Social Security faces a $32 trillion shortfall

[easyt65]

You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you? The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"

'WE The PEOPLE' didn't F* up SS and turn it in to a slush fund / Ponzi scheme. 'We the people' have been getting screwed by politicians for a long time now. I understand 'We the People' just fine, but you are citing 'we the people' WHY? The idea of helping ONE ANOTHER should not be used to justify the government's abuses, mismanagement, and tyranny.

We the People will vote any politician out of office who tries to fuck with our Social Security or Medicare

Because getting a little something, since their money was seized from their pockets already, is better than getting nothing...or so they have been convinced.

 

[rightwinger]

The Government only has so many boxes to distribute. They prefer to provide boxes to those who need them most rather than distribute equally
That is the way We the People want it

Redistribution of wealth as dictated by liberals / politicians. The American people are fully capable of taking care of others - church's, charities, neighbors, families...but it is about the CONTROL. The govt thinks it knows how to spend your money better, thinks it should spend your money - not you. People are smart enough to handle their own retirement, but the govt will not let you. You have to fork over money to the govt - that is 'for you' - so the govt can control where it goes, when it goes, how much you will get back, when you will get it back, and IF you will get it back...'it' being YOUR MONEY!

If you think the f*up way things are being run, like this, is the way people want it then you're 'a brick short of a load' and are NOT listening to the American people!

It is not a redistribution of wealth. If it was, we wouldn't have a wealth distribution like this

 

[rightwinger]

You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you? The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"

'WE The PEOPLE' didn't F* up SS and turn it in to a slush fund / Ponzi scheme. 'We the people' have been getting screwed by politicians for a long time now. I understand 'We the People' just fine, but you are citing 'we the people' WHY? The idea of helping ONE ANOTHER should not be used to justify the government's abuses, mismanagement, and tyranny.

We the People will vote any politician out of office who tries to fuck with our Social Security or Medicare

Because getting a little something, since their money was seized from their pockets already, is better than getting nothing...or so they have been convinced.

Its more they don't trust Republicans

Republicans always try to take something away before they will tell you what they will replace it with

Where is your plan on Social Security? Healthcare?

 

[rightwinger]

I don't fret too much about providing a little extra to those who have only 2/10 of a percent of our wealth.

Then pay as much as you want - give the government MORE than you owe in taxes. I, however, mind when assholes like you, who feel this way / spout this garbage, decided FOR ME that I should give more than I already do and just SEIZE my money.

Doesn't happen? Obamacare phones are funded by an additional not-highly publicized tax on your phones, money jackasses like you thought was a great idea to be taken away from ME, out of MY pocket without MY permission, so that - in many cases - lazy ass people who already have a phone can get another one for free. I have no say in that amount of MY money being taken without MY permission, but tyrannical liberals think it's a good idea and just take it from me.

There is SO EXTREMELY MUCH the Federal Government is currently doing that it just does NOT have the Constitutional authority to do right now that it isn't even funny!

I love that mindset....If you want to help poor people YOU pay more

It goes along with

If you want to go to war...YOU go fight it
If you want better schools....YOU pay extra
If you want police and fire protection....YOU pay for it

 

[easyt65]

I love that mindset....If you want to help poor people YOU pay more

It goes along with

If you want to go to war...YOU go fight it
If you want better schools....YOU pay extra
If you want police and fire protection....YOU pay for it

- The government does not make money - it has to seize it from the people in order to give it away. So why cut out the 'middle man' and let the people do it? CONTROL!

- You can bet if Barry and Hillary had been required to fire the 1st shots in the Libyan war, put boots on the ground in Syria, or had been forced to stay in the Benghazi compound that had been attacked twice before by terrorists and did not have enough security things would have been a helluva lot different.

- If you want better schools strip the federal govt out of the mix as their control of education is UN-Constitutional. Return the power back to the states where it belongs. The fed govt has thrown an ass-load of our money at the problem, much of which ends up in THEIR pockets.

- If you want police and fire protection then you stand behind and support them, not support and fund racist terrorist groups that have called for the murder of all cops and whites, not start a 'hunt' for cops - enforce the damn laws. Stop being the most lawless administration in US history. Teach and demonstrate accountability again!

I pay my share. I have paid MORE than my share. I have paid in blood! The criminal f*ers ou defend have Un-Constitutionally elevated themselves above the law, elevated themselves above accountability to the law, have engaged In pay-to-play and other schemes, as it is being revealed Hillary has, and made themselves millionaires. La flood victims were left to fend for themselves while elitists who don't give a damn play golf, but you say 'we the people' haven't done enough, paid enough, done enough of OUR part.

Save that shit for the politicians who shoveled it to you in the 1st place.

 

[bullwinkle]

Republicans have been predicting the demise of Social Security for 80 years

All it needs is a few tweaks to raise the earnings cap and retirement to age 70

Exactly.

Forty years ago, when I was younger and impressionable, I allowed myself to be convinced that SS was a Ponzi scheme and that there would never be any benefits for me when I got old enough, so I dropped out. I suspended my contributions. I didn't leave altogether, as I wanted to be able to resume participating later if I wanted to.

I never did get around to getting back into it, so today my benefits are quite modest. They reflect only about 14 years of earnings at pretty low wages, mostly while I was in the military and a student. But sure enough, when I turned 62, there they were as promised.

And still, after all this time, people with an agenda are selling that same snake oil to the gullible, with absolutely no evidence to back it up. They're exploiting ignorance and fear to promote a political agenda and it's disgusting what they get away with.

I was told the same thing when I entered the workforce 40 years ago

Social Security is insolvent, it won't be there by the time you reach 62, it is a waste

Social Security is still paying. Statistical calculations declare if no changes are made that Social Security will collapse by 2080. The changes needed are relatively minor. Raise the earnings cap, gradually increase the retirement age to 70, slightly increase contributions

70 is to old! Especially for the working man.

I worked til 71. But I had a desk job. If I were a plumber or cable guy that has to climb ladders or haul sacks of cement, 70 is way too old. I played with financial spreadsheets and projections and had fun.

 

[rightwinger]

I love that mindset....If you want to help poor people YOU pay more

It goes along with

If you want to go to war...YOU go fight it
If you want better schools....YOU pay extra
If you want police and fire protection....YOU pay for it

- The government does not make money - it has to seize it from the people in order to give it away. So why cut out the 'middle man' and let the people do it? CONTROL!

- You can bet if Barry and Hillary had been required to fire the 1st shots in the Libyan war, put boots on the ground in Syria, or had been forced to stay in the Benghazi compound that had been attacked twice before by terrorists and did not have enough security things would have been a helluva lot different.

- If you want better schools strip the federal govt out of the mix as their control of education is UN-Constitutional. Return the power back to the states where it belongs. The fed govt has thrown an ass-load of our money at the problem, much of which ends up in THEIR pockets.

- If you want police and fire protection then you stand behind and support them, not support and fund racist terrorist groups that have called for the murder of all cops and whites, not start a 'hunt' for cops - enforce the damn laws. Stop being the most lawless administration in US history. Teach and demonstrate accountability again!

I pay my share. I have paid MORE than my share. I have paid in blood! The criminal f*ers ou defend have Un-Constitutionally elevated themselves above the law, elevated themselves above accountability to the law, have engaged In pay-to-play and other schemes, as it is being revealed Hillary has, and made themselves millionaires. La flood victims were left to fend for themselves while elitists who don't give a damn play golf, but you say 'we the people' haven't done enough, paid enough, done enough of OUR part.

Save that shit for the politicians who shoveled it to you in the 1st place.

The government belongs to We the People. We created it and we control it

We have provided our government the power to collect taxes and use them in a way that We the People agree

 

[Camp]

I love that mindset....If you want to help poor people YOU pay more

It goes along with

If you want to go to war...YOU go fight it
If you want better schools....YOU pay extra
If you want police and fire protection....YOU pay for it

- The government does not make money - it has to seize it from the people in order to give it away. So why cut out the 'middle man' and let the people do it? CONTROL!

- You can bet if Barry and Hillary had been required to fire the 1st shots in the Libyan war, put boots on the ground in Syria, or had been forced to stay in the Benghazi compound that had been attacked twice before by terrorists and did not have enough security things would have been a helluva lot different.

- If you want better schools strip the federal govt out of the mix as their control of education is UN-Constitutional. Return the power back to the states where it belongs. The fed govt has thrown an ass-load of our money at the problem, much of which ends up in THEIR pockets.

- If you want police and fire protection then you stand behind and support them, not support and fund racist terrorist groups that have called for the murder of all cops and whites, not start a 'hunt' for cops - enforce the damn laws. Stop being the most lawless administration in US history. Teach and demonstrate accountability again!

I pay my share. I have paid MORE than my share. I have paid in blood! The criminal f*ers ou defend have Un-Constitutionally elevated themselves above the law, elevated themselves above accountability to the law, have engaged In pay-to-play and other schemes, as it is being revealed Hillary has, and made themselves millionaires. La flood victims were left to fend for themselves while elitists who don't give a damn play golf, but you say 'we the people' haven't done enough, paid enough, done enough of OUR part.

Save that shit for the politicians who shoveled it to you in the 1st place.

We get it, you don't believe in America and how our democracy works. You want America to work according to your opinions, which are obviously based on misinformation and a simple lack of understanding of our process of legislating in Congress, electing representatives and the American process of making laws and determining how our government operates. Frustrated that you can't convince enough fellow Americans to agree with your points of view, you have to resort to insulting those who disagree with you and will not support your misguided concepts. People who paid into Social Security for 50 years like myself (I started working part time at age 15) and have never collected any kind of federal welfare benefits, are labeled by you as some kind of deadbeats for collecting Social Security. Unfortunately, I try to refrain from using foul language when posting, so I don't want to say F YOU to you, but that is what I would say if I were not restraining myself.

 

[leftwinger]

Too many Entitlements to sustain. Social Security will be a victim of it. We can't sustain this Welfare/Warfare State. Some Entitlements will disappear. Americans will have to pay the price for Permanent War and Entitlement addiction. Something's gotta give.

I'm in a time machine backwards...This is where one of the posters (un-named) will chime inwith the world-famous remark, "There's plenty of money, they just have to know where to go take it"

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Every single time. Literally....every.....single....time. Throughout history, conservatives have done their homework, used sound data for projections, and accurately predicted exactly what would happen. And every time, Dumbocrats were too hungry for power to care.

Conservatives vehemently opposed Medicare and Medicaid in the late 1960's. They said it was unsustainable. Not only do we now currently sit with $19 trillion in national debt, but even Barack Obama himself and the Dumbocrats went around the nation in 2008 insisting that we needed "Obamacare" because healthcare costs were "unaffordable" and Medicare & Medicaid were devastating to the federal budget. They loudly proclaimed that something had to be done because the current situation was unsustainable. Well, conservatives told them that over 50 years ago!

And of course - conservatives warned about Obamacare as well. All of their warnings have come to fruition (it did cause people to lose their doctor, it did cause people to lose their health insurance, it did cost way more than projected by the lying Dumbocrats, and 17 of the 23 insurance exchanges have already collapsed and closed up shop after just a couple of short years).

But the real gem is Social Security. Like the other unconstitutional programs already mentioned, conservatives vehemently opposed Social Security in the late 1930's. As always, they said it was unsustainable. As always, they were right. A mind-boggling $32 trillion shortfall. You could tax the wealthy at 100% and it wouldn't even cover 1/32 of that....

Under the infinite horizon, Social Security will have $32.1 trillion in unfunded liabilities by 2090, $6.3 trillion more than last year's projection. (See the chart below.)

The infinite horizon calculation is the most important part of the trustees' annual report, said Laurence Kotlikoff, a Boston University economics professor and co-author of "Get What's Yours," a best-seller about how to maximize claiming Social Security retirement benefits.

"We're not broke in 20 years to 30 years, we're broke now," Kotlikoff said. "All the bills have been kept off the books by Congress and presidential administrations for six decades."

Social Security faces a $32 trillion shortfall that will cut your benefit

Saying that Social Security faces a $32 trillion short fall by 2090 is like saying that you will have a major collision when you enter the five way intersection....if you dont stop and look first. Of course everyone, almost, stops and looks at intersections, so such warnings are pointless.

What demographics will be like in 2090 is anybody's guess and projecting current trends out 70 years into the future is a waste of everybody's time, and certainly no basis for cutting Social Security today.

If anyone is genuinely concerned about Social Security's insolvency, all we have to do to fix that is to take the cap off of the Social Security tax. Why keep this regressive tax cap when we all know that Social Security is effectively a part of the general budget anyway?

First, the article doesn't say that SS has a $32 trillion by 2090. Your analogy demonstrates a completely inverse of reality. The shortfall - pick a figure - suggests that you are likely to have an accident because no one is stopping or looking at intersections. What makes the warning pointless is that the people who are supposed to listen do not take time understand the term.

Social Security isn't part of the general budget. It is a series of defined inputs and outputs that is prohibited from getting general fund subsidies. The whole point of the payroll tax (which is quite progress when you consider the benefits that they buy) is to make the system independent of the general fund and its politics.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

What about those that can't perform past age 60 yet have such low skills they don't save because their lack of skills meant they got a lower wage? I'm sure you'll have some redistribution minded solution where those that did pay for those that didn't.

No, that is exactly WHY we have Social Security, dude.

IT is better to let these people have some cash rather than let them fall into a pit of misery and despair, spreading disease, causing accidents and dying in their own shit at home and thousands of tax dollars being spent to go to their homes to treat them or get their bodies for disposal.

Besides all that, what about simple compassion for stupid people? We have to have that for some very solid reasons as the consequences of having a high percentage of poor is more costly than just giving them money.

And why does Bernie Sander/wife get nearly $50K per year? He is stupid I will give him that, but I am not sure about your reasoning about compassion.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security is the system that we have. You can't wave your hand and make it go away. It has been paying benefits for 75 years. Before Social Security, people worked until they died or went to live with their children. For most working Americans, there was no "retirement" to look forward to. Social Security and Medicare provided a safety net for people who worked to be taken care of in their old age

safety-net? How is paying Bernie Sanders and his wife $50K a year a safety-net? For most people they saw their kids as a 401k, and treated them accordingly.

Typically a worker loses money on Social Security. How is throwing money away a 'safety-net'. It would seem to cause the need.

SS is not a safety net. When a worker putting in at 4x the amount as another worker only get 2 1/2 times the distribution, it's redistribution.

I ran the numbers on the SS website. I put in the same birth date and same "retirement" date. The only difference was the income amount. For one, I put in $25,000 and the other $100,000. When it came to distributions, the lower income got just over $1100/month while the higher income got just over $2500/month. How is that not redistribution?

The other difference is how much one contributed to the system. Benefits are priced in three different tiers. The first block of earnings is 90% weight, then 32% and finally 15%.

At the margin of $1000 of earnings creates $103 of tax. The benefit formula uses that $1000 to determine the benefit. (1000/12) / 35 *.90 = 2.142857143 the is the monthly increase, or $25.71 per year. The other guy gets (1000/12) / 35 *.90 = ... $4.37 per year.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Social Security is not a Ponzi Scheme and never has been.

SS:
The govt takes money from YOUR paycheck as an investment with the promise of a payout later.
The govt promises it is YOUR money set aside for YOU, not anyone else.
The govt then unlocks the 'locked box' and spends the shite out of SS money.
The govt declares a 'shortfall'
-- Again, if you take my $20 and put it in a shoebox, and I come to get it later and you tell me it isn't there, how the hell did the 'shortfall' happen? YOU SPENT MY MONEY.
YOUR MONEY is now GONE
The money of new / younger people paying in is not going into a box somewhere for them, since it is there money...it is going to pay the benefits of those whose money the govt has already spent.

...but it's not a Ponzi scheme. Riiiiiiight.

There is no promise and hasn't been since 1960, Flemming V Nestor. No the govt doesn't and hasn't put it aside for you - they specifically tell you that they are giving your contribution to existing retirees. There was a box to lock until roughly 1990. By then the system was trillions of dollars in the hole. Yes they spent every penny that you contributed on.... Social Security.

Forget Ponzi scheme, and look-up check-kiting.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you? The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"

'WE The PEOPLE' didn't F* up SS and turn it in to a slush fund / Ponzi scheme. 'We the people' have been getting screwed by politicians for a long time now. I understand 'We the People' just fine, but you are citing 'we the people' WHY? The idea of helping ONE ANOTHER should not be used to justify the government's abuses, mismanagement, and tyranny.

We the People will vote any politician out of office who tries to fuck with our Social Security or Medicare

You really need to spend time with the numbers. There is no way to preserve the program in its current state. This piece is from Huffington Post, not exactly a liberal thinktank... The Trust Fund is a buffer against reality. It is the whole we can do nothing placebo. Time is the primary problem in SS, and no one even talks about it. When the younger generation wakes to the bill it is going to vote any politician out of office that tries to preserve the program.

Social Security and Generation Warfare

 

[JimBowie1958]

What about those that can't perform past age 60 yet have such low skills they don't save because their lack of skills meant they got a lower wage? I'm sure you'll have some redistribution minded solution where those that did pay for those that didn't.

No, that is exactly WHY we have Social Security, dude.

IT is better to let these people have some cash rather than let them fall into a pit of misery and despair, spreading disease, causing accidents and dying in their own shit at home and thousands of tax dollars being spent to go to their homes to treat them or get their bodies for disposal.

Besides all that, what about simple compassion for stupid people? We have to have that for some very solid reasons as the consequences of having a high percentage of poor is more costly than just giving them money.

And why does Bernie Sander/wife get nearly $50K per year? He is stupid I will give him that, but I am not sure about your reasoning about compassion.

Compassion is an evolved survival trait for a community. Byt helping others of the tribe during bad times you have more tribal members available for emergencies later down the road. You also have less crime, resentment and corruption.

Its really not hard to deduce, dude.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

What about those that can't perform past age 60 yet have such low skills they don't save because their lack of skills meant they got a lower wage? I'm sure you'll have some redistribution minded solution where those that did pay for those that didn't.

No, that is exactly WHY we have Social Security, dude.

IT is better to let these people have some cash rather than let them fall into a pit of misery and despair, spreading disease, causing accidents and dying in their own shit at home and thousands of tax dollars being spent to go to their homes to treat them or get their bodies for disposal.

Besides all that, what about simple compassion for stupid people? We have to have that for some very solid reasons as the consequences of having a high percentage of poor is more costly than just giving them money.

And why does Bernie Sander/wife get nearly $50K per year? He is stupid I will give him that, but I am not sure about your reasoning about compassion.

Compassion is an evolved survival trait for a community. Byt helping others of the tribe during bad times you have more tribal members available for emergencies later down the road. You also have less crime, resentment and corruption.

Its really not hard to deduce, dude.

That part isn't hard to understand. It is the part about how giving Bernie Sanders and his wife $50K fits into your paradigm of the system. It isn't about bad times. He isn't a member of my tribe. He has no emergency. Clearly paying him money has nothing to do with crime or resentment. He may feel less compelled to steal at the day job. The part that is hard to understand is that 1/5 of the poorest seniors in the country aren't even legible for benefits.

Maybe just maybe Social Security has nothing to do with misery, poverty, despair, and starvation.

 

[Al Azar]

We the People do fund it

And thank Goodness. Those who participate in the program benefit from the program. Taxpayers who don't participate in the program no longer have to support the destitute. It's pay as you go for those who pay and go and doesn't negatively impact non-players.

 

[Al Azar]

That part isn't hard to understand. It is the part about how giving Bernie Sanders and his wife $50K fits into your paradigm of the system. It isn't about bad times. He isn't a member of my tribe. He has no emergency. Clearly paying him money has nothing to do with crime or resentment. He may feel less compelled to steal at the day job. The part that is hard to understand is that 1/5 of the poorest seniors in the country aren't even legible for benefits.

Maybe just maybe Social Security has nothing to do with misery, poverty, despair, and starvation.

I'm more concerned with the $1.1M/yr it's costing us to support George Bush and family, over and above his SS benefit.

 

[rightwinger]

You never did understand that part about "We the People of the United States, in order to create a more perfect union...." did you? The Constitution created the Government of "We the People"

'WE The PEOPLE' didn't F* up SS and turn it in to a slush fund / Ponzi scheme. 'We the people' have been getting screwed by politicians for a long time now. I understand 'We the People' just fine, but you are citing 'we the people' WHY? The idea of helping ONE ANOTHER should not be used to justify the government's abuses, mismanagement, and tyranny.

We the People will vote any politician out of office who tries to fuck with our Social Security or Medicare

You really need to spend time with the numbers. There is no way to preserve the program in its current state. This piece is from Huffington Post, not exactly a liberal thinktank... The Trust Fund is a buffer against reality. It is the whole we can do nothing placebo. Time is the primary problem in SS, and no one even talks about it. When the younger generation wakes to the bill it is going to vote any politician out of office that tries to preserve the program.

Social Security and Generation Warfare

Why would we keep it in its current state?

Changes need to be made including gradually moving the retirement age to 70, raising the contribution limit and increasing the contribution slightly

Not earth shattering and it will make SS solvent for the next 50 years

It can be done with a bipartisan effort

 

[HenryBHough]

The delicious part is that the money will run out about the time today's most virulent liberals are expecting to feed at the public trough!