Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you

[NYcarbineer]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If their is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

Keep in mind it's also part of rightwing doctrine to try to denigrate anything the government does, unless it involves militarism and war.

They have to denigrate Social Security; to do otherwise they would have to concede that a federal government program is working well. That pill they won't swallow.

 

[Wicked Jester]

SS is solvent that is a fact. The 2+ trillion that the US govt owes SS is the only problem for a couple of decades.

Then why couldn't your beloved one guarantee the checks would go out?

Why do you lefty's keep ignoring that question?

 

[Wicked Jester]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If their is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

If Social Security insolvency is a myth why did obama use social security checks as a hostage to get the debt ceiling limit raised?

To give the nuts on the Right a taste of their own medicine.

That's not a valid answer, and you know it.

Now, why did your beloved one say that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Social Security insolvency is a myth why did obama use social security checks as a hostage to get the debt ceiling limit raised?

To give the nuts on the Right a taste of their own medicine.

So you admit obama lied and was a terrorist by holding hostage money due to retired people?

If he lied it means Social Security is solvent. Is that what you're admitting?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Social Security insolvency is a myth why did obama use social security checks as a hostage to get the debt ceiling limit raised?

To give the nuts on the Right a taste of their own medicine.

That's not a valid answer, and you know it.

Now, why did your beloved one say that?

I don't remember what he said.

 

[Wicked Jester]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If their is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

If Social Security insolvency is a myth why did obama use social security checks as a hostage to get the debt ceiling limit raised?

Umm if the people that prinit the checks are liad off no checks will be printed.
Kind of like going to your bank on a holiday, money in there but you can't get it out.

You know that's bullshit.

Now, why did your beloved one say that?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To give the nuts on the Right a taste of their own medicine.

That's not a valid answer, and you know it.

Now, why did your beloved one say that?

I don't remember what he said.

WOW iMAGINE THAT
"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it" Barack "Social Security Really is Bankrupt" Obama

 

[Wicked Jester]

To give the nuts on the Right a taste of their own medicine.

That's not a valid answer, and you know it.

Now, why did your beloved one say that?

I don't remember what he said.

Of course you don't!

 

[Oldstyle]

Every sane person interested in the subject admts that social security is not solvent. So the myth must be that social security is doing fine. Barney Frank actually told Americans that Fannie Mae was doing fine when he must have known that it was in deep financial trouble. Frank did nothing to curtail the Fannie collapse. Perhaps it was on purpose or perhaps he was a fool. You be the judge and you be the judge of people who say social security is solvent.

Social Security paid all its obligations in 2010 with money to spare, and will do so again this year.

That by definition means it's currently solvent.

Any sane person can see that.

Who is it that's saying Social Security isn't solvent "now"? What I've said many times is that if Social Security continues as is, it will become insolvent in about 25 years. Now I guess we COULD kick this problem down the road and pretend that every thing is just fine but a more intelligent way of going about this would be to make smaller adjustments now so we don't have to make desperation cuts twenty years from now.

 

[RealChange]

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

How does that prove that SS is not a Ponzi scheme? Obviously if you force people to participate in a Ponzi scheme it will last much longer but those that get in later will pay much more and will receive much less.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

To give the nuts on the Right a taste of their own medicine.

So you admit obama lied and was a terrorist by holding hostage money due to retired people?

If he lied it means Social Security is solvent. Is that what you're admitting?

NOPE try again and write more direct instead of twisted words.

 

[Oldstyle]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If their is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

Keep in mind it's also part of rightwing doctrine to try to denigrate anything the government does, unless it involves militarism and war.

They have to denigrate Social Security; to do otherwise they would have to concede that a federal government program is working well. That pill they won't swallow.

Pointing out that Social Security is in danger of becoming insolvent isn't "denigrating" the program nor does it mean that you want to get rid of it. THAT is simply fear mongering on the part of people like you, Carbineer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.

True.

And if not to scare you then to get you to buy into the fallacy that SS needs to be ‘privatized’ or otherwise eliminated.

I’d frankly have a bit more respect for conservatives (from zero to some) if they’d at least admit to the latter.

 

[yidnar]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.


Seriously. A few points:

1) Many morons have called SS a Ponzi scheme. This is a brain dead characterization. The reason Ponzi schemes fail is because they eventually run out of new investors. Unless we stop having children - there will always be new tax revenues into the system.

2) If nothing is done, Social Security can continue to pay benefits under current law for at least a couple of decades. After that, it can only pay benefits at about 80% - but for as far as can be seen into the future, it can continue to pay at that level - thus, even if the politicians do absolutely nothing - 80% of the program is solvent for as far as can be forecast.

3) Ultimately, the ability of a society to support its retirees and disabled - that is, the ability of those who produce to produce enough for those who cannot produce (either because they are too old to work, or disabled) - doesn't really depend on the particular investment vehicle that those who do not produce use. If the worker to retiree ratio is 2:1 as opposed to 10:1, the workers in the 2:1 situation will have to produce more for the retirees than those in the 10:1 situation. The only exceptions are things that you can actually save for retirement - like a house. Other than your house - everything you need in retirement will have to be made by somebody during (or right before) your retirement.



4) Social Security taxes do not get wasted - most of them go to pay current benefits. If their is extra, the trust fund buys bonds. If their is not enough, they sell some of their bonds. This does push the burden around in time - this is no secret and no one ever tried to cover it up - but over many decades, the SS Trust Fund will spend the same as it takes in (plus interest paid on its Trust Fund balance).

correct me if I'm wrong ,but wasn't it your president that recently claimed that senior citizens would not get their SS check if we didn't raise the debt ceiling ?? so who's using scare tactics ??

 

[Rocko]

SS is expected to pay out more than it takes in by 2017, and go bankrupt by 2035.

 

[uscitizen]

Have you ever heard of direct deposit? I may be wrong but I think thats how it works now.

Umm yes but it still takes human employees to fire off the programs to perform the payments by direct deposit.
Do all SS recipients have direct deposit for their benefit checks?

It's automated

I think not totally automated, batches must be set up to run.

 

[uscitizen]

SS is expected to pay out more than it takes in by 2017, and go bankrupt by 2035.

Something like that but it is currently solvent.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.

True.

And if not to scare you then to get you to buy into the fallacy that SS needs to be ‘privatized’ or otherwise eliminated.

I’d frankly have a bit more respect for conservatives (from zero to some) if they’d at least admit to the latter.

what exactly was obama doing when he said that social security checks might not go out if the debt cieling wasn't raised? Why was he terrorizing retired Americans?

 

[percysunshine]

In a Ponzi scheme, the people who invest early get their money out with dividends. But these dividends don’t come from any profitable or productive activity — they consist entirely of money paid in by later participants.

If it quacks like a duck...well

 

[Oldstyle]

Social Security insolvency is a right wing myth meant to scare you.

True.

And if not to scare you then to get you to buy into the fallacy that SS needs to be ‘privatized’ or otherwise eliminated.

I’d frankly have a bit more respect for conservatives (from zero to some) if they’d at least admit to the latter.

I would have a bit more respect for progressives if they'd admit that SS is about to run head long into the Baby Boomer "wall". The number of people paying into the system is shrinking as the bulk of the Baby Boomer generation gets ready to retire. Crunch the numbers and tell me we can continue on as we have without being insolvent in 25 years.