Social Security faces a $32 trillion shortfall

[JimBowie1958]

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?

 

[Conservative65]

OK. I am 72, and still working. I collect SS, over $24K a year. I paid into it every year of my working life. And am still paying into it. However, not one of my peer group that I knew when I started working are still working, most simply cannot for health reasons. If we continue to increase the age of retirement, then we had better make provisions for those that cannot work for the inevitible ravages of age.

That being said, the cap must be raised, and those that can, should work a longer time. Most jobs today are not that physical.

Yes, SS is easily fixable, and an excellent program to protect the working man from the vissicitudes of the market. But the Republicans were against it when it started, and continue to be against it. Too bad that they could not see the wisdom of the GOP President that was wisest concerning SS and many other things, Eisenhower.

You can still raise the age of full retirement to 70 and allow workers to take early retirement at a younger age at reduced benefit

If you are in a profession where you physically cannot perform past age 60, you need to plan ahead either by investing in a 401k starting in your 20s or learning skills you can use in your 60s

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.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.

There are things that people MUST do for the good of the whole nation. Registering for the draft is one of them and so is Social Security.

If you dont whine about registering for the draft why whine about SocSec?

 

[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.

 

[easyt65]

You can still raise the age of full retirement to 70 and allow workers to take early retirement at a younger age at reduced benefit

F* a 'reduced benefit'. I want MY money I put into Social Security!

I'm a big boy, and I no longer need the government to hold MY money for MY retirement, especially when they have proven they can't be trusted due to their mismanagement of funds and programs.

I don't WANT them to continue STEALING MY money from MY paycheck - I am perfectly capable of investing and saving for my own retirement. The trouble is you can't 'FIRE' this 'mandatory govt retirement investment' entity because they are basically holding us all a 'gun point'. We do not get a say in if we get to keep our money.

We are being ROBBED by the government every month, and we are told we just have to stand there and take it.

The REASON we have to continue to pay in is because those who are before us, those who are already receiving benefits have no money of their own - it has been SPENT, and WE have to keep paying into the program so OTHERS will get what id due them.

GREAT F*ing System....one whose own creator insisted this was NEVER meant to be a permanent program due to the potential for it to become what it is now....a criminal Washington Ponzi Scheme.

 

[Conservative65]

Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.

There are things that people MUST do for the good of the whole nation. Registering for the draft is one of them and so is Social Security.

If you dont whine about registering for the draft why whine about SocSec?

When those paying in at a 4x higher contribution start getting 4x the distribution, then it can be stated that it's for the good of the country. Until then, it's nothing more than a redistribution of wealth from the higher incomes to the lower incomes and nothing about taking from one in order to give to another is good.

Since there is no draft, I didn't register for the draft. I registered for Selective Service. My problem wasn't having to do so but that certain groups that constantly talk about equality are the same ones that support a male only registration.

There's one major difference between Selective Service registration and Social Security mandates. I can find a direct power of Congress to the the former in the Constitution. I've yet to see the same thing for Social Security.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

It's not better for me and if the bleeding hearts that say they care about people actually showed it, none of what you say would happen actually would happen.

I don't have compassion for stupid people. There is a difference between ignorance and stupidity. Ignorant people can be educated to varying degrees depending on the individual. Stupid people have proven they can't. Ignorance is not knowing. Stupidity is knowing better yet still doing the same thing.

 

[easyt65]

There are things that people MUST do for the good of the whole nation. Registering for the draft is one of them and so is Social Security.

WE must sacrifice ONLT because our politicians did NOT do what was in the best interest of this nation or its people! WE must do what is NOW beneficial because our politicians F* us...and continue to do so.

WHY don't the dumbass citizens ever demand the Politicians do what s in the best interest of the nation and sacrifice as well?

About every single politician in Washington DC is a millionaire, and they sure as hell didn't start out that way when they were elected. The give themselves the best pay, pay raises, the best benefits, the best perks, the best health care, UN-Constitutionally exempt themselves from the laws and mandates they pass.

So pardon me if I get a little testy when someone tells me we citizens, who have been and continue to be shat upon by the Politicians who have removed themselves from all the shackles THEY placed upon US, must be the ones alone to do what is in the best interest of the nation. 'SUCK IT UP.'

 

[rightwinger]

They should take it out of the general fund and put it back in that lock box.

What "lock box"? All they're doing it now is taking the (fiat currency) Federal Reserve Notes (in digital form) and replacing it with another type of fiat currency in the form of Federal Government Bonds, either way it's just entries in a ledger backed by nothing but printing presses.

If you put Federal Reserve Notes in some mythical "lock box" all the miscreants in Washington will do is issue more bonds that the Federal Reserve will then "print" fiat currency to "buy" (aka monetizing debt) thus giving the drunken sailors in Washington the same amount of money to blow and hastening the increase in the Federal Government cumulative operating deficits (and the eventual collapse of the dollar), meaning at the end of the day you'll still end up with a "lock box" full of worthless currency you just get there faster because the federal debt service will increase at a faster rate.

What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.

How do you pay existing retirees?

With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.

Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.

There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?

 

[rightwinger]

You can still raise the age of full retirement to 70 and allow workers to take early retirement at a younger age at reduced benefit

F* a 'reduced benefit'. I want MY money I put into Social Security!

I'm a big boy, and I no longer need the government to hold MY money for MY retirement, especially when they have proven they can't be trusted due to their mismanagement of funds and programs.

I don't WANT them to continue STEALING MY money from MY paycheck - I am perfectly capable of investing and saving for my own retirement. The trouble is you can't 'FIRE' this 'mandatory govt retirement investment' entity because they are basically holding us all a 'gun point'. We do not get a say in if we get to keep our money.

We are being ROBBED by the government every month, and we are told we just have to stand there and take it.

The REASON we have to continue to pay in is because those who are before us, those who are already receiving benefits have no money of their own - it has been SPENT, and WE have to keep paying into the program so OTHERS will get what id due them.

GREAT F*ing System....one whose own creator insisted this was NEVER meant to be a permanent program due to the potential for it to become what it is now....a criminal Washington Ponzi Scheme.

Fine...You want YOUR money then work until the full retirement age

If you are a big boy, then start building a private retirement fund that can supplement your social security benefits

 

[pwjohn]

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.

If you hold a job where you are physically unable to perform after age 60, you need to start making plans while you are still in your 20s. You need to either build a 401k nest egg to carry you once you hit 60 or you need to develop other job skills that you can use in your 60s

Well I suppose in your perfect world there's a slight chance that might work out provided that the lords willing, and the creek don't rise.

 

[easyt65]

Fine...You want YOUR money then work until the full retirement age

If you are a big boy, then start building a private retirement fund that can supplement your social security benefits

F* that - give me my money NOW. I will gladly put it into a personal account / program and set it up where I won't draw from it until retirement age.

Then again, who the F* is the government to tell me when 'retirement age' is since it is MY money?! If I want to retire at 65, that's my business. If I want to work until I am 70 before retiring and starting to withdraw my money, that is MY business.

You don't seem to understand that responsible citizens don't need a nanny state dictating every decision or having such control of one's personal money and how they live their life.

I have a 'private retirement', according to the Govt. The govt said it was going to take MY money it took from ME and keep it for ME and give it back to ME. It wasn't a 'loan' - it is MY money they have taken. I want it back. If you are suggesting that I simply walk away from MY money they have taken then you are admitting SS is a scam and a scam to steal money from Americans.

It is NOT the govt's money - and despite how they have treated it, it never WAS!

 

[Conservative65]

They should take it out of the general fund and put it back in that lock box.

What "lock box"? All they're doing it now is taking the (fiat currency) Federal Reserve Notes (in digital form) and replacing it with another type of fiat currency in the form of Federal Government Bonds, either way it's just entries in a ledger backed by nothing but printing presses.

If you put Federal Reserve Notes in some mythical "lock box" all the miscreants in Washington will do is issue more bonds that the Federal Reserve will then "print" fiat currency to "buy" (aka monetizing debt) thus giving the drunken sailors in Washington the same amount of money to blow and hastening the increase in the Federal Government cumulative operating deficits (and the eventual collapse of the dollar), meaning at the end of the day you'll still end up with a "lock box" full of worthless currency you just get there faster because the federal debt service will increase at a faster rate.

What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.

How do you pay existing retirees?

With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.

Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.

There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?

I explained how. You don't listen.

You know damn good and well why you support such a system. Those that really fund it, the higher incomes, would opt out and the lower income people that won't do for themselves by investing on their own wouldn't have a dime. Again, redistribution.

 

[rightwinger]

Fine...You want YOUR money then work until the full retirement age

If you are a big boy, then start building a private retirement fund that can supplement your social security benefits

F* that - give me my money NOW. I will gladly put it into a personal account / program and set it up where I won't draw from it until retirement age.

Then again, who the F* is the government to tell me when 'retirement age' is since it is MY money?! If I want to retire at 65, that's my business. If I want to work until I am 70 before retiring and starting to withdraw my money, that is MY business.

You don't seem to understand that responsible citizens don't need a nanny state dictating every decision or having such control of one's personal money and how they live their life.

I have a 'private retirement', according to the Govt. The govt said it was going to take MY money it took from ME and keep it for ME and give it back to ME. It wasn't a 'loan' - it is MY money they have taken. I want it back. If you are suggesting that I simply walk away from MY money they have taken then you are admitting SS is a scam and a scam to steal money from Americans.

It is NOT the govt's money - and despite how they have treated it, it never WAS!

Unfortunately for you Social Security has been in place for 80 years

Wishing and hoping will not make it go away. If you want to "opt out", you need to provide a transition plan that still takes care of those who have paid in to Social Security their whole lives.
Throwing them to the wolves and starting over will not work

You can retire at any age you want. Many people retire at age 40. They just can't start drawing Social Security benefits until they are 62

 

[rightwinger]

What "lock box"? All they're doing it now is taking the (fiat currency) Federal Reserve Notes (in digital form) and replacing it with another type of fiat currency in the form of Federal Government Bonds, either way it's just entries in a ledger backed by nothing but printing presses.

If you put Federal Reserve Notes in some mythical "lock box" all the miscreants in Washington will do is issue more bonds that the Federal Reserve will then "print" fiat currency to "buy" (aka monetizing debt) thus giving the drunken sailors in Washington the same amount of money to blow and hastening the increase in the Federal Government cumulative operating deficits (and the eventual collapse of the dollar), meaning at the end of the day you'll still end up with a "lock box" full of worthless currency you just get there faster because the federal debt service will increase at a faster rate.

What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.

How do you pay existing retirees?

With the funds you Libs say are there claiming the system is solid.

Why do you oppose people opting out? You'll come up with some excuse that you're looking out for them. The real reason is you know those that actually keep the system going would opt out, make far more on their own, and those that rely on the redistribution would have nothing. In other words, the higher incomes support the lower incomes. Typical redistribution mentality of the left.

There are no funds. They are paid out to existing retirees. You are the one proposing to allow people to opt out. How do you propose paying benefits to those who are retired or will retire in the next decade?

I explained how. You don't listen.

You know damn good and well why you support such a system. Those that really fund it, the higher incomes, would opt out and the lower income people that won't do for themselves by investing on their own wouldn't have a dime. Again, redistribution.

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

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

They should take it out of the general fund and put it back in that lock box.

What "lock box"? All they're doing it now is taking the (fiat currency) Federal Reserve Notes (in digital form) and replacing it with another type of fiat currency in the form of Federal Government Bonds, either way it's just entries in a ledger backed by nothing but printing presses.

If you put Federal Reserve Notes in some mythical "lock box" all the miscreants in Washington will do is issue more bonds that the Federal Reserve will then "print" fiat currency to "buy" (aka monetizing debt) thus giving the drunken sailors in Washington the same amount of money to blow and hastening the increase in the Federal Government cumulative operating deficits (and the eventual collapse of the dollar), meaning at the end of the day you'll still end up with a "lock box" full of worthless currency you just get there faster because the federal debt service will increase at a faster rate.

What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.

If you let anyone out, everyone will leave. Then you have no revenue to pay existing retirees. Are you ready to tell retirees to pound sand, or are you going to tell the people that thought that they were opting out of a foolish program sorry you only opted out of getting benefits.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

If the govt says, 'Give me $20. I will put it aside for you, No one will touch it because it's your money'. When it comes time for me to be able to collect my $20, how can there be a 'shortfall' if no one could touch my money that was put aside for me and the govt could not use it any time they wanted?

The BS claim that the govt didn't raid social security like their own piggy bank / slush fund is just that - BS!

Hmmm... and where did the government ever say that it was putting so much as a quarter away for you? They "raided" it to pay existing retirees. That is how a pay-as-you-go system works.

 

[easyt65]

Unfortunately for you Social Security has been in place for 80 years

The length of time this corrupt Ponzi scheme has been in existence means nothing and is not a justification of the criminal way it has been run.

Wishing and hoping will not make it go away. If you want to "opt out", you need to provide a transition plan that still takes care of those who have paid in to Social Security their whole lives.

That has been done already. No matter what is done, even if we do nothing, it is going to hurt people - people will lose money in the end. The plan that potentially seems the best is that a certain age is determined that identifies the people in the US who can successfully be taken out of SS and placed on their own independent retirement program, one where money is invested for them into an actual account the government CAN NOT TOUCH - PERIOD! The remainder of those left in SS, those who do not have time to begin such a program would run their course through the existing SS program.

The 2 obvious problems with that are:

1. Telling people who are suddenly transitioned from the existing SS program that all the money they have paid in so far is 'gone'

&

2. The SS Ponzi scheme depends on those people who would be otherwise be transitioned out of the program to continue to pay the benefits of those collecting today since the money of those collecting now has already been stolen and spent by the govt.

 

[easyt65]

If you let anyone out, everyone will leave. Then you have no revenue to pay existing retirees. Are you ready to tell retirees to pound sand, or are you going to tell the people that thought that they were opting out of a foolish program sorry you only opted out of getting benefits.

Everyone might WANT to leave but the govt can do exactly what it has done for 80 years - hold people 'hostage'.

 

[Conservative65]

They should take it out of the general fund and put it back in that lock box.

What "lock box"? All they're doing it now is taking the (fiat currency) Federal Reserve Notes (in digital form) and replacing it with another type of fiat currency in the form of Federal Government Bonds, either way it's just entries in a ledger backed by nothing but printing presses.

If you put Federal Reserve Notes in some mythical "lock box" all the miscreants in Washington will do is issue more bonds that the Federal Reserve will then "print" fiat currency to "buy" (aka monetizing debt) thus giving the drunken sailors in Washington the same amount of money to blow and hastening the increase in the Federal Government cumulative operating deficits (and the eventual collapse of the dollar), meaning at the end of the day you'll still end up with a "lock box" full of worthless currency you just get there faster because the federal debt service will increase at a faster rate.

What you do is let people opt out of such a foolish program and invest their money the way they see fit. That way, those that do the responsible thing benefit and those that don't, well, tough shit.

If you let anyone out, everyone will leave. Then you have no revenue to pay existing retirees. Are you ready to tell retirees to pound sand, or are you going to tell the people that thought that they were opting out of a foolish program sorry you only opted out of getting benefits.

There would have to be a plan to provide those currently retired. No one is saying tell them tough shit.

As for those that opt out then don't do what they're supposed to responsibly do, I have no problem telling them tough shit. Like I said before, I have no compassion for stupid people.