Get rid of Social Security now?

[Skull Pilot]

NOTE ---- It doesn't say "redemption of Treasury Bonds HELD in the Trust Fund --- (there aren't any)

NOTE --- It doesn't say redemption of assets of ANY KIND from the Trust Fund..

NOTE --- NOTHING OF VALUE is IN the Trust Fund. It's all paid for by CURRENT INCOME TAX payers and FUTURE chinese bond holders..

There ARE NOT ASSETS in the Trust Fund -- you are reading 1st Class Propaganda...

Okay. The Treasury is empty. Government is broke. The Social Security program trustees don't want us to know that so they are feeding us carefully phrased lies so we won't catch on to the truth.

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

Why do you insist on labeling people?

All I want is control over my money because I will be a better steward of that money than will the government.

What does that have to do with pigeonhole paradigms?

 

[Navy1960]

Oh, so if it were not for the mere pittance of Social Security, all would be lost?
The problem with liberals is you people are faithless dolts. You have zero confidence in your fellow humans to be anything but helpless.
I have heard this song before. You people who think the rest of us cannot be trusted with our own finances. That based on the lowest common denominator made up by a small minority of people who are too stupid to turn the lights on so they don't kick the ******* vacuum cleaner...
Look, social security is NOT nor was it ever intended to be something on which one lives. It is a SUPPLEMENT.
That is not the problem. The whole thing needs to be blown up and remade. Remade into a savings vehicle where the government can touch NOT ONE STINKING DIME of it. Each person pays into their OWN account. An account from which each person or in the event of their passing, a designee gets to draw from with certain limits.
The American people were fucked when the federal government gave itself the right to steal our SS money. THAT is why the system is on the verge of collapse. And that is why it sucks.
The real issue is there are just enough people who would rather eat the crumbs of the stolen bread, than go get the bread back from the cock sucker that took it.

First you assume that I am a liberal because I posted facts on Social Security, so be it, however, I have been a member of the Republican party longer than you have been alive more than likely. All that aside for a moment , I might suggest you re-read my postings , I have suggested that Social Security has been used for what it was NOT intended for and that is a funding source for all other programs within the Federal Govt. from buying Shovels, to put Sand in the sandtraps at NAS Pensacola. My point is that without Social Security those who think that all will be great because they will have control over their own savings are fooling themselves into believing that costs will remain the same. Right now according to the SSA there about 56 Million Americans on Social Security and without it, those Americans will be a burden on the states and in turn for everyone in those states , in the form of higher taxes, higher costs. etc. So that 15 % you pay now, which will be saved, will rapidly be absorbed and much more should those people now become the responsibility of the states. So what your advocating is that someones 86 year old Grandfather who is somehow taking from you personally, who most likely worked all their lives , served this nation , is taking from you. Well my friend those people are the very shoulders in which you stand on that built this nation. I agree with you that Social Security should not be used as a slush fund for the Federal Govt. to use to spend on whatever they choose . However nothing is stopping you or anyone else from having a savings account or investing to offset your savings when you retire. The bottom line is this, our nation thrives because we all share a common responsibility to support it, for those who want this let veryone go their own way, keep this in mind, no indivudual ever stormed the beach on D Day by themselves or landed on the moon by themselves, or for that matter built this nation by themselves, without the help of millions of other Americans sharing in that responsibility. So those taxes you and I pay into Social Security are our responsibility as American citizens to share in this nation, and while you have every right to disagree with that, I suggest that if you want to change it , then start by voting for those who agree with you to make those changes.

The only fact regarding SS is it's broken. Period.
As for the rest of your post....Typical straw man argument. D-Day? Moon landings?..
Our nation thrives not because of government..It thrives because of freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty gives us the ability to do whatever we want to the best of our ability.
It is not government from which this nation derives it's greatness. Greatness begins with the people of this nation.
Now, your comment regarding savings and investment in the context of SS is spot on. SS was NEVER intended to be a pension or a stipend on which one can live. It is a supplement.
It is a good concept. In practice it sucks.
SS is merely a tax. The return is no more than a government run Ponzi scheme. Those presently working pay the benefits of those retired. As workers enter the workforce, their money is collected for use by older workers when they retire.
The system in it's current form is not sustainable.

At the end of 2011, Social Security was owed by the Govt. thats us, 2.7 Trillion dollars and the reason why it was owed that money is because both Republican and Democrat Administrations have used Social Security as a "piggy bank" to fund everything other than what it was intended for. If the the Govt. keeps borrowing from Social Security then by 2033 there will have to be a reduction in benefits to sustain the program because the Govt. would have run it into the ground. The point is, the program was NEVER intended as a funding source for the "general fund" and while I agree with you that it needs reforms in order to get it back on track, Social Security would not take much in order to put it back on track. As for a straw man, prior to Social Security, 75% of this nations elderly were living in poverty and given the fact you now have over 40 million people on Social Security , it doesnt take much to understand without that , you will have a large number of Americans that will be the responsiblity of the states, and in turn that responsibility will be translated to you and I in higher expense to pay for it. While it may sound great to say lets get rid of Social Security and let everyone have at it, its not practical and is not sound financially.

 

[regent]

The secret with social security is to live a long time, that's generally the secret with those types of insurance programs.
I often wonder why people insist on solving a problem and then with the passage of time forget what the problem was and want to repeat the whole schmear again. How many times have we gone through a recession/depression only to repeat the whole scenario again and again? Maybe it's a political thing, certainly politicians use depressions and wars as a means to get elected or reelected.
If a baby is born today how many wars and business cycles will that baby go through in its lifetime? Will the baby have SS by the time it is of age or will the politician be talking of passing some type of program similar to the old expired Social Security program that died years ago, to keep them alive?

 

[flacaltenn]

First you assume that I am a liberal because I posted facts on Social Security, so be it, however, I have been a member of the Republican party longer than you have been alive more than likely. All that aside for a moment , I might suggest you re-read my postings , I have suggested that Social Security has been used for what it was NOT intended for and that is a funding source for all other programs within the Federal Govt. from buying Shovels, to put Sand in the sandtraps at NAS Pensacola. My point is that without Social Security those who think that all will be great because they will have control over their own savings are fooling themselves into believing that costs will remain the same. Right now according to the SSA there about 56 Million Americans on Social Security and without it, those Americans will be a burden on the states and in turn for everyone in those states , in the form of higher taxes, higher costs. etc. So that 15 % you pay now, which will be saved, will rapidly be absorbed and much more should those people now become the responsibility of the states. So what your advocating is that someones 86 year old Grandfather who is somehow taking from you personally, who most likely worked all their lives , served this nation , is taking from you. Well my friend those people are the very shoulders in which you stand on that built this nation. I agree with you that Social Security should not be used as a slush fund for the Federal Govt. to use to spend on whatever they choose . However nothing is stopping you or anyone else from having a savings account or investing to offset your savings when you retire. The bottom line is this, our nation thrives because we all share a common responsibility to support it, for those who want this let veryone go their own way, keep this in mind, no indivudual ever stormed the beach on D Day by themselves or landed on the moon by themselves, or for that matter built this nation by themselves, without the help of millions of other Americans sharing in that responsibility. So those taxes you and I pay into Social Security are our responsibility as American citizens to share in this nation, and while you have every right to disagree with that, I suggest that if you want to change it , then start by voting for those who agree with you to make those changes.

The only fact regarding SS is it's broken. Period.
As for the rest of your post....Typical straw man argument. D-Day? Moon landings?..
Our nation thrives not because of government..It thrives because of freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty gives us the ability to do whatever we want to the best of our ability.
It is not government from which this nation derives it's greatness. Greatness begins with the people of this nation.
Now, your comment regarding savings and investment in the context of SS is spot on. SS was NEVER intended to be a pension or a stipend on which one can live. It is a supplement.
It is a good concept. In practice it sucks.
SS is merely a tax. The return is no more than a government run Ponzi scheme. Those presently working pay the benefits of those retired. As workers enter the workforce, their money is collected for use by older workers when they retire.
The system in it's current form is not sustainable.

At the end of 2011, Social Security was owed by the Govt. thats us, 2.7 Trillion dollars and the reason why it was owed that money is because both Republican and Democrat Administrations have used Social Security as a "piggy bank" to fund everything other than what it was intended for. If the the Govt. keeps borrowing from Social Security then by 2033 there will have to be a reduction in benefits to sustain the program because the Govt. would have run it into the ground. The point is, the program was NEVER intended as a funding source for the "general fund" and while I agree with you that it needs reforms in order to get it back on track, Social Security would not take much in order to put it back on track. As for a straw man, prior to Social Security, 75% of this nations elderly were living in poverty and given the fact you now have over 40 million people on Social Security , it doesnt take much to understand without that , you will have a large number of Americans that will be the responsiblity of the states, and in turn that responsibility will be translated to you and I in higher expense to pay for it. While it may sound great to say lets get rid of Social Security and let everyone have at it, its not practical and is not sound financially.

While I agree with you about fixing it rather than ending it, there are some important clarifications to be made. The 2033 date is pretty damn irrevelent because it's part of the "Trust Fund" fairy tale. SS went into deficit in 2010 -- six years ahead of schedule. At that point there was nothing of value to draw from in the Trust Fund so the General FUnd kicked in debt-loaded dollars to start making up the difference. This is funded thru CURRENT INCOME TAX payers. Sooooo............. Since there's nothing of value in the Trust Fund -- then 2033 as a date for the fund to be "drained" is for the weak minded masses. We are already there.

Secondly --- you claim it's EASY to fix.. I'm not on board with that. If the prescript for fixing it is RAISING the income caps on "the rich" and extending the qualifying eligibility age -- I oppose those things on principle. The working poor are the ones with the back breaking jobs. I don't want to FORCE THEM to continue working past the current retirement age. If this was a private program and you made those simple fixes -- you'd probably lose 20 - to 30% of the customers. It does not jive with their retirement plans and situations. As for the caps --- there is already a 10 to 1 disparity in what people PAY for this insurance when they all get (approx) the same benefit. That means that raising the caps would turn the program into WELFARE since almost 1/2 of the folks are guaranteed a LARGE NEGATIVE return on investment.

So -- if this is the EASY prescript --- I'd rather DECLARE IT WELFARE -- means test the HELL out of it and stop the farce of it being UNIVERSAL INSURANCE. Let the upper 60% OUT of it but FORCE them to fund it for the others. Much better than continuing to lie and steal and cheat...

 

[thereisnospoon]

The only fact regarding SS is it's broken. Period.
As for the rest of your post....Typical straw man argument. D-Day? Moon landings?..
Our nation thrives not because of government..It thrives because of freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty gives us the ability to do whatever we want to the best of our ability.
It is not government from which this nation derives it's greatness. Greatness begins with the people of this nation.
Now, your comment regarding savings and investment in the context of SS is spot on. SS was NEVER intended to be a pension or a stipend on which one can live. It is a supplement.
It is a good concept. In practice it sucks.
SS is merely a tax. The return is no more than a government run Ponzi scheme. Those presently working pay the benefits of those retired. As workers enter the workforce, their money is collected for use by older workers when they retire.
The system in it's current form is not sustainable.

At the end of 2011, Social Security was owed by the Govt. thats us, 2.7 Trillion dollars and the reason why it was owed that money is because both Republican and Democrat Administrations have used Social Security as a "piggy bank" to fund everything other than what it was intended for. If the the Govt. keeps borrowing from Social Security then by 2033 there will have to be a reduction in benefits to sustain the program because the Govt. would have run it into the ground. The point is, the program was NEVER intended as a funding source for the "general fund" and while I agree with you that it needs reforms in order to get it back on track, Social Security would not take much in order to put it back on track. As for a straw man, prior to Social Security, 75% of this nations elderly were living in poverty and given the fact you now have over 40 million people on Social Security , it doesnt take much to understand without that , you will have a large number of Americans that will be the responsiblity of the states, and in turn that responsibility will be translated to you and I in higher expense to pay for it. While it may sound great to say lets get rid of Social Security and let everyone have at it, its not practical and is not sound financially.

While I agree with you about fixing it rather than ending it, there are some important clarifications to be made. The 2033 date is pretty damn irrevelent because it's part of the "Trust Fund" fairy tale. SS went into deficit in 2010 -- six years ahead of schedule. At that point there was nothing of value to draw from in the Trust Fund so the General FUnd kicked in debt-loaded dollars to start making up the difference. This is funded thru CURRENT INCOME TAX payers. Sooooo............. Since there's nothing of value in the Trust Fund -- then 2033 as a date for the fund to be "drained" is for the weak minded masses. We are already there.

Secondly --- you claim it's EASY to fix.. I'm not on board with that. If the prescript for fixing it is RAISING the income caps on "the rich" and extending the qualifying eligibility age -- I oppose those things on principle. The working poor are the ones with the back breaking jobs. I don't want to FORCE THEM to continue working past the current retirement age. If this was a private program and you made those simple fixes -- you'd probably lose 20 - to 30% of the customers. It does not jive with their retirement plans and situations. As for the caps --- there is already a 10 to 1 disparity in what people PAY for this insurance when they all get (approx) the same benefit. That means that raising the caps would turn the program into WELFARE since almost 1/2 of the folks are guaranteed a LARGE NEGATIVE return on investment.

So -- if this is the EASY prescript --- I'd rather DECLARE IT WELFARE -- means test the HELL out of it and stop the farce of it being UNIVERSAL INSURANCE. Let the upper 60% OUT of it but FORCE them to fund it for the others. Much better than continuing to lie and steal and cheat...

Poverty? And do you believe Social Security in it's current form is way to guard against poverty?

 

[regent]

Most, if not all programs, government and private, need fixing at times. the military is constantly revising, nor can Social Security cannot go on with out revising. Think of the changes we have made to this country since 1787, even Ford no longer depends on the Model T for its sales. Taxes are changed, and rechanged, and we can't expect Social Security to stay the same forever. To Reagan's credit he didn't whine and kick his feet, but got together with the Democrats and made adjustments to the program. It's what governments do.

 

[Navy1960]

The only fact regarding SS is it's broken. Period.
As for the rest of your post....Typical straw man argument. D-Day? Moon landings?..
Our nation thrives not because of government..It thrives because of freedom and liberty.
Freedom and liberty gives us the ability to do whatever we want to the best of our ability.
It is not government from which this nation derives it's greatness. Greatness begins with the people of this nation.
Now, your comment regarding savings and investment in the context of SS is spot on. SS was NEVER intended to be a pension or a stipend on which one can live. It is a supplement.
It is a good concept. In practice it sucks.
SS is merely a tax. The return is no more than a government run Ponzi scheme. Those presently working pay the benefits of those retired. As workers enter the workforce, their money is collected for use by older workers when they retire.
The system in it's current form is not sustainable.

At the end of 2011, Social Security was owed by the Govt. thats us, 2.7 Trillion dollars and the reason why it was owed that money is because both Republican and Democrat Administrations have used Social Security as a "piggy bank" to fund everything other than what it was intended for. If the the Govt. keeps borrowing from Social Security then by 2033 there will have to be a reduction in benefits to sustain the program because the Govt. would have run it into the ground. The point is, the program was NEVER intended as a funding source for the "general fund" and while I agree with you that it needs reforms in order to get it back on track, Social Security would not take much in order to put it back on track. As for a straw man, prior to Social Security, 75% of this nations elderly were living in poverty and given the fact you now have over 40 million people on Social Security , it doesnt take much to understand without that , you will have a large number of Americans that will be the responsiblity of the states, and in turn that responsibility will be translated to you and I in higher expense to pay for it. While it may sound great to say lets get rid of Social Security and let everyone have at it, its not practical and is not sound financially.

While I agree with you about fixing it rather than ending it, there are some important clarifications to be made. The 2033 date is pretty damn irrevelent because it's part of the "Trust Fund" fairy tale. SS went into deficit in 2010 -- six years ahead of schedule. At that point there was nothing of value to draw from in the Trust Fund so the General FUnd kicked in debt-loaded dollars to start making up the difference. This is funded thru CURRENT INCOME TAX payers. Sooooo............. Since there's nothing of value in the Trust Fund -- then 2033 as a date for the fund to be "drained" is for the weak minded masses. We are already there.

Secondly --- you claim it's EASY to fix.. I'm not on board with that. If the prescript for fixing it is RAISING the income caps on "the rich" and extending the qualifying eligibility age -- I oppose those things on principle. The working poor are the ones with the back breaking jobs. I don't want to FORCE THEM to continue working past the current retirement age. If this was a private program and you made those simple fixes -- you'd probably lose 20 - to 30% of the customers. It does not jive with their retirement plans and situations. As for the caps --- there is already a 10 to 1 disparity in what people PAY for this insurance when they all get (approx) the same benefit. That means that raising the caps would turn the program into WELFARE since almost 1/2 of the folks are guaranteed a LARGE NEGATIVE return on investment.

So -- if this is the EASY prescript --- I'd rather DECLARE IT WELFARE -- means test the HELL out of it and stop the farce of it being UNIVERSAL INSURANCE. Let the upper 60% OUT of it but FORCE them to fund it for the others. Much better than continuing to lie and steal and cheat...

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.
Trustees Report Summary

That's from the SS Trustee's report to Congress and my contention is pretty simple, Social Security should never be seen as a funding source for anything that what it was intended for. It's my suggestion that once the debt owed to Social Security is paid back to it, then the program itself is sound, and as for making changes to it, I am not nor have I have been opposed to making changes to the program that would make it even more sound. I have suggested though that people who are making the claim we get rid of Social Security and everyone would be much better off , operates on a permise that people generally save money , which they do not, and that those people who who will no longer have Social Security won't somehow have any impact on the economy which they will.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

NOTE ---- It doesn't say "redemption of Treasury Bonds HELD in the Trust Fund --- (there aren't any)

NOTE --- It doesn't say redemption of assets of ANY KIND from the Trust Fund..

NOTE --- NOTHING OF VALUE is IN the Trust Fund. It's all paid for by CURRENT INCOME TAX payers and FUTURE chinese bond holders..

There ARE NOT ASSETS in the Trust Fund -- you are reading 1st Class Propaganda...

Okay. The Treasury is empty. Government is broke. The Social Security program trustees don't want us to know that so they are feeding us carefully phrased lies so we won't catch on to the truth.

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

Why do you insist on labeling people?

All I want is control over my money because I will be a better steward of that money than will the government.

What does that have to do with pigeonhole paradigms?

You do have control over your money.

 

[MikeK]

NOTE ---- It doesn't say "redemption of Treasury Bonds HELD in the Trust Fund --- (there aren't any)

NOTE --- It doesn't say redemption of assets of ANY KIND from the Trust Fund..

NOTE --- NOTHING OF VALUE is IN the Trust Fund. It's all paid for by CURRENT INCOME TAX payers and FUTURE chinese bond holders..

There ARE NOT ASSETS in the Trust Fund -- you are reading 1st Class Propaganda...

Okay. The Treasury is empty. Government is broke. The Social Security program trustees don't want us to know that so they are feeding us carefully phrased lies so we won't catch on to the truth.

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

Why do you insist on labeling people?

All I want is control over my money because I will be a better steward of that money than will the government.

What does that have to do with pigeonhole paradigms?

I asked two very simple questions; your age and political orientation, both of which are relevant to the topic, and you accuse me of "labeling" you. I wonder if you know how paranoid that seems.

You already know I believe a person's age has a strong influence on their feelings toward the Social Security program, as does one's political orientation. I'm simply curious to know if you fit into a patterned category. I'm seventy-six and politically independent, which should tell you something about my preference.

One important factor you apparently ignore is your ability to navigate within the financial system is not universal. In fact it is uncommon. Most people, including me, have no such ability -- which is why so many seniors ended up destitute and dying on the streets during the depression years. Roosevelt was able to understand this rather common shortcoming and from that awareness the Social Security program was conceived. And iti served the Country very well with regard to the collapse in 2008 by keeping a substantial amount of money in circulation.

The bottom line is Social Security is not only good for its recipients but for the stability of the national economy. So if you are capable of productively moving around in the world of investing there is no reason why you cannot do well in spite of your 7-1/2% Social Security contribution.

 

[flacaltenn]

At the end of 2011, Social Security was owed by the Govt. thats us, 2.7 Trillion dollars and the reason why it was owed that money is because both Republican and Democrat Administrations have used Social Security as a "piggy bank" to fund everything other than what it was intended for. If the the Govt. keeps borrowing from Social Security then by 2033 there will have to be a reduction in benefits to sustain the program because the Govt. would have run it into the ground. The point is, the program was NEVER intended as a funding source for the "general fund" and while I agree with you that it needs reforms in order to get it back on track, Social Security would not take much in order to put it back on track. As for a straw man, prior to Social Security, 75% of this nations elderly were living in poverty and given the fact you now have over 40 million people on Social Security , it doesnt take much to understand without that , you will have a large number of Americans that will be the responsiblity of the states, and in turn that responsibility will be translated to you and I in higher expense to pay for it. While it may sound great to say lets get rid of Social Security and let everyone have at it, its not practical and is not sound financially.

While I agree with you about fixing it rather than ending it, there are some important clarifications to be made. The 2033 date is pretty damn irrevelent because it's part of the "Trust Fund" fairy tale. SS went into deficit in 2010 -- six years ahead of schedule. At that point there was nothing of value to draw from in the Trust Fund so the General FUnd kicked in debt-loaded dollars to start making up the difference. This is funded thru CURRENT INCOME TAX payers. Sooooo............. Since there's nothing of value in the Trust Fund -- then 2033 as a date for the fund to be "drained" is for the weak minded masses. We are already there.

Secondly --- you claim it's EASY to fix.. I'm not on board with that. If the prescript for fixing it is RAISING the income caps on "the rich" and extending the qualifying eligibility age -- I oppose those things on principle. The working poor are the ones with the back breaking jobs. I don't want to FORCE THEM to continue working past the current retirement age. If this was a private program and you made those simple fixes -- you'd probably lose 20 - to 30% of the customers. It does not jive with their retirement plans and situations. As for the caps --- there is already a 10 to 1 disparity in what people PAY for this insurance when they all get (approx) the same benefit. That means that raising the caps would turn the program into WELFARE since almost 1/2 of the folks are guaranteed a LARGE NEGATIVE return on investment.

So -- if this is the EASY prescript --- I'd rather DECLARE IT WELFARE -- means test the HELL out of it and stop the farce of it being UNIVERSAL INSURANCE. Let the upper 60% OUT of it but FORCE them to fund it for the others. Much better than continuing to lie and steal and cheat...

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.
Trustees Report Summary

That's from the SS Trustee's report to Congress and my contention is pretty simple, Social Security should never be seen as a funding source for anything that what it was intended for. It's my suggestion that once the debt owed to Social Security is paid back to it, then the program itself is sound, and as for making changes to it, I am not nor have I have been opposed to making changes to the program that would make it even more sound. I have suggested though that people who are making the claim we get rid of Social Security and everyone would be much better off , operates on a permise that people generally save money , which they do not, and that those people who who will no longer have Social Security won't somehow have any impact on the economy which they will.

Look man -- with all due respect --- you are quoting horsecrap.. There is nothing to REDEEM out of the Trust FUnd.. So how can you POST

Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year.

Immediately after..

Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits.

SEE THAT 2nd QUOTE?? There is nothing of VALUE in the Trust Fund. ALL Shortages from 2010 forward will COME from the General Fund.

I can't discuss this rationally with folks are mixing fairy tales with accounting..

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay. The Treasury is empty. Government is broke. The Social Security program trustees don't want us to know that so they are feeding us carefully phrased lies so we won't catch on to the truth.

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

Why do you insist on labeling people?

All I want is control over my money because I will be a better steward of that money than will the government.

What does that have to do with pigeonhole paradigms?

I'm seventy-six and politically independent, which should tell you something about my preference.

You are only "politically independent" because the Far Left Progressive Socialists cant' organize a campaign or a convention...

Navigate the financial system? You are soooo pessimistic about what folks are capable of it must be a depressing life.. How about they stuff all their PRIVATE SS money in REAL US TREASURY BONDS?? You know those things YOU THOUGHT were in the SS lockbox??

 

[MikeK]

You are only "politically independent" because the Far Left Progressive Socialists cant' organize a campaign or a convention.

I am politically Independent because I'm fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties and I adhere to neither philosophy.

Navigate the financial system? You are soooo pessimistic about what folks are capable of it must be a depressing life.. How about they stuff all their PRIVATE SS money in REAL US TREASURY BONDS?? You know those things YOU THOUGHT were in the SS lockbox??

I believe things are fine just the way they are. Have you checked with your own parents and/or grandparents as to what their thoughts are on this subject?

I have never believed there is or was any "lockbox." Regardless of specific locations of the Program's funds, whether real or I.O.U., the U.S. Government is ultimately responsible to the Program's participants. If the government becomes so insolvent as to be unable to issue Social Security checks we will have a lot more than that to worry about.

But after the events of 1929 and 2008 you seem to believe Wall Street and the Stock Market is more honest, ethical, and reliable than the government. You probably believe in Randian Objectivism as well.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are only "politically independent" because the Far Left Progressive Socialists cant' organize a campaign or a convention.

I am politically Independent because I'm fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties and I adhere to neither philosophy.

Navigate the financial system? You are soooo pessimistic about what folks are capable of it must be a depressing life.. How about they stuff all their PRIVATE SS money in REAL US TREASURY BONDS?? You know those things YOU THOUGHT were in the SS lockbox??

I believe things are fine just the way they are. Have you checked with your own parents and/or grandparents as to what their thoughts are on this subject?

I have never believed there is or was any "lockbox." Regardless of specific locations of the Program's funds, whether real or I.O.U., the U.S. Government is ultimately responsible to the Program's participants. If the government becomes so insolvent as to be unable to issue Social Security checks we will have a lot more than that to worry about.

But after the events of 1929 and 2008 you seem to believe Wall Street and the Stock Market is more honest, ethical, and reliable than the government. You probably believe in Randian Objectivism as well.

Yes -- I do.. The govt STOLE the SS surplus from the working poor and rich alike. And some of those SAME VICTIMS are now expected to pay TWICE for the theft. If you've noticed, the Dow is back close to what it was before the crash. And the BIGGER threat to seniors is the artificially LOW interest rates that the GOVT INSISTS on enforcing. MANY of those seniors expected to live off the INTEREST on their savings. For 12 years now -- they've gotten PENNIES in interest because of Fed policy.

The crash itself is LARGELY because of Fed Govt policies. They create bubbles in tech stocks with their silly Internet SuperHiway hype and then create bubbles in housing with those perrenially low interest rates, lowered qualifying policies on loans and using Fannie/Freddie to drive the frantic rush for lower grade Mortgage securities.

I'm not an Objectivist but I share some of the more pragmatic tenets. And I believe Atlas Shrugged is a timeless tale of Govt abuse of power. Not that that matters.

And as far as I can tell, you are independent because you are marginalized in your fringe political views. NOT because you're particularly open-minded in your "independence".. You need to do the hard work like I do in 3rd party politics and WORK for ballot access, broader choices and a voice in debate. I do that not only in the name of the Lib Party but for you left-wing fringers as well. You're Welcome..

 

[regent]

Since the passage of Social Security two things about that program have never changed: one, Republicans have never stopped predicting the failure of the program, and two, Social Security has never failed.
As our memories of the Great Depression fade so will the memories of seniors going to the bank to draw out their monthly share of life savings to live on, and finding the bank closed, closed forever. The bank had speculated on the stock market, that same stock market that one couldn't lose, could only make zillions--and the bank had lost it all.
I still remember my grandfather coming home from the bank that day and throwing the now useless bankbook across the room.
Who then cared for my grandparents after it was all gone, the government--with tax payer and borrowed money. Wonder where grandfather's savings ended up?

 

[flacaltenn]

Since the passage of Social Security two things about that program have never changed: one, Republicans have never stopped predicting the failure of the program, and two, Social Security has never failed.
As our memories of the Great Depression fade so will the memories of seniors going to the bank to draw out their monthly share of life savings to live on, and finding the bank closed, closed forever. The bank had speculated on the stock market, that same stock market that one couldn't lose, could only make zillions--and the bank had lost it all.
I still remember my grandfather coming home from the bank that day and throwing the now useless bankbook across the room.
Who then cared for my grandparents after it was all gone, the government--with tax payer and borrowed money. Wonder where grandfather's savings ended up?

Probably in the same toilet as the $$$TRILLS of dollars STOLEN from Soc Sec taxes...
Soc Sec failed in 2010. Cost the treasury $40Bill in that year. The program is SUPPOSED to be self-supporting insurance. We've been told for 30 yrs that won't work when there's only 2.5 workers for every retiree. We are NOW TODAY watching Soc Sec fail...

It's all downhill for 20 years from here.. And the Congress did NOTHING to prevent the problem..

 

[thereisnospoon]

While I agree with you about fixing it rather than ending it, there are some important clarifications to be made. The 2033 date is pretty damn irrevelent because it's part of the "Trust Fund" fairy tale. SS went into deficit in 2010 -- six years ahead of schedule. At that point there was nothing of value to draw from in the Trust Fund so the General FUnd kicked in debt-loaded dollars to start making up the difference. This is funded thru CURRENT INCOME TAX payers. Sooooo............. Since there's nothing of value in the Trust Fund -- then 2033 as a date for the fund to be "drained" is for the weak minded masses. We are already there.

Secondly --- you claim it's EASY to fix.. I'm not on board with that. If the prescript for fixing it is RAISING the income caps on "the rich" and extending the qualifying eligibility age -- I oppose those things on principle. The working poor are the ones with the back breaking jobs. I don't want to FORCE THEM to continue working past the current retirement age. If this was a private program and you made those simple fixes -- you'd probably lose 20 - to 30% of the customers. It does not jive with their retirement plans and situations. As for the caps --- there is already a 10 to 1 disparity in what people PAY for this insurance when they all get (approx) the same benefit. That means that raising the caps would turn the program into WELFARE since almost 1/2 of the folks are guaranteed a LARGE NEGATIVE return on investment.

So -- if this is the EASY prescript --- I'd rather DECLARE IT WELFARE -- means test the HELL out of it and stop the farce of it being UNIVERSAL INSURANCE. Let the upper 60% OUT of it but FORCE them to fund it for the others. Much better than continuing to lie and steal and cheat...

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.
Trustees Report Summary

That's from the SS Trustee's report to Congress and my contention is pretty simple, Social Security should never be seen as a funding source for anything that what it was intended for. It's my suggestion that once the debt owed to Social Security is paid back to it, then the program itself is sound, and as for making changes to it, I am not nor have I have been opposed to making changes to the program that would make it even more sound. I have suggested though that people who are making the claim we get rid of Social Security and everyone would be much better off , operates on a permise that people generally save money , which they do not, and that those people who who will no longer have Social Security won't somehow have any impact on the economy which they will.

Look man -- with all due respect --- you are quoting horsecrap.. There is nothing to REDEEM out of the Trust FUnd.. So how can you POST

Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year.

Immediately after..

Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits.

SEE THAT 2nd QUOTE?? There is nothing of VALUE in the Trust Fund. ALL Shortages from 2010 forward will COME from the General Fund.

I can't discuss this rationally with folks are mixing fairy tales with accounting..

When are these "Social Security at all costs" people going ot get it through their impenetrable skulls that there is NO SS Trust Fund....Once the federal government decided on it;s own that Social Security was a slush fund, the "trust" was flushed down the toilet for good

 

[thereisnospoon]

You are only "politically independent" because the Far Left Progressive Socialists cant' organize a campaign or a convention.

I am politically Independent because I'm fed up with both the Democratic and Republican parties and I adhere to neither philosophy.

Navigate the financial system? You are soooo pessimistic about what folks are capable of it must be a depressing life.. How about they stuff all their PRIVATE SS money in REAL US TREASURY BONDS?? You know those things YOU THOUGHT were in the SS lockbox??

I believe things are fine just the way they are. Have you checked with your own parents and/or grandparents as to what their thoughts are on this subject?

I have never believed there is or was any "lockbox." Regardless of specific locations of the Program's funds, whether real or I.O.U., the U.S. Government is ultimately responsible to the Program's participants. If the government becomes so insolvent as to be unable to issue Social Security checks we will have a lot more than that to worry about.

But after the events of 1929 and 2008 you seem to believe Wall Street and the Stock Market is more honest, ethical, and reliable than the government. You probably believe in Randian Objectivism as well.

Government responsible? Surely you jest.
All they have to do is kick the can down the road. Which means nobody gets what they should.
I cannot believe anyone wise would place their faith in this inept and wasteful government.
Nothing our federal government does operates within budget or gets done on time.
How can you place such blind faith in these people?
The best thing to do is turn government over. Kick out the people not getting it done right( most of them) and put new people in office.
And please. No discussion of Wall Street. You people demonized anything financial.
The fact is, you don;t know what the hell you are talking about.
All you spew is your grandparents and parents irrational distrust of people who actually are the seed of what makes this country work.
By that I mean without investment and risk there is NOTHING. No business. No jobs. No benefits. No tax revenue.
Stop thinking it's the 1950's. We are way past that now. We've actually made progress.
If you don't like progress and wish to be the obstructionist, step aside. The rest of us are moving forward without you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay. The Treasury is empty. Government is broke. The Social Security program trustees don't want us to know that so they are feeding us carefully phrased lies so we won't catch on to the truth.

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

Why do you insist on labeling people?

All I want is control over my money because I will be a better steward of that money than will the government.

What does that have to do with pigeonhole paradigms?

You do have control over your money.

Not the money thrown into the SS slush fund.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay. The Treasury is empty. Government is broke. The Social Security program trustees don't want us to know that so they are feeding us carefully phrased lies so we won't catch on to the truth.

So what do you think is going to happen, and when do you think it will manifest? Please be as specific as possible. Also, please tell us what you are doing to survive the coming disaster.

By the way, how old are you? And are you a Libertarian?

Why do you insist on labeling people?

All I want is control over my money because I will be a better steward of that money than will the government.

What does that have to do with pigeonhole paradigms?

I asked two very simple questions; your age and political orientation, both of which are relevant to the topic, and you accuse me of "labeling" you. I wonder if you know how paranoid that seems.

You already know I believe a person's age has a strong influence on their feelings toward the Social Security program, as does one's political orientation. I'm simply curious to know if you fit into a patterned category. I'm seventy-six and politically independent, which should tell you something about my preference.

One important factor you apparently ignore is your ability to navigate within the financial system is not universal. In fact it is uncommon. Most people, including me, have no such ability -- which is why so many seniors ended up destitute and dying on the streets during the depression years. Roosevelt was able to understand this rather common shortcoming and from that awareness the Social Security program was conceived. And iti served the Country very well with regard to the collapse in 2008 by keeping a substantial amount of money in circulation.

The bottom line is Social Security is not only good for its recipients but for the stability of the national economy. So if you are capable of productively moving around in the world of investing there is no reason why you cannot do well in spite of your 7-1/2% Social Security contribution.

Political leanings have nothing to do with a person objecting to the mishandling of 15% of his lifetime income.

I've already said that if you're too scared or too stupid to learn how to invest then you can take your money and buy savings bonds and T bills. But that is not a good enough reason to force me to relinquish control over my money to the crooks in government.

And it's not 7.5 percent you're conveniently forgetting to add the employer match.

 

[flacaltenn]

We are here to fight for you what you deserve. If you are taking into consideration your disability for being eligible for benefits given by government under social security disable act, meet us immediately.

There ya go --- desparate law firms wanting to convince you that you are disabled..

BTW: A REAL disability plan and a REAL term life policy (side benefits of SS) will cost you less than a couple Happy Meals a month. THEN -- you wouldn't have to seek Brodericklaw to go battle the GOVT for appeals..