• 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

Lord of Planar said:
If it included the interest, that doesn't matter. It is still in surplus as of 2013. Past predictions that I recall has it needed to cash in some of those bonds starting in 2017.
Click to expand...

Let's remember what we were discussing. Without the Trust Fund, ie without the interest, Social Security's revenue would have been insufficient to cover scheduled benefits.

At the time you were arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist, and now you are saying that the interest on the non-existent Trust Fund means Social Security is in surplus. Is that about right?

Lord of Planar said:
Did you look at the link I provided?

Where is your official site to show I'm wrong?

If I use OMB table 2-1 compared to table 4-1, 2013 shows even more of a surplus.

Link please.
Click to expand...

Social Security History

Summary-

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Let's remember what we were discussing. Without the Trust Fund, ie without the interest, Social Security's revenue would have been insufficient to cover scheduled benefits.

At the time you were arguing that the Trust Fund doesn't exist, and now you are saying that the interest on the non-existent Trust Fund means Social Security is in surplus. Is that about right?



Social Security History

Summary-

So, to sum up:

1- Social Security was off-budget from 1935-1968;
2- On-budget from 1969-1985;
3- Off-budget from 1986-1990, for all purposes except computing the deficit;
4- Off-budget for all purposes since 1990.
Click to expand...
Did you by chance notice the article speaks of Disability insurance (DI) when it speaks of the shortfalls?
 
mtm1963 said:
i understand congress spent the SS surpluses. i understand congress has NOT paid back those borrowed SS monies. i understand this contributes to the national debt.

these points seem to go over your understanding.
Click to expand...

The facts aren't above his head. It is the point you are trying to make.

Congress spent the money that it borrowed from China. Congress hasn't paid back those monies borrowed from China. Money borrowed from China is part of the national debt. You want to make the money borrowed from Social Security somehow unique in the discussion.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Did you by chance notice the article speaks of Disability insurance (DI) when it speaks of the shortfalls?
Click to expand...

I do not follow disability. It is a much more complicated issue, but it is my understanding that the shortfall encompasses both DI and OAS.
 
mtm1963 said:
i understand congress spent the SS surpluses. i understand congress has NOT paid back those borrowed SS monies. i understand this contributes to the national debt.

these points seem to go over your understanding.
Click to expand...
No, I understand what you are saying. It just so happens you are wrong on this and you're posts indicate a type of pouting because I'm pointing out that you are wrong. I've explained it time and time again. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but you are wrong. Your entire line of thinking is incredibly flawed and is indicative of the type of simplistic ignorance I admonished the thread starter for propagating. You clearly DON'T understand what happened, nor do you understand what it all means. The sad part is you just keep ranting the same things over and over, despite me explaining what's REALLY happening. It's such a shame you don't care about the truth, just shouting ignorance at the rain.
 
Last edited:
Slyfox696 said:
The inability of people to understand anything but the most literal definitions saddens me sometimes.

The Trust Fund is full of "IOUs", but that doesn't mean there isn't money there. It's no different from when you put your money in the bank and the bank then loans it out to people wanting to start a business. This isn't even basics of accounting, it's just basics.
Click to expand...

That is not directly analogous. The bank loans that money to other people, and often some collateral is involved (a car, a house, the persons' goods) if the debt goes bad. The US Government loaned that money to itself and then spent it.

So a better example would be you taking money out of savings, putting it into checking, spending it, promising to pay it back next month, but then never doing so.

Now the big expense you've been saving for is here, and it's no good saying "oh, don't worry, my checking account owes my savings all this money".
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, I understand what you are saying. It just so happens you are wrong on this and you're posts indicate a type of pouting because I'm pointing out that you are wrong. I've explained it time and time again. I'm sorry if you don't understand, but you are wrong. Your entire line of thinking is incredibly flawed and is indicative of the type of simplistic ignorance I admonished the thread starter for propagating. You clearly DON'T understand what happened, nor do you understand what it all means. The sad part is you just keep ranting the same things over and over, despite me explaining what's REALLY happening. It's such a shame you don't care about the truth, just shouting ignorance at the rain.
Click to expand...


Even the Left-Leaning Politifact rates this branch of logic Mostly False
 
Lord of Planar said:
Did you by chance notice the article speaks of Disability insurance (DI) when it speaks of the shortfalls?
Click to expand...

Last I checked SSDI was scheduled to go bust in 2016.

Meh, I'm sure it'll all work out. 2016 is so far away, and when it get's here we'll just tax the rich or something, and in the meantime let's just kick that ole can.....
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
I do not follow disability. It is a much more complicated issue, but it is my understanding that the shortfall encompasses both DI and OAS.
Click to expand...
You should look at the OMB numbers instead of the CBO.
 
cpwill said:
Last I checked SSDI was scheduled to go bust in 2016.

Meh, I'm sure it'll all work out. 2016 is so far away, and when it get's here we'll just tax the rich or something, and in the meantime let's just kick that ole can.....
Click to expand...
It won't go bust. It still has those trillions in IOU's to use up first.
 
RDS said:
Any free lunch is unsustainable.
Click to expand...

You really don't get it at all if you think this is comparable to food stamps. Did you even read in thread title that this is social security or just post this tripe in response to every govt program?

It comes out of paychecks, you have to contribute X # of years or you get nothing - so if you put 10 years in, that's theft basically, not a "free lunch", and same with younger people who are at risk of having 5% or whatever of their paycheck stolen by today's old farts, once it does go bust.

Solution - euthanize half of the elderly so there's something left
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
The reason that people don't vote 3rd party, is because SS is not a priority.
Click to expand...

There are plenty reasons other than SS to vote 3rd party/independent and that both major parties suck something fierce. Likewise, plenty wrong with federal spending and responsibility other than SS.
 
cpwill said:
Even the Left-Leaning Politifact rates this branch of logic Mostly False
Click to expand...

Democrats are normally fairly careful with their words. Here is what he said : ""Social Security didn't cause our deficit. Not one dime gets added to the deficit because of Social Security. It's not allowed to, by law." This is a true statement because what he is saying is that the revenue and expense of Social Security is not COUNTED in the deficit. The politifact writer confuses the debt with a theoretical calculation of debt. The "deficit" is a measure of cashflow. The debt is a financial obligation to repay money.

Here is what he said : "Since 2010, Social Security has been paying more in benefits than it has collected in payroll taxes. To meet its payments, Social Security began redeeming the bonds, plus interest, from the federal government. In other words, money was transferred from the government’s general fund to Social Security." Technically money moving from the GF to SS is not a debt, unless... you live in bizarre world where SS is an arm of the government and you treat all taxes the same. Watch. To meet its payments, China began redeeming the bonds, plus interest, from the federal government. In other words, money was transferred from the GF to China. Is this really an astounding revelation?

The answer is simple. The politician is saying that Social Security cannot add to the deficit by law is not much different than saying we have a law against illegal aliens, so no one has crossed the border without documentation. It is a stupid comment, that doesn't make it factually inaccurate.
 
cpwill said:
That is not directly analogous. The bank loans that money to other people, and often some collateral is involved (a car, a house, the persons' goods) if the debt goes bad. The US Government loaned that money to itself and then spent it.

So a better example would be you taking money out of savings, putting it into checking, spending it, promising to pay it back next month, but then never doing so.

Now the big expense you've been saving for is here, and it's no good saying "oh, don't worry, my checking account owes my savings all this money".
Click to expand...

bingo CP.
 
Lord of Planar said:
All the pay increase does is place the employers share of the FICA where the employee sees then pays for it. The only complication is the extra federal and state income taxes it would make a person liable for without tweaking the system there as well.
Click to expand...

It screws with the free market. And unless youre proposing an amendment, its unconstitutional. Either way, we're still just rearranging chairs. The program is fundementally flawed, and illegal.
 
mtm1963 said:
bingo CP.
Click to expand...

By the same logic then, private pensions do not exist because they lent money to the government, which the US government spent. The analogy itself is more flawed when it adds "promising to pay it back next month but never doing so" If the government wasn't repaying its debts, SS would have cut its payable benefit levels. But the government has actually repaid every scheduled penny plus scheduled interest thus far. The people who complain about the government repaying the money borrowed from SS aren't much different than those who run-up their credit card and want to blame the bank for lending them the money.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
By the same logic then, private pensions do not exist because they lent money to the government, which the US government spent. The analogy itself is more flawed when it adds "promising to pay it back next month but never doing so" If the government wasn't repaying its debts, SS would have cut its payable benefit levels. But the government has actually repaid every scheduled penny plus scheduled interest thus far. The people who complain about the government repaying the money borrowed from SS aren't much different than those who run-up their credit card and want to blame the bank for lending them the money.
Click to expand...

where did it get that money?

it borrowed it.
 
mtm1963 said:
where did it get that money?

it borrowed it.
Click to expand...

Where did it get the money that the govt used to pay China interest on the bonds that it held? It borrowed it. What is your point?

Let me fill it in for you. You are worried about the money lent by SS to the government because a default would affect you. You aren't worried about the money lent by China to the government because a default wouldn't affect you. Is that about right? This all goes back to blaming the bank for giving you a credit card.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Both of these are true, and there is no credible person who believes that the money will not be repaid with interest. If it isn't, the date of insolvency is pushed forward to the day on which the Trust Fund stops functioning. If the government doesn't repay bonds today with interest... Benefits are immediately cut.



You need to explain your point. The government has to repay debt 2.8 trillion to Social Security just like it has to repay debt to China. The govt will have to issue MORE debt to pay back the bonds held by China. So I do not understand your point.
Click to expand...

The point is that the government is creating more debt, to pay off previous debt in a devolving spiral. There has to come a day of reckoning at some point. This is the 800 lbs gorilla in the corner that you guys refuse to acknowledge.

Eventually people and other countries will stop buying our debt - then what?? Interest rates will have to rise - then what?? Raising taxes can't be the answer, b/c that will kill the economy and diminish returns, making the problem worse. In the short term, the FedRes will be the only purchaser of debt, but that is the equivalent of printing resulting in inflation.

The whole thing is a house of cards. You guys think it's 'all good' b/c you believe in the "full faith and credit" of the United States; but nations collapse and empires crumble - it is the way of the world, it is history over and over again. Most of those empires collapsed by travelling the same road we are on now.
 
wist43 said:
The point is that the government is creating more debt, to pay off previous debt in a devolving spiral. There has to come a day of reckoning at some point. This is the 800 lbs gorilla in the corner that you guys refuse to acknowledge.

Eventually people and other countries will stop buying our debt - then what?? Interest rates will have to rise - then what?? Raising taxes can't be the answer, b/c that will kill the economy and diminish returns, making the problem worse. In the short term, the FedRes will be the only purchaser of debt, but that is the equivalent of printing resulting in inflation.

The whole thing is a house of cards. You guys think it's 'all good' b/c you believe in the "full faith and credit" of the United States; but nations collapse and empires crumble - it is the way of the world, it is history over and over again. Most of those empires collapsed by travelling the same road we are on now.
Click to expand...

I am not sure where I said that the government's actions will not have a consequence, but this thread is about Social Security not about the future of the dollar. In terms of the government's debt position, there is no difference between Social Security and China. They are just the banker. The voter who complains about the debt is not much different than the person who complains that the bank gave their 17 year-old a credit card. The voter is the co-signer, and should have voted more wisely.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
Where did it get the money that the govt used to pay China interest on the bonds that it held? It borrowed it. What is your point?

Let me fill it in for you. You are worried about the money lent by SS to the government because a default would affect you. You aren't worried about the money lent by China to the government because a default wouldn't affect you. Is that about right? This all goes back to blaming the bank for giving you a credit card.
Click to expand...

there is NO money in the trust fund. if you listen to the democrats and the media, they will tell you there is 2.8 trillions dollars in the trust fund. they are lying to us.
 
So you're saying Ponzi schemes don't last forever.

Color me shocked.
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
I am not sure where I said that the government's actions will not have a consequence, but this thread is about Social Security not about the future of the dollar. In terms of the government's debt position, there is no difference between Social Security and China. They are just the banker. The voter who complains about the debt is not much different than the person who complains that the bank gave their 17 year-old a credit card. The voter is the co-signer, and should have voted more wisely.
Click to expand...

The value of the dollar is directly tied to SS b/c, as you guys like to point out, SS coffers are full of nothing Treasury IOU's.

If those IOU's are either no good, or severely devalued, then SS is bust - which is exactly the situation.

The perfect storm is coming, and many of us saw it decades ago... it isn't a matter of "I told ya so...", it's a matter of getting people to read the writing on the wall - but alas, they are illiterate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom