• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social Security reserves forecast to run dry in 2022

haymarket said:
J-mac

The Constitution clearly authorizes the government to undertake programs like Social Security. I gave you the language, you read the language, you quoted the language but you stand there pretending that a blueberry is not blue even though your eyes tell you it is. So it seems rather pointless for me to tell you what the Constitution means and you to deny it and tell me what you think it means. We get nowhere that way. It just becomes your opinion versus my opinion.
Click to expand...


OMG! I didn't say that SS was authorized by the Constitution of the United States you did. Then when I ask you to show me where, you give some, simple minded snarky answer about how it is right there in the pre amble of the document, to which I posted it and asked you to show me where. Now you say that you will not show where you take that from, and go further and dishonestly say that I saw it and are intentionally playing some sort of game...Where in the real world does that sort of convoluted logic ever pass as anything other than obfuscation, and flat out distortion on your part?


What we need is some independent body who is schooled on the Constitution and can make that judgment independent of what you and I believe.
Click to expand...


When you say "independent body" why do I get the feeling that you deep down mean a panel that can rest on their acdemic pedegree to tell me that the sky is orange. Look, an acdemic pedegree doesn't outweigh the strength of my argument.

That would be the United States Supreme Court. This will help educate you
Click to expand...


And this is the problem that we run into. The USSC should not be setting precident that in effect creates law, or as in the case of abortion some percieved 'right' unanumerated by the population, and circumvent the 10th amendment. That you ascribe to a body of unelected lifetime appointees that once seated are accountable to virtually NO ONE! And basically dumping the Constitution in favor of implementing an agenda against the will of the people.


So lets forget about your opinion as well as my opinion. We have the opinion of the actual independent body whose opinion has the weight of law behind it.
Click to expand...

Is that your feeling of say "Citizens United" as well?


If you want to argue, they are located in Washington DC. There is a very good restaurant a few blocks from their building and I would be happy to recommend it to you while to go and cross verbal swords with the nine justices.
Click to expand...

I know DC pretty well, and doubt whether you have the juice to arrange anything of the sort. This is just example of you trying Allenski tactic to shift the debate, and deflect.

I do not know you and will not pass judgment upon your own evaluation of your own character.
Click to expand...

As is proper.

For now, I take you at your word.
Click to expand...

For now? Why, do you plan of visiting, and meeting me? I look forward to it.

Regarding the government and Social Security, I know this: not one person in the last 75 years has been denied Social Security benefits in full when they completed their obligations in the program.
Click to expand...

And it now has trillions of dollars in unfunded liability. But you would ignore that...


Not one person has come up short.
Click to expand...

Well, that is a matter of opinion. See since SS was set up as a ponzi scheme where the time period was never meant originally to pay back everything that individual contributed during their lifetime never took into account that life expectancy has increased dramatically and now not only pays out everything, but in fact over the course of collection, more than the individual paid in.

Do you favor raising the age of collection to that which would be in line with today's life expectancy?

The US Government has honored and paid each and every one of their obligations. They have never defaulted on their Social Security obligations.
Click to expand...

And defaulting is NOT what we are talking about here. Why are you deflecting?

j-mac
 
MoSurveyor said:
Essentially, every Treasury Bond is a government IOU. As long as all those financial wizards who believe US Treasuries are one of the safest investments on the planet get turned down as well then I'm good with that.

And you thought the last financial crisis was a doozy! Wait until the World finds out US Treasuries are junk ... :devil:
Click to expand...

Standard & Poors made a similar mistake in downgrading the U.S. credit rating. Since its initial downgrade, the yield curve has been flirting with all-time lows. If you are wondering what junk trades at, see Merrill Lynch High Yield CCC.
 
J-Mac, SS was not set up as a Ponzi scheme. In its original design, it works just fine. The billions of dollars collected over the years, thru the principle of compound interest, would be sufficient to fund it forever. Basically the payments would all be Capital Gains.

However, over the years, the fund has been raided by every politician imaginable. Clinton and Newt were the worst with their paper "surplus". If the benefits had only been taken frm dividends and other programs kept their hands out of the cookie jar, we would not be facing the collapse that is staring us in the face.

The sad thing is that off this had been done in the private sector, the responsible parties that stole money from the retirement fund would all be in jail....
 
Chiefgator said:
J-Mac, SS was not set up as a Ponzi scheme. In its original design, it works just fine. The billions of dollars collected over the years, thru the principle of compound interest, would be sufficient to fund it forever. Basically the payments would all be Capital Gains.
Click to expand...

Question: What investment vehicle carries the higher rate of return? A. depository account B. U.S. Treasury certificates
 
Kushinator said:
Question: What investment vehicle carries the higher rate of return? A. depository account B. U.S. Treasury certificates
Click to expand...

I do not know. Please enlighten me.

However, how does this matter? No matter what one would have made the most money over the life of the investment has no bearing on the fact that the money that was made was placed in the general fund and spent on many other things.
 
liblady said:
I think the only way ss will go away is if WE let it go away.
Click to expand...

Exactly. What is happening is the fraud of the self fulfilling prophecy taking over - especially in the minds of many younger Americans. They have swallowed this idea that SS will not be there for us. That only plays right into the hands of some politicians who someday will use that as part of the reason to try and deny it to you. They are helping to create the psychology of their own defeat.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
LOL, geez, what rock are you living under? The constitution says nothing about social security; the money was squandered, not invested; and you can't pay your debts if you're using that money to buy votes.
Click to expand...

No rock. I live in reality. It seems you are the one who lives somewhere else other than that.
 
Chiefgator said:
I do not know. Please enlighten me.

However, how does this matter? No matter what one would have made the most money over the life of the investment has no bearing on the fact that the money that was made was placed in the general fund and spent on many other things.
Click to expand...

The excess revenue which flows into the general fund should always be invested in U.S. government securities. For one, it guarantees a risk free rate of return that is higher than any depository institution is capable of matching given the sheer quantity involved in the said trust fund. Secondly, unless the Treasury is unable to meet its obligations to the SS Fund, there is no reason to be worried about SS solvency.
 
haymarket said:
Exactly. What is happening is the fraud of the self fulfilling prophecy taking over - especially in the minds of many younger Americans. They have swallowed this idea that SS will not be there for us. That only plays right into the hands of some politicians who someday will use that as part of the reason to try and deny it to you. They are helping to create the psychology of their own defeat.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I meant, thanks.
 
Kushinator said:
The excess revenue which flows into the general fund should always be invested in U.S. government securities. For one, it guarantees a risk free rate of return that is higher than any depository institution is capable of matching given the sheer quantity involved in the said trust fund. Secondly, unless the Treasury is unable to meet its obligations to the SS Fund, there is no reason to be worried about SS solvency.
Click to expand...

And IF the Treasury is unable to meet its obligations, all bets are off anyway.
 
AdamT said:
And IF the Treasury is unable to meet its obligations, all bets are off anyway.
Click to expand...

Exactly. IMO, if such an event is to take place, it is the beginning of WWIII.
 
Chiefgator said:
J-Mac, SS was not set up as a Ponzi scheme. In its original design, it works just fine.
Click to expand...

SS was set up as people paying into a fund that pays out to those collecting. IOW, it isn't your money that you paid in that you are getting, it is someone elses money that they are funding the program today, that pays you.

Here is the definition of a 'ponzi' scheme...

A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors.

"Ponzi" Schemes
Click to expand...

How is it fundementally different?

The billions of dollars collected over the years, thru the principle of compound interest, would be sufficient to fund it forever.
Click to expand...

And why should the government benefit from compound interest on my money, and not me?

Basically the payments would all be Capital Gains.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't Capital Gains infer that I make money over and above my initial investment?

However, over the years, the fund has been raided by every politician imaginable. Clinton and Newt were the worst with their paper "surplus". If the benefits had only been taken frm dividends and other programs kept their hands out of the cookie jar, we would not be facing the collapse that is staring us in the face.
Click to expand...

Yep. Politicans have consistantly raided those funds, and included them in the General Fund to pay for out of control entitlement programs. So, I say, let me invest my own money.

The sad thing is that off this had been done in the private sector, the responsible parties that stole money from the retirement fund would all be in jail....
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And welcome to the forum BTW.


j-mac
 
ok, So what happens when the money that is coming in cannot maintain the outflow? My point is that if less went into the general fund, then that circumstance would never happen.

Or am I missing something?
 
Chiefgator said:
ok, So what happens when the money that is coming in cannot maintain the outflow? My point is that if less went into the general fund, then that circumstance would never happen.

Or am I missing something?
Click to expand...


No I think you have it. In fact I would be happy if they did away with it and gave my money back to me so that I could invest it myself.


j-mac
 
Chiefgator said:
ok, So what happens when the money that is coming in cannot maintain the outflow?
Click to expand...

Then we have to reform the program e.g. increasing FICA contributions from both employees and employers. Shifts in demographic patterns are sure to disrupt previous legislation, and therefore reform should always be open to debate when these shifts begin to take shape.

Something interesting to note. Most recent actuarial models show that recipients on the higher income end tend to draw more from the SS fund than low income recipients for a rather obvious reason... they live much longer!
 
j-mac said:
No I think you have it. In fact I would be happy if they did away with it and gave my money back to me so that I could invest it myself.


j-mac
Click to expand...

And if you don't? Or say you become ill to the point where your expenditures hit your insurance cap; are you willing to die to preserve money you cannot take with you (pre-medicare)?
 
j-mac said:
No I think you have it. In fact I would be happy if they did away with it and gave my money back to me so that I could invest it myself.


j-mac
Click to expand...

You make the fundamental mistake of thinking of Social Security as an individual retirement account. In a way, there is something of that as one component of it. However, do look at it in those limited terms is to intentionally and deliberately ignore the broader SOCIAL aspects of the program as it applies to the much larger and broader society. I have previously linked to evidence that the namers of the program gave it the name change they did just for those reasons.
 
Last edited:
Kushinator said:
And if you don't?
Click to expand...

If I don't what? invest it? That would be my problem wouldn't it?

Or say you become ill to the point where your expenditures hit your insurance cap; are you willing to die to preserve money you cannot take with you (pre-medicare)?
Click to expand...

Wait a minute....How is it a "Libertarian" is concerned with what I do with MY money?


Then we have to reform the program e.g. increasing FICA contributions from both employees and employers.
Click to expand...


Contrabutions? It is a tax. Taxes are not contrabutions, they are taken by the force of government. And your answer is to take more of MY money? How much of what I earn through MY own hard work, is mine?



j-mac
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
You make the fundamental mistake of thinking of Social Security as an individual retirement account.
Click to expand...

No, I really don't...I have a 401K, and an IRA backed by gold. But I would like to get back the money I've paid in since I was 15 years old....

However, do look at it in those limited terms is to intentionally and deliberately ignore the broader SOCIAL aspects of the program as it applies to the much larger and broader society.
Click to expand...


So it is another wealth redistribution scheme based on a lie.

I have previously linked to evidence that the namers of the program gave it the name change they did just for those reasons.
Click to expand...

Yep, progressives all...I think you know my opinion of them.


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Wait a minute....How is it a "Libertarian" is concerned with what I do with MY money?
Click to expand...
I'm not concerned with your money, I'm more concerned about what WE will have to do with your living body when YOU can no longer afford to keep it alive.
 
j-mac said:
If I don't what? invest it? That would be my problem wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

No. That would become societies problem in the event you fail to adequately invest said proceeds properly.

Wait a minute....How is it a "Libertarian" is concerned with what I do with MY money?
Click to expand...

Your red herring has no meaning. My political lean is of no consequence to this discussion.

Contrabutions? It is a tax. Taxes are not contrabutions, they are taken by the force of government. And your answer is to take more of MY money? How much of what I earn through MY own hard work, is mine?
Click to expand...

You can play the game of semantics all you like. The fact of the matter is, shifts in demographics will render previous mandates incapable of meeting future demands. Therefore, greater contributions are required to offset ramifications of a low (relative) birth rate in the U.S..
 
mosurveyor said:
i'm not concerned with your money, i'm more concerned about what we will have to do with your living body when you can no longer afford to keep it alive.
Click to expand...

bingo!!!!!
 
Kushinator said:
Then we have to reform the program e.g. increasing FICA contributions from both employees and employers. Shifts in demographic patterns are sure to disrupt previous legislation, and therefore reform should always be open to debate when these shifts begin to take shape.

Something interesting to note. Most recent actuarial models show that recipients on the higher income end tend to draw more from the SS fund than low income recipients for a rather obvious reason... they live much longer!
Click to expand...

I know the reform is in order, and I thank you for providing me an example of a type of reform that is forthcoming. This still does not quell my anger over the fact that if the money was never taken out and put into the general fund, we would not need reform.
 
Chiefgator said:
I know the reform is in order, and I thank you for providing me an example of a type of reform that is forthcoming. This still does not quell my anger over the fact that if the money was never taken out and put into the general fund, we would not need reform.
Click to expand...

Reform is not needed due to the SS funds investment in U.S. Treasury securities. It stems primarily from two critical shifts in demographics: 1.) The countries birth rate is not what it once was, therefore the workers entering the "pool" do not equate to the amount of people leaving the "pool" (nor do their contributions match in any way what is being payed out). 2.) Middle class/upper middle class workers are living longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom