There is nothing free about Social Security Insurance however it is a damn smart risk free investment that keeps food on the table and utilities on...

[merrill]

I love mine no question about and the medicare that comes with for about $150 per month. Medicare picks up 80% of most procedures. A great deal.

But have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security? If so why are they doing it? Koch's privatization scheme wants to own it.
Follow the guaranteed profits.

Who has lied? Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt”. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.”

Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

www.dollarsandsense.org

 

[1srelluc]

OK, it's the Deal of the Day so what is your point?

 

[merrill]

Be Smart Go For It

 

[wamose]

They're underfunded and are on pace to be insolvent sometime soon. But if we think the program is stressed now, just wait until this invasion of illegal aliens gets in line with their hands out. The only thing that could save SS Medicare and our country in general is if our government would scale back spending big time. But there's no chance of that happening. The fact is, these Democrats are looking for another couple trillion to spend on buying votes, imbeciles that they are.

 

[merrill]

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

 

[Zincwarrior]

I love mine no question about and the medicare that comes with for about $150 per month. Medicare picks up 80% of most procedures. A great deal.

But have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security? If so why are they doing it? Koch's privatization scheme wants to own it.
Follow the guaranteed profits.

Who has lied? Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt”. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.”

Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

www.dollarsandsense.org

SOCIALISM!!!

 

[Jarlaxle]

If I had what was taken from me for social security, I'd be retired by 50.

 

[merrill]

If I had what was taken from me for social security, I'd be retired by 50.

you don't know that ....... what if you lose every investment between now and when you plan to retire?

 

[merrill]

SOCIALISM!!!

socialism is good for the economy then I think about all of the tax dollar moochers as in privileged tax breaks, tax incentives etc etc etc suddenly people love being moochers under the umbrella of socialism.

 

[Jarlaxle]

you don't know that ....... what if you lose every investment between now and when you plan to retire?

The chance of that cannot be differentiated from zero.

 

[Libby von H]

I love mine no question about and the medicare that comes with for about $150 per month. Medicare picks up 80% of most procedures. A great deal.

But have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security? If so why are they doing it? Koch's privatization scheme wants to own it.
Follow the guaranteed profits.

Who has lied? Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt”. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.”

Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

www.dollarsandsense.org

How hypocritical you are...Gore was going to use Social Security money to invest in the Stock Market

JUNE 2000
Only a few weeks ago Gore and his allies used words like "risky" and "irresponsible" to describe Bush's plan to overhaul Social Security by letting individual workers invest some of their payroll taxes in the stock market.

Last week, Gore unveiled his own Social Security proposal and guess what? It includes a provision allowing individual workers to build a retirement account through stock market investment.

 

[Libby von H]

I love mine no question about and the medicare that comes with for about $150 per month. Medicare picks up 80% of most procedures. A great deal.

But have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security? If so why are they doing it? Koch's privatization scheme wants to own it.
Follow the guaranteed profits.

Who has lied? Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt”. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.”

Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

www.dollarsandsense.org

It is not risk-free, Congress has been 'borrowing' against it for years.

The Shocking Amount of Money Congress Has Stolen From Social Security -- to the Penny​

By Sean Williams – Feb 20, 2023 at 3:44AM

KEY POINTS​

• 
  America's top retirement program is facing a $20.4 trillion funding shortfall through 2096.

 

[merrill]

They're underfunded and are on pace to be insolvent sometime soon. But if we think the program is stressed now, just wait until this invasion of illegal aliens gets in line with their hands out. The only thing that could save SS Medicare and our country in general is if our government would scale back spending big time. But there's no chance of that happening. The fact is, these Democrats are looking for another couple trillion to spend on buying votes, imbeciles that they are.

YOU have no idea what you are talking about! Just repeating bogus GOP rhetoric. Fascist GOP want to own Social Security Insurance. If is is such a bad investment why would anyone want to own it?

 

[merrill]

I love mine no question about and the medicare that comes with for about $150 per month. Medicare picks up 80% of most procedures. A great deal.

But have opponents actually lied to the public about Social Security? If so why are they doing it? Koch's privatization scheme wants to own it.
Follow the guaranteed profits.

Who has lied? Former President George W. Bush repeatedly claimed that those who put their money in private accounts would be “guaranteed a better return than they would receive from the current Social Security system.

But every sale of stock on the stock market includes the disclaimer: “the return on this investment is not guaranteed and may be negative” for good reason. During the 20th century, there were several periods lasting more than ten years when the return on stocks was negative.

After the Dow Jones stock index went down by over 75% between 1929 and 1933, the Dow did not return to its 1929 level until 1953.

In claiming that the rate of return on a stock investment is guaranteed to be greater than the return on any other asset, Bush was lying. If an investment-firm broker made this claim to his clients, he would be arrested and charged with stock fraud. Michael Milken went to jail for several years for making just this type of promise about financial investments.

Former President Bush also misrepresented the truth when he claimed that Social Security trustees say the system will be “bankrupt”. Bankruptcy is defined as “the inability to pay ones debts” or, when applied to a business, “shutting down as a result of insolvency.”

Nothing the trustees have said or published indicates that Social Security will fold as a result of insolvency.

Until 1984, the trust fund was “pay-as-you-go,” meaning current benefits were paid using current tax revenues. In 1984, Congress raised payroll taxes to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom generation.

As a result, the Social Security trust fund, which holds government bonds as assets, has been growing. When the baby boomers retire, these bonds will be sold to help pay their retirement benefits.

If the trust fund went to zero, Social Security would simply revert to pay-as-you-go. It would continue to pay benefits using (then-current) tax revenues, and in doing so, it would be able to cover about 70% of promised benefit levels.

The system won’t be bankrupt in any sense. On this point, President Bush was “consciously misrepresenting the truth with the intent to deceive.” That is what the dictionary defines as lying.

Social Security Q&A | Dollars & Sense

www.dollarsandsense.org

Bring it on and expand benefits! Medicare bring it on and expand benefits! Medicaid is loved by every assisted living facility in the USA BECAUSE it pays the bills.

Both republicans and democrats love their SSI and Medicare so it would be stupid for the party to screw over republicans ........

 

[merrill]

Social Security cannot add to long-term deficits because it is prohibited from borrowing. Even if we assume Congress could turn to general revenues to pay promised benefits when the trust fund runs out, this would only increase the 75-year budget deficit by 4-7% per year on average.

Republican billionaire Peter G. Peterson, who has been calling for cuts to Social Security benefits for over a decade (Peterson 1999), sometimes acknowledges that Social Security is a small part of the fiscal problem (2010 Fiscal Summit).

However, he and other deficit hawks usually lump Social Security in with Medicare and Medicaid in an effort to show unsustainable growth across entitlement programs (Figure G).

In reality, health care cost inflation and insufficient tax revenues are by far our biggest long-term budget challenges. Nevertheless, as Senator Max Baucus predicted, the president’s Fiscal Commission has painted a target on Social Security (Hulse 2009). The commission has set up a special task force on entitlement programs, and co-chair Erskine Bowles has indicated that Social Security must be part of a grand bargain on taxes and spending (Bowles 2010).

Why single out Social Security when the challenges it faces are modest? This reflects the success of the conservative campaign against this popular government program, aiming to undermine public confidence in its future (Butler and Germanis 1983). As Nobel–prize-winning economist Paul Krugman put it, “Doomsaying about Social Security—declaring that the program as we know it can’t survive the onslaught of retiring baby boomers—is regarded as a sort of badge of seriousness” (Krugman 2007).

Since it is impossible to argue that Social Security is a key driver of the long-term deficit, Fiscal Commission member Alice Rivlin and others claim Social Security cuts may be needed to “send a message” to bond markets (Sopelsa 2010; Blinder 2010).

It is, however, unclear why bond markets should be swayed by an attempt to avoid the real problems, particularly health care cost inflation. It is also unclear why the bond market would prefer cutting benefits to raising revenues.

Meanwhile, those who would profit from a shift to privately managed retirement savings resort to mystification and alarmism in an effort to convince the public that the Social Security trust fund is suspect.

One of the most startling moments in this debate came when Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, who has spent much of his career on Wall Street, suggested at an event hosted by Peter G. Peterson that the U.S. Treasury could default on its obligations to the trust fund (Rubin 2010).

The Treasury bonds in which the trust fund invests are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government, which has never defaulted on any debt in its entire history.

The fact that programs like Social Security and Medicare have long-term, dedicated funding sources means that they are more susceptible to criticism for not being in balance, even when the projected shortfall is modest and distant, as in the case of Social Security.

Perversely, policies like the Bush tax cuts that were never paid for with offsetting tax increases or spending cuts receive less scrutiny because no federal agency is required by law to estimate their impact on the federal budget 75 years into the future.

Addressing Social Security’s projected future shortfalls is not a case of Americans wanting to eat their cake and have it too. Polls have consistently shown that voters across the political spectrum oppose benefit cuts but would be willing to pay more to preserve and strengthen the program (Reno and Lavery 2009; Wright and Davies 2007).

Nor is it is a problem of lack of foresight, even though Fiscal Commission co-chair Alan Simpson absurdly claims “they never knew there was a Baby Boom in ’83” (Berry 2010). The fact is that Social Security’s actuaries did foresee the coming Baby Boomer retirement wave, and Congress acted to build up the trust fund explicitly to help finance the Boomers’ retirement.

Meanwhile, ordinary workers, especially younger workers who will bear the brunt of any benefit cuts, cannot afford further reductions in benefits. Younger workers already face a higher normal retirement age of 67, and therefore a lower income-replacement rate than that of previous generations.

The higher retirement age, coupled with a shift from traditional pensions to 401(k) plans, means that younger workers are much more likely to face a sharp drop in living standards at retirement (Figure H) than are the generations preceding them.

As Fiscal Commission co-chair Alan Simpson has said, we should worry about our grandchildren. This is why we should ignore his advice to raise the retirement age and instead strengthen Social Security for the long term.


unfurl="true"]https://www.epi.org/publication/social_security_and_the_federal_deficit/[/URL]