Social Security Will Be Insolvent in 10 Years

[TruthNotBS]

Social Security is running out of money

hotair.com

It is striking to me how many human beings will accept lie after lie from Democrats. The dark vision of elder financial doom has been prophesized for decades. It is simply a matter of math, and math cannot be refuted. Oh, it can be manipulated (e.g., electoral politics; climate "science"; etc...). But calculations and their results cannot be refuted. I raised this issue here on this board months ago and was refuted by virtually all the leftist yo-yos and ding-dongs that this is simply just not true. "You have no evidence of that!", "You are being lied to by the Republicans!", and "It is really you on the right who are trying to destroy Social Security!", are just some of the tripe I heard in response. Well, I am back again to point this out to you. Massive cuts to your entitlements will begin in 2033. "Oh, Long Rod, you are just so naive! Our generous government overseers will not let this happen to us! They will tend to us and our needs by making the wealthy pay their fair share!", will come the retort. I say, hogwash!

One author bravely asked the question I have been asking for months in response to Dem stupidity, to wit: "Is it Necessary to Prove What is Self-Evident?" (in relation to Covid fraud). Is it necessary to prove what's 'self-evident'?

Gaslighting is merely a nice way of saying "lying". Prominent in leftist propaganda today is the trick of simply denying things ("That was debunked!!"; "You are gaslighting"; "Show me the evidence!!", etc...). In doing so they are lying to the American people. When, for example, a leftist kunt asks you for "evidence" that Biden was engaged in a pay-to-play, influence peddling scheme when he was occupying the position of VP under the deplorable and dark (possibly Satanic) rein of the Ayatollah Barry Hussein Hamas Obama, then you give it to him (citing tons upon tons of circumstantial evidence, and substantial direct evidence), they wildly respond to you by falsely claiming there is no evidence. What the fuck, right? People who act like this are not people we need in our body politic. They are wet, smelly turds and they are making everybody else look and smell like shit. They must be flushed down the toilet and into the sewage system, where they belong.

Let us look at the Social Security issue as if we have fucking brains that function at higher than a pre-school level AND belong to virtuous and honorable people (which pretty much excludes Democrats, to be clear). Omit the emotional responses, the blue collar morality, lies, the politics, propaganda, etc... Social Security is not going to be able to cover its current obligations in 10 years (or some similar short time period, depending on who you listen to). This will necessitate cuts. This is the undisputed consequence if we continue forward with this program unchanged.

We can certainly get into a debate (have a conversation, as the black Dems are fond of saying) of how we can prevent the program from becoming insolvent (which, for you Democrats, means its obligations exceeds its funding; i.e., ya'll ain't payin' yer bills!), and whether we even should preserve it. Maybe we ought to dismantle the system altogether. For all you folks who "paid into SS for years" expecting to get a pittance of it returned to you upon retirement (i.e., however much the federal government says you can have), you should remember that this is not the first time the government has fucked you. Why you expect the federal government not to fuck you is what I find surprising.

SS "investment" (LOL!!) is similar to tax refunds. The only way some people can save is to allow the government to over-deduct for income tax withholdings, then use your money interest-free for a year before they return it to you. You are duped into thinking this is a windfall. I do not know about where everybody else is from, but where I am from this is considered a great big old fucking put on you by the feds. Similarly, with SS you give the fed a percentage of your gross earnings, allow the government to hold it, interest free and derived from your labor, and spend it, purportedly in exchange for them letting you have a little bit of it back when you reach a certain age. Why? Because they think you are too fucking stupid to save and invest your own money. Contrary to what some say, the money they take from you to fund SS is not going into a little lock box to be safely held for your golden years. It is going to pay people who are currently drawing SS benefits.

When I hear somebody say "Dad-gummit!! I dun paid into the Social Security fer decades and I expect ta git sumthang out of it. They owes me!!", I cannot help but to sadly shake my head. And these are usually good people, many conservatives. But you got to get it through your heads, brothers: You have been fucked. You have been played, and there is nothing you can do about it. Your money was taken from you by force of law and payed to other people who are on the public dole. You will get some of it back (maybe), but you will take a huge cut relative to what is being paid out today to others (with YOUR money).

It's absurd to say that Social Security will go insolvent because the US Federal Government will never go insolvent. The US Federal Government can't run out of the dollars it exclusively has a right to issue. The USD is a sovereign currency exclusively issued by the US Federal Government. As long as the GDP or national production capacity of the US continues to expand at the rate it has been for decades, the US Federal Government will be able to meet all of its obligations to SS recipients.

All of this talk about the US Federal Government going insolvent is based upon a misunderstanding of how our monetary system works.

 

[justoffal]

Follow the Sosus game plan

1. Economic collapse

2. Economic Reset with world wide digital currency

3. Kiss your freedoms goodbye forever.

Yep

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's absurd to say that Social Security will go insolvent because the US Federal Government will never go insolvent. The US Federal Government can't run out of the dollars it exclusively has a right to issue. The USD is a sovereign currency exclusively issued by the US Federal Government. As long as the GDP or national production capacity of the US continues to expand at the rate it has been for decades, the US Federal Government will be able to meet all of its obligations to SS recipients.

All of this talk about the US Federal Government going insolvent is based upon a misunderstanding of how our monetary system works.

As long as the GDP or national production capacity of the US continues to expand at the rate it has been for decades, the US Federal Government will be able to meet all of its obligations to SS recipients.

"Can meet the obligations" doesn't mean "will meet the obligations".

 

[task0778]

It's absurd to say that Social Security will go insolvent because the US Federal Government will never go insolvent. The US Federal Government can't run out of the dollars it exclusively has a right to issue. The USD is a sovereign currency exclusively issued by the US Federal Government. As long as the GDP or national production capacity of the US continues to expand at the rate it has been for decades, the US Federal Government will be able to meet all of its obligations to SS recipients.

All of this talk about the US Federal Government going insolvent is based upon a misunderstanding of how our monetary system works.

So, the gist of your post is that the US Gov't can print as much money as it needs to, IOW monetize the debt. But here's the problem: when the amount of new money created by more currency and/or more credit from the Fed exceeds the growth of the national production capacity, then you have inflation. Which means the value of your dollars is reduced. The result is that interest rates go up to keep attracting investors and the spiral begins. Throughout history central governments and central banks have created money and credit which weakened their own currencies and raised their levels of monetary inflation. And at some point you have endure a debt restructure or default. Since I don't see the US Gov't defaulting, there will have to be a debt restructure, and that means somebody is going to get fucked.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

It's absurd to say that Social Security will go insolvent because the US Federal Government will never go insolvent. The US Federal Government can't run out of the dollars it exclusively has a right to issue. The USD is a sovereign currency exclusively issued by the US Federal Government. As long as the GDP or national production capacity of the US continues to expand at the rate it has been for decades, the US Federal Government will be able to meet all of its obligations to SS recipients.

All of this talk about the US Federal Government going insolvent is based upon a misunderstanding of how our monetary system works.

Once they run out of capital to confiscate they will run out of money.

 

[sartre play]

ALLWAYS VOTE for those who support SOCIAL SECURITY.
AS most AMERICANS will need it.
let's NOT add GRANDMA to the list of those living under a bridge.

 

[App'z]

How Many $$$Trillions has the US minted for wars? Actually, no end to printing money. Sure being realistic and letting the Buffoons kill each other off is a great choice. Sure, the innocent suffers, on all sides but it's up to them in the end to get stuff right. They do not have to put up with all the crap! The crowds can take out those crazy bastards.

Agencies like NASA have got to get reeled in. It's at the point that it is into everything farfetched. Take Mars for example. It will be 1000 years before mining the Asteroid belt will be happening and Mars would be a refuel place. Completely unrealistic until Business becomes. Man, never needs to set foot there to live. Driving around all the time in a Funny Bunny suit. The Moon makes sense. It's Humanity's most likely1st jumping off point and it will be 100's of years to grow its economic future. Only Economic prosperity can give these ideas a great future. Basically space travel is a nightmare.

 

[initforme]

ALLWAYS VOTE for those who support SOCIAL SECURITY.
AS most AMERICANS will need it.
let's NOT add GRANDMA to the list of those living under a bridge.

Those against it hate workers with a hatred that cannot be quantified. B

 

[d0gbreath]

Money, it's funny. When you stop to think that the US debt in $100 bills wouldn't fit into all of the houses in your neighborhood, the idea of anything becoming insolvent is silly.

 

[TruthNotBS]

As long as the GDP or national production capacity of the US continues to expand at the rate it has been for decades, the US Federal Government will be able to meet all of its obligations to SS recipients.

"Can meet the obligations" doesn't mean "will meet the obligations".

Congress can choose not to meet its obligations to Social Security, Medicare..etc, sure. It's not due to insolvency or the US Federal Government running out of dollars. If Social Security recipients can't buy anything with their monthly SS income, due to insufficient goods and services being available or an extreme devaluation of the dollar, that's a serious problem. Our federal government can't just print money without limits, it's our GDP that sets budgetary constraints. The production of goods and services must meet demand. Here Greenspan, the head of the FED, educates a young Republican Senator from Wisconsin (Paul Ryan) who asked him a question about "SS solvency":

​

When the government allocates money to national infrastructure development (which includes certain social programs), that improves production and ensures that SS recipients will have access to goods and services. Insolvency isn't an issue it's creating an economy where SS recipients will be able to purchase the products and services that they need.

When you're working and paying into SS, towards your retirement, the government doesn't save that money in a special bank account for your retirement or use that money to pay people who are currently on SS. The only reason you pay into your SS when you're employed is because the government wants you to be productive, producing goods and services. It requires you to pay into your SS retirement, extracting as much production from you as possible when you're younger and able to work. The US Federal Government will never go insolvent, because it creates USD ex-nihilo.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Money, it's funny. When you stop to think that the US debt in $100 bills wouldn't fit into all of the houses in your neighborhood, the idea of anything becoming insolvent is silly.

It's not a debt in the sense of a household debt. Every debt has assets attached to it. You can just as well call the national debt the National Surplus. The government's red ink or "debt" is the private sector's black ink. It's more money in the hands of the people. It's money in the economy that is being saved or invested. Get rid of the national debt and within two or three years we have a serious recession. It always happens when we "balance the books", and the government is no longer in the red, the people are now in the red. You're taking money out of the economy when you balance government spending.

When the government allocates funds to infrastructural development it increases the nation's GDP, making the country more productive, and improving the lives of its citizens. Privatizing everything, which is what the Republican conservatives want, places the nation's commonwealth (The most vital, important industries like electric, oil and gas..etc) in the hands of a few wealthy elites, increasing inequality and undermining the standard of living of most working-class Americans (94% of the population). Why don't we have more nuclear plants in America? We should've gone nuclear decades ago, but the oil industry does everything possible to keep us addicted to its "black gold" (Obsolete technology).

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

You're taking money out of the economy when you balance government spending.

Not if you’ve unleashed the economy to the point that it creates enough capital to cover the debt.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Congress can choose not to meet its obligations to Social Security, Medicare..etc, sure. It's not due to insolvency or the US Federal Government running out of dollars. If Social Security recipients can't buy anything with their monthly SS income, due to insufficient goods and services being available or an extreme devaluation of the dollar, that's a serious problem. Our federal government can't just print money without limits, it's our GDP that sets budgetary constraints. The production of goods and services must meet demand. Here Greenspan, the head of the FED, educates a young Republican Senator from Wisconsin (Paul Ryan) who asked him a question about "SS solvency":

​

When the government allocates money to national infrastructure development (which includes certain social programs), that improves production and ensures that SS recipients will have access to goods and services. Insolvency isn't an issue it's creating an economy where SS recipients will be able to purchase the products and services that they need.

When you're working and paying into SS, towards your retirement, the government doesn't save that money in a special bank account for your retirement or use that money to pay people who are currently on SS. The only reason you pay into your SS when you're employed is because the government wants you to be productive, producing goods and services. It requires you to pay into your SS retirement, extracting as much production from you as possible when you're younger and able to work. The US Federal Government will never go insolvent, because it creates USD ex-nihilo.

Congress can choose not to meet its obligations to Social Security, Medicare..etc, sure. It's not due to insolvency or the US Federal Government running out of dollars.

It will be due to longer lifespans and fewer workers per retiree.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's not a debt in the sense of a household debt. Every debt has assets attached to it. You can just as well call the national debt the National Surplus. The government's red ink or "debt" is the private sector's black ink. It's more money in the hands of the people. It's money in the economy that is being saved or invested. Get rid of the national debt and within two or three years we have a serious recession. It always happens when we "balance the books", and the government is no longer in the red, the people are now in the red. You're taking money out of the economy when you balance government spending.

When the government allocates funds to infrastructural development it increases the nation's GDP, making the country more productive, and improving the lives of its citizens. Privatizing everything, which is what the Republican conservatives want, places the nation's commonwealth (The most vital, important industries like electric, oil and gas..etc) in the hands of a few wealthy elites, increasing inequality and undermining the standard of living of most working-class Americans (94% of the population). Why don't we have more nuclear plants in America? We should've gone nuclear decades ago, but the oil industry does everything possible to keep us addicted to its "black gold" (Obsolete technology).

Every debt has assets attached to it.

Not exactly.

It always happens when we "balance the books", and the government is no longer in the red, the people are now in the red. You're taking money out of the economy when you balance government spending.

But not all dollars spent by the government are spent wisely.
There is a huge difference between the government spending $10 billion
for a highway or a smart grid and the government handing $10 billion to people to sit at home and watch TV. The former can actually contribute to national production and provide a return on the investment. The latter only contributes to inflation and only provides more generations of welfare recipients.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Every debt has assets attached to it.

Not exactly.

It always happens when we "balance the books", and the government is no longer in the red, the people are now in the red. You're taking money out of the economy when you balance government spending.

But not all dollars spent by the government are spent wisely.
There is a huge difference between the government spending $10 billion
for a highway or a smart grid and the government handing $10 billion to people to sit at home and watch TV. The former can actually contribute to national production and provide a return on the investment. The latter only contributes to inflation and only provides more generations of welfare recipients.

Right, I agree. That's what I'm saying. I assume that you don't consider Grandpa and Grandma who spent their lives working and are now receiving their SS, lazy welfare recipients. I'm completely against the type of welfare you're referring to. I work with the homeless as a volunteer social worker through an organization that I'm a member of and at least here in NYC, you can't stay home watching TV if you're receiving government cash assistance, SNAP/food stamps, or rental assistance. etc, if you're not suffering from a serious disability or are under 65 years old. One needs to attend classes five days a week for about eight hours daily, to learn skills that will help them find employment. They have to be a full-time student or find employment otherwise they lose their welfare.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right, I agree. That's what I'm saying. I assume that you don't consider Grandpa and Grandma who spent their lives working and are now receiving their SS, lazy welfare recipients. I'm completely against the type of welfare you're referring to. I work with the homeless as a volunteer social worker through an organization that I'm a member of and at least here in NYC, you can't stay home watching TV if you're receiving government cash assistance, SNAP/food stamps, or rental assistance. etc, if you're not suffering from a serious disability or are under 65 years old. One needs to attend classes five days a week for about eight hours daily, to learn skills that will help them find employment. They have to be a full-time student or find employment otherwise they lose their welfare.

It's awful! SS has a very low return. People live a lot longer and abortion killed millions
of people who would have worked and paid into the system. Maybe it should be partially privatized?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Congress can choose not to meet its obligations to Social Security, Medicare..etc, sure. It's not due to insolvency or the US Federal Government running out of dollars.

It will be due to longer lifespans and fewer workers per retiree.

No sir, because as long as production meets the demand, Grandpa and Grandma will receive their SS. Technology is making production extremely efficient to the point that we're going to have advanced and intelligent automated systems, producing all of the goods and services that we consume 24/7, non-stop, without pause or vacation. That's not to say that SS won't be replaced with something else, due to society being forced by necessity to adopt a different mode of mass production, but as far as our elderly losing their incomes, that's not going to happen. SS and Medicare are important services that keep the elderly from having to live in a box in an alley behind Starbucks.

 

[TruthNotBS]

It's awful! SS has a very low return. People live a lot longer and abortion killed millions
of people who would have worked and paid into the system. Maybe it should be partially privatized?

No, read my last post. As far as abortion, you can't expect single women living in this society to opt to become mothers when there's hardly any support for them. If you care about fetuses in other people's uteruses, you also have to care for the woman who is carrying the fetus and the fetus once it's born and becomes a member of the community. If we're going to use the heavy hand of government to force women to remain pregnant for nine months then we can't defund the government programs that provide single mothers with housing assistance, SNAP, Medicaid, job training, child daycare, school lunches, afterschool programs..etc.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

No, read my last post. As far as abortion, you can't expect single women living in this society to opt to become mothers when there's hardly any support for them. If you care about fetuses in other people's uteruses, you also have to care for the woman who is carrying the fetus and the fetus once it's born and becomes a member of the community. If we're going to use the heavy hand of government to force women to remain pregnant for nine months then we can't defund the government programs that provide single mothers with housing assistance, SNAP, Medicaid, job training, child daycare, school lunches, afterschool programs..etc.

You say that as though single motherhood is inevitable and children don’t have fathers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No sir, because as long as production meets the demand, Grandpa and Grandma will receive their SS. Technology is making production extremely efficient to the point that we're going to have advanced and intelligent automated systems, producing all of the goods and services that we consume 24/7, non-stop, without pause or vacation. That's not to say that SS won't be replaced with something else, due to society being forced by necessity to adopt a different mode of mass production, but as far as our elderly losing their incomes, that's not going to happen. SS and Medicare are important services that keep the elderly from having to live in a box in an alley behind Starbucks.

No sir, because as long as production meets the demand, Grandpa and Grandma will receive their SS.

Ony if you pay benefits out of general funds.