• 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 To Go Bust By 2030: CBO

So much of this campaign to cause people to lose faith in Social Security is part of a very cynical design that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. For those not familiar with the concept, please read this

Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the haters of SS and the just plain far right who want to weaken faith in government as an institution keep repeating often enough that SS is broke and you will not get your money someday and enough people believe it and do not clamor for reform like popping the cap to bring in new funds - it will indeed have the effect of making it easier for slimy politicians to turn their backs on the promise and renege on citizens in the future.

Keep repeating something often enough and sooner or later it can begin to have an impact on belief. That is the goal here make no mistake about it.

Politicians today know that if they dared to try to end the stem now their would be electoral hell to pay for them and their careers. So the third rail remains intact and fully powered up to fry anybody who dare touch it. But keep spreading the crap and fight reform at the same time while convincing younger people it is fated that they get screwed - then it makes it so much easier down the road to make them open their mouths and swallow even if they do not like the medicine.

Shame on anybody participating in this effort.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Family is another question. I am speaking about friends, who you hypothetically care about.

On what basis do you believe that solutions will be found?
Click to expand...

Solutions have to be found. If you don't believe that than you have no faith in this country.
 
haymarket said:
So much of this campaign to cause people to lose faith in Social Security is part of a very cynical design that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. For those not familiar with the concept, please read this

Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the haters of SS and the just plain far right who want to weaken faith in government as an institution keep repeating often enough that SS is broke and you will not get your money someday and enough people believe it and do not clamor for reform like popping the cap to bring in new funds - it will indeed have the effect of making it easier for slimy politicians to turn their backs on the promise and renege on citizens in the future.

Keep repeating something often enough and sooner or later it can begin to have an impact on belief. That is the goal here make no mistake about it.

Politicians today know that if they dared to try to end the stem now their would be electoral hell to pay for them and their careers. So the third rail remains intact and fully powered up to fry anybody who dare touch it. But keep spreading the crap and fight reform at the same time while convincing younger people it is fated that they get screwed - then it makes it so much easier down the road to make them open their mouths and swallow even if they do not like the medicine.

Shame on anybody participating in this effort.
Click to expand...

This isn't a Self-fulfilling prophecy. It is a cry in the wilderness of someone with self-validation issues. It literally says shame on anyone who disagrees with me.

The irony of your post is that you seek to end Social Security. Here is AJ Altmeyer on Social Security, "A sound contributory social insurance system has four main characteristics. First, it provides for benefits on a specific and predetermined basis. Second, it provides these benefits as a matter of right without a means or a needs test. Third, it finances these benefits largely out of contributions made by or on behalf of the beneficiaries. Fourth, it provides a long-range systematic method of financing rather than a year-to-year unsystematic method." You don't like any of these things, and you are trying to shame people who disagree with you.

Here is what FDR said : "FDR said, “I guess you’re right on the economics. They are politics all the way through. We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program. Those taxes aren’t a matter of economics, they’re straight politics.” You are the damn politician that FDR spoke of. You want to make the system a public dole. Something the crafters rejected. Altmeyer again : "I believe that I am safe in saying that the people of this country, that the Congress of the United States, and that the members of this Committee favor a system of contributory social insurance for providing protection against the inevitable economic hazards that beset the workers of this country, rather than a Government dole"
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
It could be worse. It could be just an estimate that has lost 10 years of solvency over the last 3. Oh wait. That is what it is. I have a serious question. At what point will you make Social Security a voting priority.
Click to expand...

There's nothing I can do by voting when it comes to Social Security, as long as the government does nothing about the budget and spending as whole first. Almost every candidate for federal office already promises to make Social Security solvent and preserve it for future generations. How am I supposed to use what they say as the truth, when if they get elected and they get to DC, they bend to pressures to spend money like its going to die off and become extinct if they don't spend it all right now?

It takes more than just making it a voting priority. It takes the government following their own laws; they don't have a good record of doing that lately - at all.
 
Slyfox696 said:
How does a pay as you go system go bust? Misleading headline is misleading.
Under our current system, you'd still be able to draw Social Security. The question would simply be how much.
Click to expand...

We may be able to draw, and it may or may not be much that we can draw, but the question is will the money we draw be coming from the SS Fund (which may become insolvent) or from the General Budget?
 
Carleen said:
Solutions have to be found. If you don't believe that than you have no faith in this country.
Click to expand...

I have faith in solutions. I have plenty of faith in the country. It is politicians where I lack faith, and the willingness of voters to do what is in the best interest of others.
 
Beaudreaux said:
We may be able to draw, and it may or may not be much that we can draw, but the question is will the money we draw be coming from the SS Fund (which may become insolvent) or from the General Budget?
Click to expand...

Today if it isn't in the Trust Fund, you will draw out what people contribute. While some will tell you that the system will still deliver 75% of benefit levels in 2030, the lie is that individuals will get 75% of their scheduled benefits. SSA has already told us that the allocation of the shortfall is not known. You may get scheduled benefits. You may get zero. In total, it will be 75% of what was scheduled. The General Budget has modest subsidies for SS, but it is generally not a source of funds for Social Security. Voters may change that.
 
Beaudreaux said:
There's nothing I can do by voting when it comes to Social Security, as long as the government does nothing about the budget and spending as whole first. Almost every candidate for federal office already promises to make Social Security solvent and preserve it for future generations. How am I supposed to use what they say as the truth, when if they get elected and they get to DC, they bend to pressures to spend money like its going to die off and become extinct if they don't spend it all right now?

It takes more than just making it a voting priority. It takes the government following their own laws; they don't have a good record of doing that lately - at all.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that you will do by your self. The first thing you have to realize is that you are not alone. You have to organize with like minded people. 80% of the public thinks that Social Security is heading for crisis. So you can't throw rice at a wedding without hitting 10 people who agree with you. The numbers are overwhelming for reform, but the people are pretty much like the 7' 3'' kid who is afraid to shoot.

When we do not make Social Security an issue, the politicians will not either. In our last presidential election, Romney and Obama agreed on one thing : Social Security is structurally sound. If you have vote 3rd party, and tell others to do the same. The reason that people don't vote 3rd party, is because SS is not a priority.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
I have faith in solutions. I have plenty of faith in the country. It is politicians where I lack faith, and the willingness of voters to do what is in the best interest of others.
Click to expand...

If you lack faith in politicians then you don't believe there will be a solution.
 
Montecresto said:
No, I'm not claiming that, certainly historically it did, however, on an increasing basis that's less the case.
Click to expand...
It's not really though. What we pay in is still, theoretically, what's going out. Even drawing from the Trust Fund is still paying out what was paid in.
Beaudreaux said:
We may be able to draw, and it may or may not be much that we can draw, but the question is will the money we draw be coming from the SS Fund (which may become insolvent) or from the General Budget?
Click to expand...
It'll come from the same place it's always come from and continues to come from, which is the payroll taxes of those currently working.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Early retirement is a nightmare for SS as far as I can tell. But I think that it is a cliché to blame longer life expectancy for Social Security's problems. Most of the analysis uses the wrong data points, and fails to look at both contributions and benefits. Here is an article on the possibilities. It isn't saying that longer life expectancy does not hurt Social Security. It says we don't know what the impact is. Yes people will collect more, but they will contribute more. Statistically, people born after 1960 still lose money even with longer life expectancies. So the reasoning seems to stem from politicians looking for an excuse.

The Impact of Life Expectancy on Social Security : FedSmith.com
Click to expand...

How will people contribute more by living longer, if they still retire at 62. People are always going to contribute for about 40 years.
 
Montecresto said:
How will people contribute more by living longer, if they still retire at 62. People are always going to contribute for about 40 years.
Click to expand...

This question is the entire point of the article. Here is the short version : The number one factor in rising life expectancy is decreasing infant mortality. Since 1960 every baby that lives longer is a net contributor to the system. Modern medicine allowed my brother to double is life expectancy from early 20s to 44. He contributed for 24 years without collecting a penny all because of increasing life expectancy.

Early retirement is a real problem for Social Security. You have to understand the formula to see why. Social Security weights 35 years of contributions. As you can guess, people who work a 36th year are HIGHLY profitable to the system. It in some cases is simply free cash. People who exit the work force early are not working the systems most profitable years.

"People are always going to contribute for about 40 years. " That isn't true. My dad took an extra job just to get the two additional quarters needed to qualify for benefits. I think it was a game years ago played by foreign companies. People who wanted a pension would come here 10 years prior to retirement just to qualify. The system at the time was very generous. So it made sense even if the employee never actually set foot on US soil.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
With the Trust Fund, the system would already pay depleted benefits. So while you may say it, facts indicate that you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Please tell us.

What financial institution is this fund located in?
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
The $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is on track to be totally spent by 2030,
Click to expand...
 the Congressional Budget Office : http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/45519-QFR_Hatch.pdf

That's a decade earlier than the CBO estimated as recently as 2011.


Social Security To Go Bust By 2030 Thanks Partly to ObamaCare: CBO - Investors.com
Click to expand...




I predict that retired people in the USA will not be homeless, starving and freezing anytime soon.

Wait and see.
 
Carleen said:
Free lunch? I paid into Soc Sec for 30 years. Now I am collecting what I put in.
Click to expand...
Only 30 years?

I've been paying into it since 1975. I don't plan to collect from it for some time yet.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Please tell us.

What financial institution is this fund located in?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Up in the clouds.

This is not real money-It's money that the U.S. government borrowed from all of the retired peoples pension funds and spent in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and etc.

Don't hold your breath waiting for it to show up.
 
Carleen said:
Free lunch?
I paid into Soc Sec for 30 years.
Click to expand...
 Now I am collecting what I put in.
Click to expand...




I paid in for 46 years, started working when I was 16.

What do you think that my chances are of collecting until I kick the bucket (I'm 71 now.)?
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
This isn't a Self-fulfilling prophecy.
Click to expand...

Yes it most certainly is. It is a cynical attempt to lay the groundwork to weaken the support of the American people for sustaining Social Security and increase the expectations that they will not benefit from it. Once that dynamic grows and takes hold, it then removes the so called third rail from being in play and makes it politically possible for politicians on the right to kill a program they have always hated going back to its inception.

And your posts here are part of that effort. And you should be ashamed.

This is so obvious. You keep bitching, carping, moaning and crying that there simply is not enough money to sustain the program. Got it. Its a money problem. But when I and others come along and say pop the cap but freeze current benefit levels to inflation, you trot out this stupid "you want to change the program and kill SS" meme which borders on Alice In Wonderland Mad Hatter upside down thinking because such an idea will go a long long way to saving benefits for people for a very long time.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
That is life expectancy of a baby - which is a completely irrelevant data point in a pension system.....
Click to expand...
Part of life expectancy statistics is infant mortality. The rest, as the SSA points out, is life expectancy when you attain adulthood.

For men in 1940, if they made it to 21 their life expectancy was 53.9 years; by 1990, it was 72.3 years. For women, it's jumped from 60.6 years to 83.6 years.

For men in 1940, if they made it to 65 their life expectancy was another 12.7 years, and by 1990 it was 15.3 years. For women, 14.7 to 19.6. In addition, the percentage of the US population that is over 65 has grown, from 6.8% in 1940 to 12.4% in 2000. (Social Security History)

The average age of retirement has also apparently dropped. In 1940, it was 68; by 1995 it was 64.

retirement-age.png



And what about changes in the number of years worked, compared to the number of years in retirement? According to the BLS, it looks like this....

working.gif



Heritage has a pretty good article on this: Time to Raise Social Security


People are working less, retiring earlier, and living longer, at a time when there are fewer workers who have to support more retirees. I will gladly admit that simply stating "life expectancy" is a bit oversimplified, but the essence is correct. To suggest that the changes in life expectancy haven't contributed to the issues facing SS is slightly ridiculous.
 
MrVicchio said:
Nope. You paid thirty years for others. There be less workers. Too bad.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm drawing now and I enjoy spending your money. :lamo

I wonder how much marijuana your money will buy me next week when I travel to Colorado?
 
Texmex said:
Well, I'm drawing now and I enjoy spending your money. :lamo

I wonder how much marijuana your money will buy me next week when I travel to Colorado?
Click to expand...

You can't get under my skin. While people like you giggle it's people like my kids that will have to clean up the failure of your generations mess in 20 years. Here's hoping it's sooner, just so you can "enjoy" the repercussions of your laughs.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
There is no difference between the securities in the intragovernmental holdings and the securities in the publicly held. So you are right, but the information isn't useful. Whether the govt honors its debts in the future is unknown. No one at this point suspects that it will not honor the debt held by the Trust Fund.

Again, if the Trust Fund isn't real, how did scheduled benefits get paid.
Click to expand...

the trust fund exist on paper but there is NO money in it.

benefits are paid from the SS tax on everyone's pay check.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom