• 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

Which is why we must take action to
1 - pop the cap on FICA contribution so that ALL 100% of earners pay FICA on all 100% of their earnings just like 93% of earners do today
2 - freeze benefit levels with a possible modest inflation increase

Studies and experts have demonstrated that if you do these two things, you solve over 80% of this financial problem.
End SS instead of throwing money and resources into a black hole.
 
End SS instead of throwing money and resources into a black hole.

I see you are not really big on honoring commitments to the American people when they have fulfilled their end of the deal.
 
I see you are not really big on honoring commitments to the American people when they have fulfilled their end of the deal.

Please, spare me the bull**** line about "honoring commitments" the system has failed it's going to collapse in our faces. And when I say end I don't just mean end, tomorrow, that's it have a nice day. But you're free to push that line of bull****, just remember what that says about you.
 
Please, spare me the bull**** line about "honoring commitments" the system has failed it's going to collapse in our faces. And when I say end I don't just mean end, tomorrow, that's it have a nice day. But you're free to push that line of bull****, just remember what that says about you.

It sounds like I was raised with conservative values while you were not - or at least they did not take in your case. My father raised me to pay ones existing obligations before taking upon any new ones. He also told me that if you have to go out and work harder to raise your income to honor your commitments - then that is what you do.

It is sad that those old fashioned American values are spurned and rejected by some people today who simply view those sentiments as BS - that was your characterization wasn't it.
 
It sounds like I was raised with conservative values while you were not - or at least they did not take in your case. My father raised me to pay ones existing obligations before taking upon any new ones. He also told me that if you have to go out and work harder to raise your income to honor your commitments - then that is what you do.

It is sad that those old fashioned American values are spurned and rejected by some people today who simply view those sentiments as BS - that was your characterization wasn't it.
Whatever, don't give me that crap about "conservative values" cause you just spoutin' words there.
Honoring commitments would be to have a SS system that wasn't built on a ponzi scheme, that wasn't used to fund progressive big government boondoggles. Here's the gig, you're little speech, was meaningless flutter.

End Social Security by winding it down, paying lump sums to those receiving or offering to keep them on it till they pass. End it by lump summing out to those that paid in working backwards from eldest to youngest. That's the way to END SS.

Replace it with transferable on death, personal savings accounts that follow you from job to job, state to state, even out of country. You can choose stocks, bonds, precious metals... who cares! Your choice. When you hit 65, you can start withdrawing. If you pass away before that day, or you have monies in there when you die... you can set up who that money would go to, tax free.

THAT, is conservative values, not the malarkey you're shoveling.
 
Whatever, don't give me that crap about "conservative values" cause you just spoutin' words there.

But I already gave it to you. You want it again?

What is there about honoring our national commitments to people who held up their end of the bargain that you do not support? What is there about paying your existing obligations that you have already incurred before taking on new ones that you object to?

Those are old fashioned conservative American values. I have them. Apparently you have turned your back on them. Very sad.

THAT, is conservative values, not the malarkey you're shoveling.

You are badly confusing right wing ideology with traditional American conservative values.
 
Last edited:
But I already gave it to you. You want it again?

What is there about honoring our national commitments to people who held up their end of the bargain that you do not support? What is there about paying your existing obligations that you have already incurred before taking on new ones that you object to?

Those are old fashioned conservative American values. I have them. Apparently you have turned your back on them. Very sad.



You are badly confusing right wing ideology with traditional American conservative values.
Confsed, nay i am not the one who thinks what you are typing is witty and intelligent commentary.
 
Confsed, nay i am not the one who thinks what you are typing is witty and intelligent commentary.

But you are the one who wants to turn their back upon the American people and not honor our commitments to them when they fulfilled their part of the deal. That is hardly part of any value system which embraces good old fashioned American conservative principles like keeping your word, holding up your end of the bargain and not taking on new expenses until you pay for the ones you already have committed to.
 
But you are the one who wants to turn their back upon the American people and not honor our commitments to them when they fulfilled their part of the deal. That is hardly part of any value system which embraces good old fashioned American conservative principles like keeping your word, holding up your end of the bargain and not taking on new expenses until you pay for the ones you already have committed to.

Which aspects of the deal regarding Social Security hasn't been changed, thus far? Ages have been increased, the program has been means tested, the amount of income taxable to Social Security has steadily increased. Any aspect of the program can be changed after the fact and not all of those changed thus far have been popular.
 
Which is why we must take action to
1 - pop the cap on FICA contribution so that ALL 100% of earners pay FICA on all 100% of their earnings just like 93% of earners do today
2 - freeze benefit levels with a possible modest inflation increase

Studies and experts have demonstrated that if you do these two things, you solve over 80% of this financial problem.

If you remove the cap on FICA taxes without a corresponding benefit increase, you will depress potential GDP indefinitely.

Doing what you suggest will trade "80% of this financial problem" with a whole new set of financial problems.
 
Which aspects of the deal regarding Social Security hasn't been changed, thus far? Ages have been increased, the program has been means tested, the amount of income taxable to Social Security has steadily increased. Any aspect of the program can be changed after the fact and not all of those changed thus far have been popular.

There is a difference in tweaks and aborting the program.
 
If you remove the cap on FICA taxes without a corresponding benefit increase, you will depress potential GDP indefinitely.

Doing what you suggest will trade "80% of this financial problem" with a whole new set of financial problems.

How so? What evidence do you have of this claim? 93% of earners already pay tax on 100% of their income. How would simply extending that principle to the 7% that do not cause the damage you claim since 93% of Americans would not be adversely impacted or hurt by it?
 
How so? What evidence do you have of this claim? 93% of earners already pay tax on 100% of their income. How would simply extending that principle to the 7% that do not cause the damage you claim since 93% of Americans would not be adversely impacted or hurt by it?

Without an increase in benefits, you are removing hundreds of billions per year from the economy that won't ever be spent. Again, you are "solving" on problem by creating more.
 
Agreed, but once a deal is broken, there is no end to where it can end up.

I have heard those who are opposed to SS make statements like that and they love to quote the Court ruling also. But both come up face to face against one giant Mt. everest neither can overcome - the will of the American people. The American people support SS and will not accept its demise no matter what lipstick is placed on that pig to disguise what it really is.
 
Without an increase in benefits, you are removing hundreds of billions per year from the economy that won't ever be spent. Again, you are "solving" on problem by creating more.

What makes you think that money was going to be spent in the first place each year in the economy? I just do not see it in practical terms. And shoring up SS so it lasts and everyone benefits from it is in itself economic gain for all of us since it prevents the dire situations that would occur if SS collapsed or was ended.
 
What makes you think that money was going to be spent in the first place each year in the economy? I just do not see it in practical terms. And shoring up SS so it lasts and everyone benefits from it is in itself economic gain for all of us since it prevents the dire situations that would occur if SS collapsed or was ended.

Didn't matter if it was going to be spent or not, taking it via taxes and sticking it in a drawer means it cannot be spent, hence a creation of a permanent annual depression in potential GDP.
 
I have heard those who are opposed to SS make statements like that and they love to quote the Court ruling also. But both come up face to face against one giant Mt. everest neither can overcome - the will of the American people. The American people support SS and will not accept its demise no matter what lipstick is placed on that pig to disguise what it really is.

I have no idea what you have heard and from whom so I can't discuss those points. The deal with me was broken back in 1983 when the retirement age was increased. It was broken again that year and in 1993 when it was decided that SS would likely be taxable when before it was not. Everything about SS can be changed and calling it a deal is an attempt to create guilt for trying to change. It is the politics of getting the most people to agree on a change which does make the change possible.

There are plenty of people who had the deal change when more benefits were established with Social Security that go beyond those who earned 40 quarters. Was that deal breaking objectionable as well?
 
Didn't matter if it was going to be spent or not, taking it via taxes and sticking it in a drawer means it cannot be spent, hence a creation of a permanent annual depression in potential GDP.

If your contention has any validity - it certainly does matter if the money would be spent or not since your argument is that "you are removing hundreds of billions per year from the economy that won't ever be spent". You have to demonstrate that it would be spent in the first place for your argument to have any validity.
 
If your contention has any validity - it certainly does matter if the money would be spent or not since your argument is that "you are removing hundreds of billions per year from the economy that won't ever be spent". You have to demonstrate that it would be spent in the first place for your argument to have any validity.

Its not my contention, its basic economics. Please read up on potential GDP and its impact. The CBO and FRED have lots of documents and graphs pertaining to the subject.
 
Its not my contention, its basic economics. Please read up on potential GDP and its impact. The CBO and FRED have lots of documents and graphs pertaining to the subject.

It is your contention and you seem powerless to explain it when questioned.
 
The $2.8 trillion Social Security Trust Fund is on track to be totally spent by 2030, 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




Well, it's still 16 years from now.

By then I'd be 87 years old , maybe I'll be dead and buried and won't have to worry about it.

I guess I'll just wait and see what happens.
 
It is your contention and you seem powerless to explain it when questioned.

Clearly I'm having a hard time bringing it down to your level, so lets try this.

Which is the better situation:

I can spend between 0 and 4 dollars this year.

I can spend between 0 and 2 dollars this year.
 
Clearly I'm having a hard time bringing it down to your level, so lets try this.

Which is the better situation:

I can spend between 0 and 4 dollars this year.

I can spend between 0 and 2 dollars this year.

ALl you need to do is spare the personal insults, quit trying to move the goal posts, and provide evidence of what I asked for - namely proof you your claim that extending the FICA tax to the remaining 7% of earners on all their earnings the way it is for the other 93% of earners would somehow damage the economy. You stated that the money would be taken out of the economy because it would not be spent. I stated you might be wrong because one would have to show that money would have to be spent in the economy in the first place. And you have not yet done that.
 
ALl you need to do is spare the personal insults, quit trying to move the goal posts, and provide evidence of what I asked for - namely proof you your claim that extending the FICA tax to the remaining 7% of earners on all their earnings the way it is for the other 93% of earners would somehow damage the economy. You stated that the money would be taken out of the economy because it would not be spent. I stated you might be wrong because one would have to show that money would have to be spent in the economy in the first place. And you have not yet done that.

And I've already directed you to read about potential GDP and its effect on the economy, but you refuse to do so. Not sure how else the concept can be explained when you cover your eyes and ears. You might as well just state that you believe potential GDP is a worthless economic concept.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom