• 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

mtm1963 said:
where did it get that money?

it borrowed it.
Click to expand...

I think Joe is an "economist" for the government... making money is akin to being the banker in a game of monopoly, with a color printer sitting behind you ;)

A guy in the other thread said we could never default b/c the government can tax, borrow, and print... makes you wonder what these people were taught in the government indoctrination center they attended :roll:

Amazing.
 
mtm1963 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No CASH. The cash was invested in the Treasury. There are INVESTMENTS in the Trust Fund. Of course, SS invested in an entity which is also in the red, which congress required by law.
 
mtm1963 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Technically, the Republicans and every investment manager in existence are lying to us as well. If there is no money in the Trust Fund, then there is government securities in the private pensions are not money either. That will come as a surprise to the money managers who are legally required to protect the investments of the fund.

That is what you are suggesting.
 
wist43 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your views may be right albeit completely unrelated to the thread. Have you thought about opening a new thread on which the comment is relevant?

The point of the OP is that Social Security is insolvent today regardless of what the Trust Funds are invested in. So it really makes no difference whether the IOUs are good or not. If the IOUs which have been good for the past 70 years fail to be good, the only difference is the amount of failure in Social Security. If the Trust Fund was worth zero, it would add about a dime to the dollar of failure. The Trust Fund could be invested in gold bullion and it would still be economic parsley.

The people who whine about what the Trust Fund invests in really do not understand how the system works and the meaning of a paygo-system. The problems of Social Security have nothing to do with how the Trust Fund invests its money. The vast majority of the problem can be traced to the systemic underfunding of the system by the first 70 years of retirees. Is it really such a surprise to anyone that we can't give away dimes for nickels forever?
 
Erod said:
So you're saying Ponzi schemes don't last forever.

Color me shocked.
Click to expand...

JoeTheEconomist said:
Your views may be right albeit completely unrelated to the thread. Have you thought about opening a new thread on which the comment is relevant?

The point of the OP is that Social Security is insolvent today regardless of what the Trust Funds are invested in. So it really makes no difference whether the IOUs are good or not. If the IOUs which have been good for the past 70 years fail to be good, the only difference is the amount of failure in Social Security. If the Trust Fund was worth zero, it would add about a dime to the dollar of failure. The Trust Fund could be invested in gold bullion and it would still be economic parsley.

The people who whine about what the Trust Fund invests in really do not understand how the system works and the meaning of a paygo-system. The problems of Social Security have nothing to do with how the Trust Fund invests its money. The vast majority of the problem can be traced to the systemic underfunding of the system by the first 70 years of retirees. Is it really such a surprise to anyone that we can't give away dimes for nickels forever?
Click to expand...

As Erod said...

To that I would add, I've been arguing since the time I understood these things many decades ago that SS was designed to fail for very logical reasons. Yet Americans keep voting to ensure that the train barrels off the cliff under full power.

I agree that SS is bust. So is Medicare and the prescription drug program. They are all bust b/c the government is bust... few Americans understand anything about what is happening, and the media certainly isn't going to tell them - and even if the media did tell them, they're too busy watching Dancing With the Stars.

Americans deserve their comeuppance - it's gonna be ugly and painful.
 
With only 47 percent of Americans 16-65 working.......
 
JoeTheEconomist said:
When it comes to Social Security. I tend to listen to the SSA.

But I am curious why you think numbers from OMB are better than CBO.
Click to expand...
They can bothe be wrong about things. However, in this case, we were discussing money already spent. Not projections, when speaking of 2009/2001. The OMB uses hard compiled data and reports it.
 
mtm1963 said:
i think its a combination of both, but i'm not sure about that thou.
Click to expand...

Exactly. A percentage of all workers isn't a proper indication of workforce health.

I'm pretty sure full time is taking a dramatic loss of numbers and part time is increasing. The percentage peak of around 1998 I bet had a greater share of full time workers I bet.
 
American said:
Well you young people better get your asses to work so I can collect my entitlement! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You will love my next article :

These aren't my words, but those of Charles Blahous, public trustee of the Trust Funds :

"If tomorrow’s Social Security benefits less secure than today’s, it would be a tragic irony: the outcome would have been brought about largely by supporters of Social Security having countenanced the tactics of delay to the point that the program’s unique political protections could no longer be preserved. Those who care about the Social Security program need to clearly understand the consequence of this ongoing neglect."
 
Lord of Planar said:
It won't go bust. It still has those trillions in IOU's to use up first.
Click to expand...

Those IOUs are only as good as those who wrote them and their ability to pay them back. In this case, I believe, it's the US federal government, and it's ability to pay is directly related to what is spends and what it takes in as revenue from the US tax payers.

As long as the US as payers go along with paying, yes, the US government will be able to make good on those IOUs, but there are signs that the US tax payer is suffering from taxation exhaustion and are rejecting the increasing demands of the federal government. Witness the TEA party as well as businesses and the taxation inversion maneuvers they are undertaking.
 
Of course SS is going to go bust. If you're a 22 year old woman who dies giving birth to a baby, and you've paid into SS a whopping 1 year, that child is entitled to your SS until it reaches 18, or stays a full time student until 22. That child will get substantially more out of SS than you ever paid in.

I always look at that thing I get from SSA in the mail that tells me what I will get out of SS at ages x and y, etc. I calculate what I will get in total if I live to me 85. I know what I've been paying into it since I was 22. I'll get my entire contribution back long long long before I die.
 
tres borrachos said:
Of course SS is going to go bust. If you're a 22 year old woman who dies giving birth to a baby, and you've paid into SS a whopping 1 year, that child is entitled to your SS until it reaches 18, or stays a full time student until 22. That child will get substantially more out of SS than you ever paid in.

I always look at that thing I get from SSA in the mail that tells me what I will get out of SS at ages x and y, etc. I calculate what I will get in total if I live to me 85. I know what I've been paying into it since I was 22. I'll get my entire contribution back long long long before I die.
Click to expand...

When conceived, SS was supposed to be that what ever person put in, they could draw out. It worked at the time as retirement age was 65 which was higher than the expected lifetime. Then, LBJ I believe it was, changed the system such that those who are paying in pay for those who are drawing on it (blew all that money on war on poverty I think it was). That system works great if you population is continually increasing, but we've come to see how population demographics change over time, as in the baby boomers retiring and no growth in jobs or population to replace them.

So, yes, I'd agree. Common sense seems to lead to the conclusion that SS will in fact go broke, all things remaining the same. So, some changes are going to have to be made, but it's the third (electrified) rail of US politics.
 
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...

Yeah, I lack faith in politicians too, but what exactly do you mean by voters willingness to do what is in the best interest of others?
 
tres borrachos said:
Of course SS is going to go bust. If you're a 22 year old woman who dies giving birth to a baby, and you've paid into SS a whopping 1 year, that child is entitled to your SS until it reaches 18, or stays a full time student until 22. That child will get substantially more out of SS than you ever paid in.

I always look at that thing I get from SSA in the mail that tells me what I will get out of SS at ages x and y, etc. I calculate what I will get in total if I live to me 85. I know what I've been paying into it since I was 22. I'll get my entire contribution back long long long before I die.
Click to expand...

if you dont include interest
 
tres borrachos said:
Of course SS is going to go bust. If you're a 22 year old woman who dies giving birth to a baby, and you've paid into SS a whopping 1 year, that child is entitled to your SS until it reaches 18, or stays a full time student until 22. That child will get substantially more out of SS than you ever paid in.

I always look at that thing I get from SSA in the mail that tells me what I will get out of SS at ages x and y, etc. I calculate what I will get in total if I live to me 85. I know what I've been paying into it since I was 22. I'll get my entire contribution back long long long before I die.
Click to expand...

That is a perfect example of our government entitlements at work. Promise the world and go broke doing it. That has been the liberal way from the end of WWII and now we sit with a 17.5 trillion national debt and growing. To make maters worse all the entitlement programs are under water.
 
Born Free said:
Yeah, at the federal bond rate of 1.5% it's not much. So add a month or two.
Click to expand...

thats all it took to get several thousand percent inflation since we went off the gold standard.
 
KokomoJojo said:
thats all it took to get several thousand percent inflation since we went off the gold standard.
Click to expand...

Well it's what it is. The bond rate is low and so is the lending rate. One hurts the elders on fixed income and the other helps the ones building wealth. What can I say?
 
Born Free said:
Well it's what it is. The bond rate is low and so is the lending rate. One hurts the elders on fixed income and the other helps the ones building wealth. What can I say?
Click to expand...

the corresponding inflation kills the elders however.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom