Question: If Social Security will be 'dead' by 2019

[DustMolecule]

per the latest prediction - WHY do people/organizations keep asking us for (and we stupidly keep giving) our social security number?

If you look at one of the original social security cards, it EXPRESSLY says, "not to be used for identification".

[htuttle]

1. You don't give them your real number when they ask, do you?

It's not as if they can double check it.

:shrug:

[DustMolecule]

3. Gee, in my feeble attempts to be 'honest in life'

I didn't think of that....hmmmmm, :think: :-)

[arewethereyet]

14. so you're suggesting fraud ?

not really a good plan. And they certainly CAN check it.

[htuttle]

17. SSA can check it. IRS can check it. Columbia Record Club cannot.

Obviously, when it involves your income, like at a bank, for example, it's wise (and legally required) to give your real SS number.

Lying to Columbia Record Club (or whatever private business demands your SS# for 'tracking') is nowhere near the same thing. They aren't supposed to be asking for it anyway.

And no, they can't check it with the Social Security Administration. At least they damned better not be able to -- I'm pretty sure THAT would be against the Social Security laws.

They could cross reference it via a credit bureau (who also probably ought not to have your social security number, but they do), so it's wise to at least be consistent, but they can't check it with the SSA.

[arewethereyet]

22. thats why Columbia doesn't ask for ssn

there are much better ways to track ssn than through the ssa and they're not even credit bureaus (they have rules too).

[lastknowngood]

2. The sgin of the beast i.e. government control identification

"your papers please" only it will be inventory tracking device placed inside the body to track your every move. Welcom to 1984

[papau]

4. Social Security is solid - it will not be 'dead' by 2019

Even the liars working for Bush do not make this claim.

Call the Soc Sec 800 number and as you are on hold listen to the message that says SS is rock solid as to financials through 2042 with no changes - after 2042 either more revenue with a removal of the wage cap that limits the tax the rich pay, or a reduction in the benefit that is paid at age 62 by making the full benefit age 70 rather than Reagan's 1983 laws age 67.

As to national identity cards - the GOP said that was totalitarian - so the SS card says not for ID - but post 911 that appears to have changed.

[twilight]

6. well that is encouraging

as a disabled social security recipient that is middle-aged and very ill, I know I'd be dead by 2042 thank god.

Who the hell wants to live long with a progressive disease? Not me.

Thank god I won't live more than another 20 years I was told.

For those that think they will or might, I'd say get an IRA going ASAP. Luckily I managed to hang on to the one I have though the turmoil of becoming unexpectedly disabled about 10 years ago.

All of this "chatter" makes sick people like myself just worry themselves sick to the point of no return.

I wish they'd stop saying that Social Security/Medicare is going broke. Its a convenient political topic to attack no doubt but it makes the disabled sicker. I can attest to that. :(

I am sure it provides the elderly with little comfort as well. However, most of them won't be around in 2042 either, muchless 2019.

:dem: :kick:

[Yupster]

8. Social Security is just fine as long as

the government pays back the hundreds of billions it's borrowed from the social security trust fund.

Of course since the government doesn't have the money to repay the fund, then it's kind of pointless to say it will be fine.

It's like if I say I'll be fine in retirement as long as I have $ 2 million invested, but since I'm doing nothing to save the money and have no hope of getting it, it's kind of pointless to say I'll be fine.

[ulTRAX]

23. SS sound until 2042? NONSENSE

I wish the Dems would stop this distortion. By 2019 or so SS will have to collect on all those IOUs. SS surpluses will no longer be available for expenses/debt paydown. The ONLY way to pay them is with a true revenue surplus to pay back those IOUs. Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and the threat of the Tax Cut Psychos to make them permanant... put all that at risk. This is the end game of the rabid right that hates these New Deal programs: create a budget crisis that will sabotage these programs.

[King of New Orleans]

5. It's Medicare that goes broke in 2019

Though I'd be willing to bet that the next time the actuaries run the number they'll move up the "bankrupt" date for SS too.

[papau]

7. Again a slight tax change, or a definition of income that includes

the rich folks main source of income - investment and capital gains - or a savings of 20 to 30% by moving to single payer national health, or the 10% savings by undoing the waste that is expected by even the GOP - as they projected higher costs - just from having more private companies involved - could be a changed that moves that 2019 date out into never a problem land.

But cost of medical education is leaving students with 180,000 in loans - and HMO payment to doctors cutbacks mean these kids must declare bankrupcy - which under the rules means that they can not be doctors in the US. So expect a lot more green card doctors in the US as we outsource one more good paying job type.

[DustMolecule]

9. I have some good friends who are doctors....

....and the very unfortunate thing is how these 'originally good hearted/well-intentioned people' have been forced down into this awful 'pit' ... they have do deal with mal-practice insurance/issues - one Doctor I know has to employ 7 (count 'em 7) people to deal with insurance/insurance company issues. Although I notice with this particular doc, that he is awfully eagar to prescribe medications ;-) - many/most we don't fill - common sense must prevail ;-)

From another doctor's wife, she tells me that, 'if he (her husband) had known what he'd have had to deal with by becoming a doctor 'back then', he NEVER wouldnv'e done this!' THAT's the other side of the story!....no sides taken here....just commentary.

[BillZBubb]

18. Before I feel sorry for any of them...

How many of them fought to get Clinton's health care plan approved?

That would have eliminated virtually all of the insurance problems.

[The White Rose]

10. Sure it's fixable. But there has to be the will to fix it.

The Right aims to cripple then eradicate every government social program from the New Deal onwards; hell, Grover Norquist wants them small enough "to drown in a bathtub"! When the powers that be are actively seeking to turn the country into a feudal theocracy (and are largely succeeding) is it unreasonable to assume the worst?

[Yupster]

11. The Republicans have a plan

Privatization.

It would be nice if the Democratic candidates would have a plan. All I ever hear is "don't worry. It's fine." No it's not fine.

Even a bad plan will beat no plan at all.

[Solon]

12. That is like bleeding someone to cure an ill.

The Repubs plan would be worse than letting this "ailment" run its course. I'm not saying we should not do anything, but the Repubs plan will not help at all, and will be worse.

[Yupster]

16. I'm sure bleeding patients was horrible, but

Which doctor would the family choose?

The one who said "If I bleed the poison out of his bloodstream he has a good chance to recover," or the one who said "Yeah, he's very sick and dying. Just leave him lay there. I don't have any ideas."

[papau]

13. Soc Sec is fine - Medicare is a problem that needs new tax revenues/rules

in 2042 - if nothing has been done by then, we just do the Reagan change.

Back in 84 he changed the full benefit "normal retirement age from 65 to 67 (graded in so those born in 43 are full benefit at age 66)- we just move 67 to 70, and with no other changes Social Security continues for another 50 years.

Better would be a wage base cap removal - but then you are making the rich pay more than they pay now - I believe the GOP media call that class warfare (the rich making the middle class pay more is called economic justice and fairness).

[Yupster]

15. The big change Reagan made was

to collect enough money each year to waaaay over fund Social Security so the extra money could be saved for when the baby boomers retire and the system will need hundreds of billions of extra dollars.

That was done and it was a good idea.

BUT,

The money was spent instead of saved.

There is no extra money waiting to help the lean years. It's gone puffft.

The projections assuming FICA is in good shape until 2042 are assuming we spend the extra money we've been saving up since Reagan. That's nice, but we haven't been saving it up. It's gone.

I could say when I'm 62, that as long as I saved $ 100 a month from 18 to 65 I will have plenty in retirement. That wouldn't have a lot of meaning at age 62 if I hadn't in fact saved the money though. I spent it on dinners out instead. That's the situation we're in with social security.

We're projecting that we're fine since we've been saving all the extra money since Reagan, when in fact we haven't been saving it. We've already spent it.

[papau]

19. In the world of SS, "Saved money" is money used to pay down Nat'l debt

thereby making room to issue new debt - that will provide the cash -that will be given the Social Security Trust Fund when ever they need more than the payroll tax in order to pay that years benefits.

The total National Debt does not increase - indeed it does not change - when the government does those new borrowings so as to get cash for Social Security - - - ! ! ! - - because the Social Security Trust fund holds government bonds it recieved for all those excess payroll taxes paid since Reagan - - and it gives the goverment a bond for the cash which the government retires.

In effect - the government owed Social Security - and now owes the capital markets the same amount. There is no change in the National Debt.

Only Clinton actually followed through on this concept/promise to the old folks. From 12/31/1999 to 12/31/2000 the National Debt actually decreased. This decrease was called the "GORE LOCKBOX" in the 2000 election - and I swear no one in the media understood what he was saying.

In anycase, The Social Security Trust Fund still owns all those government bonds. It will be harder on the economy to get new debt issued given the mess that Bush has made.

Indeed the Social Security monies were not used to pay down the debt under Bush, but under Bush they were given to the rich. So beginning in 2017 the rich will have to pay that loan off - which means higher taxes on the rich -

And now you see the reason that BUSH is screaming that there is a problem with Social Security that requires private accounts. In the process of setting up private accounts, Social Security benefits will be cut so as to avoid the need to ask the rich to pay back those monies stolen from the social saecurity payroll tax. Indeed Bush will pretend that government promises of future tax increases on the rich - government IOU's - the government bonds that are the Assets in the Social Security Trust fund should not be cashed in because that will make the system weak - so there really are no "assets" in the trust fund. As in all things Bush, up is down in social security accounting logic!

Protecting the rich is the only reason you have been told that there is a problem with SS - and that private accounts are needed.

Now the Reagan "full benefit normal retirement age change from 65 to 67" will be fully phased in in a couple of decades - and with no other change to Social Security, a further "full benefit normal retirement age change from 67 to 70" will need to be in place for the 2043 year.

A better solution to my way of thinking is to get more revenue via the rich pay more via removing the wage cap on the payroll tax.

But in 2043 a 30% mismatch occurs and stays with us. An age change to 70 means age 62 retirees get 30% less - and the system is fixed. A removal of the wage cap by the year 2043 means I smile from my grave on the brave liberals who made the world a little better place, as folks continue to get todays level of benefits.!

:-)

[Yupster]

20. So one part of the government has given an IOU to another

part of the government. Could that be any more meaningless?

If I spend my $ 5,000 savings on a Las Vegas trip, and put a $ 5,000 IOU in my bedroom drawer is there any significance to that act? You act like there is.

When the social security trust fund gets in trouble in a decade or so, Congress will either raise taxes to make up the difference or it won't. That decision will be based on politics and which party is in controll of the government. It will not have anything to do with a bunch of IOU's sitting in an imaginary lockbox.

And all the money that was supposed to be saved is gone. Just like my money spent in Las Vegas. It's gone. The IOU's are worthless because the government doesn't have the money to make good on them.

Will the government cut spending on other programs and divert it to social security? Or will the government raise taxes? Or will the government restructure (cut) benefits to retirees?

Maybe it will do all or none of those things, but those decisions won't have anything to do with any bonds in a lockbox. Congress will do what it wants to.

[papau]

21. An IOU is a promise to raise taxes on the rich - under Bush ="meaningless"?

perhaps - but Bush will not be in office in 2017.

While I agree Congress will either raise taxes to make up the difference or it won't, the "full faith and credit" of the US is behind those bonds - and to refuse to honor a request to cash a few in would make just about all the GOP types I know choke!

Much better is to avoid having SS ask to cash some in - meaning payroll tax is always in excess - meaning benefit cuts.

We don't want to raise Taxes on the rich now - even if most folks would see the tax increase just as the rich paying back the money they are now stealing from the payroll tax to finance their tax cut under Bush.

Again I agree Congress will either raise taxes to make up the difference or it won't - but most GOP have a sense of honor about money and debt - and not raising taxes in 2017 so as to cash out a few bonds from the Trust Fund would require these honorable adults to admit to being dishonorable liars and thieves.

Based on my read of GOP ethics - it is 60/40 on them raising taxes if they can't get a hidden benefit cut via private accounts enacted first.

[ulTRAX]

24. NONSENSE

I have to repost this:

I wish the Dems would stop this distortion. By 2019 or so SS will have to collect on all those IOUs. SS surpluses will no longer be available for expenses/debt paydown. The ONLY way to pay them is with a true revenue surplus to pay back those IOUs. Bush's irresponsible tax cuts and the threat of the Tax Cut Psychos to make them permanant... put all that at risk. This is the end game of the rabid right that hates these New Deal programs: create a budget crisis that will sabotage these programs.

[JCMach1]

25. If the House of Bush isn't thrown out,

it won't last THAT long