• 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

With many trillions of dollars in debt, and growing by the day, all social programs are in jeopardy. It is foolhardy in the extreme to think they can continue because no will will lend the money anymore. It is whistling in the dark.

The programs need to be adjustd and reformed, and require additional revenue to support them. But there is absolutely no indication that people are less inclined to lend the U.S. money. In fact, demand for U.S. debt has never been higher despite the fact that we are paying practically no interest.
 
Then, my dear, where is the hue and cry about the latest Congressional gut of the program?? They've cut the employee contribution to SS by 33%. And nobody gives a **** 'cause it's money in their pockets. Hypocrites.

Hey, I've been against the payroll tax because it guts SS from the beginning. But people are short sighted and most... probably believe it will "fix itself somehow"
 
Blue State

thank you for your answers and the detailed explaination of each. Allow me to say that much of what you wrote sounds a great deal like you are operating under a cloud of pessimism. You seem to believe that the system cannot be sustained, will not be repaired and will thus not be able to meet its obligations to you or your generation. I hope that is not a distortion of your views but an accurate summary of them.

I beleive the worst thing we as a people can do is engage in this sort of pessimism which will then become a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. I believe the federal government knows and knows well the wrath that would come down upon them if they dare not honor their obligations regarding social security. But, if they can move along the belief, especially among younger Americans, that things are as you portray them, it will make it easier for them to someday take those sort of actions ending the program. The feeling in the citizenry or in the atmoshpere that "it just won't be there for us" only serves the interests of those who want to kill the program and betray the terms of the deal.

I would urge you to reject such pessimism and not fall victim to the self fulfilling prophecy. Instead, work as hey have.

With thee tople have several times in the past to get the system supported so that it can be a solid one and can honor the governments committments to the American worker.

You appear to assume that future politicians will be interested in keeping the promises made by past and present politicians when they have no personal responsibility to do so. They will be forced to work with what they have.

The debt and demographics outline what the future holds and there is little likelihood of a turnaround, especially when voters continue to vote for more of the same.
 
You appear to assume that future politicians will be interested in keeping the promises made by past and present politicians when they have no personal responsibility to do so. They will be forced to work with what they have.

The debt and demographics outline what the future holds and there is little likelihood of a turnaround, especially when voters continue to vote for more of the same.

What I assume is that future politicians will care as much as preserving their own ass as politicians have always done. No more and no less. As long as voters figuratevly hold them by the throat and threaten to end their political lives, I think the rest will take care of itself.

Think of it this way - if someone announced their intention of breaking into my home and stealing a fortune that had taken me forty or more years to build up - I would prepare for them and meet them with appropriate measures to make sure that did not happen. We should apply that same thinking to what is owed to us by the government.
 
With many trillions of dollars in debt, and growing by the day, all social programs are in jeopardy. It is foolhardy in the extreme to think they can continue because no will will lend the money anymore. It is whistling in the dark.

Social programs aren't going away -- they're, in fact, mathematically necessary.

Consider the median household income is about $50,000/year. Average life expectancy is 78, so a fair estimate might be 10 years of life per American after his working years are behind him. If he can live on half of his prior income -- $25,000 -- that's $250,000 needed to maintain retirement.

At a very optimistic savings rate of 10% -- if you were to just put that money in a jar in your back yard -- that's 50 years to accumulate the needed amount.

Of course, I've ignored interest on savings, investment income, etc. so I admit the analysis is quite simplified. But neither have I taken into account the cost of health care, which inevitably rises as one ages.

No Medicare or Social Security? I don't think it's practically possible. Based on our current savings rates and debt ratios, we'd have to start forgiving private debt in order to shutter these programs -- or else accept abject poverty for many millions of our seniors.
 
Either one believes in the full faith and credit of the United States or one does not. Which are you?
Either one believes in honoring the promises made to the citizens of the nation who fulfill their end of the bargain or one does not. Which are you?
Either one believes that money and revenues should first go to existing and long standing obligations before new ones are taken on or one does not. Which are you?

I don't believe the government should be responsible for my financial well-being, no.
 
I don't believe the government should be responsible for my financial well-being, no.

Thank you for sharing that. Sadly, I did not ask that question.

What about the three I did ask?

Either one believes in the full faith and credit of the United States or one does not. Which are you?
Either one believes in honoring the promises made to the citizens of the nation who fulfill their end of the bargain or one does not. Which are you?
Either one believes that money and revenues should first go to existing and long standing obligations before new ones are taken on or one does not. Which are you?
 
Thank you for sharing that. Sadly, I did not ask that question.

What about the three I did ask?

Either one believes in the full faith and credit of the United States or one does not. Which are you?
Either one believes in honoring the promises made to the citizens of the nation who fulfill their end of the bargain or one does not. Which are you?
Either one believes that money and revenues should first go to existing and long standing obligations before new ones are taken on or one does not. Which are you?

1. No, because you can't owe trillions of dollars and keep borrowing and maintain good credit.

2. If our government honored our promises, we wouldn't have spent the SS money on other programs already.

3. Yes, we should pay our debts and cut welfare.
 
What I assume is that future politicians will care as much as to be had. preserving their own ass as politicians have always done. No more and no less. As long as voters figuratevly hold them by the throat and threaten to end their political lives, I think the rest will take care of itself.
I'm saying much the same thing - that there will be riots, and much throat grabbing, when the dependent members of the Republic realize there is no money to be had. What can the politicians do in that situation? They might just print more money, which will lead to higher inflation, or they will blame it on others, which has been their history also.


Think of it this way - if someone announced their intention of breaking into my home and stealing a fortune that had taken me forty or more years to build up - I would prepare for them and meet them with appropriate measures to make sure that did not happen. We should apply that same thinking to what is owed to us by the government.

Yes, there will be more violence, that's certain. It's amazing to me that people still trust politicians with their future, despite their sullied reputation. It's difficult to understand.

And those who did plan for the future, "the rich", will be attacked first. We can see shades of that already.
 
Either one believes in the full faith and credit of the United States or one does not. Which are you?

What you are believing in here is politicians, not your country or your fellow Americans.
 
What you are believing in here is politicians, not your country or your fellow Americans.

And in all honesty, they seem to be failing us at an alamring rate. The politicians, not your fellow Americans.
 
1. No, because you can't owe trillions of dollars and keep borrowing and maintain good credit.

2. If our government honored our promises, we wouldn't have spent the SS money on other programs already.

3. Yes, we should pay our debts and cut welfare.

1- This is something to note - a self proclaimed "conservative" who admits they do not subscribe to the provisions of the US Constitution. That will be noted for future use.
2- The government has honored our promies by investing the money we put in is some of the safest investments on the planet. Would you prefer under the matress?
3- So paying our debts is honoring our SS obligations then?
 
And in all honesty, they seem to be failing us at an alarming rate. The politicians, not your fellow Americans.

They are willing to pit one American against the next, and it seems to be working in their favor.
 
What you are believing in here is politicians, not your country or your fellow Americans.

Not at all. Elected officials are the mere spokespersons and tools of the people. I beleive in the people of America and our system of representation. I believe that Americans must make their feelings known to our officials and representatives.
 
They are willing to pit one American against the next, and it seems to be working in their favor.

Just the opposite. All Americans need to unite under the banner of making sure the government honors its obligations to the people that have honored theirs.
 
Just the opposite. All Americans need to unite under the banner of making sure the government honors its obligations to the people that have honored theirs.

LOL not going to happen. Our politicians have the people of this country far too divided. Democrats and Republicans are working together to keep the American people fighting with the bipartisan bs they spew.
 
Not at all. Elected officials are the mere spokespersons and tools of the people. I beleive in the people of America and our system of representation. I believe that Americans must make their feelings known to our officials and representatives.

The people of America want free handouts. Not all, but enough. Our representatives promise money and they vote for them. It is a sad state and it was predicted by Ben Franklin.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."
 
The people of America want free handouts. Not all, but enough. Our representatives promise money and they vote for them. It is a sad state and it was predicted by Ben Franklin.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic."

Social Security isn't a free handout.
 
1- This is something to note - a self proclaimed "conservative" who admits they do not subscribe to the provisions of the US Constitution. That will be noted for future use.
2- The government has honored our promies by investing the money we put in is some of the safest investments on the planet. Would you prefer under the matress?
3- So paying our debts is honoring our SS obligations then?

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.
 
haymarket said:
1- This is something to note - a self proclaimed "conservative" who admits they do not subscribe to the provisions of the US Constitution.


I have my pocket Constitution in front of me, could you tell me where SS is in it? Thanks.

That will be noted for future use.

Is that a threat? Or just a note of impending troll?

2- The government has honored our promies by investing the money we put in is some of the safest investments on the planet.

Like what? Solyndra?

Would you prefer under the matress?

No, they could just give me back what I have already paid in, and let me invest it...I'd get a better return.

3- So paying our debts is honoring our SS obligations then?

Paying our debts IS honoring our SS obligations in a way. If you are going to have a social safety net, you can not do such when you have a government that uses that money for things other than SS like debt service. But the real question is whether SS is an investiment in your own retirement, or a tax. When it was sold, much like Obamacare, they said it wasn't a tax, now it is....Funny how that happens with progressive liars.


j-mac
 
I'm the one that believes reality trumps ideology.

Full faith and credit is a two way street, that's something you cannot contemplate. Promises made on but not kept over decades, come back to bite us all in the end.

I say **** the system, before it ****s us.

So, what are you really upset about?

a) That President Obama is reluctant to place Social Security reform on his 2011 agenda?

b) That spending reductions in Social Security benefits weren't part of his 10-year deficit reduction plan?

c) That our government has constantly placed IOU's in the Social Security Trust Fund?

Which is it?

Now for a little perspective...

You really can't blame the man for not attempting to tackle an issue that won't become "dire" for another decade. I mean, let's face it, it's not like revenue via taxation will ever go away. In short, there will always be employment opportunities in this nation (though scarce they may be at present), and as such, unless the payroll tax is abolished, revenue will always be collected for Social Security benefits from it. As such, you really can't be mad that he didn't cover the issue in his 10-year deficit reduction plan. I mean, it does make sense NOT to mess with Social Security until you really have to. And right now, we don't have to.

Now, let's get to the teeth of the matter...

The payroll tax is a labor tax. Only those individuals who work or are self-employed who earned an income up to a certain wage limit (somewhere around $100K; I forget the exact amount) pay into the Social Security system. And only those individuals who retire from the labor force (or those who are disabled) receive Social Security benefits. Now, it's true that the Baby Boomer generation is retiring in large numbers and that's feeding into the "reform Social Security Now" frinzy, but the nation also has a millions of disabled individuals who receive SSI/SSDI who very likely did not pay into the system. Add to that the fact that Medicade Part D isn't paid for and it's no wonder Social Security is going broke far sooner than expected.

To that, Rep. Paul Ryan is correct; Social Security does need to be reformed. But it's not something that needs to be done today.

So, again I ask, "What are you really upset about?"
 
Last edited:
So, what are you really upset about?

a) That President Obama is reluctant to place Social Security reform on his 2011 agenda?

b) That spending reductions in Social Security benefits weren't part of his 10-year deficit reduction plan?

c) That our government has constantly placed IOU's in the Social Security Trust Fund?

Which is it?

Now for a little perspective...

You really can't blame the man for not attempting to tackle an issue that won't become "dire" for another decade. I mean, let's face it, it's not like revenue via taxation will ever go away. In short, there will always be employment opportunities in this nation (though scarce they may be at present), and as such, unless the payroll tax is abolished, revenue will always be collected for Social Security benefits from it. As such, you really can't be mad that he didn't cover the issue in his 10-year deficit reduction plan. I mean, it does make sense NOT to mess with Social Security until you really have to. And right now, we don't have to.

Now, let's get to the teeth of the matter...

The payroll tax is a labor tax. Only those individuals who work or are self-employed who earned an income up to a certain wage limit (somewhere around $100K; I forget the exact amount) pay into the Social Security system. And only those individuals who retire from the labor force (or those who are disabled) receive Social Security benefits. Now, it's true that the Baby Boomer generation is retiring in large numbers and that's feeding into the "reform Social Security Now" frinzy, but the nation also has a millions of disabled individuals who receive SSI/SSDI who very likely did not pay into the system. Add to that the fact that Medicade Part D isn't paid for and it's no wonder Social Security is going broke far sooner than expected.

To that, Rep. Paul Ryan is correct; Social Security does need to be reformed. But it's not something that needs to be done today.

So, again I ask, "What are you really upset about?"

Obviously I'm a FOOL! SS a few years ago, we were told wouldn't start running dry till after 2036! I mean, what's 14 years really? That's something for the "next group" to deal with. It' snot a threat to us, no not at all. Notice how I didn't mention Obama once, but you've brought him up multiple times. The whole SYSTEM needs to be reformed, but it's not going to happen till it's all falling down, and the sheep of America will turn to the politicians of the day that did nothing when they could to "solve the crisis".
 
Back
Top Bottom