Social Security solvent till 2055 - this is a crisis?
Chancey Gardner
the next 50 years (and after that, it will still be able to pay 81% of benefits
with no drastic changes.) So why is Bush and company trying to manufacture a
fake crisis and trash a perfectly functional system? The answer is simple - they
have been raiding the Social Security trust fund all these years (which is
predominantly paid by low and lower middle class Americans) and now they decide
that they don't want to pay back this robbery. So they create a crisis out of
thin air and pretend like all the money they stole was gone before they got
here. This is the same exact logic every two bit criminal will preach when he is
busted and put in jail.
Don't believe Bush and company. Social Security is perfectly fine. If the
govenment would pay back the 2 trillion they have stolen from "our" trush fund,
it would be in even better shape. Bush would rather give massive tax cuts to the
upper 1% of America than pay back the stolen money.
STOP RAIDING SOCIAL SECURITY YOU PIECE OF SHIT BUSH!
Chedley
It is important to understand that the real "crisis" is not that of Social
Security but of the US government budget deficit.
As such, the "social security crisis" is really a result, a trojan horse or
a manufactured crisis to deflect from the real issue of government deficits
that nobody wants to confront it.
"Chancey Gardner" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:LVNvd.757744$8_6.586444@attbi_s04...
George Hale
for other government expenditures, such sums being added to the Social
Security "trust fund", a meaningless loan the government has made to itself?
They changed under the Lyndon Johnson administration. You should have been
here then. You could have carried a sign with your last sentence below,
replacing BUSH with LBJ. I would have supported you.
The claims that Social Security (isolated from the rest of the federal
government) is "solvent" for the next 50 years assumes that cash from some
combination of income taxes and increases in the national debt is flowing
into Social Security from the general fund, totaling about $1.5 TRILLION!!
Ain't gonna happen.
As for now, quit believing everything you hear. Makes you look like an
idiot. The election's over. Get
over it. Move on.
"Chancey Gardner" <nos...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:LVNvd.757744$8_6.586444@attbi_s04...
Tom Betz
news:aTYvd.14$n13....@news.uswest.net:
> The claims that Social Security (isolated from the rest of the federal
> government) is "solvent" for the next 50 years assumes that cash from
> some combination of income taxes and increases in the national debt is
> flowing into Social Security from the general fund, totaling about
> $1.5 TRILLION!!
But the money has been flowing the other way, from the Social Security
Trust Fund into US Treasury Bonds for the last 40 years.
The Social Security Trust Fund is invested in US Treasuries. Those
Treasuries are due and payable.
Are you suggesting the the US Government must default on its debt
obligation to the people of the United States?
--
George Bush's War of Choice on Iraq is a totally unnecessary war.
Every life lost, every limb lost, every disfigurement, every
disability caused there is more blood on George W. Bush's hands,
and on the hands of everyone who voted for George W. Bush.
For the facts on Iraq, see <http://optruth.org>.
Feeling a draft? <http://shorterlink.com/?930B5U>
Alan Lichtenstein
Please. Social Security is NOT fine. It is improperly funded and will not have
the funds to pay benefits after 2042. You yourself admit that it will only be able
to pay 81% of benefits. Where will the extra money come from at that time? An
answer from you would be appreciated.
You further say that if the Government would pay back the 2 trillion dollars it
stole( I use the more polite word 'appropriated' ) that it would be fine. I
agree. Kindly tell me where THAT money will come from?
The world waits. Until you answer those questions, please stop posting gibberish
that have a number of obvious faults.
Alan
Alan Lichtenstein
I do not disagree that the issues are intertwined. The the real issue
regarding Social Security is that it deigns to function like a retirement plan
but was never funded as one. So now, in addition to your problem, you still
have the original one which caused the symptoms that are now being discussed in
the first place.
Alan
George Hale
"Tom Betz" <spamme...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C08BA78372Ag...@216.168.3.44...
> "George Hale" <ssc...@ktc.com> wrote in
> news:aTYvd.14$n13....@news.uswest.net:
>
>> The claims that Social Security (isolated from the rest of the federal
>> government) is "solvent" for the next 50 years assumes that cash from
>> some combination of income taxes and increases in the national debt is
>> flowing into Social Security from the general fund, totaling about
>> $1.5 TRILLION!!
>
> But the money has been flowing the other way, from the Social Security
> Trust Fund into US Treasury Bonds for the last 40 years.
>
> The Social Security Trust Fund is invested in US Treasuries. Those
> Treasuries are due and payable.
>
> obligation to the people of the United States?
No, the question is not if the U.S. government will default on its debt to
itself!! I'm just saying that few people realize that it will require
either an increase in the national debt, and/or an increase in income taxes
in an amount equal to the "trust fund" balance if cash in the amount of the
purported
trust fund balance flows back to Social Security. The cash the trust fund
balance represents has long ago been spent. Treasury has to get some more
in that amount to be able to pay SS.
People are screaming about Bush running up the debt on Iraq. They are going
to pass out when they find out what it's going to take for the U.S.
Government to supply $1.5 Trillion to SS, so SS can use the money to
continue to pay benefits when FICA tax revenue drops below benefit payments
in 2018.
This cockamamie trust fund myth is only confusing the general public. It is
just an arithmetic sum, and maybe a bunch of unsold Treasury documents
hauled over to SS (although I doubt it -- I'm sure it's all on paper -- and
I DON 'T mean currency!).
If benefits aren't reduced, and social security cashes in the trust fund (or
if it doesn't , because there isn't one), getting $1.5 trillion back to SS
to make up for FICA tax shortfalls starting in 2018 is going to have to come
from somewhere:
1. Up the federal debt
2. Raise Income taxes
3. Raise FICA taxes.
(pardon my repetition, folks -- sometimes it's the third or fourth time you
say something that the other person finally starts to catch on...)
There's no other source, other than cutting out other federal spending. The
point is, trust fund or no trust fund, the cash has to come from somewhere,
and those are the only possibilities Treasury has to obtain it.
.
Bushsucks
earnings subject to SS taxation?
That makes SS solvent FOREVER, and allows for a 25% increase
in benefits after 2020.
And who GIVES A FUCK if the rich have to pay a bit more tax?
Alan Lichtenstein
> The NON-PARTISAN CBO says 2052.
they obviously ignore the demographic projections. At that time, there will be
insufficient receipts to pay benefits. Now, perhaps the CBO is making their 'guess' on
some other revenues, but the FACT of the matter is that there will be insufficient funds
in 2042 to pay benefits, because of the funding mechanism of Social Security.
> Why not just eliminate the maximum
> earnings subject to SS taxation?
Because it doesn't cure the disease; it only addresses the symptom. The disease will
return again. So postponing the problem is NOT solving it. You solve it by changing
the funding mechanism.
>
>
> That makes SS solvent FOREVER, and allows for a 25% increase
> in benefits after 2020.
Please. NO ANNUITY( which Social Security functions like ) can EVER be solvent unless
it has some kind of interest rate assumption built in to the risk factors. And
furthermore, you need an aggregate to fund an annuity, which is built up through money
growth over time, something which Social Security DOESN'T do. So, you have a plan which
functions like an annuity, but isn't funded the way an annuity is supposed to be
funded. THAT'S why you have problems. The best way to describe it is with the term
'Ponzi Scheme."
>
>
> And who GIVES A FUCK if the rich have to pay a bit more tax?
You should, because the solution is NOT a simple as your limited knowledge base leads
you to believe.. EVen if they appropriated all Bill Gates' millions, they couldn't
begin to fund Social Security. The problem is just too great.
Alan
( remainder of post snipped-follow thread )
Tom Betz
@news.uswest.net:
> 2. Raise Income taxes
Better yet, undo the millionare tax cuts imposed since 2000.
> 3. Raise FICA taxes.
Or raise (or remove) the $90,000 FICA cutoff. Remove it entirely, and we
won't even need to means-test benefits -- or tax them.
Bob Curtin
wrote:
Alan, don't waste your time with Bushsucks. He's a retarded,
anti-Semitic, racist fool who loves to read his own writing - they are
the only writings he can understand.
Bob Curtin
http://www.freemuslims.org/
___________________________
"Both egalitarians and those who
think they have a blanket superiority
to the rest of us have missed the point.
We are all superior to each other -- and
are all inferior to each other. It all
depends on when and what. The economic
disasters of socialism and communism
come from assuming a blanket superiority
of those who want to run a whole economy."
Thomas Sowell
dele...@gmail.com
structure was ever implemented in Social Security. Personally, I think
Social Security's true purpose was to provide the federal government
with extra tax revenues without calling it "Income tax". At the very
least, that is how SS has been treated for the last 40 years. Likely,
having been left to it's own devices without raiding it to fund
military spending, Social Security would never have been in such a
crisis today. President Bush is absolutely correct, the lack of
ownership rights in social security has allowed previous
administrations to spend much more than it earns. This might sound
ignorant, but, I've always believed that under normal economic
circumstances (not including the Great Depression and the 1970-80 wild
inflation rates) the federal government should never spend more than it
recieves in taxes. Clinton had it correct with the balanced budget. If
people ran their personal finances like the federal government does
they would have defaulted on their loans and been out on the streets
begging for money, which is what the federal government does anyways.
Beg for money from foreign investors. This country both publicly and
privately has collectively spent itself into bankruptcy. The
establishment of consumerism has pushed us to the brink of economic
disaster and if unchecked will actually succeed. We MUST ignore the
commercials and SAVE money! It must be installed into the collective
mind of the younger generation which already believes they're being
handed an unfair dept by their parents and grandparents.
Jonas Harrow
President Bush should be commended for promising to address the looming
Social Security crisis during his second term, a crisis that Congress and
successive presidents have ignored for decades. Hopefully Americans will
realize that the notion of Social Security as an insurance program is a lie,
and that Congress has not put their Social Security contributions into any
trust fund.
Most Americans already know that Social Security is in trouble. Demographic
shifts and an aging population have undermined the unspoken foundation of
the system, which is the practice of taxing younger generations to pay
benefits for current retirees. Younger generations, however, simply aren't
big enough to pay for the millions of baby boomers who will begin retiring
in the next decade. When Social Security began in the 1930s, many Americans
never reached age 65. Today, however, millions of retirees live well into
their eighties and nineties. These realities mean the current system could
collapse in as little as twenty to thirty years.
Seniors hope the system will hold together for the remainder of their lives,
while younger working people hope government will somehow fix things before
they retire. Not surprisingly, Congress has chosen to ignore the problem
until it becomes acute. It's hard to sell voters on austerity today to avoid
a relatively distant crisis. Politicians usually operate on the opposite
principle, by promising great things now and leaving the bills for others to
pay later.
The greatest threat to your Social Security retirement funds is Congress
itself. Congress has never required that Social Security tax dollars be kept
separate from general revenues. In fact, the Social Security "trust fund" is
not a trust fund at all. The dollars taken out of your paycheck are not
deposited into an account to be paid to you later. On the contrary, they are
spent immediately to pay current benefits, and to fund completely unrelated
federal programs. Your Social Security administration "account" is nothing
more than an IOU, a hopeful promise that enough younger taxpayers will be
around to pay your benefits later. Decades of spendthrift congresses have
turned the Social Security system into a giant Ponzi scheme, always
dependent on new generations. The size and longevity of the Baby Boom
generation, however, will finally collapse the house of cards.
We've all heard proposals for "privatizing" the Social Security system. The
best private solution, of course, is simply to allow the American people to
keep more of their paychecks and invest for retirement as they see fit. But
putting Social Security funds into government-approved investments could
have dangerous consequences. Private companies would become a partner of
sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their
invested Social Security funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to
cover payments to current beneficiaries, as the President alluded to when
warning us that fixing Social Security would be "costly."
Furthermore, who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other
investment vehicles deserve government approval? Which politicians would you
trust to build an investment portfolio with billions of your Social Security
dollars? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money
management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment
decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large
campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would
seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free
market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its
stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors
hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If a company successfully
lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax
dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock
price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company's honest
competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private
market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.
The Social Security crisis is a spending crisis. The program could be saved
tomorrow if Congress simply would stop spending so much money, apply even
10% of the bloated federal budget to a real trust fund, and begin saving
your contributions to earn simple interest. That this simple approach seems
impossible speaks volumes about the inability of Congress to cut spending no
matter what the circumstances.
November 9, 2004
Bushsucks
current non-retirees to the retired and disabled.
Currently, there is $150 billion MORE a year coming in then there
is outlaid. These surpluses will continue for 12 to 20 more years,
after which either A)the Government will have to kick in a TOKEN
annual additional amount, or B) FICA tax collections will have
to increase SLIGHTLY (as by raising the FICA cap; or better yet,
makuing FICA applicable to ALL INCOME including interest, dividends,
cap gains and lottery winnings - WHATEVER.)
If the latter is done, the rate could be cut IN HALF.
Alan Lichtenstein
> Social Security is not like an "annuity". It is a money tranfer from
> current non-retirees to the retired and disabled.
You are incorrect because you confuse the nature of the plan with a funding mechanism of the
plan. Social Security promises a lifetime benefit, based on a formula that considers
earnings and years worked, as well as risk factors which age in which the benefit begins to
be received since life is indeterminate, the plan will have to pay that benefit until
death. Plans that pay indeterm inate benefits are called annuities. so, Social Security
functions like an annuity.
Now where does the money come to PAY those benefits? That is determined by the funding
mechanism of the plan. So considering ONLY the funding aspect of the plan, you would be
correct in asserting that Social Security is a money transfer plan. But if you examine
annuities, which Social Security indeed functions like in the manner in which it pays
benefits, then you will see that EVERY annuity, be they in the public or private sector are
funded through money growth which is achieved through investment. And because of the funding
mechanism of Social Security, coupled with the way it wants to pay benefits, we indeed have a
very serious problem.
>
>
> Currently, there is $150 billion MORE a year coming in then there
> is outlaid. These surpluses will continue for 12 to 20 more years,
> after which either A)the Government will have to kick in a TOKEN
> annual additional amount, or B) FICA tax collections will have
> to increase SLIGHTLY (as by raising the FICA cap; or better yet,
> makuing FICA applicable to ALL INCOME including interest, dividends,
> cap gains and lottery winnings - WHATEVER.)
>
> If the latter is done, the rate could be cut IN HALF.
Predictions indicate that there will be insufficient funds to pay benefits from receipts at
approximately 2018. At around 2042 or 2052, the surpluses due to the treasury notes will
similarly be exhausted, and Social Security will be in deficit. Since the holdings are
currently around 2 trillion dollars, which are in reality, I.O.U.'s by the Government, the
Government will have to kick in at least that amount at that time, and very likely more. My
friend, you aren't going to obtain those moneys with TOKEN increases. That is a SERIOUS
shortfall.
Now as to your other incorrect assertion about raising the cap. Since Social Security
functions like an annuity both in the way it guarantees benefits and calculates the benefits,
you see that income is a factor in that equation( which you may see for yourself from Social
Security ). By limiting the earnings, that has the effect of skewing the benefits towards
lower incomes, thus achieving a goal of Social Security to give more towards those who need
it more while retaining the annuity-like benefit for all. A very ingenious idea and factor.
Raising the cap on earnings would indeed bring in somewhat more in receipts( but not nearly
the 2 trillion which is needed ), but it would skew the benefit formula upwards, thus
reducing the money available for the middle and low. But you can assert this because, you
clearly do not understand the difference between the nature of the plan and how it is funded,
an error you asserted at the onset.
Actually, the only effective way to achieve the necessary aggregates to pay benefits for an
individual's lifetime is through investment. had Social Security funds been invested at
market rates, there would have been sufficient funds to pay benefits at no expense to the
Government. And since those benefits would be paid out of moneys grown through private
sector investment, there would be no need to increase FICA taxes or cut benefits. In point
of fact, what likely would have occurred is that there would have been so much money
available that there could have even been an FICA TAX CUT. and That would have been a real
tax cut for the middle and working class.
Alan
Bushsucks
time, Congress can CHANGE the "promised" benefits.
And addressing your 2042 case, excerpted below:
" At around 2042 or 2052, the surpluses due to the treasury notes will
similarly be exhausted, and Social Security will be in deficit. Since
the holdings are currently around 2 trillion dollars, which are in
reality,
I.O.U.'s by the Government, the Government will have to kick in at least
that amount at that time, and very likely more. "
WRONG, dear Alan. As "old" debt matures and its holders seek
redemption
(like Bush should be seeking for LYING about SS!" ) the government
simply
issues NEW debt, in an orderly fashion, and uses those proceeds to pay
the
holders of the OLD debt the cash promised in their their notes or bonds.
If, for example, $30 billion of bonds / notes mature in 2042 and each
year thereafter, the government IN THE YEAR 2042 sells $30 billion of
NEW bonds maturing 10 to 30 years later, and uses the proceeds to
pay off the 2042 redemptions. This is an ORDERLY, ANNUAL PROCESS.
And in 2042 or 2052, if the SS recipients need $800 billion annually,
but the system is only taking in $760 billion, the government either
sells an ADDITIONAL $40 billion in bonds, or raises the SS taxes
IN THE YEAR 2040 by 5% - a TOKEN amount, which can be done by raising
the SS tax slightly or by raising the cap or broadening the base to
make ALL income subject to SS tax. Or they could CUT SS benefits by 5%.
The "SS Crisis" is a Wall Street MANUFACTURED crisis.
> friend, you aren't going to obtain those moneys with TOKEN increases. That is a SERIOUS
> shortfall.
Alan Lichtenstein
> I reiterate. Social Security is NOT like an annuity, because at any
> time, Congress can CHANGE the "promised" benefits.
Annuities also change to add cost of living benefits. Happens all the time. I reiterate, any
plan which deigns to promise a lifetime benefit is functioning like an annuity. And the annuities
that provide those benefits are funded to generate those benefits. Social Security is not, and
that is the problem.
>
>
> And addressing your 2042 case, excerpted below:
>
> " At around 2042 or 2052, the surpluses due to the treasury notes will
> similarly be exhausted, and Social Security will be in deficit. Since
> the holdings are currently around 2 trillion dollars, which are in
> reality,
> I.O.U.'s by the Government, the Government will have to kick in at least
> that amount at that time, and very likely more. "
>
> WRONG, dear Alan. As "old" debt matures and its holders seek
> redemption
> (like Bush should be seeking for LYING about SS!" ) the government
> simply
> issues NEW debt, in an orderly fashion, and uses those proceeds to pay
> the
> holders of the OLD debt the cash promised in their their notes or bonds.
Unfortunately for you I am indeed correct. ALL demographic projections reveal that at 2018,
Social Security will take in fewer dollars than are needed to pay benefits. Thus, beginning in
2018, there will be no further surplus in Social Security. There will be, however, all those
Government I.O.U.'s that will be redeemed to continue to pay benefits. There will be NO further
purchase of Treasury I.O.U.'s by Social Security after that date. And by all estimates even those
will be exhausted at either 2042 or 2052 depending on whose projections you choose to believe.
But regardless, at that time, Social Security will be in deficit with NO, repeat, NO source of
income to counter that deficit, other than the direct outlay by the Government, with all the
negative factors that entails.
You glibly write off the fact that the Government will issue new debt. You have no concept of how
much debt or whether or not anyone would BUY that debt. Well, lts' suppose they do. and just
WHO do you think is going to make good on that debt? Why it's YOU the taxpayer. and if you're
paying for debt, you can't be paying for other things, like the military, education, health care,
welfare and other incidentals.
But of course, you knew and understood that, didn't you?
>
>
> If, for example, $30 billion of bonds / notes mature in 2042 and each
> year thereafter, the government IN THE YEAR 2042 sells $30 billion of
> NEW bonds maturing 10 to 30 years later, and uses the proceeds to
> pay off the 2042 redemptions. This is an ORDERLY, ANNUAL PROCESS.
Agreed. but Social SEcurity holds only enough Treasury notes to keep it solvent until the year
2042. Remember, there will be NO, repeat, NO new purchase of Treasury securities after 2018. And
even considering purchasing those up to that date, which are declining in amount every year, those
will STILL run out in 2042. After that there will be no more I.O.U.'s to cash in. social
Security will be in deficit.
I fear that you have a somewhat restricted understanding of the problem.
>
>
> And in 2042 or 2052, if the SS recipients need $800 billion annually,
> but the system is only taking in $760 billion, the government either
> sells an ADDITIONAL $40 billion in bonds, or raises the SS taxes
> IN THE YEAR 2040 by 5% - a TOKEN amount, which can be done by raising
> the SS tax slightly or by raising the cap or broadening the base to
> make ALL income subject to SS tax. Or they could CUT SS benefits by 5%.
Obviously those are the alternative, IF WE WAIT UNTIL THE SHIT HITS THE FAN in 2042. but if we
solve the problem NOW, we very likely can avoid or at least postpone far into the future, the
problem WITHOUT having to either raise taxes or cut benefits.
>
>
> The "SS Crisis" is a Wall Street MANUFACTURED crisis.
Incorrect. The crisis is real, and anyone who understands either how retirement plans work, or
government finances understands that. If you recall, which likely you have forgotten, when
Clinton ran surpluses in the last three years of his administration, those surpluses were used to
pay down outstanding Government debt. Had Gore been elected, it is likely there would be no war
and we would still have surpluses, which gore would have further used to pay down debt. Thus, if
government debt was retired, social Security surpluses would extend beyond 2018, since we would
have retired debt and substituted cash. That is why the Democrats could make the claim that they
had saved Social Security, and had gore been elected, they might have actually done so. but he
wasn't. And the fact still remains that there is a funding problem.
Now, you want to blame Bush for increased deficits, and exacerbating the problems of Social
Security, go right ahead; I won't argue with you. But don't try to say that there is no problem;
there is. And the solution is to require Social Security to function like an annuity. In the
portion of my previous post, that is snipped, and to which you didn't respond, had we done that ,
and even if we do that now, we can perhaps stave off the deficit by substituting money growth for
Government debt, and may even be able to LOWER FICA taxes.
Now, I note you didn't reply to that. What are your 'informed' thoughts on that? You see you
need to think outside the box, and without a full understanding of retirement plans and how they
work, you don't have the background to do that. Sorry.
Bushsucks
under the fiscally irresponsible Bush Regime?
Since its inception, the USA has issued NEW debt to raise money
to pay off OLD debt. And we also issue other NEW debt to pay for
expanding programs, like Iraq and the military budget.
That will continue in the future. Issue NEW debt to pay off
holders of OLD debt, and issue additional SMALL increments of
NEW debt to fill the TINY annual gap between SS inflows and
outgoes until the Baby Boomers die off, and the population
demographics shift to a younger median age, with 3 to 5 workers
supporting each retiree in the middle of this century.
TH#ERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS.
Alan Lichtenstein
> Why do people and governments buy government debt NOW,
> under the fiscally irresponsible Bush Regime?
For a variety of reasons. In point of fact, a lot of Government debt is purchased by foreign
Governments.
>
>
> Since its inception, the USA has issued NEW debt to raise money
> to pay off OLD debt. And we also issue other NEW debt to pay for
> expanding programs, like Iraq and the military budget.
But they kept certain ceilings on debt. Those ceilings will not be controllable when Social Security
goes into deficit. Even with the ill-advised war, we can still manage debt. but we won't be able to
do so after 2018.
>
>
> That will continue in the future. Issue NEW debt to pay off
> holders of OLD debt, and issue additional SMALL increments of
> NEW debt to fill the TINY annual gap between SS inflows and
> outgoes until the Baby Boomers die off, and the population
> demographics shift to a younger median age, with 3 to 5 workers
> supporting each retiree in the middle of this century.
You seem to have absolutely no understanding of the magnitude of the debt that will have to be entered
into. The debt right now stands at 2 TRILLION dollars. do you have any idea what that represents? i
don't think you do. You just don't issue new debt to pay for that and expect your economy not to
tank. I really think you need some instruction in elementary economics, because you don't have any
concept of the amounts of money that you're talking about and how the government would get that.
>
>
> TH#ERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY CRISIS.
Oh, please. Your ignorance is magnitude. There is indeed a csisis, and it due to inadequate funding.
Your posts have revealed an ignorance into how Social Security functions, how reserves must be built up
to pay retirement benefits, and how Social Security doesn't do that. You think that there is a simple
solution. Well, my friend, simplicity is for the fundamentalist zealots who are ignorant. Most
thinking people realize that there are complexities that the simplistic mind fails to see. Such is
your problem. Social Security is in big trouble and you try mightily to convince yourself that such is
not the case. Do not delude yourself with hocus pocus economics and concepts which have no bearing to
reality. Please! Educate yourself. You don't have a clue. And if you did, then you could make a
better case for WHY Bush doesn't have a clue. But all you have no is an uninformed rant. and the fact
that you failed to refute the substance of my reply below is evidence of your ineptness and lack of
understanding.
Alan
surfer161
just where it went to; corporate tax relief and rich person's tax
relief.
roy goldfarb
Bushsucks
understand that the government does NOT have to pay any fuckin'
TWO TRI(LLION DOLLARS all at once? It's NOT like a tsunami
debt wave for Christ's sake.
For the NEXT FOURTEEN FUCKIN YEARS the government takes IN
more SS money than it pays out! Ib the 15th year they take in
about 98% of what they pay out. 45 years from now SS will take in
83% as much as it pays out IF WE DO NOTHING.
That means if the SS tax rate was increased by 1/6 in 2050,
ALL OUTLAYS IN 2050 WOULD BE COVERED. Looking at it in current rates,
it would require an SS tax rate of 7.2% instead of 6.2%.
THAT AIN'T NO FUCKIN' CRISIS, and there AIN'T NO TWO TRILLION
BUCKS NEEDED! We need to do NOTHING except hike the SS tax rate a
couple of tenths of one percent every decade!
THIS IS A BUSH- MANUFACTURED "CRISIS"! Phoney BUSH BULLSHIT!
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=5530&sequence=5&from=0
Bradley K. Sherman
| ...
| Just ask Stanley Logue of San Diego.
|
| For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the
| system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the
| recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts
| Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and
| check his own records. Would he have done better investing
| his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security
| Administration?
|
| He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system
| (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked
| down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for
| each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with
| what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the
| same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in
| the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends).
|
| To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out:
| $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.
| ...
<http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1227/p01s03-cogn.html>
--bks
beber
<impeachth...@moron.com> wrote:
>Are you this STUPID or are you faking it? Why don't you
>understand that the government does NOT have to pay any fuckin'
>TWO TRI(LLION DOLLARS all at once? It's NOT like a tsunami
>debt wave for Christ's sake.
>
> For the NEXT FOURTEEN FUCKIN YEARS the government takes IN
>more SS money than it pays out! Ib the 15th year they take in
>about 98% of what they pay out. 45 years from now SS will take in
>83% as much as it pays out IF WE DO NOTHING.
>
> That means if the SS tax rate was increased by 1/6 in 2050,
>ALL OUTLAYS IN 2050 WOULD BE COVERED. Looking at it in current rates,
>it would require an SS tax rate of 7.2% instead of 6.2%.
>
> THAT AIN'T NO FUCKIN' CRISIS, and there AIN'T NO TWO TRILLION
>BUCKS NEEDED! We need to do NOTHING except hike the SS tax rate a
>couple of tenths of one percent every decade!
>
> THIS IS A BUSH- MANUFACTURED "CRISIS"! Phoney BUSH BULLSHIT!
>
The problem is we have SPENT the ss trustfund.
CJT
It means we should pay back the money that was spent on other things.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Alan Lichtenstein
> Are you this STUPID or are you faking it? Why don't you
> understand that the government does NOT have to pay any fuckin'
> TWO TRI(LLION DOLLARS all at once? It's NOT like a tsunami
> debt wave for Christ's sake.
Well, issuing inflammatory remarks and using vulgarities doesn't make your point any more correct. What it
does is reinforce your ignorance. You don't have any understanding about how reserves need to be built up
in order to pay benefits. That two trillion dollars in reality, is part of the reserves that are needed to
pay benefits. True, it will be exhausted over the years, but if in the intervening years, no other reserves
are built up, the shortfall will again materialize, and in fact, in greater amount that the two trillion
dollars now. and so, my ignorant and unknowledgeable friend, who knows little about how reserves are needed
to fund annuities, after 2042, when the 2 trillion dollars in built up reserves is exhausted, what do you do
then? My friend, the 2 trillion dollars will l still be with us, except in 2042, there will be NO, repeat,
NO promissory notes to shore up the reserves. And current income will be insufficient to pay benefits.
>
>
> For the NEXT FOURTEEN FUCKIN YEARS the government takes IN
> more SS money than it pays out! Ib the 15th year they take in
> about 98% of what they pay out. 45 years from now SS will take in
> 83% as much as it pays out IF WE DO NOTHING.
Foolish boy. an nuity payments are based on reserves that are needed to pay benefits for the duration of
the risk factor. If that money isn't there, you can't pay benefits. Your problem is that you don't
understand that concept, and in your ignorance, you make faulty assumptions. Let me make it simple for
you. After 2018, Social Security will NOT be taking in sufficient funds to BOTH fund the future reserves of
those who WILL retire in the future AND PAY benefits of those current recipients. All they will be able to
do is pay benefits until 2042, using current receipts and redeeming the 2 trillion dollars in promissory
notes over that time. But after 2042, they will be approximately 2 trillion dollars in the hole for future
benefits with NO, repeat NO, repeat NO other source of income other than the Government.
And, my unknowledgeable friend, do you have any idea what 2 trillion dollars represents? I don't think you
do. It represents just about 1/4 of the current US GDP. Now, my ignorant friend, that translates into 1/4
of the US GDP just going to fund social security. and you think that there's nothing wrong with that?
Genius, what I have been telling you is that Social Security was improperly funded. had it bee properly
funded, the two trillion dollars would be there and would be continuing to be built up from outside
sources. But the government doesn't do that. It chose to use the surplus funds as its reserves, and it
worked because there were so many more paying in to the system than receiving benefits. But the shit hit
the fan now, because those numbers are reversing. And you can't continue to fund benefits like that. I
estimate that it requires NOW, approximately $600,000 for each annuitant, just to fund Social Security
benefits, not even counting disability or medicare supplements.
Genius, you don't know anything about how retirement plans work. You think if you yell louder and longer,
and hurl vulgar epithets, it somehow makes you more right. Well, genius, it doesn't. It does make your
ignorance more widely known, but it certainly doesn't make you right.
>
>
> That means if the SS tax rate was increased by 1/6 in 2050,
> ALL OUTLAYS IN 2050 WOULD BE COVERED. Looking at it in current rates,
> it would require an SS tax rate of 7.2% instead of 6.2%.
Hardly. that would not bring in anywhere near the 2 trillion dollars needed to fund the necessary
reserves. You of course have figures to cite your inane assertions? I doubt it.
>
>
> THAT AIN'T NO FUCKIN' CRISIS, and there AIN'T NO TWO TRILLION
> BUCKS NEEDED! We need to do NOTHING except hike the SS tax rate a
> couple of tenths of one percent every decade!
Foolish, ignorant boy. That, and $2.00 will get you on the subway. As far as saving Social Security, no
way Jose. I think we've reached the end of our discussion. You refuse to accept the evidence, and your
ignorance of how these mechanisms work further prevents you from understanding anything. So rant on.
>
>
> THIS IS A BUSH- MANUFACTURED "CRISIS"! Phoney BUSH BULLSHIT!
Hardly. It is a result of improper financing and misappropriation of funds for over 40 years.
Alan
1okguy
Posted via ProphetTalk
Home of Intelligent Investor Discussion
http://www.prophet.net/prophettalk
dumbax
> A couple of obvious things have been ignored.
>
> 1: With a privatized system you can invest in treasury bills if you like.
>
> 2: Assuming Stanley is divorced, with adult children, who gets his social
> security "fund" if he dies? The government.
>
Are you saying do away with Social Security ? Or is there a privatized plan in the works? I have not heard Bush outline any thing yet.
dumbax
>
> There are many plans out there. As usual I suppose politicians will work
> hard to weed out the best ideas and form a plan with the least chance of
> succeeding and the most chance for corruption.
>
That too is my fear and so maybe it is best to leave it alone and invest on the side....
Bushsucks
good as those held by your Aunt Tillie, or Japan and China.
http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html
Bushsucks
I wonder what took me so long. Read Krugman:
http://www.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html
tcarr
Krugman is a rabid bushater (tm) who's ANALysis is suspect at best
Try reading the SS Trustees report
It doesnt have too many big words and maybe someone can help you
understand it
"Long-Range Results
Under the intermediate assumptions the combined OASI and DI Trust Funds
are projected to become exhausted in 2042. For the 75-year projection
period, the actuarial deficit is 1.89 percent of taxable payroll, 0.03
percentage point smaller than in last year's report. The open group
unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is $3.7 trillion
in present value, $0.2 trillion more than the obligation estimated a
year ago.
The OASDI annual cost rate is projected to increase from 11.07 percent
of taxable payroll in 2004, to 16.83 percent in 2030, and to 19.29
percent in 2078, or to a level that is 5.91 percent of taxable payroll
more than the projected income rate for 2078. Expressed in relation to
the projected gross domestic product (GDP), OASDI cost is estimated to
rise from the current level of 4.3 percent of GDP, to 6.3 percent in
2030, and to 6.6 percent in 2078.
Between about 2010 and 2030, OASDI cost will increase rapidly due to
the retirement of the large baby-boom generation. After 2030, increases
in life expectancy and relatively low fertility rates will continue to
increase Social Security system costs, but more slowly. Annual cost
will exceed tax income starting in 2018 at which time the annual gap
will be covered with cash from redeeming special obligations of the
Treasury, until these assets are exhausted in 2042. Separately, the DI
fund is projected to be exhausted in 2029 and the OASI fund in 2044.
Solvency
The combined OASDI Trust Funds are projected to become insolvent (i.e.,
unable to pay scheduled benefits in full on a timely basis) when assets
are exhausted in 2042 under the long-range intermediate assumptions.
For the trust funds to remain solvent throughout the 75-year projection
period, the combined payroll tax rate could be increased during the
period in a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent increase of
1.89 percentage points, benefits could be reduced during the period in
a manner equivalent to an immediate and permanent reduction of 12.6
percent, general revenue transfers equivalent to $3.7 trillion (in
present value) could be made during the period, or some combination of
approaches could be adopted. Significantly larger changes would be
required to maintain solvency beyond 75 years. "
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_highlights.html#wp76455
Feeling any less ignorant "bushsucks?
T.Carr
Alan Lichtenstein
> I have concluded you are a fuckin' MORON, unable to do simple math.
The conclusions of an ignorant, vitriolic, dogmatic, know nothing, such as yourself are hardly valid
conclusions. I note, that you are unable to respond to the post below, except with an emotional inflammatory
remark. may do well to assuage your ego, but just because you think that you yell louder, and use more vulgar
language, it makes you right.
Well, foolish boy, it doesn't. Krugman has made a number of fallacious assumptions, the first and foremost of
which, he fails to address the funding mechanism of Social Security. He speaks of it from the point of the
economist who has interest only insofar as it is married to other government spending. And while those are
related, Krugman's solutions, DO NOT ,repeat, DO NOT address the failure of Social Security to aggregate needed
reserves to pay benefits in the manner that it does.
>
>
> I wonder what took me so long. Read Krugman:
Probably because you were too busy ranting and yelling and cursing. but as I said, we have no further profit in
discussing this issue. You just lack the understanding to make your comments valid.
Alan
( remainder of unreplied to post snipped-anyone who wants can read it and see this poster's inability and failure
to address the issues.
Bushsucks
That was my basis for the statement that by 2050, SS unmodified
will pay out 1/6 more than it takes in. Which means a hike in
the FICA rate from 6.2% to 7.2% in 2050 would solve the whole
fuckin' non-problem. Alternatively, raise the cap by half.
Your own quotation says THE SAME FUCKIN' THING:
"For the 75-year projection period, the actuarial deficit is 1.89
percent of taxable payroll". Since the WORKER pays half and the
employer pays half, a token increase from 6.2% to 7.15% in 2050
solves the whole fuckin' NON-PROBLEM.
Bush wants to DESTROY SS and give Wall Street a WINDFALL.
Bob Curtin
wrote:
Alan,
You are attempting to reason with the most ignorant, retarded, racist,
anti-Semite on the Usenet. Bushsucks is a hopelessly uneducated
welfare recipient whose whole world view is gleaned from the
Nitwitness News and Jerry Springer.
dumbax
dumbax
>
> I DID read the Trustee's Report. I CITED the fuckin' thing.
>
> That was my basis for the statement that by 2050, SS unmodified
> will pay out 1/6 more than it takes in. Which means a hike in
> the FICA rate from 6.2% to 7.2% in 2050 would solve the whole
> fuckin' non-problem. Alternatively, raise the cap by half.
>
> Your own quotation says THE SAME FUCKIN' THING:
>
> "For the 75-year projection period, the actuarial deficit is 1.89
> percent of taxable payroll". Since the WORKER pays half and the
> employer pays half, a token increase from 6.2% to 7.15% in 2050
> solves the whole fuckin' NON-PROBLEM.
>
rick++
year.
Plus its $2 trillion trust fund has a turnover of $200 million a year
(10 year
treasuries). Bush wants to allow 0.3% commisions, so that is nearly $2
billion
Wall Street is losing per year not managing Social Security.
Bushsucks
tcarr...@aol.com
indicates that the Fund will be insolvent in 2042, not 2050 as you keep
claiming it does
T.Carr
Bushsucks
of this thread
" At around 2042 or 2052, the surpluses due to the treasury notes will
similarly be exhausted, and Social Security will be in deficit."
I was addressing THAT time RANGE.
Get a fuckin' CLUE - your first.
Mark Roddy
>
> 1: With a privatized system you can invest in treasury bills if you like.
>
> 2: Assuming Stanley is divorced, with adult children, who gets his social
> security "fund" if he dies? The government.
>
disabled and lives to be 75, guess what? Under SS he receives benefits
from the time he is officially disabled until he croaks. Without SS he
is screwed. SS is an insurance system not an individual pension plan.
--
=====================
Mark Roddy DDK MVP
Windows 2003/XP/2000 Consulting
Hollis Technology Solutions 603-321-1032
www.hollistech.com
tcarr...@aol.com
I'm not quoting Mr Lichtensein (even though he has schooled you very
well on the subject)
I'm quoting the SS trustees
SS starts running a deficit after 2018 and begins redeeming its IOU's
It will be unable to meet its obligations after 2042
Lets try to cure your total abject ignorance one last time
"Short-Range Results
The OASI and DI Trust Funds, individually and combined, are adequately
financed over the next 10 years under the intermediate assumptions. The
combined assets of the OASI and DI Trust Funds are projected to
increase from $1,531 billion at the beginning of 2004, or 306 percent
of annual expenditures, to $3,584 billion at the beginning of 2013, or
442 percent of annual expenditures in that year. Combined assets were
projected in last year's report to rise to 309 percent of annual
expenditures at the beginning of 2004, and 461 percent at the beginning
of 2013.
Long-Range Results
Solvency
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR04/II_highlights.html#wp76455
I understand the above summary has a lot of big words you proabably do
not understand
Try to find a friend or relative to explain them to you
T.Carr
Lets see if the old adage "ignorance can be cured" applies to you
Bushsucks
" by 2050, SS unmodified will pay out 1/6 more than it takes in.
Which means a hike in the FICA rate from 6.2% to 7.2% in 2050 would
solve the whole fuckin' non-problem. Alternatively, raise the cap
by half."
Your own quotation says THE SAME FUCKIN' THING:
"For the 75-year projection period, the actuarial deficit is 1.89
percent of taxable payroll". Since the WORKER pays half and the
employer pays half, a token increase from 6.2% to 7.15% in 2050
solves the whole fuckin' NON-PROBLEM.
Bush wants to DESTROY SS and give Wall Street a WINDFALL.
Blash
<<Lessee: I guess I will have to RESTATE what I said before:>>
Your confusion possibly may come from the fact that you cross-post the
same crap to so many N/Gs........why don't you try to fine ONE where
possibly somebody gives a shit about your constant whining and moaning???