3 Statistics About Social Security That Are Frightening

[Disir]

Right. I mean we just watched people lose everything with the last one, eh?

Oh, wait......that must have been personal responsibility.

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

If individuals had the 15% plus that is taxed away from them the combined employer and employee SS and Medicare burden, the compounded returns on that 15% over a life time would be Quite Substantial. In addition, the investment account could be inherited by one's loved ones. With SS, if a spouse dies, the remaining one gets the only higher of the two payments the couple received. IOW, one lifetime of benefit contributions are taken away and by the government.

Until it wasn't.

I guarantee you will see the same game as the PPA of 2006.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Your employer will decide the investments. It's all shit sold under individual choice.


SS is a safety net.

 

[boedicca]

You knew people who lost everything in their IRAs in 2008?

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

If individuals had the 15% plus that is taxed away from them the combined employer and employee SS and Medicare burden, the compounded returns on that 15% over a life time would be Quite Substantial. In addition, the investment account could be inherited by one's loved ones. With SS, if a spouse dies, the remaining one gets the only higher of the two payments the couple received. IOW, one lifetime of benefit contributions are taken away and by the government.

Until it wasn't.

I guarantee you will see the same game as the PPA of 2006.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Your employer will decide the investments. It's all shit sold under individual choice.


SS is a safety net.

Then you completely missed the point. I wrote if INDIVIDUALS had that 15 % to keep and invest, not employers.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Raising (or better yet, eliminating) the earnings cap will solve all those problems.

If a rich guy pays twice the tax with no cap, he accrues twice the benefit.
How does that solve the problem?

No. The max benefit is the same for those fully insured, (vested) regardless of wealth.

Turn it into more of a welfare program, that'll guarantee its popularity.

What does this mean and what does it have to do with my post?

If you change it from everybody puts in, everybody gets out into
the people who put in twice as much don't get a larger benefit,
you've changed it into a welfare program. Screw enough of the people
and they'll vote against your new welfare program.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit. Once a person is fully insured, the benefit is the same regardless if someone else paid more into it over their lifetime.

 

[Disir]

Yep. IRAs and 401(k)s. Then there were several articles that were kicked out stating you can't depend on that for retirement-after the fact. Which is rich coming after the fact they played the same line of shit trying to make the shift. And then people that were in their fifties and sixties were losing their jobs and were not being hired anywhere. They were too young to access Social Security and considered too old to be hired. There's always excuses/justifications for the reasons they can steal your shit.

If individuals had the 15% plus that is taxed away from them the combined employer and employee SS and Medicare burden, the compounded returns on that 15% over a life time would be Quite Substantial. In addition, the investment account could be inherited by one's loved ones. With SS, if a spouse dies, the remaining one gets the only higher of the two payments the couple received. IOW, one lifetime of benefit contributions are taken away and by the government.

Until it wasn't.

I guarantee you will see the same game as the PPA of 2006.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Your employer will decide the investments. It's all shit sold under individual choice.


SS is a safety net.

Then you completely missed the point. I wrote if INDIVIDUALS had that 15 % to keep and invest, not employers.

And you are missing mine.

 

[Disir]

People are quiet now, and they quietly absorbed the financial crisis which cost many their homes. The people who drove that crisis either got promotions or kept their jobs.

They were not quiet. They were ignored and shut down.

 

[boedicca]

If individuals had the 15% plus that is taxed away from them the combined employer and employee SS and Medicare burden, the compounded returns on that 15% over a life time would be Quite Substantial. In addition, the investment account could be inherited by one's loved ones. With SS, if a spouse dies, the remaining one gets the only higher of the two payments the couple received. IOW, one lifetime of benefit contributions are taken away and by the government.

Until it wasn't.

I guarantee you will see the same game as the PPA of 2006.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Your employer will decide the investments. It's all shit sold under individual choice.


SS is a safety net.

Then you completely missed the point. I wrote if INDIVIDUALS had that 15 % to keep and invest, not employers.

And you are missing mine.

The only point I see you making is that you don't trust individuals to manage their own money, unless you are trying to justify SS by saying that if the government doesn't take away your money now, it will just find a pretext to take it later. That's not a good reason to support SS.

 

[Disir]

Until it wasn't.

I guarantee you will see the same game as the PPA of 2006.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Your employer will decide the investments. It's all shit sold under individual choice.


SS is a safety net.

Then you completely missed the point. I wrote if INDIVIDUALS had that 15 % to keep and invest, not employers.

And you are missing mine.

The only point I see you making is that you don't trust individuals to manage their own money, unless you are trying to justify SS by saying that if the government doesn't take away your money now, it will just find a pretext to take it later. That's not a good reason to support SS.

Social Security is a safety net. Period.

You are being naive in thinking you will be managing anything. See the PPA of 2006.

 

[boedicca]

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Your employer will decide the investments. It's all shit sold under individual choice.


SS is a safety net.

Then you completely missed the point. I wrote if INDIVIDUALS had that 15 % to keep and invest, not employers.

And you are missing mine.

The only point I see you making is that you don't trust individuals to manage their own money, unless you are trying to justify SS by saying that if the government doesn't take away your money now, it will just find a pretext to take it later. That's not a good reason to support SS.

Social Security is a safety net. Period.

You are being naive in thinking you will be managing anything. See the PPA of 2006.

That is absolute BUNK. If it were intended to be just a safety net, then means testing would a key feature. In reality, payees into the system are given statements regarding the benefits they will receive based on retirement at various ages. It is presented as a government run pension in order to cover up the Ponzi Scheme it is in reality.

 

[Disir]

Your employer will decide the investments. It's all shit sold under individual choice.


SS is a safety net.

Then you completely missed the point. I wrote if INDIVIDUALS had that 15 % to keep and invest, not employers.

And you are missing mine.

The only point I see you making is that you don't trust individuals to manage their own money, unless you are trying to justify SS by saying that if the government doesn't take away your money now, it will just find a pretext to take it later. That's not a good reason to support SS.

Social Security is a safety net. Period.

You are being naive in thinking you will be managing anything. See the PPA of 2006.

That is absolute BUNK. If it were intended to be just a safety net, then means testing would a key feature. In reality, payees into the system are given statements regarding the benefits they will receive based on retirement at various ages. It is presented as a government run pension in order to cover up the Ponzi Scheme it is in reality.

It's not a ponzi scheme. It's not bunk.

 

[boedicca]

Then you completely missed the point. I wrote if INDIVIDUALS had that 15 % to keep and invest, not employers.

And you are missing mine.

The only point I see you making is that you don't trust individuals to manage their own money, unless you are trying to justify SS by saying that if the government doesn't take away your money now, it will just find a pretext to take it later. That's not a good reason to support SS.

Social Security is a safety net. Period.

You are being naive in thinking you will be managing anything. See the PPA of 2006.

That is absolute BUNK. If it were intended to be just a safety net, then means testing would a key feature. In reality, payees into the system are given statements regarding the benefits they will receive based on retirement at various ages. It is presented as a government run pension in order to cover up the Ponzi Scheme it is in reality.

It's not a ponzi scheme. It's not bunk.

You're wrong.

 

[Disir]

And you are missing mine.

The only point I see you making is that you don't trust individuals to manage their own money, unless you are trying to justify SS by saying that if the government doesn't take away your money now, it will just find a pretext to take it later. That's not a good reason to support SS.

Social Security is a safety net. Period.

You are being naive in thinking you will be managing anything. See the PPA of 2006.

That is absolute BUNK. If it were intended to be just a safety net, then means testing would a key feature. In reality, payees into the system are given statements regarding the benefits they will receive based on retirement at various ages. It is presented as a government run pension in order to cover up the Ponzi Scheme it is in reality.

It's not a ponzi scheme. It's not bunk.

You're wrong.

You're naive.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If a rich guy pays twice the tax with no cap, he accrues twice the benefit.
How does that solve the problem?

No. The max benefit is the same for those fully insured, (vested) regardless of wealth.

Turn it into more of a welfare program, that'll guarantee its popularity.

What does this mean and what does it have to do with my post?

If you change it from everybody puts in, everybody gets out into
the people who put in twice as much don't get a larger benefit,
you've changed it into a welfare program. Screw enough of the people
and they'll vote against your new welfare program.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit. Once a person is fully insured, the benefit is the same regardless if someone else paid more into it over their lifetime.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit.

And if you remove the cap and keep the maximum benefit the same, it will be a welfare program.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

If the government forced me to pay into a program over 40 years now, and I was supposed to be able to supplement my retirement with the program benefits that were promised me as a result of my loyalty to the program or idea, then yes indeed it's robbery if they tell me now that I've been screwed. I don't care what the excuse is they screwed me and many more the same.

This is the tough love answer. It is easier to complain about robberies that haven't taken place than make this issue a priority in our lives. It is easier to believe than the obvious. We made poor voting choices over our lifetime.

This note isn't just about you, but you are slinging a slogan that I hear a lot. "It is robbery" to describe our own poor choices. As it is, we (and I am a boomer) voted for people who agreed that we would pay more in payroll taxes in hopes that a future generation would pay even more than we did. I have described that as making an agreement with ourselves that our kids would pay the taxes that we wouldn't. Now that our kids have the choice, we want to call that choice a robbery rather than poor voting choices when we were younger. Worse, we boomers have either led or significantly participated in the 3rd rail politics that have stalled any form of reform, largely because we thought that we would be dead before the crisis hit. In this thread you are hearing that the crisis is closer and larger than you expected, and yes you will likely be around for the wreck. That isn't robbery. That is a public foolishly betting against the odds of its own longevity.

I will put the question to you differently. What have you done to stop the "robbery?" Did you make Social Security a top issue in your voting? Typically I hear that people have written their Congressman. That letter is read by a teenager who likely has briefly met the Congressman once in their life. So that is writing a stranger who doesn't care about the problem. This situation isn't something that someone did to you.

What have you done today to limit the coming crisis? This issue is out of the public eye. The last trustees report showed liability growth of more than 10%. What little media that covered the issue, said that the numbers showed little change. Did you write the head of CNN or FOXNews and ask them why no one covers this issue? Did you talk to your family and friends with facts not hyperbole about robberies that haven't taken place. Until we as voters take the issue seriously, why do you think that Congress will?

This is why I say it is easier to call it robbery than to try to prevent it. Well at this point, from growing into a crisis.

Now I know good and well that we are a wealthy enough nation to adjust in order to fix the problem, but those who see this as a joke or bump in the road instead of a fraud, undoubtedly don't understand that the people who have been had ain't gonna sit around quite about it. It's time the workers have somebody truly represent their interest in government. It would have been best if private long-standing insurance companies would have been handling this outside of government for the workers of America, and then just like the banks they have the government FDIC garantee on the accounts in case something happened.

People are quiet now, and they quietly absorbed the financial crisis which cost many their homes. The people who drove that crisis either got promotions or kept their jobs.

. You can put the blame on the voters all you want, but what we have here is a government fraud that has been played out on us because we couldn't freely choose not to pay into the bullcrap that had become the SS scam of the century if not fixed. The government can fix this immediately, but as long as people sit back and take it like you say they did during the housing bubble where they lost their homes etc then nothing changes does it ? Happened again in the case of billions being lost in the failed reactor project down there in South Carolina, and again you had bonuses being paid out to the idiots who were part of that failure according to the news blogs in that state. The poor utility customers who got hit hard in the bullcrap won't see a return of their money for 20 years out.

You can blame the government all you want. We are responsible for who we elect.

I am not sure how you think that the government can fix "this immediately". The only way to fix our poor voting judgement is to take money from younger workers on even less favorable terms. You keep referring to it as fraud. The government told you that you were putting in money and maybe future generations would as well. Now you want to change the terms of the program. There is a difference. What you voted for was foolish promises. What you want is theft from a generation that has no responsibility for the people that were voted into office 3 decades ago. Tell younger workers here is the deal we took, and offer it to them. Maybe they will take it but if they don't it isn't theft.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

SS is funded until 2034. By that time, the bulk of the boomers will be gone.
The largest threat to long term solvency is wage stagnation.

I don't believe you. You made that number up.
I provided you a link to the last SS Trustees' report... here tell me on what page does the report state "SS is funded until 2034"?
Page 3 states:
Under the Trustees’ intermediate assumptions, projected OASDI cost will exceed total income by increasing amounts starting in 2022, and the
dollar level of the hypothetical combined trust fund reserves declines until reserves become depleted in 2034.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2017/tr2017.pdf

No by that time the total SS system will have NO money to pay out as the reserves will be depleted.
And your assumption the bulk of baby boomers??? "Baby boomers" were born in the early to mid 1940s... so 2034 - 1943 (me!!!) is 91 years old.
My dad died when he was 90... the expected life span of men born in 1943 is about 90 years or 2034!

Solvent until 2034.

Social Security trustees project trust fund to run dry by 2034

The word 'projected' means that we don't know. It is a wild ass guess. In the actual trustees report, it says that that there is a 50 percent chance of paying full benefits into 2034. Do you want the page #?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No. The max benefit is the same for those fully insured, (vested) regardless of wealth.

Turn it into more of a welfare program, that'll guarantee its popularity.

What does this mean and what does it have to do with my post?

If you change it from everybody puts in, everybody gets out into
the people who put in twice as much don't get a larger benefit,
you've changed it into a welfare program. Screw enough of the people
and they'll vote against your new welfare program.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit. Once a person is fully insured, the benefit is the same regardless if someone else paid more into it over their lifetime.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit.

And if you remove the cap and keep the maximum benefit the same, it will be a welfare program.

What cap and who has proposed doing so?
It will never be a welfare program if people have to earn the benefit.

 

[Disir]

Your site says it is registered to a group of concerned people who won't profit from this change. But the site is registered to Dmytro Kalach in Kiev.

Spoiler

WHOIS search results

Spoiler

Domain Name: FIXSSNOW.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D161334291-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: Domain Names | The World's Largest Domain Name Registrar - GoDaddy
Updated Date: 2018-01-03T11:40:42Z
Creation Date: 2011-01-27T19:54:58Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-01-27T19:54:58Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Reseller:
Domain Status: pendingTransfer EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Registry Registrant ID: C190502136-LROR
Registrant Name: Dmytro Kalach
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: Oleynika
Registrant City: Kiev
Registrant State/Province: Kiev
Registrant Postal Code: 02068
Registrant Country: UA
Registrant Phone: +380.988888802
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.4806242598
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registry Admin ID: C190502138-LROR
Admin Name: Dmytro Kalach
Admin Organization:
Admin Street: Oleynika
Admin City: Kiev
Admin State/Province: Kiev
Admin Postal Code: 02068
Admin Country: UA
Admin Phone: +380.988888802
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.4806242598
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: [email protected]
Registry Tech ID: C190502137-LROR
Tech Name: Dmytro Kalach
Tech Organization:
Tech Street: Oleynika
Tech City: Kiev
Tech State/Province: Kiev
Tech Postal Code: 02068
Tech Country: UA
Tech Phone: +380.988888802
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.4806242598
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: [email protected]
Name Server: CLOUD1.LEGIONHOSTER.COM
Name Server: CLOUD2.LEGIONHOSTER.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form | ICANN
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2018-01-07T19:53:35Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN

Access to Public Interest Registry WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator, a Registrar, or Afilias except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

See Underlying Registry Data
Report Invalid Whois

WHOIS search results


That's kind of interesting.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Turn it into more of a welfare program, that'll guarantee its popularity.

What does this mean and what does it have to do with my post?

If you change it from everybody puts in, everybody gets out into
the people who put in twice as much don't get a larger benefit,
you've changed it into a welfare program. Screw enough of the people
and they'll vote against your new welfare program.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit. Once a person is fully insured, the benefit is the same regardless if someone else paid more into it over their lifetime.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit.

And if you remove the cap and keep the maximum benefit the same, it will be a welfare program.

What cap and who has proposed doing so?
It will never be a welfare program if people have to earn the benefit.

Todd is correct at this point. And it is a matter of degree. The program is supposed to be progressive, but it is not supposed to be an income transfer from rich to poor. At this point, rich (and likely average people for that matter) do not get a return on their contribution. On the last $1000 of wages, workers at the max pay a tax of $103 for retirement benefits. Their check increases (at most) $4.28 per year. That means that just to break-even the worker has to collect for 25 years, more than 5 years more than expectation. Mind you, after the 36th year of work that return drops a lot.

FDR rejected this model. So if you want a tax the rich and redistribute end SS and transfer the resources to an actual welfare program one that has a stated purpose so that we can confuse welfare with 'earned benefits'.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Your site says it is registered to a group of concerned people who won't profit from this change. But the site is registered to Dmytro Kalach in Kiev.

Spoiler

WHOIS search results

Spoiler

Domain Name: FIXSSNOW.ORG
Registry Domain ID: D161334291-LROR
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: Domain Names | The World's Largest Domain Name Registrar - GoDaddy
Updated Date: 2018-01-03T11:40:42Z
Creation Date: 2011-01-27T19:54:58Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2018-01-27T19:54:58Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date:
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505
Reseller:
Domain Status: pendingTransfer EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN
Registry Registrant ID: C190502136-LROR
Registrant Name: Dmytro Kalach
Registrant Organization:
Registrant Street: Oleynika
Registrant City: Kiev
Registrant State/Province: Kiev
Registrant Postal Code: 02068
Registrant Country: UA
Registrant Phone: +380.988888802
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: +1.4806242598
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: [email protected]
Registry Admin ID: C190502138-LROR
Admin Name: Dmytro Kalach
Admin Organization:
Admin Street: Oleynika
Admin City: Kiev
Admin State/Province: Kiev
Admin Postal Code: 02068
Admin Country: UA
Admin Phone: +380.988888802
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: +1.4806242598
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: [email protected]
Registry Tech ID: C190502137-LROR
Tech Name: Dmytro Kalach
Tech Organization:
Tech Street: Oleynika
Tech City: Kiev
Tech State/Province: Kiev
Tech Postal Code: 02068
Tech Country: UA
Tech Phone: +380.988888802
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: +1.4806242598
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: [email protected]
Name Server: CLOUD1.LEGIONHOSTER.COM
Name Server: CLOUD2.LEGIONHOSTER.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form: Whois Inaccuracy Complaint Form | ICANN
>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2018-01-07T19:53:35Z <<<

For more information on Whois status codes, please visit EPP Status Codes | What Do They Mean, and Why Should I Know? - ICANN

Access to Public Interest Registry WHOIS information is provided to assist persons in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the Public Interest Registry registry database. The data in this record is provided by Public Interest Registry for informational purposes only, and Public Interest Registry does not guarantee its accuracy. This service is intended only for query-based access. You agree that you will use this data only for lawful purposes and that, under no circumstances will you use this data to: (a) allow, enable, or otherwise support the transmission by e-mail, telephone, or facsimile of mass unsolicited, commercial advertising or solicitations to entities other than the data recipient's own existing customers; or (b) enable high volume, automated, electronic processes that send queries or data to the systems of Registry Operator, a Registrar, or Afilias except as reasonably necessary to register domain names or modify existing registrations. All rights reserved. Public Interest Registry reserves the right to modify these terms at any time. By submitting this query, you agree to abide by this policy.

See Underlying Registry Data
Report Invalid Whois

WHOIS search results


That's kind of interesting.

That is bizarre. Thanks for letting me know. I am going to have to let my developer know. I allowed the ICANN registry lapse, and thought that once the registry lapsed the site would go off line. Apparently, BISNESUA is floating the cost of the registry in hopes of the IP address takes on some type of value. I was unaware until a week ago that the IP was even recognized. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Turn it into more of a welfare program, that'll guarantee its popularity.

What does this mean and what does it have to do with my post?

If you change it from everybody puts in, everybody gets out into
the people who put in twice as much don't get a larger benefit,
you've changed it into a welfare program. Screw enough of the people
and they'll vote against your new welfare program.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit. Once a person is fully insured, the benefit is the same regardless if someone else paid more into it over their lifetime.

That's the way it already works. There is a maximum benefit.

And if you remove the cap and keep the maximum benefit the same, it will be a welfare program.

What cap and who has proposed doing so?
It will never be a welfare program if people have to earn the benefit.

What cap

Income over $128,700 is not taxed for Social Security this year.

and who has proposed doing so?

People who don't understand the math, mostly. A couple here on this thread.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Typically, we hear a lot of drama and get a lot of hand-wringing over the possibility of benefit cuts 16 years in the future. Comically enough most of the articles are talking about a fairly benign impact.

Here are three stats to worry about :

The Social Security Shortfall Is Growing Three Times Faster Than the US Economy.

In other words, the hole in the program’s finances is growing at three times the rate of our ability to fill it.

People Turning 70 Today expect to Be Alive When Benefits are Reduced

The problem of Social Security hasn't been about those 40 and younger in decades. Here is the SSA's life expectancy calcuator : Calculators: Life Expectancy

In 2016, The Program Lost More Money Than It Collected

We could have reduced benefits to zero for the entire year of 2016, and the program would have finished the year in worse shape than it started. "Loss" here is looking at the $ value of promises that we believe will go unfulfilled.

If you want the details, here is my article, but the stats are pretty simple.

No Way Around Sorry Shape Social Security Is In

newsman?

I am more of an explainman than a newsman. The information is readily available from the latest Trustees Report. I just translate the jargon into English average people understand.