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

[Cancel 2016.11]

I'm not trying to be confrontational on this, but the math for SS no longer works. Nothing I said is wrong - the tweaks you refer to all amount to one thing: we'll need more & more money to pay for payouts for an ever-increasing population that is living longer.

I'm just curious - what about privatization is so abhorrent, aside from the trite argument that it "fills the pockets of Wall Street fat cats?"

Onceler, just that you are stating as fact that in 2037 we will face a 25% shortfall, is not true. So you cannot say there is nothing you have said that's untrue. That is NOT a fact. It is one possibility, but the truth is it may never even happen.

And I'm sorry but no matter how many times you say that the population is living longer, wont' make it true. A portion of the population is living longer - the very people who can well afford lifting that cap! But workers aren't. It's not across the board.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I'm just curious - what about privatization is so abhorrent, aside from the trite argument that it "fills the pockets of Wall Street fat cats?"

Let's start here: How are you going to pay for them?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

1) It is definite they will need to cut if nothing else is done
2) Every year the projections get worse, not better. The longer unemployment stays high, the worse the projections will get. Given the lack of leadership out of DC on jobs, don't expect the unemployment number to cross under 6.5% anytime soon.

This tells you everything you need to know. These are projections subject to short-term fluctuations in the economy.

The economy improves, so do the projections. A great way to make sure the economy doesn't improve? Cut SS and institute other austerity measures.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Life expectancy at retirement age is higher, but not radically higher.

He probably thinks I'm 80! In which case maybe, I haven't checked.

 

[Timshel]

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.

The trust fund will run dry in 2033 (it will be 2031 when this years report comes out and I expect it will really occur in about 2025). UNDER CURRENT LAW benefits will then be cut to revenues. That is projected (by the same clowns that downgrade their numbers every year) to be about 75% of current benefits. The 2033 and 75% number is according to the SSA.

Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down from the peak of the 80s by 1-1.5%. We definitely could cut there but that is no less politically hazardous.

You are absolutely wrong about life expectancies. They are expected to continue to rise. Even the ultra conservative actuaries at the SSA expect as much and they have always underestimated the rise in life expectancies. That's why they are constantly adjusting their numbers and will again this year.

Not everyone is a laborer or superrich.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Let's start here: How are you going to pay for them?

Pay for what/who? Privatizing will yield greater returns, by a mile. Partial privatization is working in Great Britain, and setting up seniors for a much more comfortable retirement.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

The trust fund will run dry in 2033 (it will be 2031 when this years report comes out and I expect it will really occur in about 2025). UNDER CURRENT LAW benefits will then be cut to revenues. That is projected (by the same clowns that downgrade their numbers every year) to be about 75% of current benefits. The 2033 and 75% number is according to the SSA.

Military spending as a percentage of GDP is down from the peak of the 80s by 1-1.5%. We definitely could cut there but that is no less politically hazardous.

You are absolutely wrong about life expectancies. They are expected to continue to rise. Even the ultra conservative actuaries at the SSA expect as much and they have always underestimated the rise in life expectancies. That's why they are constantly adjusting their numbers and will again this year.

Not everyone is a laborer or superrich.

I've already addressed your first points, in posts directly above. As for life expectancy, I am not an idiot, I understand that, but if you read Onceler's posts he is talking about this as if he is reading science fiction and believes all of a sudden there is going to be a huge jump in life expectancy. Like we are all going to live to be 150. I have been hearing about that since I was a kid, it didn't happen, it won't happen over the next decade, and further, most of the life expectancy raises are going to affluent white collar workers. As of right now. It's amazing how when we talk about SS, we have to solve imaginary problems from the future. But only for SS!

As for the percentage of GDP being spent on defense, it has risen since 2001.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Pay for what/who? Privatizing will yield greater returns, by a mile. Partial privatization is working in Great Britain, and setting up seniors for a much more comfortable retirement.

How are you going to pay for these private accounts? Whose money is going to set them and then go into them?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Well, you're saying that we should cut benefits so we don't have to cut benefits and if we cut benfits it doesn't count as a benefit cut becuase we cut them. It makes no sense to me.

I've already told you what I'd do: raise taxes. Alternatively, if you want to generate higher returns then let the government invest in something other than special issue Treasuries.

A truly stupid idea. You oppose the privatization of SS because people would potentially be able to invest in the market. Yet now you say you think the government should be allowed to invest in other investments? Your faith in the government is beyond pathetic. They are completely inept. They continually try to manipulate the market to get the result they want... yet now you wish to give them an even bigger reason to manipulate it?

As for the 'benefit cuts'... we modify things for inflation, yet you seem to think modifying for life expectancy is somehow any different. Using your reasoning, any change would be a cut to benefits.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

A truly stupid idea. You oppose the privatization of SS because people would potentially be able to invest in the market. Yet now you say you think the government should be allowed to invest in other investments? Your faith in the government is beyond pathetic. They are completely inept. They continually try to manipulate the market to get the result they want... yet now you wish to give them an even bigger reason to manipulate it?

As for the 'benefit cuts'... we modify things for inflation, yet you seem to think modifying for life expectancy is somehow any different. Using your reasoning, any change would be a cut to benefits.

How are you going to pay for privatization?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

How are you going to pay for privatization?

How are you going to pay for full benefits that have been promised?

 

[Timshel]

This tells you everything you need to know. These are projections subject to short-term fluctuations in the economy.

The economy improves, so do the projections. A great way to make sure the economy doesn't improve? Cut SS and institute other austerity measures.

When have they have ever improved? They are not just based on Pollyanna economic projections but on other factors that are usually skewed to benefit the ssa.

In 2007 we had until 2042. Just 6 years later exhaustion will have been moved to 2031. We will have lost 11 years from the back end in 6 years.

It's not going to get better. It's going to get worse.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I've already addressed your first points, in posts directly above. As for life expectancy, I am not an idiot, I understand that, but if you read Onceler's posts he is talking about this as if he is reading science fiction and believes all of a sudden there is going to be a huge jump in life expectancy. Like we are all going to live to be 150. I have been hearing about that since I was a kid, it didn't happen, it won't happen over the next decade, and further, most of the life expectancy raises are going to affluent white collar workers. As of right now. It's amazing how when we talk about SS, we have to solve imaginary problems from the future. But only for SS!

As for the percentage of GDP being spent on defense, it has risen since 2001.

Technological development is exponential and always has been. We're about 5-10 years from being able to grow any organ in the body for replacement. With stem cells, gene therapy & other methods, there is a possibility that by mid-century, life expectancies will be fairly incomprehensible to most people now.

It's not sci-fi. If you look at what's going on, it's almost here.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

When have they have ever improved? They are not just based on Pollyanna economic projections but on other factors that are usually skewed to benefit the ssa.

In 2007 we had until 2042. Just 6 years later exhaustion will have been moved to 2031. We will have lost 11 years from the back end in 6 years.

It's not going to get better. It's going to get worse.

Hmm, what happened right after that? LOL Come on, you can't be serious.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Technological development is exponential and always has been. We're about 5-10 years from being able to grow any organ in the body for replacement. With stem cells, gene therapy & other methods, there is a possibility that by mid-century, life expectancies will be fairly incomprehensible to most people now.

It's not sci-fi. If you look at what's going on, it's almost here.

Well, we will see, and what I really can't wait to see is who this new technology is going to benefit.

Anyway, I am really not interested in what there is a possibility of happening mid-century. that is certainly no reason to drastically change a program that has kept millions of seniors out of poverty!

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

How are you going to pay for full benefits that have been promised?

Ah ha.

Deflection.

So SF, what's privatization going to cost do you think?

(I love this part. This folks, is what they call the small print, and you never want to sign until it's explained. SF doesn't even want you to know it's there. But as you can see, he knows it's there.)

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Well, we will see, and what I really can't wait to see is who this new technology is going to benefit.

Anyway, I am really not interested in what there is a possibility of happening mid-century. that is certainly no reason to drastically change a program that has kept millions of seniors out of poverty!

I don't think anyone is saying that SS hasn't done a world & a half of good for seniors and BEEN a good program. Nor is anyone saying that we're pulling that rug out from under seniors by changing it so that it can adapt organically to changing conditions.

SS is simply unsustainable in its current form. We can start changing it now, or wait until we absolutely have to, lest seniors start to see huge decreases in their benefits. Judging by how we do things, we'll go for the latter, so you probably have nothing to worry about. But seniors do.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Ah ha.

Deflection.

Not deflection Darla... the answer is the same to both questions. You simply wish to ignore the inherent problems with SS. It too has a funding issue.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Not deflection Darla... the answer is the same to both questions. You simply wish to ignore the inherent problems with SS. It too has a funding issue.

You're going to raise the cap to pay for privatization?

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

I don't think anyone is saying that SS hasn't done a world & a half of good for seniors and BEEN a good program. Nor is anyone saying that we're pulling that rug out from under seniors by changing it so that it can adapt organically to changing conditions.

SS is simply unsustainable in its current form. We can start changing it now, or wait until we absolutely have to, lest seniors start to see huge decreases in their benefits. Judging by how we do things, we'll go for the latter, so you probably have nothing to worry about. But seniors do.

Nah, seniors won't see huge decreases in their benefits. We just disagree.