5 Myths That Pass For Facts About Social Security

longview said:

I do not think so, from your own link there is a long list of,
"WHAT INCOME DOES NOT COUNT FOR SSI?",
including this vague statement,
.
It could be possible for a person to make lots of the right kind of income, without it affecting their ssi payments.
I think as the income vs outlay of social security gets worse, they will open up all income to the means testing.

Click to expand...

I think you guys are talking about different programs. SSI is Supplementary Security Income which is a welfare program unrelated to Social Security. SSI is a general fund charge that has zero impact on Social Security.

jet57 said:

Yeah, you'll have to go back and read it again.

Click to expand...

I have read the piece previously, and even used it in an article. So I have to look through the haystack because you are assuring me that there is a needle in there somewhere.

While the link generally supports the claim, I have two points. First fact checkers aren't very reliable (there is a great piece on this if you are interested from TheWeekly). Second, your link tends to support my claim, not dispute it.

There is a problem with "fact checkers". They are largely trying to referee a game of between ideologies where both sides are using data that doesn't make a lot of sense. In your link :

"Even if Bush "Even if Bush "borrowed" from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion, and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purposes. As for not "paying back," the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020."


Actually the vast majority of the borrow was "ear-marked" to pay interest on past borrowing. Of the $2.9 trillion held today, the system holds roughly $2 trillion in interest and interest on interest. This exposes the larger problem. Most of the actual excess cash that was borrowed, has been repaid. These bonds are held for a finite period of time up to 15 years before they are refinanced again. All of the borrowing by Clinton's Administration was repaid by 2015, with refinancing bonds issued by Bush and by Obama.

Did Bush or any president borrow money from Social Security?

Since I can't find your concern in the Politifact article, I will give you my article on the actual cashflows of the Trust Fund. Simply put, every penny of EXCESS CONTRIBUTION ever borrowed has been spent on one program : Social Security. Yes the program gets general fund subsidies. It may not sound interesting but it pretty much ends the discussion of the "raid" on Social Security.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2015/12/08/the-myth-of-the-missing-social-security-trust-fund/

longview said:

Only for what is classified as countable income.
A person could have some types of income that are not counted,
which is what your own link said, they had an entire section called,
WHAT INCOME DOES NOT COUNT FOR SSI?".

Click to expand...

Just because you dont understand what is and isnt countable income, doesnt make it some kind of loophole. And no matter what 6k a month will make you lose SSI completely.

FreedomFromAll said:

Just because you dont understand what is and isnt countable income, doesnt make it some kind of loophole. And no matter what 6k a month will make you lose SSI completely.

Click to expand...

I think you are talking about different things. SSI is a welfare program run by the SSA. People tend to think that it is part of Social Security, and it isn't. You may be right, but you are discussing apples and he is talking about oranges.

JoeTheEconomist said:

I have read the piece previously, and even used it in an article. So I have to look through the haystack because you are assuring me that there is a needle in there somewhere.

While the link generally supports the claim, I have two points. First fact checkers aren't very reliable (there is a great piece on this if you are interested from TheWeekly). Second, your link tends to support my claim, not dispute it.

There is a problem with "fact checkers". They are largely trying to referee a game of between ideologies where both sides are using data that doesn't make a lot of sense. In your link :

"Even if Bush "Even if Bush "borrowed" from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion, and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purposes. As for not "paying back," the bonds won’t need to be repaid until 2020."


Actually the vast majority of the borrow was "ear-marked" to pay interest on past borrowing. Of the $2.9 trillion held today, the system holds roughly $2 trillion in interest and interest on interest. This exposes the larger problem. Most of the actual excess cash that was borrowed, has been repaid. These bonds are held for a finite period of time up to 15 years before they are refinanced again. All of the borrowing by Clinton's Administration was repaid by 2015, with refinancing bonds issued by Bush and by Obama.

Did Bush or any president borrow money from Social Security?

Since I can't find your concern in the Politifact article, I will give you my article on the actual cashflows of the Trust Fund. Simply put, every penny of EXCESS CONTRIBUTION ever borrowed has been spent on one program : Social Security. Yes the program gets general fund subsidies. It may not sound interesting but it pretty much ends the discussion of the "raid" on Social Security.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2015/12/08/the-myth-of-the-missing-social-security-trust-fund/

Click to expand...

Here's an article that tells us that Reagan raided the fund as well. https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/

The point is, your source is biased and is not telling the whole story.

jet57 said:

Here's an article that tells us that Reagan raided the fund as well. https://www.fedsmith.com/2013/10/11/ronald-reagan-and-the-great-social-security-heist/

The point is, your source is biased and is not telling the whole story.

Click to expand...

The Social Security Trustees are not a biased source. Dr. Smith's piece does not have single source, and it makes wildly crazy assertions : " The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. " Today the Trust Fund is around $2.9 trillion - of which $2 trillion is interest and another $650 billion is general fund subsidies TO the system. He is claiming that the $650 billion that the government put into the system is the government then stealing from the system. That is lunacy.

To give you some idea of how far off that piece is : the tax increases that Dr. Smith attributes to Reagan were passed in 1977 under Carter. Reagan simply moved them forward in time.

Here is the longer piece on the absurdity of the "Reagan stole the money" non-sense.

Brenton Smith: Just the facts on Social Security

JoeTheEconomist said:

The Social Security Trustees are not a biased source. Dr. Smith's piece does not have single source, and it makes wildly crazy assertions : " The payroll tax hike of 1983 generated a total of $2.7 trillion in surplus Social Security revenue. " Today the Trust Fund is around $2.9 trillion - of which $2 trillion is interest and another $650 billion is general fund subsidies TO the system. He is claiming that the $650 billion that the government put into the system is the government then stealing from the system. That is lunacy.

To give you some idea of how far off that piece is : the tax increases that Dr. Smith attributes to Reagan were passed in 1977 under Carter. Reagan simply moved them forward in time.

Here is the longer piece on the absurdity of the "Reagan stole the money" non-sense.

Brenton Smith: Just the facts on Social Security

Click to expand...

This is from your OP and is named a myth:

5. The government has raided the Trust Funds to pay for other programs.

Click to expand...

What I'm showing you that it is not a myth. I offered two proofs that verify that and you have agreed that I am making a case for the argument. Your OP source denies this.

jet57 said:

This is from your OP and is named a myth:

What I'm showing you that it is not a myth. I offered two proofs that verify that and you have agreed that I am making a case for the argument. Your OP source denies this.

Click to expand...

Your original link supports my claim. Your second link has no proofs at all. It does not have a single link in support of his wild claims. Mind you his claims are in fact completely debunked by SSA reports. If I find a link that says that the moon landings were faked, that does not mean that the moon landing were actually faked.

JoeTheEconomist said:

Your original link supports my claim. Your second link has no proofs at all. It does not have a single link in support of his wild claims. Mind you his claims are in fact completely debunked by SSA reports. If I find a link that says that the moon landings were faked, that does not mean that the moon landing were actually faked.

Click to expand...

From my source article, here is my assertion about myth 5:

By law, the Social Security surplus is converted into bonds, and the cash is used by the Treasury to pay for government expenses. If we agree that this is "borrowing," every president since 1935 has done it, to fund all sorts of things. Even if Bush "borrowed" from the surplus, the amount is more like $708 billion, and the borrowing wasn’t earmarked for a special purposes.

Click to expand...

So, the government HAS been using the fund to pay for everything they think they need, including Iraq.

The waters on these types of issue are murky by design so that the government can get away with - "what they need" and leave US holding the bag.

Now your username suggests that you probably know a lot more about economic issues that I do, but some things are so clear that any butcher, baker or candle stick maker can see them with 20-20 vision.

jet57 said:

From my source article, here is my assertion about myth 5:

So, the government HAS been using the fund to pay for everything they think they need, including Iraq.

The waters on these types of issue are murky by design so that the government can get away with - "what they need" and leave US holding the bag.

Now your username suggests that you probably know a lot more about economic issues that I do, but some things are so clear that any butcher, baker or candle stick maker can see them with 20-20 vision.

Click to expand...

First, my moniker is a little bit of a hyperbole. We are all joe the economist. Economics isn't really a hard science. What separates me is I have actually read the trustees report (that is more of a confession than a plus). As part of that, I have read a lot of the history, and see through the cliche of the issue.

Absent a massive conspiracy at the SSA, the statement that the money is not already ear-marked is non-sense. The vast majority of the $708 billion that was borrowed by Bush was ear-marked for interest. It isn't money that was borrowed and spent else where. It was a single slug credit from the government to acknowledge an EXPENSE. You are suggesting that the government putting money into the program is a 'raid'. Most of the money that was borrowed by Bush was re-financed by borrowings from Obama. On top of $2 trillion in interest payments made TO the system. The government has also added more than $600 billion in direct subsidies to the system, most of which came from the payroll tax holiday credits. I can document the interest and general fund subsidies that were made TO the program. If you look at (Total reserve) - (interest) - General Fund subsidies = actual excess cash borrowed from the program. The actual borrowing doesn't even cover the subsidies to the program. That doesn't even factor in the EITC credits.

You aren't terribly at fault here. Politifact is simply not a complete resource. You are depending upon journalists who are far removed from their training to assess fact and fiction between bickering ideologues. That is a tough job even when you have the academic training.

JoeTheEconomist said:

I think you are talking about different things. SSI is a welfare program run by the SSA. People tend to think that it is part of Social Security, and it isn't. You may be right, but you are discussing apples and he is talking about oranges.

Click to expand...

I wasnt the one that brought up SSI. https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...l-security-post1067379653.html#post1067379653

SouthernDemocrat said:

Total Medicare and Medicaid (seniors account for a lot of Medicaid spending) outlays 2015 was 1158 Billion compared to SS at 905 billion. As inflation rates for the healthcare sector far exceeds the rest of the economy, the problem will only get worse.

Click to expand...

Medicare and Medicaid are different programs. When we consolidate the programs I would agree with you. The cost of the delivery of healthcare is absurd.

FreedomFromAll said:

I wasnt the one that brought up SSI. https://www.debatepolitics.com/gove...l-security-post1067379653.html#post1067379653

Click to expand...

I know. It just seems that two people are talking about different things. I am pretty confident that at 6K a month, he is talking about retirement benefits. And his feel for the direction of Social Security isn't terribly far off. Here is where you introduced SSI in its actual form.

FreedomFromAll said:

Im thinking that you are mistaking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for something else.

https://www.ssa.gov/ssi/text-income-ussi.htm

Click to expand...

I am only suggesting that the two of you are talking about different things.

JoeTheEconomist said:

I know. It just seems that two people are talking about different things. I am pretty confident that at 6K a month, he is talking about retirement benefits. And his feel for the direction of Social Security isn't terribly far off. Here is where you introduced SSI in its actual form.



I am only suggesting that the two of you are talking about different things.

Click to expand...

I knew we were and that was my damn point. That is what I meant when I point blankly said: "Im thinking that you are mistaking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) for something else."

Why do you feel the need to point out my own damn point to me? Did you think that I didnt notice what I said?

As far as the 6k part matters its a moot point since a lot of people never reach the rising retirement age anyways. Neither of my parents lived long enough to draw social security.