Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Conservatives have to make up lies about SS because the truth kills any hope they have of destroying it.
The people you are calling conservatives are also known as the Trustees of the Trust Funds. So you are saying that the Trustees are right wing conservatives intent upon destroying the system? Have you thought that one through?
Yes the Trust Fund holds $2.8 trillion. It is held against liabilities of more than $28 trillion. The difference is the decimal point.
Nothing you say above is backed up by any evidence.
You're seriously gonna lose on "what Obama threatened" about the ability to pay full SS checks during these ceiling debates ----
http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...-deadline-default-government-shutdown-2013-10
Early Thursday morning, Potomac Research Group analyst Greg Valliere predicted that if the debt-ceiling deadline grew closer, President Barack Obama would play his "trump card" in the debate. He would remind seniors that if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks.
A few hours later, Obama did just that during a speech at M. Luis Construction Company in Rockville, Md. He spent much of the speech warning that while the ongoing government shutdown was damaging, failure to raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline would be even worse.
"In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown — if we don't raise the debt ceiling — they don't go out on time," Obama said. "In a government shutdown, disability benefits still arrive on time. In an economic shutdown, they don't."
I hadn't seen that speech. I had only heard the 60 minutes piece with Scott Pelley. Obama was simply wrong. The law is clear about Social Securities resources. In fact, I think that Social Security can use Trust Fund resources to pay administrative costs. He was baiting seniors, and I am sorry you bit on it. In the Pelley segment, he referred to 'those checks' so you could argue about which checks to which he was referring. Here he is wrong. The checks are sent electronically. The seniors would get their money unless the Federal Reserve didn't open.
Isn't it ironic that you're a professional writer, and you're ignoring me now because you can't face the truth.
I've agreed with a lot of what you've said. I've disagreed with others. Particularly when you asked what system is better. I'd say many of them.
but the bottom line is exactly what I said. Why ... should ... we ... give ... our ... retirement ... bills ... to ... our ... children? I mean no duh, that's a better deal for us. But it's just wrong. Even if our parents did it to us. Let's start there, it's a great starting point
I am not a professional writer. I write on the issue for a number of outlets. I am not sure when you asked me what was better. Social Security is actually a very sound concept. The problem with the program is that it is run like a kiddie lemonade stand, with accounting standards that would make Enron's auditors blush. The hole in the system is now so large that it will not be absorbed by a single generation. Our kids are stuck to some extent with filling it. Our job should be not making it larger. There is no way for workers today to pay-off the retirement of Boomers, much less that of Boomers, Silents, Greats, and their own.
Social Security has grown into something that was never intended through a series of cost shifts where every generation was content to screw-over their kids. We are the kids that so many hands have been wrung over.
The debate today is broken. The debate should be about what Social Security should do rather than over how we are going to pay for something that is completely broken.
You got the right concepts there Joe. And I think Kaz has a point. However -- that ship has sailed and there is no more surplus to fight over and the T.F. is now irrelevant. So restructuring because of past criminal mis-management doesn't matter as much as fixing it based on future projections.
Like I said -- before ANY fixes get floated -- the charade about the T.F. and the surplus needs to become common knowledge. Because that IS germane to the issue of trust and faith in the ability to handle that much money without blowing it..
There's over 2 trillion dollars in the Trust Fund.
No.. There's over $2Trill spent on bombs, viagra, and ethanol subsidies. Does this file cabinet holding the "Trust Fund" LOOK like has $2Trill in it??
It holds 2 trillion in US securities that worth as much as any US security anyone holds. The safest investment in the world.
The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes.
You are presuming the returns would be better.Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement.
Wrong. The interest would simply be paid to the private bondholder who bought the government debt instead of the SS Trust fund.Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.
The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes.
You're talking about median returns. Expected (average) return is the relevant statistic.
Its odd how you seem to have such a good understanding of the social security system right up until you draw the conclusion that somehow more money goes in than comes out. You pointed out yourself the SS Trust fund earned interest. Another fact, that you did not mention but which you are probably aware of - is that SS pays out >99% of its revenues as benefits. So its not mathematically possible for the mean return to be less than the mean amount invested.
As for the median returns you mentioned, its possible. But that's not relevant - insurance is priced based on average - not median - payouts.
You are presuming the returns would be better.Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement.
Wrong. The interest would simply be paid to the private bondholder who bought the government debt instead of the SS Trust fund.Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.
You're seriously gonna lose on "what Obama threatened" about the ability to pay full SS checks during these ceiling debates ----
http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...-deadline-default-government-shutdown-2013-10
Early Thursday morning, Potomac Research Group analyst Greg Valliere predicted that if the debt-ceiling deadline grew closer, President Barack Obama would play his "trump card" in the debate. He would remind seniors that if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks.
A few hours later, Obama did just that during a speech at M. Luis Construction Company in Rockville, Md. He spent much of the speech warning that while the ongoing government shutdown was damaging, failure to raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline would be even worse.
"In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown — if we don't raise the debt ceiling — they don't go out on time," Obama said. "In a government shutdown, disability benefits still arrive on time. In an economic shutdown, they don't."
I hadn't seen that speech. I had only heard the 60 minutes piece with Scott Pelley. Obama was simply wrong. The law is clear about Social Securities resources. In fact, I think that Social Security can use Trust Fund resources to pay administrative costs. He was baiting seniors, and I am sorry you bit on it. In the Pelley segment, he referred to 'those checks' so you could argue about which checks to which he was referring. Here he is wrong. The checks are sent electronically. The seniors would get their money unless the Federal Reserve didn't open.
Uh uh... The guy SPEWED about this on multiple occasions. I didn't bite on it. I cringed at it. Because it was an admission that the shortfalls in SS income now can only be covered by NEW debt. And that alone is raising the "ceiling" by 30 to $60Bill/ year. I can find you six other times that he was that specific.. See politicians only use SS as a weapon. And this WAS his nuclear option for the ceiling debates.
I'd advise not to include that tripe about about magically paying SS T.F. IOUs for free. Largely because the whole concept of Quantitative Easing and all these other gimmicks have serious side effects. It's never been applied to the SS deficit problem for good reason. I presume the PRIMARY Treasury Holders, China and others would tend to get a bit pissed if we were printing more money just to prop up INTERNAL deficits. Wouldn't look good to the T Bond open market at all.. It would probably never seriously be considered.
The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes.
You're talking about median returns. Expected (average) return is the relevant statistic.
.
You're seriously gonna lose on "what Obama threatened" about the ability to pay full SS checks during these ceiling debates ----
http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...-deadline-default-government-shutdown-2013-10
Early Thursday morning, Potomac Research Group analyst Greg Valliere predicted that if the debt-ceiling deadline grew closer, President Barack Obama would play his "trump card" in the debate. He would remind seniors that if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks.
A few hours later, Obama did just that during a speech at M. Luis Construction Company in Rockville, Md. He spent much of the speech warning that while the ongoing government shutdown was damaging, failure to raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline would be even worse.
"In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown — if we don't raise the debt ceiling — they don't go out on time," Obama said. "In a government shutdown, disability benefits still arrive on time. In an economic shutdown, they don't."
I hadn't seen that speech. I had only heard the 60 minutes piece with Scott Pelley. Obama was simply wrong. The law is clear about Social Securities resources. In fact, I think that Social Security can use Trust Fund resources to pay administrative costs. He was baiting seniors, and I am sorry you bit on it. In the Pelley segment, he referred to 'those checks' so you could argue about which checks to which he was referring. Here he is wrong. The checks are sent electronically. The seniors would get their money unless the Federal Reserve didn't open.
Uh uh... The guy SPEWED about this on multiple occasions. I didn't bite on it. I cringed at it. Because it was an admission that the shortfalls in SS income now can only be covered by NEW debt. And that alone is raising the "ceiling" by 30 to $60Bill/ year. I can find you six other times that he was that specific.. See politicians only use SS as a weapon. And this WAS his nuclear option for the ceiling debates.
I'd advise not to include that tripe about about magically paying SS T.F. IOUs for free. Largely because the whole concept of Quantitative Easing and all these other gimmicks have serious side effects. It's never been applied to the SS deficit problem for good reason. I presume the PRIMARY Treasury Holders, China and others would tend to get a bit pissed if we were printing more money just to prop up INTERNAL deficits. Wouldn't look good to the T Bond open market at all.. It would probably never seriously be considered.
"I'd advise not to include that tripe about about magically paying SS T.F. IOUs for free. "
I don't know that I said it would be free. I said that it would be neutral to the debt ceiling computation. The government would have a miserable time raising money from the public, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether it could refinance the bonds under the debt ceiling laws. The government is supposed to be the trustee of the system. I hope that you can see that the government should be raising cash in front of foreseeable events.
