• 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!

The results are in on social security

yeah.... that's about right.


but wishful thinking doesn't get you $17 Trillion.

Its only wishful thinking because the government is likely to dip into the trust fund and the general SS fund to pay for overseas debt.
 
Its only wishful thinking because the government is likely to dip into the trust fund and the general SS fund to pay for overseas debt.

I don't think you understand. There is nothing of value in the "trust Fund." Politicians spent the money. They always do. It is an IOU backed by nothing.
 
I don't think you understand. There is nothing of value in the "trust Fund." Politicians spent the money. They always do. It is an IOU backed by nothing.

The full faith and credit and promise of the government of the American people to pay its debts and obligations is not "nothing". To suggest that it is would be disingenuous in the extreme.
 
I don't think you understand. There is nothing of value in the "trust Fund." Politicians spent the money. They always do. It is an IOU backed by nothing.

Its backed by America's Triple-A credit rating. I don't think you understand that if America default everything will be paid piecemeal, that includes current benefactors.
 
Its backed by America's Triple-A credit rating. I don't think you understand that if America default everything will be paid piecemeal, that includes current benefactors.
Hence you agree with me. The promise to pay is not backed by anything of value.
 
Hence you agree with me. The promise to pay is not backed by anything of value.


"America's Triple-A credit "at one time that that meant something to politicians in this country. Kinda looks like its being used as a bargaining chip for the republican party now. This can mostly be traced back to the decision by george the second, that wars should be kept off the general budget; the old outa site outa mind theory.:(
 
"America's Triple-A credit "at one time that that meant something to politicians in this country. Kinda looks like its being used as a bargaining chip for the republican party now. This can mostly be traced back to the decision by george the second, that wars should be kept off the general budget; the old outa site outa mind theory.:(
Whatever. We spend way too much. And most of it is extra-constitutional. It is a shame we cannot go back in time to every vote that was made for an extra-constitutional law and confiscate 100% of the wealth of the families of the criminal legislators and black-robed judges who upheld these evil laws. This is one case where I think stoning, as a punishment, is justified.
 
I don't think you understand. There is nothing of value in the "trust Fund." Politicians spent the money. They always do. It is an IOU backed by nothing.

Payroll tax revenues masked the shortfall in income taxes that was cause by the Bush taxcuts. The simple solution is let those tax cuts expire and allow payroll tax revenue to pay for social security rather than the general operating expenses of the government.
 

Attachments

  • Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    Numbers_Figure-2_What-are-federal-govt-sources-of-revenue_1.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 33
  • Growth in tax revenue.jpg
    Growth in tax revenue.jpg
    48.8 KB · Views: 33
the exact same thing you insist
please point out where the Bowles Commission recommended that social security funds be invested in the stock market

the Bowles Simpson commission said raise the retirement age ;) just like those folks did.


however, in other places on this forum I have gone through the numbers and described the effects of personalized accounts on low-income workers. namely, they can retire financially independent, and even in a worst-case-scenario they make more than twice as much in returns as they would from Social (in)Security. A man could never make more than 32 K a year his entire working life, and still retire a millionaire.
 
"America's Triple-A credit "at one time that that meant something to politicians in this country. Kinda looks like its being used as a bargaining chip for the republican party now. This can mostly be traced back to the decision by george the second, that wars should be kept off the general budget; the old outa site outa mind theory.:(

the total cost of both wars over a decade is roughly comparable to the cost of Obama's Stimulus Program. the Social Security Trust Fund has been raided for years prior to Bush W's Administration; though agreeably he continued it. He tried to reform the system to save Social Security (and the rest of us) some of this pain in 2005; but the GOP abandoned him and Democrats screamed bloody murder. Our choices today would be much wider if he had succeeded, but sadly he did not.

like private industry before, and the States now, the pension systems we built for an industrial-era society with a lifespan of 65 and a birthrate of 3+ is no longer sustainable. it will be altered. the only question is the degree of control we wish to exercise over that process.
 
the Bowles Simpson commission said raise the retirement age ;) just like those folks did.


however, in other places on this forum I have gone through the numbers and described the effects of personalized accounts on low-income workers. namely, they can retire financially independent, and even in a worst-case-scenario they make more than twice as much in returns as they would from Social (in)Security. A man could never make more than 32 K a year his entire working life, and still retire a millionaire.

then you now recognize they did NOT say the same exact things
Bowles did NOT advocate investing the social security reserves in the stock market
 
the total cost of both wars over a decade is roughly comparable to the cost of Obama's Stimulus Program. the Social Security Trust Fund has been raided for years prior to Bush W's Administration; though agreeably he continued it. He tried to reform the system to save Social Security (and the rest of us) some of this pain in 2005; but the GOP abandoned him and Democrats screamed bloody murder. Our choices today would be much wider if he had succeeded, but sadly he did not.

like private industry before, and the States now, the pension systems we built for an industrial-era society with a lifespan of 65 and a birthrate of 3+ is no longer sustainable. it will be altered. the only question is the degree of control we wish to exercise over that process.

the only change required to the social security program to continue its solvency is the elimination of the cap on social security contributions such that high earners are compelled to pay on their entire wage, just as low wage earners are
that regressive tax policy needs to be ended
 
then you now recognize they did NOT say the same exact things

:shrug: the video claimed that calls for raising the retirement age were indicative of some kind of Koch Buy Off Conspiracy. At that point I was laughing too hard to pay attention, and stopped watching.

Bowles did NOT advocate investing the social security reserves in the stock market

that's correct. although it remains an excellent idea - we would like some way for benefits to remain high enough to help our poorer retirees, but we have no option but to cut future expenditures. latching contributions to a growth engine is an excellent way to accomplish both those goals.

the only change required to the social security program to continue its solvency is the elimination of the cap on social security contributions such that high earners are compelled to pay on their entire wage, just as low wage earners are that regressive tax policy needs to be ended

even the AARP is now admitting that popping the cap doesn't pay for Social Security. since benefits are linked to inputs, all you are doing is increasing Social Security's future liability. You would need to means-test the payout structure in order to make this even beneficial, and it still wouldn't be nearly enough.

For the most part, the Trustees’ reports [of 2011] are reruns of last year. First, let’s look at Social Security. Actuaries estimate that the unfunded liabilities of Social Security are $17.9 trillion. This means that the government would need to have $17.9 trillion in the bank, today, earning interest at the government borrowing rate in order to fund these programs into the infinite horizon. Oh, but lest I mention there is a $2.6 trillion trust fund that will take care of part of it this liability. Oh, really? Contrary to the mantra that this trust fund will be around until 2037, for all intents and purposes, that ship has sailed. The trust fund money is nothing more than IOUs written to the Treasury while the money has been borrowed and spent on other programs. Technically, this money belongs in the net unfunded liability column, bringing the total unfunded liability into the infinite horizon to $20.5 trillion....​

we don't have 20 Trillion. we have negative 14.5 trillion. the real debt that the US owes - which includes her unfunded liabilities - is larger than the GDP of every nation on earth combined. we have literally promised to give ourselves more wealth than the total production of humankind. "popping the cap" on the payroll tax isn't going to fix that.
 
Last edited:
There has never been a surplus.

Thanks for your opinion. "Social Security is far from bankrupt, with a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus. The federal government has borrowed most of that surplus to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Wall Street bank bailouts, and the Bush-era tax cuts. The government is now wondering how to pay back the loan – it's not their money – it belongs to Social Security."

Read more: U.S. Social Security $2.6 Trillion Dollar Surplus
 
Thanks for your opinion. "Social Security is far from bankrupt, with a $2.6 trillion dollar surplus. The federal government has borrowed most of that surplus to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Wall Street bank bailouts, and the Bush-era tax cuts. The government is now wondering how to pay back the loan – it's not their money – it belongs to Social Security."

Read more: U.S. Social Security $2.6 Trillion Dollar Surplus
You are correct, the surplus is invested in U.S. Treasuries, back by the government.
(Where have you been, haven't seen you in awhile?)
 
You are correct, the surplus is invested in U.S. Treasuries, back by the government.
(Where have you been, haven't seen you in awhile?)

Hey PB, just been real busy with work and life. Yep, time for those that got the benefits of tax cuts at the expense of the future SS recioients to start paying back the money.
 
From my understanding we still need to do something within the next 25 years. To me the best solution in the mean time to extend this by perhaps another few years is to raise retirement age by 5 years up right now.
 
From my understanding we still need to do something within the next 25 years. To me the best solution in the mean time to extend this by perhaps another few years is to raise retirement age by 5 years up right now.

I would raise the FICA cap first and place the funds coming in through payroll taxes for SS off limits to general fund spending. The hawks will have to find some other way to fund their imperialist efforts.
 
I would raise the FICA cap first and place the funds coming in through payroll taxes for SS off limits to general fund spending. The hawks will have to find some other way to fund their imperialist efforts.

Yeah sure do that too.
 
The government is now wondering how to pay back the loan – it's not their money – it belongs to Social Security."
There are IOUs and unfunded liabilities. There is noting of value. Therefore there is no surplus. You have been lied to and you willingly repeat the lie.
 
There are IOUs and unfunded liabilities. There is noting of value. Therefore there is no surplus. You have been lied to and you willingly repeat the lie.

Thanks again for your opinion. :sun
 
From my understanding we still need to do something within the next 25 years. To me the best solution in the mean time to extend this by perhaps another few years is to raise retirement age by 5 years up right now.

we don't have 25 years. we have 8 until the entire budget begins to collapse, including SS

I would raise the FICA cap first and place the funds coming in through payroll taxes for SS off limits to general fund spending. .

even the AARP now admits this won't come even close to funding Social Security in the coming years. if you were to tax everyone making $200,000 and up at a rate of 100%; that would only give you enough to cover Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for the next five years.
 
that regressive tax policy needs to be ended

Agreed. The SS TAX is the poor paying for the rich and middle class to maintain their life styles. I personally think the entire program should be done away with in a responsible manner: anyone under 40 will continue to pay for the those above 40, but at a reduced rate and only to cover the majority of it to cover those who are currently getting SS benefits, those 40-50 will be guaranteed less and their retirement age should be raised, those 50-60 will have their retirement age raised and receive only slightly less than they would under the old system. Doing it this way is responsible because people cannot save enough money in 10-20 years to pay for 20-30 years of life.

@CP Will - We have to have 25years or else we screw up everyone who has planned their life around certain expectations. We have to resolve it now, but the process should take 25years to full work out. Unless you want to see riots that is. Also, the only reason we have "8 years" is because of bond maturity in 2025. We can fiance the bond maturity without touching SS, Medicare, or Medicaid by cutting useless government departments.
 
cpwill

even the AARP now admits this won't come even close to funding Social Security in the coming years. if you were to tax everyone making $200,000 and up at a rate of 100%; that would only give you enough to cover Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security for the next five years.



I guess you being still on the rock, and not seeing the latest AARP commercials inundating the tubes here eh? :2wave:
 
Back
Top Bottom