Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit

[hortysir]

I see your quote/link and call:

There were 16.5 workers for each Social Security recipient in 1950. Today there are only 3.2 workers per recipient. According to current projections, in 2030 there will be fewer than 2 workers per recipient.

Social Security

 

[Mr Liberty]

Nope. Did quite well actually.

But basic math tells me that money that has already been spent is not a surplus.

It hasn't.

But go on..

"loaning" money from one pocket to the next, then spending it, doesn't mean you still have money owed the first pocket. It means you are trying to decieve people or yourself into thinking that your finances are on solid rock while you're sinking in quicksand.

If the politicians bueaucrats who came up with the system were in the private sector, they'd be serving life sentences in jail. It's a fact.

I know so many of you don't want to deal with the real problem here. I know you are doing everything in your power to pretend that nothings wrong. You don't have to be afraid. The problem can be fixed if we stop lying to ourselves and each other and actually fix the spending problem we have. Until we admit that we are bankrupting ourselves, we can't fix the problem. Until we admit that we need to make drastic spending cuts, our economy will not be fixed.

The more we delay it, the more painful it's going to be. If we push it much further, people will end up dying. And that's not something I want to see.

This is true. We are in serious trouble. People are acting like the economy can't collapse. It can't happen to us. With the Deficit and the national debt, I think we are reaching a breaking point. The only reason we gotten away with this so long is that the dollar is the reserve currency. If that changes this house of cards will fall quickly.

 

[percysunshine]

It is amazing how many people are unfamiliar with the concept of an IOU.

 

[Avorysuds]

Nope. Did quite well actually.

But basic math tells me that money that has already been spent is not a surplus.

It hasn't.

But go on..

"loaning" money from one pocket to the next, then spending it, doesn't mean you still have money owed the first pocket. It means you are trying to decieve people or yourself into thinking that your finances are on solid rock while you're sinking in quicksand.

If the politicians bueaucrats who came up with the system were in the private sector, they'd be serving life sentences in jail. It's a fact.

I know so many of you don't want to deal with the real problem here. I know you are doing everything in your power to pretend that nothings wrong. You don't have to be afraid. The problem can be fixed if we stop lying to ourselves and each other and actually fix the spending problem we have. Until we admit that we are bankrupting ourselves, we can't fix the problem. Until we admit that we need to make drastic spending cuts, our economy will not be fixed.

The more we delay it, the more painful it's going to be. If we push it much further, people will end up dying. And that's not something I want to see.

No no, you don't understand... A Democrat is President and the Senate is still a Majority for the Dems. The voters and posters on these boards and many other boards won't be calling for a "real look" at these bankrupted programs untill the President is a Republicans at the very least.

 

[percysunshine]

A chicken in every pot, and a casino in every retirement home. That will fix everything. Old people like to gamble and will voluntarily give their SS checks back to the government.

 

[Avatar4321]

From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

...why should Social Security be expected to make financial sacrifices for having invested its revenues in U.S. treasuries,

with the implied, and reasonably expected, full faith and credit of the US government behind those bonds??

Investing? Is that what they call out right robbery nowadays?

 

[Avatar4321]

It is amazing how many people are unfamiliar with the concept of an IOU.

It's amazing how many people think you can give an IOU to yourself, spend the money, and then still have funds.

 

[Avatar4321]

No no, you don't understand... A Democrat is President and the Senate is still a Majority for the Dems. The voters and posters on these boards and many other boards won't be calling for a "real look" at these bankrupted programs untill the President is a Republicans at the very least.

I don't care what party is in control. I don't care what party fixes it. It's something we need to do. And we need to do it as soon as humanly possible. We can't keep kicking the can down the line.

 

[percysunshine]

It is amazing how many people are unfamiliar with the concept of an IOU.

It's amazing how many people think you can give an IOU to yourself, spend the money, and then still have funds.

If you don't pay the Exorcist his fee, he repossesses you.

 

[8537]

All that's in the "trust fund" are a bunch of T-bills, which are no more than yet-to-be-collected taxes from (in many cases) yet-to-be-born taxpayers.

If anyone ran "trust fund" like that out in the real world, they'd be behind bars.

How do you think a trust fund is run in the real world?

How many real-world trust funds have their thumbs in the federal till?

Most of them, actually.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit
Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has taken exception to the popular notion that Social Security is going broke. In response to a recent Associated Press story, EPI’s Monique Morrissey pointed that the Congressional Budget Office—the source for AP’s dire account—has reported the trust fund for Social Security is actually still growing. It projects the fund to increase from $2.5 trillion this year to $3.8 trillion by 2020. AllGov - News - Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit

The PROBLEM is that the US Government uses all excess Social Security taxes as GENERAL funds and replaces them with worthless IOU's.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, the solution is relatively simple. A 6.2% SS tax on all income right to the top. A means testing for those getting SS. No SS that would push an income to over $70,000 a year. In other words, if you have an income of $50,000, your SS is cut off at $20,000.

So the system is fully funded and can actually pay a bit more to those on the low end. And you have the means testing the GOP states it desires. In fact, you might even be able to fund Medicare out of the new income.

 

[JFK_USA]

From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

...why should Social Security be expected to make financial sacrifices for having invested its revenues in U.S. treasuries,

with the implied, and reasonably expected, full faith and credit of the US government behind those bonds??

Investing? Is that what they call out right robbery nowadays?

You're not the brightest crayon in the box are you?

You pay INTO IT TO RECEIVE IT WHEN YOU RETIRE. Guess what you're going to get old, your amazing private sector company will kick you out for a younger person guaranteed.

You know its SOCIAL SECURITY that if you're investments do not do well or lose it all, that you have some money to live on when you can't get a job.

 

[auditor0007]

Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit
Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has taken exception to the popular notion that Social Security is going broke. In response to a recent Associated Press story, EPI’s Monique Morrissey pointed that the Congressional Budget Office—the source for AP’s dire account—has reported the trust fund for Social Security is actually still growing. It projects the fund to increase from $2.5 trillion this year to $3.8 trillion by 2020. AllGov - News - Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit

Technically this is correct. But in the real world we know that all that money is in IOU's because that money has been spent.

 

[auditor0007]

Well, the solution is relatively simple. A 6.2% SS tax on all income right to the top. A means testing for those getting SS. No SS that would push an income to over $70,000 a year. In other words, if you have an income of $50,000, your SS is cut off at $20,000.

So the system is fully funded and can actually pay a bit more to those on the low end. And you have the means testing the GOP states it desires. In fact, you might even be able to fund Medicare out of the new income.

I understand that train of thought, but I do not like the idea of placing a huge tax on anyone and then telling them that they will receive absolutely nothing in return. I have no problem with the rich paying more, but telling them that they get nothing in return on top of that doesn't sit well with me. Even those with larger incomes count on SS as part of their retirement in most cases. If someone saves for retirement, they should not be punished for it by reducing their share of SS just because they saved and you or I did not.

 

[Avatar4321]

From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

...why should Social Security be expected to make financial sacrifices for having invested its revenues in U.S. treasuries,

with the implied, and reasonably expected, full faith and credit of the US government behind those bonds??

Investing? Is that what they call out right robbery nowadays?

You're not the brightest crayon in the box are you?

You pay INTO IT TO RECEIVE IT WHEN YOU RETIRE. Guess what you're going to get old, your amazing private sector company will kick you out for a younger person guaranteed.

You know its SOCIAL SECURITY that if you're investments do not do well or lose it all, that you have some money to live on when you can't get a job.

You can be so amusing sometimes when you flustered and have to resort to personal attacks.

If taking money from the SS trust fund by force and spending it in the general fund is investing, then I am the true King of Great Britain

 

[bripat9643]

Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit
Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has taken exception to the popular notion that Social Security is going broke. In response to a recent Associated Press story, EPI’s Monique Morrissey pointed that the Congressional Budget Office—the source for AP’s dire account—has reported the trust fund for Social Security is actually still growing. It projects the fund to increase from $2.5 trillion this year to $3.8 trillion by 2020. AllGov - News - Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit

You've got to be a congenital moron to believe there is any money in the SS trust fund. Congress has already spent every time of it and then 5 times more.

 

[bripat9643]

All that's in the "trust fund" are a bunch of T-bills, which are no more than yet-to-be-collected taxes from (in many cases) yet-to-be-born taxpayers.

If anyone ran "trust fund" like that out in the real world, they'd be behind bars.

How do you think a trust fund is run in the real world?

the managers buy stocks and bonds - You know, things that have real value, not worthless government I.O.U.s

 

[bripat9643]

It is bankrupt. you see money that has already been spent, isn't there any more.

This is called basic finance people.

So if you owe someone money that you borrowed and spent are they bankrupt?
Or do you owe them money?

What does any of that have to do with Social Security?

 

[bripat9643]

It is bankrupt. you see money that has already been spent, isn't there any more.

This is called basic finance people.

The money wasn't spent, it was invested in US bonds.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You can't be that stupid!

Those bonds can only be paid off by taxing people. Of what value are the bonds to the taxpayers? When the government issues a bond, it creates an obligation for you to pay. How does that benefit you?