There Is No Social Security Solvency Crisis. Why Is MSNBC Telling Us Otherwise?

[skews13]

It’s one thing for Republicans to threaten Social Security. It’s another for our “liberal” media to aid and abet them by pushing the false narrative that Social Security has a “solvency crisis.”

The Myth of Social Security Insolvency

Economist Stephanie Kelton destroys this myth in her book, In The Deficit Myth, recently chosen by BookAuthoirity.org as No. 1 on a list of the Best Economic Theory Books of All Time:

MYTH #6: “Entitlement” programs like Social Security and Medicare are financially unsustainable. We can’t afford them anymore.
REALITY: As long as the federal government commits to making the payments, it can always afford to support these programs. What matters is our economy’s long-run capacity to produce the real goods and services people will need.
Kelton, Stephanie. The Deficit Myth (p. 157). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition

FDR designed Social Security with FICA contributions and trust funds to gain popular support of the programs. People would “see” the funds were there to pay the benefits. But now, people “see” or are being told to “see” the funds are not there.

So what would we do to provide for if and when Social Security benefits exceed the contributions?

What can be done

Congress can pass a law today providing that full Social Security benefits will be paid even if the Trust Fund is exhausted.

Wait! They can do that?

Not only can they, but they already do it for Medicare Parts B and D. Unlike the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare A and C, the Trust Fund for Parts B and D (“SMI”) has the authority to pay full benefits from general federal government funds. So the same Social Security and Medicare Trustees report containing scary predictions for Social Security and Medicare A and C states: “For SMI, the Trustees project that both Part B and Part D will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law provides financing.” As Kelton writes, “That keeps SMI financially secure to infinity and beyond!”

All Congress would have to do is apply the provisions of SMI to the other Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and every one of MacGuineas statements falls.

• We can afford to pay for all benefits to current and future retirees even if contributions lag benefits.
• There is no reason to cut benefits, now or in the future, or even to raise taxes, now or in the future.
• Not even to raise the cap on contributions (which would violate President Biden’s pledge not to increase taxes on income under $400K).
• There is no reason to pit generations against each other to triage government funds.
• There is no reason to raise the retirement age.

There is no Social Security Solvency Crisis. Why is MSNBC telling us otherwise?

It’s one thing for Republicans to threaten Social Security. It’s another for our “liberal” media to aid and abet them by pushing the false narrative that Social Security has a “solvency crisis.” Last Sunday, Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a...

www.dailykos.com

Would somebody please think about the bankers.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Daily Kos?

Why not Pravda?

 

[1srelluc]

From what I'm hearing the dems want to save Medicaid at the expense of Medicare.....They want retired producers to suffer over the deadbeats.

I say move both Medicaid and SSDI out of SS and it would become solvent overnight.....Put those 87K new IRS agents on SSDI claim investigation. Pay them a bonus for each bogus case they find.

 

[Penelope]

It's private healthcare now.

 

[Polishprince]

Moving Medicaid to the states, where each jurisdiction can determine the level of medical care they can afford for the indigent could easily resolve this.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It’s one thing for Republicans to threaten Social Security. It’s another for our “liberal” media to aid and abet them by pushing the false narrative that Social Security has a “solvency crisis.”

The Myth of Social Security Insolvency

Economist Stephanie Kelton destroys this myth in her book, In The Deficit Myth, recently chosen by BookAuthoirity.org as No. 1 on a list of the Best Economic Theory Books of All Time:


FDR designed Social Security with FICA contributions and trust funds to gain popular support of the programs. People would “see” the funds were there to pay the benefits. But now, people “see” or are being told to “see” the funds are not there.

So what would we do to provide for if and when Social Security benefits exceed the contributions?

What can be done

Congress can pass a law today providing that full Social Security benefits will be paid even if the Trust Fund is exhausted.

Wait! They can do that?

Not only can they, but they already do it for Medicare Parts B and D. Unlike the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare A and C, the Trust Fund for Parts B and D (“SMI”) has the authority to pay full benefits from general federal government funds. So the same Social Security and Medicare Trustees report containing scary predictions for Social Security and Medicare A and C states: “For SMI, the Trustees project that both Part B and Part D will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law provides financing.” As Kelton writes, “That keeps SMI financially secure to infinity and beyond!”

All Congress would have to do is apply the provisions of SMI to the other Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and every one of MacGuineas statements falls.

• We can afford to pay for all benefits to current and future retirees even if contributions lag benefits.
• There is no reason to cut benefits, now or in the future, or even to raise taxes, now or in the future.
• Not even to raise the cap on contributions (which would violate President Biden’s pledge not to increase taxes on income under $400K).
• There is no reason to pit generations against each other to triage government funds.
• There is no reason to raise the retirement age.

There is no Social Security Solvency Crisis. Why is MSNBC telling us otherwise?

It’s one thing for Republicans to threaten Social Security. It’s another for our “liberal” media to aid and abet them by pushing the false narrative that Social Security has a “solvency crisis.” Last Sunday, Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a...

www.dailykos.com

Would somebody please think about the bankers.

Look up unfunded liabilities for SS and medicare and you will understand the coming disaster. Both programs are the biggest ponzi schemes in history.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Moving Medicaid to the states, where each jurisdiction can determine the level of medical care they can afford for the indigent could easily resolve this.

.

And that's a WIN in states like mine where illegal invaders are not allowed in.

Make the blue states pay for the care of the criminals they love so much.

.

 

[Polishprince]

.

And that's a WIN in states like mine where illegal invaders are not allowed in.

Make the blue states pay for the care of the criminals they love so much.

.

It would be a positive for blue states as well, as they will be able to enjoy sophisticated European level taxes which they have been jealous of Norway and Denmark for many decades.

The idea of brutish, neanderthal tax rates like they have in Texas and Florida just makes the average liberal sick to the stomach.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Unlike the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare A and C, the Trust Fund for Parts B and D (“SMI”) has the authority to pay full benefits from general federal government funds.

A -- has somehow remained self-funded regardless.
B -- we now get to keep paying for to subsidize C
C -- is the MA corporate welfare program funded by you and me
D -- is for the Drugs we need now to just cope with this mess

 

[j-mac]

It's private healthcare now.

Wait a minute…Are you saying Medicare and Medicaid is private health insurance? It most certainly is not.

 

[ColonelAngus]

I have been paying into SS since I was 17. Will I see my money when I am 65?

Doubtful….now why is that? I did my part. Why didnt the government do theirs?

 

[DGS49]

The reason why there is a "Trust Fund" for SS (and Medicare), and the reason why that Trust Fund is fed by "Payroll Taxes," rather than FIT, is because otherwise, they would both be blatantly unconstitutional. Congress has no power under Article I to do anything whatsoever with retirement savings or generalized healthcare. None.

And while that Trust Fund may be fictitious, it is inviolable. That is to say, if it were to be depleted by millions of Boomers drawing from it, benefits could not be paid from the General Fund. That would be blatantly unconstitutional.

So Congress WILL change the arrangements for Payroll Taxes - everybody assumes they will either raise or eliminate the cap on earnings subject to the tax - and they may do something to lessen the impact of annual COLA's. It is conceivable that they could "means test" SS in some magical way, so that the rich bastards living in multi-million dollar condo's are not collecting the same as if they NEEDED it, but even that is unlikely. But IN NO EVENT will anyone SS check be REDUCED. It may be frozen for some - like me - but it won't be reduced for anyone.

The Democrats have created the vicious lie that Republicans want to "cut Social Security," and the Media are all on board with that lie. Even the fucking President repeated it in the SOTU. The lesbian joke repeats it regularly. A pox on all their houses.

NOBODY will vote to cut SS in any way, ever. Period. Full stop. Anyone who says or writes otherwise is a liar.

 

[Silent Warrior]

It would be a positive for blue states as well, as they will be able to enjoy sophisticated European level taxes which they have been jealous of Norway and Denmark for many decades.

The idea of brutish, neanderthal tax rates like they have in Texas and Florida just makes the average liberal sick to the stomach.

Yep. Those brutish, neanderthal tax rates in Texas (8.6%) and Florida (9.1%) are terrible in comparison the red state blissfully low taxes such as California (13.5%), New York (12.75%) or Hawaii (12.70).

 

[kyzr]

Look up unfunded liabilities for SS and medicare and you will understand the coming disaster. Both programs are the biggest ponzi schemes in history.

LIAR.

Analysis: Medicare and Social Security insolvency is right around the corner

The cold, hard, actuarial truth is that within five years, the trust fund that funds Medicare hospital coverage (Medicare Part A) will have a zero balance.

www.cnn.com

"Two Social Security trust funds, both of which own US debt in the form of treasuries, should cover costs for the next decade. The trust fund that pays checks to seniors will be depleted in 2034. Starting in 2035, Social Security would only be able to pay 77% of benefits without government action."

Worst case SS pays out what it takes in, we'd get about 77% of promised benefits. If they "fix" SS its good long term.

 

[kyzr]

I have been paying into SS since I was 17. Will I see my money when I am 65?
Doubtful….now why is that? I did my part. Why didnt the government do theirs?

You are likely to get 77% of promised benefits no matter what. That happens when they pay out only what they take in.
If SS is "fixed", like raising the cap and/or raising the ages, then you'd get full as-promised benefits.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

LIAR.

Analysis: Medicare and Social Security insolvency is right around the corner

The cold, hard, actuarial truth is that within five years, the trust fund that funds Medicare hospital coverage (Medicare Part A) will have a zero balance.

www.cnn.com

"Two Social Security trust funds, both of which own US debt in the form of treasuries, should cover costs for the next decade. The trust fund that pays checks to seniors will be depleted in 2034. Starting in 2035, Social Security would only be able to pay 77% of benefits without government action."

Worst case SS pays out what it takes in, we'd get about 77% of promised benefits. If they "fix" SS its good long term.

"Pays out what it takes in" meaning the working tax paying population is covering the SS benefits retired people are receiving.

A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Independentthinker]

It’s one thing for Republicans to threaten Social Security. It’s another for our “liberal” media to aid and abet them by pushing the false narrative that Social Security has a “solvency crisis.”

The Myth of Social Security Insolvency

Economist Stephanie Kelton destroys this myth in her book, In The Deficit Myth, recently chosen by BookAuthoirity.org as No. 1 on a list of the Best Economic Theory Books of All Time:


FDR designed Social Security with FICA contributions and trust funds to gain popular support of the programs. People would “see” the funds were there to pay the benefits. But now, people “see” or are being told to “see” the funds are not there.

So what would we do to provide for if and when Social Security benefits exceed the contributions?

What can be done

Congress can pass a law today providing that full Social Security benefits will be paid even if the Trust Fund is exhausted.

Wait! They can do that?

Not only can they, but they already do it for Medicare Parts B and D. Unlike the trust funds for Social Security and Medicare A and C, the Trust Fund for Parts B and D (“SMI”) has the authority to pay full benefits from general federal government funds. So the same Social Security and Medicare Trustees report containing scary predictions for Social Security and Medicare A and C states: “For SMI, the Trustees project that both Part B and Part D will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law provides financing.” As Kelton writes, “That keeps SMI financially secure to infinity and beyond!”

All Congress would have to do is apply the provisions of SMI to the other Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and every one of MacGuineas statements falls.

• We can afford to pay for all benefits to current and future retirees even if contributions lag benefits.
• There is no reason to cut benefits, now or in the future, or even to raise taxes, now or in the future.
• Not even to raise the cap on contributions (which would violate President Biden’s pledge not to increase taxes on income under $400K).
• There is no reason to pit generations against each other to triage government funds.
• There is no reason to raise the retirement age.

There is no Social Security Solvency Crisis. Why is MSNBC telling us otherwise?

It’s one thing for Republicans to threaten Social Security. It’s another for our “liberal” media to aid and abet them by pushing the false narrative that Social Security has a “solvency crisis.” Last Sunday, Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a...

www.dailykos.com

Would somebody please think about the bankers.

The way it is supposed to work is that the newly working fund the benefits for those collecting. The Trust Fund IS going to be insolvent in the near future. Your solution seems to be to use the US debt to fund the program after insolvency so that it is no longer the program funding itself. How about just making it so the Trust Fund doesn't go insolvent in the first place? After all, we already owe over 31 trillion dollars. At what point do you want to be fiscally responsible?

 

[Lord Long Rod]

Moving Medicaid to the states, where each jurisdiction can determine the level of medical care they can afford for the indigent could easily resolve this.

Medicaid is administrated/administered by the states now. Perhaps what you mean is allowing states to establish their own standards for handouts?

 

[WorldWatcher]

You are likely to get 77% of promised benefits no matter what. That happens when they pay out only what they take in.
If SS is "fixed", like raising the cap and/or raising the ages, then you'd get full as-promised benefits.

To raise the age (say the current 67 to 70), it would have to be done with the only "grandfathers" being those already drawing SS. If the "grandfather" age is 50, which is what is normally talked about, then those that are 50 now don't have positive impact through the benefit cut** because it wouldn't hit the system until 2043. If they are 50 now and the new age is 70, that's 20 years. 2023+20 = 2043.

The Trust Fund runs dry in 2034 so raising the age with a grandfather clause will not prevent the cutting of benefits a in 2035.

**Cut - Yes, raising the age is a means of cutting benefits by reducing the number of years an individual will be able to draw benefits. Reduced years receiving benefits is how savings occur.

WW

 

[kyzr]

To raise the age (say the current 67 to 70), it would have to be done with the only "grandfathers" being those already drawing SS. If the "grandfather" age is 50, which is what is normally talked about, then those that are 50 now don't have positive impact through the benefit cut** because it wouldn't hit the system until 2043. If they are 50 now and the new age is 70, that's 20 years. 2023+20 = 2043.
The Trust Fund runs dry in 2034 so raising the age with a grandfather clause will not prevent the cutting of benefits a in 2035.
**Cut - Yes, raising the age is a means of cutting benefits by reducing the number of years an individual will be able to draw benefits. Reduced years receiving benefits is how savings occur.

WW

All true.
The short term fix is to raise the cap.
The longer term fix is to raise the ages since people are living longer, 54 and younger add 1-year to 62 & 67, 34 and younger add 2-years.