !!!!!! It has a file cabinet full of "good will"... If you think the debt ceiling is goin up by 33% to accomodate "good will",, you're naive as a baby...

 

[MikeK]

My question to you is ------- WHY do you support raising the caps and means testings and benefit changes IF you truly believe that Congress did nothing wrong and gave you a WONDERFUL investment worth $Trills in cash?

The Social Security program was created for the benefit of senior workers who had lived well beyond the life expectancy average of that era (1935), which was 60 for men and 64 for women. Life expectancy in the USA, 1900-98 It was seen as necessary because thousands of seniors in the age range of 70s and 80s who had outlived their actuarial life expectancy were killed by starvation and exposure because they were made penniless by the Depression. (My parents witnessed that widespread tragedy and told us about it.)

When the program was created it was intended to serve the needs of those who lived beyond the contemporary life expectancy average of 65, which was the eligibility age. The Congress, fearing retaliatory resentment of senior voters, had until very recently avoided addressing the need to adjust the eligibility age as it increased year after year. Today the actuarial life expectancy age is 74 for men, 80 for women. The result of this dramatic increase in life expectancy has been the need for either increased FICA contributions or some form of adjustment, such as a proportional increase in eligibility age, or elimination of the contribution cap, or imposition of a means test.

Which would you prefer?

 

[MikeK]

Social Security has no money to make it thru THIS MONTH !!!!!! It has a file cabinet full of "good will"... If you think the debt ceiling is goin up by 33% to accomodate "good will",, you're naive as a baby...

My monthly Social Security allotment was direct-deposited in my checking account on Monday, as it has been since 2001. These deposits originate from the U.S. Treasury, not from the Social Security Administration.

When the U.S. Treasury is broke I will not receive any deposits -- at which time the shit will have hit the fan for a lot more than Social Security. So I suggest you turn your attention from these Chicken Little admonitions and toward such serious threats to the Treasury as the voracious and imperious banking industry, the Wall Street manipulators, The Military Industrial Complex, and other far more substantial enemies of our Nation's financial stability.

Leave us old farts alone. We took care of your grandparents and our kids will take care of you. Social Security hasn't missed a payment in seventy-six years in spite of constant doom warnings and "Ponzi scheme" denouncements.

 

[flacaltenn]

Social Security has no money to make it thru THIS MONTH !!!!!! It has a file cabinet full of "good will"... If you think the debt ceiling is goin up by 33% to accomodate "good will",, you're naive as a baby...

My monthly Social Security allotment was direct-deposited in my checking account on Monday, as it has been since 1971. These deposits originate from the U.S. Treasury, not from the Social Security Administration.

When the U.S. Treasury is broke I will not receive any deposits -- at which time the shit will have hit the fan for a lot more than Social Security. So I suggest you turn your attention from these Chicken Little admonitions and toward such serious threats to the Treasury as the voracious and imperious banking industry, the Wall Street manipulators, The Military Industrial Complex, and other far more substantial enemies of our Nation's financial stability.

Leave us old farts alone. We took care of your grandparents and our kids will take care of you. Social Security hasn't missed a payment in seventy-six years in spite of constant doom warnings and "Ponzi scheme" denouncements.

I have a hard time reconciling your 2 posts. They actually contradict each other.

In the first post -- you ask me what DRASTIC COST-CUTTING and benefit cutting measures I want to support to prevent a financial showdown over the stolen FICA excess and then -----

In this post -- you accuse ME of not supporting the "spirit" of Soc Sec.. A program now looking down the barrel of abject failure after just one human lifetime.

Maybe YOU can reconcile changing the rules on premium payers and cutting benefits or making a UNIVERSAL program into a WELFARE program.. I can't.. I can only see that the US GOVT should never be trusted again with any huge pile of cash from taxpayers wallets for a UNIVERSAL anything. ((That's ESPECIALLLY true for healthcare)).

Because what you're leaving for your children is a virtual MOUNTAIN of multiplying debt caused by NEGLECT and ABUSE of this program by Congress and your political leadership.

I'm not to blame here. I KNEW how to REALLY INVEST that surplus that was stolen.

 

[MikeK]

I have a hard time reconciling your 2 posts. They actually contradict each other.

In the first post -- you ask me what DRASTIC COST-CUTTING and benefit cutting measures I want to support to prevent a financial showdown over the stolen FICA excess and then -----

In this post -- you accuse ME of not supporting the "spirit" of Soc Sec.. A program now looking down the barrel of abject failure after just one human lifetime.

Maybe YOU can reconcile changing the rules on premium payers and cutting benefits or making a UNIVERSAL program into a WELFARE program.. I can't.. I can only see that the US GOVT should never be trusted again with any huge pile of cash from taxpayers wallets for a UNIVERSAL anything. ((That's ESPECIALLLY true for healthcare)).

Because what you're leaving for your children is a virtual MOUNTAIN of multiplying debt caused by NEGLECT and ABUSE of this program by Congress and your political leadership.

I'm not to blame here. I KNEW how to REALLY INVEST that surplus that was stolen.

The only contradiction resides in your steadfast insistence that the Social Security sky is falling.

So all I have left to say to you on this subject is -- we'll see.

 

[lynn63]

As long as we have enough people working to support social security, it should not be a problem to pay beneficiaries.

 

[flacaltenn]

As long as we have enough people working to support social security, it should not be a problem to pay beneficiaries.

Then the facts should scare the crap out of you..

10,000 workers a DAY are retiring now.. A large portion of those jobs are NOT being refilled. If they were -- we wouldn't have the dismal unemployment numbers.. The total SIZE of the workforce is shrinking quickly..

The ratio of (workers paying) to (retirees recieving) has gone from 6 to 1 in the 40s to about 3 to 1 now --- and very soon --- it will be 2.X workers supporting each retiree..

The fact is ---- Social Security is now gonna be running deficits for the rest of our lives..