Social Security is not going broke .. because it can't

[tinfoil]

Quoted from section titled "A MESSAGE FROM THE PUBLIC TRUSTEES"
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

The Social Security outlook has worsened significantly relative to last year's report. The actuarial deficit in its combined trust funds is now 2.67 percent of taxable payroll, the highest recorded since the last major Social Security financing reforms roughly three decades ago. The single-year deterioration in the 2012 report is the largest recorded since the 1994 report. While the projected depletion date (2033) for the combined trust funds is not the earliest recorded since the 1983 reforms, we are nevertheless now closer to the point of projected depletion than we have been since enactment of those reforms. The combined Social Security trust funds' balance continues to grow in nominal terms, but has been declining generally relative to the total cost of paying benefits since 2008, and will be shrinking after 2012 in real (inflation adjusted) terms. Thus by almost any objective measure, the financial health of the Social Security system has entered a concerning decline.

 

[tinfoil]

Yes,why don't you school him? I'd be interested.

Simple math, dumbshit. 75% short paying for a program every year. What part of this don't you understand because it's as simple as the math can get. It's funny that you libtards are so shitty at math you can't grasp the most simplistic of terms.

 

[tinfoil]

Serioiusly, you guys are really bad at math. What makes you think you can discuss SS policy when yoyu look at a shortcoming of 1/4 and conclude everything will be fine?

 

[Bonestorm]

What is your position for means testing on S.S.?

Terrible idea. The reason why SS has such strng support is that everyone pays and everyone benefits. If you turn it into a program for the poors it ends up with limited support and would be dismantled.

 

[Bonestorm]

If you begin it with those 18, then they are not getting a cut to benefits, they haven't even paid into the system yet. Of course it has a disproportionate effect on those that die younger. Thanks captain obvious. The current system is disproportionate to those that die younger too.

Giving people an 8% bump per year if they wait from age 66 to age 70 is what they currently do to entice people to wait. It is a gamble based on a persons expected personal life expectancy (obviously we know our current state of health, but we never know what the future may bring)

That said, as I stated, I am open to other ideas... toss some out

Interesting logic on the benefit cut issue. You really do have trouble with understanding baselines don't you?

And raising the retirement age disproportionately impact lower income workers in poorer health because they tend to retire earlier. They also tend to die younger as well. So it's a benefit cut that disproportionately affect the people that rely on SS the most but use it less (because they die young).

 

[Howey]

I want to privatize it

Worst fucking idea ever. You want to have the fucking hedge fund managers manage our retirements? Look how good that worked in 2008. Look how many state pension funds have gone broke thanks to shitty management.

I could address all kinds of BS in this thread, but why repeat what I've said before?

The trust fund was borrowed from to pay for Bush's wars. Period. The trust fund was raped to pay for the Medicare Part 4 scam.

And who the hell thinks Obama wants to cut benefits by 25%? Another fucking chain email?

 

[tinfoil]

Yes,why don't you school him? I'd be interested.

Did you catch the math, smartypants?

 

[Timshel]

The projections this article are based on are flawed and even then it's not good. The exhaustion date in 2007 was 2042, by 2011 it was 2038 then just a year later it was 2033 and it is expected to move up to 2031 this year. It will most certainly come sooner than that. Based on the history of their inaccurate projections I would not count on them being able to fund 3/4 of current benefits either.

Medicare, medicaid and social security will eventually consume 18.4% of GDP which is the equvialent of traditional revenue levels.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

It's a system that has kept millions of Americans alive since 1935.

You want to replace that with what?

my solution would be to let the takers die from their irresponsibility and poor financial planning.

 

[Bonestorm]

The projections this article are based on are flawed and even then it's not good. The exhaustion date in 2007 was 2042, by 2011 it was 2038 then just a year later it was 2033 and it is expected to move up to 2031 this year. It will most certainly come sooner than that. Based on the history of their inaccurate projections I would not count on them being able to fund 3/4 of current benefits either.

Medicare, medicaid and social security will eventually consume 18.4% of GDP which is the equvialent of traditional revenue levels.

What happens to that 18.4% figure when you exclude SS?

 

[Timshel]

What happens to that 18.4% figure when you exclude SS?

SS will increase as a percentage of GDP from 4.2% to 6.1% according to the SSA. Of course, the projected costs will likely be higher after this years report comes out. Things look bad by the best estimates and you can count on them being considerably worse.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I dunno; anyone who thinks a 1.5% return on their hard-earned money (less, after they start cutting checks by 25%) is good, is mathematically challenged.

 

[Timshel]

I dunno; anyone who thinks a 1.5% return on their hard-earned money (less, after they start cutting checks by 25%) is good, is mathematically challenged.

Yes, but you can count on the losses to be there year after year.

 

[gui1tars]

I find with only rare exception this to be one of the best debates I've ever had the pleasure to read on this board. I've thanked a good number of posts in this thread so that should give you my relative position on the issues. But, really, thanks everybody and especially those that take the issues seriously and cleanly for your contributions. Even as a recent retiree myself and a SS recipient I have learned a lot here!!!!!!!!!

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

SS is such an easy fix, it's nearly brainless. I really hate seeing this nonsense spouted, but I know there is a cottage industry devoted to spreading these myths. The real reason is that average people get more out of SS than they put in and it is in that way "redistributionist". It drives rich people and their apologists nuts.

SS will be there for you. It's mindless to fall for the propaganda, but I know some do. It only needs a few tweaks, it is no big deal. The big deal is health care spending, NOT social security.

Also, just so you know, you are not magicially going to live to 150 because all of a sudden, BOOM big rise in average life expectancy. You're going to die, and you will die at what we now consider to be a normal age. So get over that right now. Also, and this drives me more crazy than anything, any gains in live expectancy are being enjoyed by the elite, not by workers. You guys are allowing them to stack the deck. You're still going to die at the same age you would have died at decades ago. They will live a bit longer (though not to the 150 they dream of, sorry, no). They are using their longer life spans to convince you that you should break your ass working longer hours.

Here is the problem; if you are a manual laborer of any kind, if you do anything other than sit your ass in a nearly stress-free, high level office bound position, you are lucky if your body makes it to 60 at that pace. The pain gets worse, and you live with it every day. So many people are already falling through the cracks between 60 and 66, now you want to raise it to 70. It's such a cruel joke. Such a cruel cruel joke. Someday I suppose the worker will rebel and maybe some heads will be on pikes, but you guys can comfort yourselves with this; you'll always have tinfoil.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I dunno; anyone who thinks a 1.5% return on their hard-earned money (less, after they start cutting checks by 25%) is good, is mathematically challenged.

They are not going to cut checks by 25% that is so ridiculous. It's a game of chicken. That's a fear mongering tactic. Those who don't blink, win.

The fix is easy and relatively painless. Anyone who believes politiicans are going to allow the biggest voting demographic to take a 25% hit is naive. At best. Not going to happen. But if you blink, they win. I don't believe enough Americans are going to blink.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Though some are going to run around screaming in hysterics...and that's why you guys will always have Tinfoil. You should make him your mascot.

 

[cawacko]

They are not going to cut checks by 25% that is so ridiculous. It's a game of chicken. That's a fear mongering tactic. Those who don't blink, win.

The fix is easy and relatively painless. Anyone who believes politiicans are going to allow the biggest voting demographic to take a 25% hit is naive. At best. Not going to happen. But if you blink, they win. I don't believe enough Americans are going to blink.

What is the painless and easy fix?

 

[The Dude]

SS is not going broke.
Obama and his hacks will seize all 401ks and IRAs to fund it.

Just yours and those like you

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

What is the painless and easy fix?

Cawacko, the trust fund covers any shortfalls until I believe 2040, or a few years earlier. I don't remember exact figures and dates. I am so sick of this bullshit, and don't even want to bother looking it up, do you know why?? Because this is a well-funded propaganda campaign by the very rich. So you have what we on the left call, zombie lies. Doesn't matter how many times they are debunked, they live on. What's the point?

Anyway, once the trust fund is tapped, because of the aging population, the federal budget can easily cover any shortfall. It would only be a rise of 2% of GDP. Are you aware that our defense budget has risen by more than that only over the past decade??? But that's not a problem right? Starve the elderly! I mean, this is bizarro world-level nonsense.

You don't want the federal budget to kick in? Remove the cap. Oh I can hear the screeching now! Ow! That hurts! You said it'd be painless, but I make 350k a year, and I can tell you I am NOT rich! I can't afford that! (all of this is screeched in a high-pitched nasally voice).

To which I reply; la dee da.

There are other fixes which can be used in combination with a raise in the cap, rather than a complete removal.

But my post is pointless. You know why? The rich have instructed you what to believe and you have your marching orders. Now they may be unconscious, but aren't those always the best kind? (the answer is yes).

I think that there is a segment of youngish white males who want their ss contributions so they can "invest" them. This is dangerous bullshit. Firstly, anyone who can afford to is already investing privately. SS is a sustenance program only. It keeps the eldery out of the worst of poverty. It has kept millions of seniors out of poverty and protected them from things like late-life homelessness and starvation. But it does not provide for more than basic sustenance. I can afford a retirement plan and so of course I have one! So do you. You want your SS contributions so you can put more in your retirement? But that's bullshit. It's just one more dinner out every week, a few more high-priced drinks.

Then you have the paternalistic bullshit idea that there are going to be teams of kindly SF's (ha) helping everyone to invest the few bucks (lower income people) would have put in SS, so they have WAY more for their now rosy and cushy early retirement. Horseshit! The fact is you people are sickening in your complete obliviousness to how the working poor live. And honestly, even to how much of the "middle class" lives. I think this is because you have all redefined middle class to mean anyone making 250/300k but just not "feeling" very rich. That's not actually middle class.

I could go on forever. Maybe I will later.