Social Security faces a $32 trillion shortfall

[Conservative65]

Oh I see. I find SSI buried in another $300B tax collection bucket (income security) My bad. So hard to keep track. All these buckets but collections always fall far short of spending. Pity.

These programs didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by our representatives out of a perceived need.

Don't like it? Run against it and change it. You're not accomplishing anything pounding on your keyboard here.

That perceived need was to get votes by pandering.

Then pander to people like yourself and effect change. I don't think you'll get far, but you can give it a go.

So you admit Democrats pander to get votes. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Yes, I'll "admit" that our representatives indulge their constituents. They'd better, or they'll be replaced by others who will.

It becomes pandering when it involves using someone else's money.

So you think the government owes you something? Typical freeloader.

 

[g5000]

So you admit Democrats pander to get votes. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You say that as if the Republicans don't.

 

[Conservative65]

So you admit Democrats pander to get votes. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You say that as if the Republicans don't.

I said what I meant. You inferred something you chose to include.

 

[Freewill]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

 

[Al Azar]

It becomes pandering when it involves using someone else's money.

Oh, my Goodness. Have you no concept of how our system of representative government works? It functions only by spending other people's money.

Do you honestly think that your congressman and your senator have an assigned budget, one based on how much their district and their state sends to Washington, and are allowed to spend only that amount during their terms? Are you serious?

If everyone we send to do our nation's business didn't do so by spending other people's money, government would collapse instantly.

How in the world did you think things work?

 

[Al Azar]

So you admit Democrats pander to get votes. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You say that as if the Republicans don't.

I said what I meant. You inferred something you chose to include.

And you redefined "pandering" like I've never seen it in any dictionary. If you're going to speak a secret, homemade language here, give us a heads up, eh?

 

[Al Azar]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

One reason people complain about the amount of their old-age benefits relative to how much they paid in is because of how the system has been twisted and tortured to include all sorts of coverage never originally planned. First we added the survivor benefit, which is understandable, but then went on to adding coverage for the children of participants and even older offspring if they were in college, and added a disability feature on top of that. The old-age pension portion kept shrinking as a percentage of moneys being paid out.

Regarding proposed investment of SS funds in the stock market, how big a trust fund would you have to create to cover the inevitable bear market periods, which can last and have lasted for years? How much do we set aside to cover periods when market valuation drops 50% and more, with no end in sight? What do you do when that trust fund runs dry because markets are by nature volatile and unpredictable?

Who do you blame then?

It's called Social Security for a reason. It has to be iron-clad, and the only iron-clad place to put your money, in the eyes of people around the world, is in US-issued debt. When it absolutely, positively has to be there when needed, you put your money in US debt. And to prepare for those periods when outgo is expected to exceed inflow for a while, you establish a trust fund to cover that shortage.

Which is exactly what we've been doing from the git-go, and why this is the most successful domestic program in history.

 

[rightwinger]

These programs didn't fall out of the sky. They were created by our representatives out of a perceived need.

Don't like it? Run against it and change it. You're not accomplishing anything pounding on your keyboard here.

That perceived need was to get votes by pandering.

Then pander to people like yourself and effect change. I don't think you'll get far, but you can give it a go.

So you admit Democrats pander to get votes. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Yes, I'll "admit" that our representatives indulge their constituents. They'd better, or they'll be replaced by others who will.

It becomes pandering when it involves using someone else's money.

So you think the government owes you something? Typical freeloader.

Someone else's money......someone else's money

It is the money of We the People, spending decided by We the People

 

[Al Azar]

That perceived need was to get votes by pandering.

Then pander to people like yourself and effect change. I don't think you'll get far, but you can give it a go.

So you admit Democrats pander to get votes. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Yes, I'll "admit" that our representatives indulge their constituents. They'd better, or they'll be replaced by others who will.

It becomes pandering when it involves using someone else's money.

So you think the government owes you something? Typical freeloader.

Someone else's money......someone else's money

It is the money of We the People, spending decided by We the People

Some people seem to resent that We the People have the constitutional right to choose our own destiny and decide the things that affect us. They seem to think, in fact, that they have a right to force us down a different path of their choosing.

Who in the hell do they think they are?

 

[Freewill]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

One reason people complain about the amount of their old-age benefits relative to how much they paid in is because of how the system has been twisted and tortured to include all sorts of coverage never originally planned. First we added the survivor benefit, which is understandable, but then went on to adding coverage for the children of participants and even older offspring if they were in college, and added a disability feature on top of that. The old-age pension portion kept shrinking as a percentage of moneys being paid out.

Regarding proposed investment of SS funds in the stock market, how big a trust fund would you have to create to cover the inevitable bear market periods, which can last and have lasted for years? How much do we set aside to cover periods when market valuation drops 50% and more, with no end in sight? What do you do when that trust fund runs dry because markets are by nature volatile and unpredictable?

Who do you blame then?

It's called Social Security for a reason. It has to be iron-clad, and the only iron-clad place to put your money, in the eyes of people around the world, is in US-issued debt. When it absolutely, positively has to be there when needed, you put your money in US debt. And to prepare for those periods when outgo is expected to exceed inflow for a while, you establish a trust fund to cover that shortage.

Which is exactly what we've been doing from the git-go, and why this is the most successful domestic program in history.

How do you measure its success?

Since SS is becoming a big Leander to the US government how long do you think that the government will allow that to happen?

Burning down the SS trust fund is one way to reduce national debt.

Or am I looking at this wrongly?

Over all, in the long run, the stocks have increased in value.

 

[Freewill]

Another thing to consider. People are worried about the SS trust fund going bankrupt, which if nothing is done or happens, like a growing economy, will eventually happen.

But, who worries about welfare that gets a COLA and no one puts money into Welfare. So people who earned a benefit get shafted those who are on the dole make out under the radar.

 

[Al Azar]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

One reason people complain about the amount of their old-age benefits relative to how much they paid in is because of how the system has been twisted and tortured to include all sorts of coverage never originally planned. First we added the survivor benefit, which is understandable, but then went on to adding coverage for the children of participants and even older offspring if they were in college, and added a disability feature on top of that. The old-age pension portion kept shrinking as a percentage of moneys being paid out.

Regarding proposed investment of SS funds in the stock market, how big a trust fund would you have to create to cover the inevitable bear market periods, which can last and have lasted for years? How much do we set aside to cover periods when market valuation drops 50% and more, with no end in sight? What do you do when that trust fund runs dry because markets are by nature volatile and unpredictable?

Who do you blame then?

It's called Social Security for a reason. It has to be iron-clad, and the only iron-clad place to put your money, in the eyes of people around the world, is in US-issued debt. When it absolutely, positively has to be there when needed, you put your money in US debt. And to prepare for those periods when outgo is expected to exceed inflow for a while, you establish a trust fund to cover that shortage.

Which is exactly what we've been doing from the git-go, and why this is the most successful domestic program in history.

How do you measure its success?

Since SS is becoming a big Leander to the US government how long do you think that the government will allow that to happen?

Burning down the SS trust fund is one way to reduce national debt.

Or am I looking at this wrongly?

Over all, in the long run, the stocks have increased in value.

I don't follow. Yes, Congress borrows from the trust fund. But the fund is shrinking. As the notes held by the fund mature, the principal goes to paying benefits. The smaller the fund, the less is owed to it, the less the borrowing costs are.

Are you complaining that a source for Congress to borrow from is drying up, or that the cost to taxpayers for borrowing from the trust is dropping, or what?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

Your figures aren't inflation adjusted. Before fees the 45 year return of the S&P was 4.9%. The 25 year return of the S&P ending 1995 was inflation adjusted 6.38% not 12.22%.

I don't think you understand how the Bush plan worked. I wrote an article on TheHill about why SS can't achieve those returns.

Social Security: Investing the surplus in marketable securities

 

[Freewill]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

One reason people complain about the amount of their old-age benefits relative to how much they paid in is because of how the system has been twisted and tortured to include all sorts of coverage never originally planned. First we added the survivor benefit, which is understandable, but then went on to adding coverage for the children of participants and even older offspring if they were in college, and added a disability feature on top of that. The old-age pension portion kept shrinking as a percentage of moneys being paid out.

Regarding proposed investment of SS funds in the stock market, how big a trust fund would you have to create to cover the inevitable bear market periods, which can last and have lasted for years? How much do we set aside to cover periods when market valuation drops 50% and more, with no end in sight? What do you do when that trust fund runs dry because markets are by nature volatile and unpredictable?

Who do you blame then?

It's called Social Security for a reason. It has to be iron-clad, and the only iron-clad place to put your money, in the eyes of people around the world, is in US-issued debt. When it absolutely, positively has to be there when needed, you put your money in US debt. And to prepare for those periods when outgo is expected to exceed inflow for a while, you establish a trust fund to cover that shortage.

Which is exactly what we've been doing from the git-go, and why this is the most successful domestic program in history.

How do you measure its success?

Since SS is becoming a big Leander to the US government how long do you think that the government will allow that to happen?

Burning down the SS trust fund is one way to reduce national debt.

Or am I looking at this wrongly?

Over all, in the long run, the stocks have increased in value.

I don't follow. Yes, Congress borrows from the trust fund. But the fund is shrinking. As the notes held by the fund mature, the principal goes to paying benefits. The smaller the fund, the less is owed to it, the less the borrowing costs are.

Are you complaining that a source for Congress to borrow from is drying up, or that the cost to taxpayers for borrowing from the trust is dropping, or what?

I don't see where I complained about anything.

All the money taken in by SS goes to buy federal bonds. Thus it become debt. That is the point I am making.

All the government needs do to reduce the debt 17 percent is to default:

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

One reason to be here is to expose or learn about issues. When overall tax payout from joesixpack may be as high as 60%, well I for one would like to know where my earned income is going. That's all.

Walk me thought the 60%. I think you are looking at the margin. The guy who makes $200,000 may pay 39% at the margin, but on the first 50K the rate is likely zero because of deductions and the exemptions and IRAs and expenses to pay the accountant.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

One reason people complain about the amount of their old-age benefits relative to how much they paid in is because of how the system has been twisted and tortured to include all sorts of coverage never originally planned. First we added the survivor benefit, which is understandable, but then went on to adding coverage for the children of participants and even older offspring if they were in college, and added a disability feature on top of that. The old-age pension portion kept shrinking as a percentage of moneys being paid out.

Regarding proposed investment of SS funds in the stock market, how big a trust fund would you have to create to cover the inevitable bear market periods, which can last and have lasted for years? How much do we set aside to cover periods when market valuation drops 50% and more, with no end in sight? What do you do when that trust fund runs dry because markets are by nature volatile and unpredictable?

Who do you blame then?

It's called Social Security for a reason. It has to be iron-clad, and the only iron-clad place to put your money, in the eyes of people around the world, is in US-issued debt. When it absolutely, positively has to be there when needed, you put your money in US debt. And to prepare for those periods when outgo is expected to exceed inflow for a while, you establish a trust fund to cover that shortage.

Which is exactly what we've been doing from the git-go, and why this is the most successful domestic program in history.

How do you measure its success?

Since SS is becoming a big Leander to the US government how long do you think that the government will allow that to happen?

Burning down the SS trust fund is one way to reduce national debt.

Or am I looking at this wrongly?

Over all, in the long run, the stocks have increased in value.

I don't follow. Yes, Congress borrows from the trust fund. But the fund is shrinking. As the notes held by the fund mature, the principal goes to paying benefits. The smaller the fund, the less is owed to it, the less the borrowing costs are.

Are you complaining that a source for Congress to borrow from is drying up, or that the cost to taxpayers for borrowing from the trust is dropping, or what?

I don't see where I complained about anything.

All the money taken in by SS goes to buy federal bonds. Thus it become debt. That is the point I am making.

All the government needs do to reduce the debt 17 percent is to default:

The SS Trust Fund has the same credit position as everyone else. The government isn't in a position to default on specific bonds. This is what is meant by the full faith and credit.

 

[Freewill]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

One reason people complain about the amount of their old-age benefits relative to how much they paid in is because of how the system has been twisted and tortured to include all sorts of coverage never originally planned. First we added the survivor benefit, which is understandable, but then went on to adding coverage for the children of participants and even older offspring if they were in college, and added a disability feature on top of that. The old-age pension portion kept shrinking as a percentage of moneys being paid out.

Regarding proposed investment of SS funds in the stock market, how big a trust fund would you have to create to cover the inevitable bear market periods, which can last and have lasted for years? How much do we set aside to cover periods when market valuation drops 50% and more, with no end in sight? What do you do when that trust fund runs dry because markets are by nature volatile and unpredictable?

Who do you blame then?

It's called Social Security for a reason. It has to be iron-clad, and the only iron-clad place to put your money, in the eyes of people around the world, is in US-issued debt. When it absolutely, positively has to be there when needed, you put your money in US debt. And to prepare for those periods when outgo is expected to exceed inflow for a while, you establish a trust fund to cover that shortage.

Which is exactly what we've been doing from the git-go, and why this is the most successful domestic program in history.

How do you measure its success?

Since SS is becoming a big Leander to the US government how long do you think that the government will allow that to happen?

Burning down the SS trust fund is one way to reduce national debt.

Or am I looking at this wrongly?

Over all, in the long run, the stocks have increased in value.

I don't follow. Yes, Congress borrows from the trust fund. But the fund is shrinking. As the notes held by the fund mature, the principal goes to paying benefits. The smaller the fund, the less is owed to it, the less the borrowing costs are.

Are you complaining that a source for Congress to borrow from is drying up, or that the cost to taxpayers for borrowing from the trust is dropping, or what?

I don't see where I complained about anything.

All the money taken in by SS goes to buy federal bonds. Thus it become debt. That is the point I am making.

All the government needs do to reduce the debt 17 percent is to default:

The SS Trust Fund has the same credit position as everyone else. The government isn't in a position to default on specific bonds. This is what is meant by the full faith and credit.

OK, they get rid of a lot of debt by defaulting. Isn't that one worry about how big the debt huge the debt is actually getting?

So what is your opinion.

a. on the future of SS retirement insurance
b. the size and future of the US debt.

 

[Freewill]

The Future Financial Status of the Social Security Program

If only the democrats would have listened to GWB and privatized SS. One reason they did not is that SS has had many people added to it that never were suppose to be added.

Yes, the stock market has fallen but it has always recovered and the has grown.

Your figures aren't inflation adjusted. Before fees the 45 year return of the S&P was 4.9%. The 25 year return of the S&P ending 1995 was inflation adjusted 6.38% not 12.22%.

I don't think you understand how the Bush plan worked. I wrote an article on TheHill about why SS can't achieve those returns.

Social Security: Investing the surplus in marketable securities

So what was the return of US bonds, inflation adjusted for the same period? I was only using the S&P as an example.

 

[Conservative65]

That perceived need was to get votes by pandering.

Then pander to people like yourself and effect change. I don't think you'll get far, but you can give it a go.

So you admit Democrats pander to get votes. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

Yes, I'll "admit" that our representatives indulge their constituents. They'd better, or they'll be replaced by others who will.

It becomes pandering when it involves using someone else's money.

So you think the government owes you something? Typical freeloader.

Someone else's money......someone else's money

It is the money of We the People, spending decided by We the People

Oh, one of those retards that thinks one person earnings means a piece of shit unwilling to do for him/herself should get it. That's a good indicator you're one of those pieces of shit.

 

[Conservative65]

So you admit Democrats pander to get votes. Thanks for confirming what we already knew.

BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA! You say that as if the Republicans don't.

I said what I meant. You inferred something you chose to include.

And you redefined "pandering" like I've never seen it in any dictionary. If you're going to speak a secret, homemade language here, give us a heads up, eh?

Not my problem you can't read for understanding.