Social Security faces a $32 trillion shortfall

[Conservative65]

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?

I see you ignored the pandering part. Do you really think that means you said something? You probably do.

Another typical freeloader supporter.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

Big difference between spending money to do things for which the government is Constitutionally authorized to do and spending to buy votes of those that contribute little to nothing while getting to vote for those that will pander to them.

 

[Conservative65]

Excuse me sir, but according to many on this site this flock of state local fed were already "flocked" into SS? All along? Spin cycle please...

I must have missed those posts. What did they claim?

Federal employees hired after 1983 are in SS. That was the only change in law I'm aware of. I know that our local government workers in my state do not participate in SS. I also know:

States in Which Public Employees Are Not Covered by Social Security

Alaska
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia (certain local governments)
Illinois
Kentucky (certain local governments)
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio
Rhode Island (certain local governments)
Texas

and that generally carries down to the county and city level.

It generally carries down to the county/city level? Can you provide a list of all the counties/cities in each of those states and how they do things? Seems your list of states indicates which one have laws applying to local area and it's only three. That's not generally unless you can prove it.

 

[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.

Changing terms? Indulge and pander aren't the same thing.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

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.

The problem isn't the debt. The problem is the indifference to it. SS is what Paul Ryan called the greatest foreseeable crisis in human history, and what does he do... He proposes a scheme by which we keep the crisis in a different form.

My guess is that future generates wake to a currency crisis and see that the crisis was largely caused by the people that seniors elected, the promises that seniors of the time made to themselves, and their role in the 3rd Rail Politics that bought on said crisis. I suspect that it will look like a tsunami that targets people who can't swim.

 

[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

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

Less risk means lower return.

The problem is that (a) there is no way to get the money invested without the political inference that will crash the S&P. Just wait until Solyndra is added to the S&P (b) the index returns overstate what the S&P can collect because the money is an annuity that peaks at market highs and troughs at market lows. The government needs to shrink its footprint on the market not increase it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

On the other hand we could do something sensible and repeal the Ponzi scheme before it comes crashing down on everybody who was foolish enough to count on Social Security as a viable source of retirement income.

Just one point..."foolish enough to count on..."...I am 51, and have been FORCED to pay into this game for over 30 years. It was not, and is not a choice. Simply ending the scheme with no recourse for all of us paying into it for decades is not an option. It would ruin the lives of millions. You ready to take in your parents in another few years?
As for me, I have other assets including (thank God) a pension that was fully funded for 22 years that I will draw from on top of SS. But SS is absolutely a vital part of my future life. As it is for many others.
It does need to end. I don't think anyone can argue this...but that cannot include robbing millions of current decades long payers blind.[/QUOTE]

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

On the other hand we could do something sensible and repeal the Ponzi scheme before it comes crashing down on everybody who was foolish enough to count on Social Security as a viable source of retirement income.

Just one point..."foolish enough to count on..."...I am 51, and have been FORCED to pay into this game for over 30 years. It was not, and is not a choice. Simply ending the scheme with no recourse for all of us paying into it for decades is not an option. It would ruin the lives of millions. You ready to take in your parents in another few years?
As for me, I have other assets including (thank God) a pension that was fully funded for 22 years that I will draw from on top of SS. But SS is absolutely a vital part of my future life. As it is for many others.
It does need to end. I don't think anyone can argue this...but that cannot include robbing millions of current decades long payers blind.

[/QUOTE]

You realize if you "repeal the "ponzi scheme" - you get nothing. If you do get anything it will because you wanted to rob someone else. You don't mind the robbery so long as it is not you that is robbed.

People who are upwards of 68 expect to outlive the systems ability to pay full benefits. Yes at 51 you are going to absorb part of that pain. The fact that you have other savings means that it will likely fall on you harder than the guy who didn't save. This is caused by the politics of doing nothing.

This is a piece that I published in TheHill last week. I am sharing it because it is written about people born in 1964 and 1965. It looks at the size of benefit cuts that have to be absorbed by future workers in order to preserve the system for those in retirement. That plan is based on data that is a year old, so the cuts have to be increased in fact. It largely means that your kids will have to be back at the table telling their kids that SS is a good deal.

Saving the Boomer's Social Security

You cannot absolve yourself from being part of the cause. You had a vote, and like all taxes the benefit went to someone else. All of us have participated in the 3rd Rail, so you have some accountability in the outcome. Participation means that you didn't vote, or that you didn't rally your friends and family to make this issue visible. You had a vote in the primaries, where the country picked 2 the two people who will do exactly nothing.

This legislation tells you that you are going to get hammered. The nothing that you do about the issue will only make it worse. That is pretty much the starting line. When you get nothing, you have to keep in mind that you weren't forced to do nothing.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

It comes down to taking your ball and going home if things don't go your way

 

[iamwhatiseem]

You realize if you "repeal the "ponzi scheme" - you get nothing. If you do get anything it will because you wanted to rob someone else. You don't mind the robbery so long as it is not you that is robbed.

People who are upwards of 68 expect to outlive the systems ability to pay full benefits. You had a vote in the primaries, where the country picked 2 the two people who will do exactly nothing. Yes at 51 you are going to absorb part of that pain. The fact that you have other savings means that it will likely fall on you harder than the guy who didn't save. This is caused by the politics of doing nothing.

This is a piece that I published in TheHill last week. I am sharing it because it is written about people born in 1964 and 1965. It looks at the size of benefit cuts that have to be absorbed by future workers in order to preserve the system for those in retirement. That plan is based on data that is a year old, so the cuts have to be increased in fact. It largely means that your kids will have to be back at the table telling their kids that SS is a good deal.

Saving the Boomer's Social Security

You cannot absolve yourself from being part of the cause. You had a vote, and like all taxes the benefit went to someone else. All of us have participated in the 3rd Rail, so you have some accountability in the outcome. Participation means that you didn't vote, or that you didn't rally your friends and family to make this issue visible.

This legislation tells you that you are going to get hammered. The nothing that you do about the issue will only make it worse. That is pretty much the starting line. When you get nothing, you have to keep in mind that you weren't forced to do nothing.

Really?
Voting gave me a choice?...please expand on that. I would love you to show me how, if I, myself, voted differently - the outcome would have been different.
I have complained about SS for years, there is perhaps nothing more far reaching un-American than SS.
I have had ZERO choice. I could have voted for every anti-SS candidate my entire life and the outcome would be exactly the same for me.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

What you earn is subject to the tax structure instilled by We the People

Right now, that tax structure is the most generous to our highest earners in generations

We the People need to reassess the impact of supply side economics

 

[Conservative65]

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?

It comes down to taking your ball and going home if things don't go your way

It comes down to it being your ball that you earned but someone else thinking it belongs to them.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

What you earn is subject to the tax structure instilled by We the People

Right now, that tax structure is the most generous to our highest earners in generations

We the People need to reassess the impact of supply side economics

Most generous to the highest earners? Ridiculous. When half don't pay income taxes on their earnings, a 0% rate is far more generous than whatever rate someone else is paying.

Your answer is indicative of someone that has nothing so has nothing to take. Not surprised you believe how you do. If it weren't for people like me you think owes people like you something, you wouldn't have the pot to piss in or the window to throw it out of that if given to you.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You realize if you "repeal the "ponzi scheme" - you get nothing. If you do get anything it will because you wanted to rob someone else. You don't mind the robbery so long as it is not you that is robbed.

People who are upwards of 68 expect to outlive the systems ability to pay full benefits. You had a vote in the primaries, where the country picked 2 the two people who will do exactly nothing. Yes at 51 you are going to absorb part of that pain. The fact that you have other savings means that it will likely fall on you harder than the guy who didn't save. This is caused by the politics of doing nothing.

This is a piece that I published in TheHill last week. I am sharing it because it is written about people born in 1964 and 1965. It looks at the size of benefit cuts that have to be absorbed by future workers in order to preserve the system for those in retirement. That plan is based on data that is a year old, so the cuts have to be increased in fact. It largely means that your kids will have to be back at the table telling their kids that SS is a good deal.

Saving the Boomer's Social Security

You cannot absolve yourself from being part of the cause. You had a vote, and like all taxes the benefit went to someone else. All of us have participated in the 3rd Rail, so you have some accountability in the outcome. Participation means that you didn't vote, or that you didn't rally your friends and family to make this issue visible.

This legislation tells you that you are going to get hammered. The nothing that you do about the issue will only make it worse. That is pretty much the starting line. When you get nothing, you have to keep in mind that you weren't forced to do nothing.

Really?
Voting gave me a choice?...please expand on that. I would love you to show me how, if I, myself, voted differently - the outcome would have been different.
I have complained about SS for years, there is perhaps nothing more far reaching un-American than SS.
I have had ZERO choice. I could have voted for every anti-SS candidate my entire life and the outcome would be exactly the same for me.

You have the right to organize and tell people your opinion, and urge those people to vote.

I tried - and failed. What I found in the process was that there are 120 million people like you who feel powerless. 80 percent of the public thinks that the system is heading for crisis without major reform. That means you can't throw rice at a wedding and not hit 10 people who think what you do. The I-can't-do-anything audience is like the 7'3'' kid who is afraid to take the ball to the hoop. All I can say to those people is then don't complain when something happens to you. At least I tried.

This is about you. The worst of these people say I wrote my Congressman, which means I wrote a 20 year-old stranger who has sees the Congressman once every month. Organization is the key. Join a group of people that you agree with. There is a thing called the internet. It led to the Arab Spring.

But if you sit and do nothing... Here is the future. There are three proposals right now that will transform the program into a welfare program. To the people in power, what Social Security does is less important than whether there is a program called Social Security. In this case, you will get virtually nothing. My guess is that you will get nothing as younger workers realize that there are better welfare programs than SS.

 

[Al Azar]

On the other hand we could do something sensible and repeal the Ponzi scheme before it comes crashing down on everybody who was foolish enough to count on Social Security as a viable source of retirement income.

Just one point..."foolish enough to count on..."...I am 51, and have been FORCED to pay into this game for over 30 years. It was not, and is not a choice. Simply ending the scheme with no recourse for all of us paying into it for decades is not an option. It would ruin the lives of millions. You ready to take in your parents in another few years?
As for me, I have other assets including (thank God) a pension that was fully funded for 22 years that I will draw from on top of SS. But SS is absolutely a vital part of my future life. As it is for many others.
It does need to end. I don't think anyone can argue this...but that cannot include robbing millions of current decades long payers blind.

[/QUOTE]1) You weren't forced into SS, you chose it. Whether or not you participate in SS depends on your choice of occupations and employers. Not every job falls under the SS umbrella.

2) Social Security fits into your retirement finances exactly the way it was supposed to, as one leg of a three-legged stool. The other two legs are pension and personal savings.

Now that workers have allowed company pensions to become a thing of the past, and personal investment accounts depend on volatile markets, you might appreciate just how important SS is to many people in this country. It's the only thing they can depend on in retirement.

 

[Al Azar]

You realize if you "repeal the "ponzi scheme" - you get nothing. If you do get anything it will because you wanted to rob someone else. You don't mind the robbery so long as it is not you that is robbed.

People who are upwards of 68 expect to outlive the systems ability to pay full benefits. You had a vote in the primaries, where the country picked 2 the two people who will do exactly nothing. Yes at 51 you are going to absorb part of that pain. The fact that you have other savings means that it will likely fall on you harder than the guy who didn't save. This is caused by the politics of doing nothing.

This is a piece that I published in TheHill last week. I am sharing it because it is written about people born in 1964 and 1965. It looks at the size of benefit cuts that have to be absorbed by future workers in order to preserve the system for those in retirement. That plan is based on data that is a year old, so the cuts have to be increased in fact. It largely means that your kids will have to be back at the table telling their kids that SS is a good deal.

Saving the Boomer's Social Security

You cannot absolve yourself from being part of the cause. You had a vote, and like all taxes the benefit went to someone else. All of us have participated in the 3rd Rail, so you have some accountability in the outcome. Participation means that you didn't vote, or that you didn't rally your friends and family to make this issue visible.

This legislation tells you that you are going to get hammered. The nothing that you do about the issue will only make it worse. That is pretty much the starting line. When you get nothing, you have to keep in mind that you weren't forced to do nothing.

Really?
Voting gave me a choice?...please expand on that. I would love you to show me how, if I, myself, voted differently - the outcome would have been different.
I have complained about SS for years, there is perhaps nothing more far reaching un-American than SS.
I have had ZERO choice. I could have voted for every anti-SS candidate my entire life and the outcome would be exactly the same for me.

Because so few people agree with you.

 

[Weatherman2020]

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

It's funny how you always hear that Social Security and Medicare are running out of money, but never welfare.

 

[Al Azar]

What you earn is subject to the tax structure instilled by We the People

Right now, that tax structure is the most generous to our highest earners in generations

We the People need to reassess the impact of supply side economics

Right now the working middle class is the one with the tax burden. Working people below middle class pay little or nothing in taxes. People above middle class pay little relative to how much they make.

The working middle class pays taxes based on ordinary income, the highest rate of income tax people can pay, and they pay it on every dime of taxable income. And the key word here is "working". That's the source of the burden. No matter how much you make, if you don't have to work and pay ordinary income tax rates, you can structure your income in a manner to avoid a lot of taxes. Workers don't have that option.

This is the root of my objections to our current income tax system. It's not a tax system based on income, it's a tax system based on how you earned it, and then what you did with it. It's not an income tax, it's a lifestyle tax.

 

[Al Azar]

It's funny how you always hear that Social Security and Medicare are running out of money, but never welfare.

It's because the whiners are good at picking the wrong target. SS and Medicare are supported by participants. Welfare isn't. So what do they go after, the programs supported by the people who participate in the programs, not those solely supported by tax dollars.

It's like the post office. It's about the only agency in government that's specifically mentioned in our constitution, so that's the agency they want to break up and sell off.

They live in an upside down world.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You realize if you "repeal the "ponzi scheme" - you get nothing. If you do get anything it will because you wanted to rob someone else. You don't mind the robbery so long as it is not you that is robbed.

People who are upwards of 68 expect to outlive the systems ability to pay full benefits. You had a vote in the primaries, where the country picked 2 the two people who will do exactly nothing. Yes at 51 you are going to absorb part of that pain. The fact that you have other savings means that it will likely fall on you harder than the guy who didn't save. This is caused by the politics of doing nothing.

This is a piece that I published in TheHill last week. I am sharing it because it is written about people born in 1964 and 1965. It looks at the size of benefit cuts that have to be absorbed by future workers in order to preserve the system for those in retirement. That plan is based on data that is a year old, so the cuts have to be increased in fact. It largely means that your kids will have to be back at the table telling their kids that SS is a good deal.

Saving the Boomer's Social Security

You cannot absolve yourself from being part of the cause. You had a vote, and like all taxes the benefit went to someone else. All of us have participated in the 3rd Rail, so you have some accountability in the outcome. Participation means that you didn't vote, or that you didn't rally your friends and family to make this issue visible.

This legislation tells you that you are going to get hammered. The nothing that you do about the issue will only make it worse. That is pretty much the starting line. When you get nothing, you have to keep in mind that you weren't forced to do nothing.

Really?
Voting gave me a choice?...please expand on that. I would love you to show me how, if I, myself, voted differently - the outcome would have been different.
I have complained about SS for years, there is perhaps nothing more far reaching un-American than SS.
I have had ZERO choice. I could have voted for every anti-SS candidate my entire life and the outcome would be exactly the same for me.

Because so few people agree with you.

Here you are completely wrong. You are discounting his response, but he is far from alone. 28 percent of the public thinks that SS is a ponzi scheme. The reason that you believe that there are few is because it is a silent group. By and large they aren't even willing to vote. (I cover the issue and largely they write me to tell me how wrong I am). They are very passionate, but unorganized. Once they coalesce politics will follow. Once the politics is there, then you will get news coverage.