The press attacks on Social Security continue; Social Security surplus dwarfed by future deficit

[DainBramaged]

As millions of baby boomers flood Social Security with applications for benefits, the program's $2.7 trillion surplus is starting to look small.

For nearly three decades Social Security produced big surpluses, collecting more in taxes from workers than it paid in benefits to retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children. The surpluses also helped mask the size of the budget deficit being generated by the rest of the federal government.

Those days are over.

Since 2010, Social Security has been paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes, adding to the urgency for Congress to address the program's long-term finances.

"To me, urgent doesn't begin to describe it," said Chuck Blahous, one of the public trustees who oversee Social Security. "I would say we're somewhere between critical and too late to deal with it."

The Social Security trustees project the surplus will be gone in 2033. Unless Congress acts, Social Security would only collect enough tax revenue each year to pay about 75 percent of benefits, triggering an automatic reduction.

http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/12/13244389-social-security-surplus-dwarfed-by-future-deficit?lite

[Scuba]

1. And nothing can be done. It's hopeless. There's no chance.

Well, unless the cap were lifted. That would fix it.

[99th_Monkey]

27. Obama's Payroll Tax Holidays aren't helping this situation

It makes me nervous every time I see that he's extended PR tax holiday.

[Scuba]

28. Spitting in the ocean compared to lifting the cap on ALL income.

[99th_Monkey]

29. I quite agree about raising the cap, or eliminating it altogether. ~nt.

[rfranklin]

2. Let's trigger an automatic increase in the ceiling on contributions...

that's what the majority wants. One percenters are the ones who have been living off the cap.

[joeglow3]

3. You are talking accounting tricks

I understand what you are saying, but the issue is the entire government budget and the impact that future social security payments will have on it. Clearly, there were a LOT of excess money that was collected, and subsequently spent. Now, we have to figure out how we keep good on those promises. Sorry, but you cannot look at the social security program in a vacuum.

[DainBramaged]

4. What did I say?

[joeglow3]

5. "The press attacks on Social Security continue"

[DainBramaged]

9. And they do, what's the point?

[joeglow3]

11. An attack implies it is not true

I prefer this is front and center every day, as it is an issue that needs to be addressed. I fail to see the occasional article highlighting the real dangers of the government as a whole and the way social security plays into as "an attack on social security."

[DainBramaged]

13. Of course not

not one of these hit pieces offers anything but privatization as the solution so don't tell me they're highlighting any danger.

[joeglow3]

14. Where did is say privatization is the solution?

[JDPriestly]

7. Right, JoeBlow, let's not look at Social Security in a vacuum.

Let's look at it in the context of our society and our economy as a whole.

Is there an alternative to Social Security?

The first and simplest one that comes to mind is simply telling people to die once they reach a certain age. Let's call that the Ryan-pushing-grandma-off-the-cliff-alternative. But it's very unpopular. Many of us seniors (and our children and grandchildren) object to it for some reason. There's got to be something better.

How about if young people save all their money in private investment accounts on Wall Street instead of entrusting it to the Social Security Trust Fund and the Secretary of the Treasury in Washington, D.C.?

Not a good idea either. If we did that, then, besides destroying the Social Security system entirely, the same people who are badmouthing Social Security would be warning us how the huge number of seniors was going to cause a drastic fall in the stock market because seniors will have to take their money out of the markets all at once in order to buy necessities with the investment capital that Wall Street needs to keep trading. We'd be right back to the kill-granny alternative, and as we know, that is unpopular.

So, let's go back to the problem. And if we look carefully, we will realize that it is not that there is not enough money in the Social Security fund. (If that were really the concern, Obama and Congress surely would not have pressed and voted for a vacation in part of the FICA payments into that fund.)

The problem is deeper than that. In one sentence, is our economy strong enough to provide for the bulge in baby boomer retirees?

Doing away with Social Security and shifting the burden of caring for seniors onto the private investment market and directly on to the natural children of each of the seniors will not change or solve that underlying problem.

Remember the story of Jesus and the miracle of the loaves and fishes.

I assume you know it. Jesus was about to give a big speech on a hill. A lot of people had come to hear him, and it took a long time to get started -- much longer than people had expected. Many people had brought no lunch, but some had. Jesus worked a miracle and everyone ate.

My preacher dad used to explain that Jesus' miracle in that story was getting people to share. He got those who had food to give to those who did not.

We need that miracle in our society now. Republicans might call it Socialism. The Gospels call it a miracle. Same difference. The rich have to share with the poor.

Fortunately, the sacrifice on the part of the rich will not be all that great because productivity in our economy is rising thanks to improved technology and, in spite of the bad-mouthers, a well educated workforce. There is enough to go around if the rich share with the poor.

Republicans should focus on jobs, on education, and yes, on sharing, and stop pushing grandma toward that cliff.

[joeglow3]

8. Sorry, but people who resort to namecalling are dismissed as incapable of mature discussions

Its a shame, as there were a lot of words in your post and I am sure I would have enjoyed an honest discussion (had I chose to read them). However, I cannot take seriously someone who resorts to name-calling. History has shown me that those who resort to it typically are not capable of rational discussions.

[DainBramaged]

12. Awwwwwwwwwwwwwww

you feelings is hurted

[joeglow3]

15. Can you read?

I explained I tend not to waste my time with those people, as history has shown me that they resort to name calling because they are incapable of intelligent discussion. Not hurt feelings. Rather, I don't waste my time pissing in the wind.

[DainBramaged]

18. "Can you read" is just as insulting as you little hissy fit before

go argue stability with a table.

[joeglow3]

21. No. One is clearly based on observeable facts and the others is simply name calling

The facts were right in front of you and you chose to ignore them. My pointing that out is NOT namecalling.

However, I noticed how you could reply to this in a snarky manner, but refused to address the point made up thread.

[DainBramaged]

22. LaLaLaLaLaLaLa

[JDPriestly]

24. DainBramaged,

I apologized to JoeGlow. I actually misread his name.

I would like to know how he responds to my statement. I think my arguments are pretty solid.

[DainBramaged]

25. He thinks you are name calling, I think your points are valid and well thought out

I think he's got his panties in a knot over nothing

[Major Nikon]

17. +1

[JDPriestly]

23. I'm sorry. I was not name-calling. I actually misread your name. I am very

nearsighted. Sorry. I apologize.

[joeglow3]

26. Apology accepted. Now, I agree with most everything you said.

The sole point I was trying to make is that SOMETHING needs to be done. I get frustrated when people say "Social Security is in great shape. It has $2.7 trillions dollars." That is nothing more than an accounting gimmick and we need to look at the fact that we invested that money back into the government, and then spent it on roads, bombs, corporate giveaways, etc. There is no way to cash in those roads and bombs or to get the giveaways back, and thus no way to pay the money back into the trust funds. I agree with your points and welcome your discussion. I just hate it when people try to completely ignore the ticking time bomb (just like our government).

[JDPriestly]

31. I beg to differ on one point: there is a way to get back the money invested

in roads and bombs, etc. Ask the rich who benefited from those things and the corporations whose profited thanks to the infrastructure and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan to pay a higher share of the taxes. It's only fair.

Social Security is deferred income -- plus interest. The benefits were promised to seniors, and it is important the the younger generation keep the promises of their grandparents and great-grandparents to the current senior generation.

It is trust that keeps a society together. Respecting the obligations of one's parents and grandparents establishes trust in society.

We seniors paid into the Social Security Trust Fund. If you think about the decline in the quality of goods we are offered today, it is clear that the dollars we paid in bought more and better quality than the dollars we receive today. Remember, seniors are not the big market for the things that have become less expensive like I-pads and computers and cell phones. We buy food and necessities and pay for medical care (in addition to Medicare), and we have seen quite a bit of inflation in those things. A carton of yoghurt that used to cost less than $5 now costs me $6.95. When I started paying into Social Security, that carton would not have cost me $1, much less, nearly $7.

In addition, we paid extra into Social Security and Medicare so that there would be enough money for our retirement and the smaller generation of our children would not be impoverished or overwhelmed when we retired.

Where should the money to fund Social Security and Medicare come from?

Every time a road is built, employees are paid and construction companies make money as do cement manufacturers and the manufacturers of machinery, etc. Those projects enrich individuals and corporations.

The problem is that Bush gave tax cuts to the best paid of the employees and businesses like construction companies. People who have become wealthy in recent years in part thanks to the Bush tax cuts need to contribute more now in order to repay the Social Security Trust Fund and the deferred income that has gone into it.

We Depression, War and Boomer Babies took care of our parents and set aside money to take care of ourselves when we would need Social Security.

The incomes of the wealthiest in our country have increased a lot in the last 20-30 years while the incomes of the rest of us did not. It is time for the wealthy to pay back. That's all there is to it.

And the payback is not just needed for seniors. Young people entering our economy need opportunities. And since the private sector does not appear capable of providing the opportunities needed, we should raise taxes to boost our economy. As young people find more opportunities, wages will rise, our tax revenue will increase, and our society will be safer and happier.

At this time, the wealthy just take their money and invest it overseas. By raising taxes, we can prevent some of that financial bleeding. We need to do that before our country's economy is bled dry.

[Major Nikon]

19. That's easy, we can always eat the rich

The SS trust fund was paid for by the working class, for the working class. Meanwhile the rich got at least 4 major tax cuts over the same period the trust fund was being vested. If politicians are looking to prop up the general fund to pay for the military industrial complex, they can tap the rich who already got theirs. Not "keeping promises" is not an option. If politicians tried to break those promises, they would face a citizen revolt at best, revolution at worst.

[reformist2]

6. What other government program is fully funded for 20 years?

The money managers are dying for new income streams to keep their mutual funds going. That's who is really behind this never-ending drive to "privatize".

[DainBramaged]

10. And that is the point, which some people think is the way to fix it

some like say, the glow plug in a nitro-burning RC airplane

[joeglow3]

30. Accounting gimmicks

Really? It is fully funded? Then, transfer all money to the trust fund and keep it in cash. Oh, you can't because the government doesn't have the money, as it has all been spent. This is no different than me taking out a loan for my entire 401(k) balance, taking a bunch of trips and then claiming I am set for retirement because I have tons of investments in my 401(k) (in IOU's from myself). As a whole, the government took a program that was well established, raided it and pissed away all the money. Thus, we are forced to look at the government as a whole and see that we have obligations that currently cannot be met.

We NEED to do something fix this. Nearly all non-political experts agree. Myself, I think we should adopt the intention of the insurance program (it is NOT a retirement program) and means test it.

[Major Nikon]

16. Not this shit again

In 2033, the youngest baby boomer will be 69 and the vast majority of them will be dead. Furthermore, the SS trustees' estimate is overly conservative. The CBO estimates the trust fund will last until 2039, at which point the youngest baby boomer will be 75. Remember these figures are based on congress doing absolutely nothing to SS. The oldest baby boomers are 66 years old right now and many of them have been drawing SS for years so it makes perfect sense that the trust fund is being tapped. Did people actually expect the trust fund would never be used?

[DainBramaged]

20. And that is the point. This is another scare piece, plain and simple to prepare the great unwashed

for Cashageddon