Social Security is on the brink of demise--sadly

Then the claim is worthless. Thanks for playing.

 

Not all kinds of insurance are identical.

 

Constitution clearly authorizes the government of We the People to PROVIDE for the General Welfare.

 

No because that would defeat the purpose of providing for the social SECURITY of the elderly.

 

Providing for the General Welfare is clearly listed as is taxation.

 

Agreed!

You are a genuine conservative who knows that doing what is best for We the People and the nation as a whole is more important than any partisan agenda.

The concept of ensuring that our senior citizens do not end up poverty stricken is anathema to those who are avaricious and self centered. They try to hide their shortcomings behind the cloak of "conservatism" but it doesn't cover their shameful greed and callous disregard for those who worked hard all of their lives but were less fortunate than others. Their cupidity cancels out any semblance of conservatism in the true sense of the term IMO.

 

Excellent idea and that surcharge should continue until 100% of the war debt is paid off. The ONLY caveat I would add is that if you or your child is currently serving then the surcharge is waived.

 

The market doesn't have to crash to lose all or most of your investments; poor selections can cost you a majority of your investments value.

https://financialmentor.com/investment-advice/risk-management-plan/worst-investment-loss/18177

https://www.quicksprout.com/2013/05/13/7-lessons-learned-from-losing-739135-in-bad-investments/

https://www.reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/5j2o5u/i_lost_my_entire_life_savings/

http://genxfinance.com/why-you-cant-make-money-investing/

http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/04/10-reasons-you-should-never-own-stocks-again/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_market_crashes_and_bear_markets

Social Security and defined pension plans may not make you a rich person, but they are your safety net, which is why I think we need them.

 

Ah what I nice thought! My son son served from 2005-2009 and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell of a thing, being a "war parent". I wouldn't wish it on any parent. I was in my 50s during those years, and I remember wishing I could pick up a rifle, send him home, and take his place. I'm sure I'm not the only parent who has thought that.

I did a single 3-year tour of duty in the Army when I was a young man in the 70s in peacetime just after the U.S. withdrew from Viet Nam. Decades later, when my son was in the Marines, I wished Uncle Sam would let me put on a uniform again and serve in some capacity stateside - perhaps as a trainer using my professional skills I developed during my lifetime. But of course, it doesn't work that way. But I really wanted to do something more.

So now I donate to three outstanding organizations. I have seen up close and personal what they do, and they are absolutely for real, absolutely outstanding.

The Gary Sinise Foundation

The Sentinels of Freedom

The Semper Fi Fund

Seth

 

Among other things, the report you have cited says the following:

"CBO’s projection of the 75-year actuarial deficit—the difference between a trust fund’s income rate and its cost rate—as a share of GDP has increased
from 1.45 percent of GDP in last year’s report to1.55 percent in the current analysis. The agency’s current projection of the 75-year cost rate as a percentage of GDP is 6.17 percent, about 1½ percent higher than last year’s projection of 6.07 percent. ...At 4.68 percent of taxable payroll, CBO’s projection of the 75-year actuarial deficit is higher than the agency’s 2015 projection of 4.37 percent. ...[T]he projection of the 75-year cost rate is 18.62 percent of taxable payroll, about 1½ percent higher than last year’s projection of 18.33 percent."

It is really quite difficult to find anything very heartening in this.

 

It appears to me that you are equating lower tax rates with less revenue generated.

And that is a sure sign of static scoring.

 

My advice to those "paycheck to paycheck" workers would be to follow the financial advice: Pay Yourself First.

In other words, even if you barely have enough money to make ends meet--and that, with considerable difficulty--still, put aside at least 10 percent of your net pay into long-term savings.

Secondly, pay all the bills before doing anything else.

If anything is left over--anything at all--then use it for pleasure.

In other words, planning for the future is really more important than having enjoyment today. Much more important.

 

Gee, that is really a trenchant reply...

 

Pay all your bills first and pay yourself first equal two firsts in case you didn't notice.

 

I'm talking about trillions of dollars in excessive SS payments that was supposed to be held in a trust to be available to pay for boomers' retirements.

The trust fund budget was "unified" with the general budget, which had the effect of hiding the approximately $200 billion SS surplus each year and hid the true size of the deficits being run. And, as you note, because the SS surplus were put into Treasuries, they have to be paid back by future tax revenues. Because the government has run up 19 trillion in debt since 1980 (in no small part thanks to tax cuts), those trust fund "investments" are an illusion. The boomers' retirements will now have to general tax revenues.

 

Year - SS deficit(-)/surplus(+)
1982 -7.9
1983 +0.2
1984 +0.3
1985 +9.4
1986 +16.7
1987 +19.6
1988 +38.8
1989 +52.4
1990 +58.2
1991 +53.5
1992 +50.7
1993 +46.8
1994 +56.8
1995 +60.4
1996 +66.4
1997 +81.3
1998 +99.4
1999 +124.7
2000 +150.8
2001 +162.7
2002 +162.0
2003 +160.2
2004 +150.0
2005 +171.1
2006 +184.5
2007 +180.4
2008 +188.4
2009 +139.4
2010 +81.7
2011 +68.0
2012 +64.6
2013 +37.6
2014 +27.0
2015 +25.6
2016 +34.1

Sum of surpluses since 1982: 2.8 trillion. Not including accrued interest.

Source: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/recurringdata/51134-2017-06-historicalbudgetdata.xlsx Table 1

RW propaganda mythology exposed once again.

I didn't say that. Non sequiturn, it implies no such think at all. It implies that Republicans are responsible for much of the debt.

LOL, and you were saying something about not understanding how US government budgeting works?

More RW propaganda, based on a worldview from RW propaganda media outlets.

First, spending under Obama was cut more than any president in modern history. Second, running up a debt does not "push the US to default", because the US can create its own currency. Finally, your claim that 22% of every tax dollar paid goes to interest on the national debt a grossly false RW propaganda.

Gross interest on the debt in 2016 was $432 billion (https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm), which is 11.2%. But the US government also received hundreds of billions in interest payment, from the Fed and others. Net interest on the debt was $240 billion in 2016. https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/recurringdata/51134-2017-06-historicalbudgetdata.xlsx Table 3. That represents 6.2% of outlays.

Could be. Anyone can say anything on the internet. Very, very few that have patience and the ability to read a financial statement achieve anything near the returns you've claimed.

I disagree that it makes sense to bankrupt the social security insurance system to pay the dole to billionaires.

 

Of course I am equating it. Revenues are a direct function of the effective tax rate applied gross national income. If you want do deny that, you are either ignorant of how the budget works, or being mislead by RW propaganda.

Many things can affect gross national income. If you want to claim that a tax cut necessarily increases gross national income by a factor that exceeds the amount of revenues lost due to a lower effective tax rate, I'd have to see your proof of that. And please include a discussion of how gross national income increase faster after the Clinton 1993 tax increase compared to the Reagan or Bush tax cuts.

 

So what happens when a family is earning $25K/yr and is saving $2,500/yr and then the car dies with 300,000 miles on it and so it becomes a question of either taking the saved money to buy another, "pre-owned" car so that the worker can get to work and keep his job, or spending a good part of the savings to fix the car and face continuing problems with a worn out car? Either way the savings will be depleted. And that assumes the family can live on $1,800/month.

We can do better than that, but not with this economic system.

 

Social Security is on the brink of demise--sadly is a lie

 

I only see the right wing liars publishing stories like that. I have studied S.S. and I have no knowledge of such "hiding".

Hold it. The Treasuries were fully paid for. How their redemption is arranged and funded has nothing at all to do with S.S. any more than does the redemption of Treasury bills that ordinary investors choose to invest in. It was the government who did whatever they did with the money in both cases. It's all on them. The investor is in no way responsible for the government's effective or ineffective management of any funds. Petition the government to pay up if you like, or to default on all Treasury securities if you prefer.

The $2.8 trillion in the T.F. is real money, honestly paid by workers. It's no "illusion". Or are you saying that the Treasuries currently held by foreign countries, pension funds, mutual funds, and individual investors are also all "illusions"?

 

You're calling me "right wing"?

LOL, in my 8 years on this board, I think that's a first. That covers just about the entire spectrum.

You aren't aware of how they unified the budget between SS and the general operating budget? Your study has been deficient.

And where is the Govt going to get the money to pay the interest and principal of those notes?

I never claimed otherwise.

Again you show your ignorance. The money in the SS trust fund is not dollars or reserves. It is IOUs by the Govt. To pay for those IOUs, the Govt is going to have to raise revenues from somewhere, just as if it would have to do if the IOUs didn't exist and they pay SS obligations.

It's really been a giant scam to increase taxes on the working middle/poorer classes to fund tax cut mostly benefiting the m/billionaires.

 

No. Can't I refer to a section of society without you thinking I'm calling you something?

Yes I am. Are you aware that the Trust Funds already existed and this budgeting change didn't change them?

Interest? -the same place as it gets the money to pay interest on private and institutional investment in marketable Treasury bills.
Principle? -from the Trust Fund of course. What do you think they're doing with the $2.8 trillion in the T.F.?

No, you are showing YOUR ignorance. Answer this: if you or a mutual fund invests in a Treasury bill, (1) does it not have a real dollar value? What is a $10,000 T-bill actually worth at maturity? Do you know? and (2) is that T-bill an "IOU"?

My bet is that you will not answer these questions.

Your positions on this are all right wing positions. Yet you say you're not right wing. Well ok, I'm not a lefty then.

Your political positions define your political alignment.

 

Sigh.

SS, once again, is not on the brink of demise.

 

Not when you are directly quoting my post creating the inference that you are referring to me.

Not really. They had trust funds to hold small surpluses that might have been left over in any given year, but before around 1983, SS was basically a "pay-go" and there was not significant trust fund nor any plan to overcharge working folks to build one up.

Dodging? Which is where? Tax revenues, or more debt.

There is no cash or money in the TF. Only IOUs.

No, no, no. You really aren't seeing what is happening, or you'd never ask such a question. I (or a mutual fund) am not the government, which is the entity issuing the debt.

If you want an analogy, it would be like this: I have an extra $20k every year I can save and invest. But instead of saving or investing the cash, I create an IOU from me to myself for $20k, and then spend the extra $20k on stuff I want. So after spending the $20k, now all I have a $20k IOU (to myself).

That is what the government is doing since about 1983, to the tune of $2.8T.

Now ask your questions. Does that IOU to myself have a real dollar value? What is my IOU worth at maturity?

Your questions revealed your fundamental misunderstanding as to what is happening. With SS, the same entity is spending the money and writing an IOU to itself.

If to you the truth is a RW position, that's your opinion.

I wasn't aware that truth is a "RW" position. Quite the contrary.

 

It is not, but it is on the brink of not receiving sufficient funding from current revenue sources, and the supposed SS trust fund is a mirage. To maintain SS, additional revenues will need to be generated, or more debt will be incurred.

But there is one thing that has put SS on a collision course with itself.

When SS was created, it had a retirement age of 65 at a time when the average joe didn't live a year or two more than that. It was never expected to fund retirements lasting an average of 15 years.