There IS a social Security Crisis!

[DistressedAmerican]

I will scream the next time I hear a Dem. claim that Social Security is not in crisis. That is one of the most out of touch talking points I have heard from them. It is honest to claim that Bush's plan is not the fix. It is an ignorant lie to claim the problem does not exist. It is simple math. Any educated American has understood for years that there is a problem with the system as it stands. To claim otherwise is silly and makes us look like fools. I have had it with politically convenient talking points. How's 'bout some truth.

DA

p.s. before accusing me of being some sort of freeping troll bastard check out my Anti-Bush site:

http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

[InvisibleBallots]

1. prove it

Prove there is a crisis.

[blurp]

92. Our debt is proof.

Social security money is invested in US government debt instruments.

Total US debt right now is about $7.5 trillion.

About half the US debt is owed to social security.

Good investment, or Enron II?

[wadestock]

107. 1/2 to social security?

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html

I think you got that wrong. Don't confuse the debt that Reagan and Bush ran up with problems with social security. If you put back the money they stole out of the surplus you probably wouldn't have anything showing as a contribution to the national debt at this point.

Social security is "in trouble" only because the Repukes stole away the surplus and will now push for a successive dismantling of the entire program. This is nothing more than a continued process of shoveling as much money as possible to the top of the heap....at the expense of the middle class, lower class, or who ever is stupid enough to be exploited.

The fact that the program would go into the red in the future is actually quite an epiphany for these scum bags, who care little about financial management or anything that has to do with anything other than squeezing profits out of a rock.

Yes it is true the program as it exists today cannot stay out of the red indefinitely as an "investment" program, paying seniors X amount to survive in a world which becomes increasingly harder to survive in everyday, as if it is really supposed to represent a retirement pay check.

There are 2 problems which exist today regarding social security:

#1 - It is being completely dismantled by the administration, with nothing effective to put in its place (sound like the Iraq war?)

#2 - In the long term it cannot survive as a "retirement" program. Part of the problem lies with the majority of Americans. It is that logic "hey, I paid into it, therefore give me my money" that has to fall by the wayside. We have to give up on the notion that we can "retire" on social security. If in fact our retirements fall by the wayside and the vast majority of people in this country HAVE TO LIVE off social security....well we're screwed at that point anyway. But ignoring this "20 to 30 years into the future" worse case scenario, what it should represent is a reasonable safety net for seniors that in fact are so poor that they cannot raise themselves above the poverty level.

Problem #1 is fixed by kicking these assholes out of office.
Problem #2 is fixed by simply changing the program to a true "safety net for seniors" program. Many articles have been written on this.

Problem #1 is infinitely more relevant than fixing social security because by keeping these scum bags in office we see a much more significant "dismantling" of our social well being....and that is THE DISMANTLING OF THE MIDDLE CLASS. Yes, I fear the eventual problems with social security will be a burden, but having these scum bags in office and having America destroyed economically is far more relevant right now.

That IS the current crisis we find ourselves in.

But if the issue is social security...and if you really got the political will to improve on social security, then apply a means test and then 2 basic guarantees for our seniors:

a. If you can't afford housing, we will give you decent housing.
b. If you can't afford food, we will give you food.

Giving seniors WHO QUALIFY a safety net to be able to live above a poverty level should not be difficult for a society in which the upper 1% control 50 trillion dollars in assets.

[KlatooBNikto]

2. I suggest you read Paul Krugman's Op_Ed in the NYT last Friday

before you make another post on this. In that, Krugman demonstrates that Social Security is safe and capable of meeting its obligations well past the middle of this century.The crisis will be manufactured by Bush's privatization scheme.

[Clarkie1]

33. Do you have a link for this article?

I am skeptical of the assertion you make based on what Kerry and other responsible leaders from both parties have said regarding the future of social security.

[Pepperbelly]

3. You make the assertion.

You prove your assertion.

And when you do, please include your definition of "crisis" and please identify EXACTLY what will happen if the system is left absolutely alone with nothing done and when this will happen.

[senseandsensibility]

4. Oh yes, there IS a crisis

my friend. This administration is using their puppet chimp to convince hard working Americans to let them STEAL from the system. THAT IS THE CRISIS, and that is the way it should be framed by the Dems. Oh, and I agree with the other posters: prove your assertion before you start claiming that people who don't blindly accept this administrations' bull are uneducated.

[kentuck]

65. A "crisis" is immediate.

There in no immediate need to change SS, as the Administration would have us believe. A long-term problem, maybe. But, even that can be fixed with minor adjustments in the system and none that would be painful to lower working class.

[senseandsensibility]

71. Please read my post again slowly

You'll see that I was being sarcastic, and I agree with you completely, Kentuck. My point was that * is causing the "crisis" because he is being used to steal from seniors. Otherwise, there is no crisis. The more I think about it though, the more serious I am. If * gets his hands on SS, there will be a crisis of epic proportion. We have got to stop this scheme, which is nothing but a scam. Will anyone on our side have the cajones to stop it?

[kentuck]

74. I apologize...I posted under wrong post.. :-(

I was reading your post but I did not mean to post my response there. I agree with you.

[senseandsensibility]

84. No problem!

;-)

[rog]

5. Let's start here.

The truths vs. the myths about Social Security
http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-saul4056961nov27,0,3497828,print.column?coll=ny-news-columnists
Saul Friedman

"Social Security is not in crisis and nowhere near bankruptcy."

.rog.

[Jim Lane]

35. Social Security "bankruptcy" is true or false, depending on definition

Part of the confusion here is that two different events are being discussed. A current excess of expenses over income will occur in approximately fifteen years. The good news is that the other event, a cumulative negative balance in the Social Security trust fund, is much farther off. The bad news is that the "trust fund" isn't a trust fund in the conventional sense of the term.

The system doesn't operate as a huge collection of federally administered IRA's, in which each worker's payments are held in trust to fund that worker's retirement benefits. Instead, it is pay-as-you-go; in each year, the system has revenues (payroll tax receipts from current workers and their employers) and expenses (benefit payments to current retirees). In every year since 1982, revenues have exeeded expenses (see <http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4a3.html>). That won't last, though. Because of demographic factors (the baby boomers moving out of the work force and into retirement), it's anticipated that the yearly balance, which was in surplus by more than $150 billion in 2003, will move into a yearly deficit sometime before 2020. If there are no changes (no increase in the Social Security tax, no decrease in benefits), then a portion of current benefits will have to be paid out of general federal revenues. The problem, of course, is that Bush's disastrous economic policies have turned the Clinton-era surplus into a record deficit. Any expenditures made to maintain Social Security benefits will mean some combination of higher federal taxes, cuts in other programs, and deficit spending. There is a "crisis" in the sense that that political will to take any of those steps might be lacking.

The other dates being mentioned refer to the Social Security Trust Fund. In past years, when revenues exceeded expenses, the excesses have been applied to general government spending. In return, the Social Security Trust Fund received special nonnegotiable Treasury bonds. The fund's current balance is more than $1.5 trillion. The statements about how stable the system is often assume that this huge sum is available, as a real asset in some bank account somewhere, and can be dipped into to cover the shortfalls that will begin as the boomers retire. Some of the disagreements are about the date (if any) on which, we can confidently predict, the withdrawals from the trust fund will have reduced it to zero.

The political issue, though, is that the trust fund's "assets" are simply promises by the government to itself. When the system's current account goes into deficit, it won't matter what amount is then in the trust fund; there will be no way to cover the deficit except from general federal revenues. There's a good explanation of the real nature of the trust fund in this article: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8876-2001Jul30?language=printer>. (I'm a registered user at the Washington Post site; I hope that link works for those who aren't.)

So, there is a looming Social Security problem. The problem is that dealing with Social Security will put pressure on the federal budget, along with such other factors as bloated military spending and irresponsible tax cuts for the rich. Bush's proposal, however, goes in exactly the wrong direction. It would decrease current receipts (because part of the money that would otherwise be flowing in would instead be diverted to the new private accounts). It would therefore make the problem worse, not better. That's why his plan has been criticized as requiring huge borrowing by the federal government, because there would be no other way to cover the increased gap between Social Security receipts and expenditures.

[InvisibleBallots]

47. Social Security will be BANKRUPT by 1988!

George W. Bush said so!

[DistressedAmerican]

53. Just because George is a freaking idiot

does not make this issue a Bush creation or a Republican scare tactic. This issue has persisted for decades as a Democratic core issue. They lost it to Bush the same way he coopted medicare drug reform. Now the Democratic leadership has decided that one of their own decades old issues never existed in the first place. Find me a quote from a democrat making the claim that Social Security is not in trouble that is more than two months old. That is what this is all about!

[InvisibleBallots]

62. the GOP has been saying this since the 1940s

It was bullshit then, and its bullshit now.

[robbedvoter]

90. No dear, that also was the stand of W oponent, raygun ald all the borrow

and spend GOP-ers. As Grover Norquist said: we don't want to kill government, just shrink it enough so we can drown it in a bathtub.
Of course, they talk about government that would help people. The opressive, killing arm of the government is inflated daily. So good you are buying their crap.

[DistressedAmerican]

49. Now that's the kind of discussion

I was hoping this thread would generate! Does anyone have anything to say to this post? Right on the mark.

[madrchsod]

6. it`s not broke for another 35-40 years.

there wold be no problem at all if people were employed and drew a living wage. if you want to read about a retirement program that does work well, read about the railroad retirement act. if the politicians would have applied some of the principles behind the act you wouldn`t be even interested in social security.

[Debs]

34. I have paid

Into Railroad retirement for almost 28 years and I will actually be able to live comfortably off its benifits

[sonicx]

7. problem not crisis

stop with the hyperboles.

[DistressedAmerican]

8. Basic Math

There are significant problems with the Social Security system, and action must be taken to correct these problems. The problems lie in simple demographics.

Specifically, current worker payroll taxes are utilized to pay the Social Security pensions of currently eligible retirees. Therefore, the ratio of payroll tax paying workers to Social Security pensioners is critical.

As the “Baby Boom” generation approaches Social Security eligibility, this ratio is declining. Because of this, it is expected that the Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted between 2032 and 2037. Estimates on the exact date vary. Middle of next century is one more. Lets assume for argument 2050.

I for one may be drawing from the system about then. So, I consider that a crisis. I'd hate for the system to have to be flat broke before serous discussion about reform was allowed to take place.

These estimates assume that there is no ongoing looting of the social security trust fund. Which we all know goes on constantly.

As long as more are drawing from the system than are paying into it, it is not feasible in the long run. Either benefits will be cut, retirement age will be jacked up or those paying into the system will be called on to pay even to keep it solvent. The long run is what the program is all about. Hell, I won't be retiring any time too soon.

What baffles me about this new discussion is this. Social Security reform has been a facet of every major political campaign for decades (an primarily as a Democratic issue I might add). The existence of the issues surrounding social security solvency have never been challenged. Until recent political developments made it expedient to do so. To act like it is something Bush just dreamed up one night is patently ridiculous!

Fight Bush on solid grounds not from a demographic fantasy land. That's all I'm saying. On the other hand if you think Social Security loosing solvency in 50 years or so is fine and dandy or like it can wait, enjoy the future. Combined with paying off the deficit the Repugs are building, the future's so bright I got to wear shades!

[Pepperbelly]

9. We've heard all of this before and ...

note that even tho the ratio has deteriorated from 15 to 1 down to 3.33 to 1, the system is currently operating at a surplus. Are you saying that there is some magical number of worker ratio that will cause the system to operate in deficit?

I am sure there is but I really suspect that this ratio is irrelevant for several reasons. First, it does not account for the increased productivity of the workers. Second, it does not account for economic growth. Third, it does not account for adjustments to either the rate OR the ceiling.

So where is the crisis?


on edit, as I re-read your post, I noted glaring factual errors. More is not being paid out than paid in. Have you done basic research on this? Read the Krugman article linked above.

[rog]

10. Not only that ...

... but when our generation (I'm 60) croaks off, the "crisis" won't be nearly as pressing. The next generation is smaller. SS can get over the hump with minor adjustments.

.rog.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. A ratio at which the system becomes insolvent

is assumed in every one of these posts. As I noted the estimates on when exactly that happens vary. However, the latest date anyone has proposed for reaching that deficit ratio is 2050. I for one do not assume that after paying into the system for my entire career, I can rely in some theoretical worker productivity increases or economic growth to keep me from eating dog food in my sunset years if it came to that.

As far as the rate and ceiling increases you mention those are the very added burden I was discussing in my last post. Someone will have to pay more or you will have collect later. I don't see that as a great way to go.

And yes I have done research into the issue. I have spreadsheets out the wazoo here in front of me. Everyone agrees that the system will not hold up another 50 years. You are right I mis-spoke re the immediate ratio. My point was and remains the long term (and I mean that my lifetime) prospects of an unbalanced system.

Where are your numbers. What rate and ceiling adjustments do you think will keep the system a float? Help ME out.

I will look at the article in question. I have not read it. However, if the basic premise is that we are solvent into the middle of the century, that is still a crisis in my book.

[Pepperbelly]

18. Look ...

here's the single most important thing to remember ...

The Boomers will pass.


They will begin retiring in 2008. There will be a lot of them. And the system will remain solvent until they pass. By 2022, the sine wave will start to pass. By 2050, it will be almost gone and by 2060, they will be statistically insignificant.

[unblock]

11. a retirement program that is sound for about 45 years is NOT in crisis

yes, fine, alright, social security might need to be adjusted slightly over the course of the next 45 years because it can't work FOREVER with the exact same formulas in place today, assuming that things play out as predicted over the course of the next 45 years.

BIG DEAL!!!!

hey, gee, the MILITARY is in crisis!! all current equipment will be obsolete in 10 years unless something is done!! and there is no guaranteed formula for future procurement!!

ALL government programs can reasonably be expected to have parameters tweaked in the next 45 years. that doesn't mean any of them are in crisis.


this is only a crisis, this is only a problem, if you have an agenda for pushing a solution today.

and this is the only way privatization/termination proponents can sell their plan to bring us back to the glory days of 1929.

[InvisibleBallots]

12. LOL! Classic!

It's so true!

"hey, gee, the MILITARY is in crisis!! all current equipment will be obsolete in 10 years unless something is done!! and there is no guaranteed formula for future procurement!!"

:)

[tsuki]

15. On a previous thread, it was stated that Medicare will be dead

broke by 2019. Why is Medicare not a crises?

[DistressedAmerican]

17. IT IS!

Why are these mutually exclusive. Why can we not discuss both? I have the attention span.

[tsuki]

97. The reason that Bush's plan will not work is the same reason

that the fund might be broke in 2042 (2052 by GAO.)

What is supposed to be the safest investment. Answer: US Treasury Bonds. Ask around.

Currently the 1.8 Trillion in SS monies is invested in Bonds.

If the economy grows at 1.8% a year, the fund is depleted in 2052 because of lack of growth. Where is the stock market? At 1.8% growth, it is in the tank, plus we have a 2 trillion dollar transfer fee to be paid.

Now if the economy grows at greater than 1.8% a year, SS is good until 2077 when it will be force to cut benefits to 80%.

The private investment account is a gambol unless they buy Bonds. The private investor will have no say on how the money is invested. It will be done for you by Wall Street. You will be relying on an anonymous broker taking your money and investing for your good, not based on his commission.

By contrast, the GAO has said that Medicare will be flat broke by 2019 if medical cost increase modestly.

Where is the crisis?

[sonicx]

14. it'll be in crisis after Bush and the Republicans are done with it.

[unblock]

20. nonsense.

social security won't be in crisis, social security will be dead.

retirees will be in crisis, and on the streets in droves, in search of food and shelter.

[DistressedAmerican]

21. My point IS the validity of Bush's plan.

Which I think sucks by the way.

My point is that there ARE problems and to try to refute Bush by claiming they do not exist is short sighted and makes the party look totally out of touch with demographic realities. Fight The chimp on the flawed merits of his fixes not on the very existence of a problem.

If your objection is the semantics of the word "crisis" I'll settle for "Social Security issue". Neutral enough to allow a discussion?

Oh yeah, Bush can bite me long and hard.

[Pepperbelly]

23. remove the ceiling.

That gets us waaaaaaay past the demographic bumps.

[DistressedAmerican]

25. Give me some more details to work with here...

I'm having a hard time getting your demographic smooth sailing. Help me fill in the blanks.

[FormerDittoHead]

40. Then do your homework.

Remember in 1993 there was a "Social Security Summit"?

There were two "interesting" conclusions, IMO.

(not relevant to this thread but here it is:
1) SS money is NOT put into some "special holding fund" rather, it's put into the GENERAL fund and included with ALL taxes collected. The next time someone says that the rich pay most taxes, I would ask them to include SS taxes, which are only paid by those who make under about $89,000 and look at the pie chart again.

(relevant)
2) Any and all future shortfalls of SS could be dealt with by eliminating the ceiling cap, as the prior poster said.

Currently, if you make less than $89k, your (total) SS taxes is like 15%. If you make more than $89k, your taxes become... ZERO.

So, if you make 2 x $89k - $178, your effective rate becomes 7.5%.... Wait... the more someone makes, the lower their RATE? WAIT - YOU MEAN THE RICH PAY A *LOWER* PERCENTAGE, AND THE RICHER YOU GET THE LESS YOU PAY AS A PERCENTAGE? WHAT?? WHAT?? WHAT?? WHAT??

If we were to adopt a "flat" Social Security tax rate, however ("flat" being the shape of neo-con heads, so it appeals to them) and tax ALL incomes the same "flat" rate, the "Summit" concluded that there would NEVER be a "crisis".

Too bad no Democrat seems to have the go-nads to turn on his "masters" and make this suggestion...

[sampsonblk]

13. Amen

You're right, and that's been our party's position for years, until Bush comes along and claims he can fix it. Now Dem "leaders" are claiming its not that big of a problem. Just my opinion, but this shows why we need to ditch the chessboard consultant types. Not only will they keep us in the loss column, but they also have no concept of integrity and honor. They are making us look stupid.

[DistressedAmerican]

22. Thanks

I was beginning to think I was the only one who remembered all of this.
DA

[DaveinMD]

19. bullcrap

Social Security is not in crisis. The insolvency date keeps getting pushed back. The projections of insolvency are based on faulty economic growth projections. There is absolutely no crisis.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. To quote many a previous message

Prove it! You made the assertion. What faulty economic projections? Where are the ones you are looking at?

[DaveinMD]

27. they are based

on projections of 1.9 percent economic growth over a 30 year period. The average 30 year growth we've had since WWII in 3.0 percent. The Economic Policy Institute wrote a paper that said that if growth is normal, their is no insolvency issue. I don't have a link, but I'm sure you can find it on their website.

[JHB]

43. Specifically, you're talking about the "Trustee's" projections...

...which for more than a decade have been low-balling economic predictions in such a way that the system appears to be in crisis, when in fact at most some "course corrections" are all that's needed.

For example, from a 1995 article:
Almost no one bothers to investigate the claim of Social Security's coming insolvency, which is based on projections in the annual report of the system's trustees. I did (Left Business Observer, 12/22/95), and discovered that the projections assume the economy will grow an average of 1.5 percent a year (after inflation) for the next 75 years--half the rate of the previous 75, and matched in only one decade this century, from 1910-20. Even the 1930s, the decade of the Great Depression, saw a faster growth rate.

What would happen if the economy grew at a peppier 2.2 percent rate? The trustees provide alternative projections based on that as well, and, gosh, the system remains solvent indefinitely. At 2.5 percent--still slower than the 75-year average--it runs a surplus. About the only other journalist to question the dire predictions for Social Security's future was Robert Kuttner, in his Business Week column (2/20/95).

And that was nine years ago. The exaggerations and disconnect from actual economic performance have only grown (though * has been doing his part by trying to wreck the economy).

[DaveinMD]

45. exactly

there is no crisis. These projections are based on faulty economic assumptions.

[greenohio]

60. Links please.

Why would the CBO and SSA intentionally use "faulty" data that would aid shrub...even during Clinton's term?

[DaveinMD]

70. conservative estimates

are used. I don't have the links. But I'm sure you can find them. Go look for them at the economic policy institute website.

[greenohio]

77. Do you think we should use optomistic estimates

when planning the country's future?

[DaveinMD]

79. I think we should use

realistic estimates. Having estimates so far below historical performace creates a false picture.

[greenohio]

80. And who do you believe should be the judge of

realistic estimates if not CBO and SSA?

[DaveinMD]

81. how about

using economic growth projections in line with historical growth instead of projections that are beyond this historical benchmark.

[greenohio]

82. That doesn't answer the question.

I would assume that both CBO and SSA have concluded that last century was an extraordinary one, rather than average...though I don't know. In the end though, I trust both of these orgs mostly because they know the numbers better than us. I believe they should be the ones choosing what is realistic.

Who do you think should be choosing what is realistic?

I don't get excited about plans that say, hey just assume a different number and all of our problems are gone.

[DaveinMD]

85. there is a great deal of pressure

in the media for conservative estimates. This has no doubt influenced the numbers. The CBO now uses dynamic scoring for budgets. The Republicans forced that change. It is not any more reliable than the Economic Policy Institute. The projections are very far off. Its not even close. This is why every year the date of insolvency gets pushed further back. If the estimates were valid, this wouldn't occur.

My wife works at SSA as a policy analyst in the office of budget. Most folks there think the actuaries are off in their estimates.

[greenohio]

87. So CBO SSA, Brookings Institute

and a myriad of other orgs, many non-partisan are all wrong and have been since the Clinton administration when Clinton convened a panel to "save" social security.

Thats just too hard a sell.

[DaveinMD]

93. The Clinton way

was a preservation of the status quo with a minor sop to the media. This entire Social Security debate has been pushed by wall street because they want to get their hands on the money.

[greenohio]

100. Status quo?

That is NOT what the Clinton commision proposed.

[DaveinMD]

102. the only change

they recommended was for the current SS surplus to be invested more aggressively. Right now that surplus is IOU's because Bush has raided it.

[greenohio]

105. Respectfully,that is incorrect.

There were three options. Raise taxes, cut benefits (including raising the retirement age) and individual accounts.

The surplus dollars have always been placed in special edition t-bills that the government then spends on the welfare of our citizens. The government has always owed itself the money. It has always spent every dime of it.

Shrub took a portion before it even reached the t-bills and spent it.

[DaveinMD]

106. maybe I was thinking

of what Clinton actually proposed. Regardless, I don't believe there is a crisis. Just because so many people think something is correct, doesn't make it correct. There was a bipartisan consensus about going into Vietnam at the start of that war. That doesn't mean it was correct.

[robbedvoter]

26. Not a troll. Just ignorant. GOP talking point since forever. W predicted

Soc Security demise in 10 years in...1978. (like all the wingnuts)

According to Gary Ott, who was then a reporter for the Plainview Daily Herald, Bush stopped by the paper’s little office “maybe five or six times. He’d sit down at my desk; he was a fun guy. He was very outgoing, very friendly, and we would argue politics since I was a liberal. We’d argue over Carter policies.” Bush criticized energy policy, federal land use policy, subsidized housing, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“a misuse of power,” he said), and he warned that Social Security would go bust in ten years unless people were given a chance to invest the money themselves. None of this really distinguished him from Hance, though, so in the end Bush simply argued that a Republican could better represent the district: “If you want a chance in the way Congress has been run, send someone who will be independent from those who will run the Congress.”
http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/midland.html


I hope you won't be very offended if having to chose between you and W on one side and Paul Krugman on the other, I'll go with Paul :shrug:

[kamqute]

28. Thank You!

Not a CRISIS, no, but certainly a problem. 48 years gives us plenty of a buffer zone, but given the rate at which things are accomplished in our government, it might be a good idea to start now so we aren't shoveling frantically at the last minute..especially if we're saddled with another W at that time. Besides, if we expect to EXPAND the benefits of social security, as we would like to do, and if we would like to REFORM the payroll tax so as not to burden the lower-class and destitute as much, which would be nice, we would want to find ways of making the system even more solvent. Plus, we may still have an outsourcing period at that time and we would want to buffer ourselves against that. I hate Bush's plan, OK, and similar privatization schemes, and I'm KAMQUTE so you know I'm no freep. At least listen to DistressedAmerican, and by that I mean not only don't be nasty, but be open. It's among friends that these issues need to be discussed.

[proudbluestater]

29. It is solvent for the next 42 years. Next debate?

There will be a need to raise taxes to sustain it at some point in the future; however, it will take 2 or 3 TRILLION to privatize the goddamn thing. How can we afford THAT? We are already flat broke.

Oh, here's another fact to add to the list of "why it's not broke." As more and more people are unable to pay for health insurance premiums and incentives for LARGE CORPORATIONS to pay these premiums disappear, we're just looking at a shorter life expectancy from millions who have no health care.

[sampsonblk]

30. Odd Irony - Kerry was all over this issue...

when he should have been talking about the Iraq Disaster.

This was one of those domestic issues that Kerry was supposed to win with. Now all of a sudden its not a problem.

Then what, if anything, was his campaign about?

IMHO, we have to stick with what we believe in. Social Security has to be fixed. Not Bush's way, of course. But something has to be done.

[sonicx]

31. again, people are not saying it's not a problem...

just not to the magnitude it's being hyped to be.

The problem with us is that we're spending so much time countering the media and Republican bullshit that we don't talk about the real problems as much as we should. Republicans yell and we yell back. It's hard to be calm with these idiots in power. :)

[sampsonblk]

32. yep

We don't agree on the magnitude, but I agree about the yelling back part. They have the initiative, and we are still reacting - poorly, I might add.

[greenohio]

56. Barak Obama was a perfect example of keeping your cool

Keyes was running around making statements like a wild man. Obama calmly stated the truth. It made Keyes look like an idiot. Obama mopped the floor with him in the debates.

[priapis]

36. Theres A Difference Between A Longterm Problem And A CRISIS

he needs to invent an emergency, just like WMD, to do what he wants NOW, and his way. SS is solvant for another 50 years. and some small portion of the Iraq Funding, invested now, would have forestalled the "crisis" for dozens of years even past that.

Its just disgusting how these pandering vote whores get their way and fool the sheeple over & over again.

No WMD There, No Social Security Crisis Here.

No WMD, No SSC.

-

[rman]

37. you talk about how silly we are and about how truthful you are

but you fail to show us the math

[DistressedAmerican]

39. The numbers and estimates vary

However, nearly everyone agrees that the clock is ticking and that Americans alive today will loose the solvency of the systen, face benefit cuts, or be paying higher taxes by the middle of the century. Again. Where are the numbers to the contrary?

[rman]

44. if by "nearly everyone" you mean the mass media....

it's just a matter of repeating it, and bigger lies go down better then small lies.

privitized social security will turn it into a gamble (ie what if the stock market crashes).

[InvisibleBallots]

52. no, you are simply wrong

"Nearly everyone" does not agree. You have yet to post a single shred of evidence for your claims.

[DistressedAmerican]

38. Let's redirect to my point again shall we

I am perfectly willing to concede on the semantic debate over the word "crisis". Call it a "long term problem". However let's consider the "long term" part of that phrase. A system that is designed to support people into retirement is predicted (even by those saying there is no problem) to fail in the next 50 or less years. MY retirement is at issue. Not some theoretical retirement in several generations. This problem Exists.

Social Security reform has been a Democratic staple for decades. One of our big bread and butter, pocketbook issues. We were going to fix it remember. People are correct to point out that this was a major campaign issue for Kerry. It only became a figment of the Republican administration when they managed to take the issue away from us. That is my fundamental point.

As far as Bush's plan is concerned. I'll repeat myself. It has enough flaws to point out without pretending like systemic bankruptcy in our lifetime is not a "problem" that needs to be fixed. I'm open to discussion of how to do it better but claiming that nothing needs to be done I can't agree with.

[Bridget Burke]

42. So, you've contradicted yourself.

You've admitted that our thread title indicating there is a "Crisis" (!!!!) is not actually correct.

Start a thread for discussion of Social Security's long-term prospects & you'll get some meaningful replies. I'd suggest doing some homework, as well.

[DistressedAmerican]

48. I do happen to find it a crisis!

However, since the word seems to be drowning out the discussion I accept the "problem" terminology. It does not in anyway invalidate the point I am making. Can we get onto discussing the "problem"? Do you agree that there IS a problem?

What homework do you think I am missing? I keep hearing that. What they heck do you think I am missing. Help me out!

[greenohio]

58. I agree there is a problem.

I also think it hurts us politically to "play down" or pretend there isn't one.

[DistressedAmerican]

83. That's all I'm really saying

It is bad strategy. We can work against them without adopting a position on the issue that rejects a basically accepted demographic truth. Acting like this was all dreamed up bu BushCo. like WMD makes the party look out of touch with reality AND its own decades old policy statements.

[greenohio]

88. The problem is you and I are

out of touch with the opinions here. Based on what I have read. The bulk of the posters believe the themes of the blogs. There is no or little problem. Little or no change is required. Change the estimates or wait till later.

I don't buy that logic. I'm not sure the American people buy that either. I am pretty sure that instead of slowing down shrub, it helps him because he can paint us as out of touch. But we will see.

[greenohio]

55. I agree there is no crisis. I doubt there will be "meaningful replies"

The point of the thread, which is that we don't want to admit there is even a problem, is true. I made a post on another thread saying that we have a problem and it got pretty ugly. I included a link to the SSA where there describe the problem. All I got back was that the SSA is an agent for shrub (even during Clintons term) and a lot of colorful metaphors.

[DistressedAmerican]

99. I was a bit surprised by the rancor...

I admit. Oh well. Keeps things interesting.

Dancing on the third rail.

No wonder no politicos have had the nads to stand by meaningful reform up until now. This is just a blog. Imagine if it was a national meeting of the AARP.

[Pepperbelly]

50. no, it is not predicted that it will fail at the far end of the ...

far end of the forecasts. It is predicted that either rates will change (whether through % increases OR by increasing incrementally the ceiling) or the benefits will have to change to keep the system operating. That is not failure. Hell, even then it is very tenuous at best because it is based on very conservative economic projections that the economy has consistentloy exceeded.

Wall Street encourages a chicken Little bit because they hunger for rending the system and grabbing their chunks of bloody meat before disappearing into the woodwork.

[greenohio]

57. I think the predictions are if we do nothing.

The problem lies in the promise. People every year, receive a "statement" of "guaranteed benefit" from social security. If we do nothing, they will not be able to keep those guarantees. You seem to have no problem with breaking that contract...because that IS what will happen if we do nothing. I consider that a failure.

[Pepperbelly]

59. raise the ceiling ...

adjust the rates ... economy grows at a greater rate for two or three years and that problem is gone. By 2060, the Boomer sine wave is gone and the rates can be adjusted back downward.

[greenohio]

61. That IS doing something.

If there is nothing wrong, there is nothing to do. Raising the ceiling, and adjusting rates (raising taxes and lowering benefits) requires an explanation. That requires stating the problem.

The Boomer "sine wave" oversimplifies.

The US birth rate is below replacement level (below 2.1). Europe's aggregate fertility varies between approximately 1.3 and 1.5, depending upon region, and Japan is at 1.3. They have the same troubles we have with our retirement systems but worse. Their birthrate is lower and they don't have the immigration we have. Sweden, the model of citizen care and socialism restructured their retirement system out of necessity.

Don't think that once the Boomers are retired and gone that the problem is over. We either perpetually grow the population (which has its own problems) or we will continue to have SS problems.

[Pepperbelly]

64. you have to crawl before you walk ...

and the first thing we have to do is get past that sine wave. There is hardly ever some elegant structure that makes sure that anything lasts like the pyramids. That is an unrealistic expectation.

What you do is what we, as a species, has always done. We muddle through. To do more is to expect something that history denies.

[greenohio]

69. At least we agree that we are crawling and that there is hope to walk.

Don't you want SS to last like the pyramids? Should we ignore options that could help us reach that? Why make the plan to muddle? Why not at least TRY to building something that will last more than 4-5 generations?

I am saying:

--There is a problem.

--We need to do something to fix it.

---I'm not convinced that "muddling" over and over again is the best answer.

--The boomers retirement is a symptom of the larger birth rate problem.

---We need to think more than just one or two generations out rather than sticking our grandkids and great grandkids with the problem.

--Shrub is going to screw it up. We have trouble admitting theres even a problem, which helps his position.

[Pepperbelly]

72. no ...

Shrub is trying to sow the seeds of panic and the failure to make him PROVE his case would be the very worst thing we could do.

Period.

Do not ever give these lying rat bastards a premise, even a small one. That is what they count on. Make them prove it at every fork in the road.

And fixing it like the pyramids? I do not think that is possible. No monetary fund is fixed like the pyramids. None. Zero. Da nada.

[greenohio]

75. I agree that shrub is wrong.

I disagree that we have to argue over every detail. If shrub says that Osama Bin Laden is evil, I'm to say prove it? SS has a problem. If it didn't we wouldn't need to do ANYTHING.

Fixing it by muddling is not a great plan to sell to the American people. Telling them, there's no hope to fix the system, deal with it, only helps shrub sell his snake oil.

[Pepperbelly]

76. no! if you grant him even the slimmest predicate ...

between him, the right wing think tanks and the MSM, they will gut SS and leave its corpse to rot in the sunshine. If you give these rat bastards an inch, they will take a hundred miles and old people will be thrown to the wolves.

The system is not in crisis.

If we do absolutely nothing, it is still solvent for the lifetime of most adults. Any small change extends it farther. Ad hoc is what humans do.

[greenohio]

78. OK lets just leave it at that.

It sounds like you agree there is a problem (since you are proposing fixes) but you don't want to share that with the American people because it is one less step for shrub.

Lets just agree to disagree on that.

I do agree the system is NOT in crisis.

I don't consider raising taxes or cutting benefits small changes.

[Pepperbelly]

94. here's my SS motto: don't change engines when you need to clean sparkplugs

nt

[greenohio]

101. Keep on driving that model T

They never seem to go out of style.

[robbedvoter]

91. Absolutely agree. BFEE vacuum cleaner on our treasury, and we

still use words such as "granted" when we should yell "Thief! Cops!"

[w4rma]

41. You are wrong, DistressedAmerican. 50 years does not make a "crisis". (nt)

[femme.democratique]

46. All depends on what your definition of "crisis" is, I suppose....

You seem to espouse the logic similar to before the illegal Iraq invasion..."Yeah, its a CRISIS, after all there are WMDs!"

Please...

[spanone]

51. 'any educated American'......this educated American ain't buyin' it.

[greenohio]

54. I agree there is a problem... I probably wouldn't use the term crisis.

SS has strucural problems. In short the program needs "fixing" whenever there is a drop in the birth rate. Apparently immigration isn't enough. The program will not survive politically if each generation has to fix it every twenty years

[DistressedAmerican]

63. Kerry thought there was a problem.

From Kerry's website: http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/health_care/medicare.html

A Plan to Strengthen Social Security
"Social Security Is A Lifeline For America's Seniors. 45 million Americans count on Social Security. Social Security represents 38 percent of the income of the elderly and lifts tens of millions of seniors above the poverty line. Currently, the poverty rate for seniors is 10.4 percent. Without Social Security it would be about 50 percent.

Social Security Faces Challenges - But They Are Manageable. Under current law, Social Security is projected to be solvent through 2042. Current law revenues would be sufficient to pay 73 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2042.

The Three Pillars Of John Kerry's Approach To Strengthening Social Security:

Grow the economy. The Kerry-Edwards plan will jump-start growth today and invest in stronger long-run growth. A larger economy will be in a better position to pay for an increasing number of retirees.
Restore fiscal discipline. Social Security is part of the broader fiscal challenge facing America. The Kerry-Edwards plan will cut the deficit in half and restore fiscal discipline to Washington.
Bipartisan Process. Historically, successful reforms of Social Security and Medicare - like in 1983 and 1997 - have been accomplished on a bipartisan basis. As president, John Kerry will build on his strong record of working with Democrats and Republicans on fiscal issues to address Social Security's challenge.

John Kerry Will Never Balance The Budget On The Backs Of America's Seniors. As president, John Kerry will not raise Social Security taxes, raise the retirement age, cut benefits for people that rely on Social Security, or privatize Social Security. He will consider making sure that high-income beneficiaries don't get more out than they pay in.

Kerry's projection was that under the current system Social Security trust fund be solvent until 2042. After that already meager benefits will be cut or taxes raised. Again. That's in my lifetime. It is well within the lifetime of my 6 day old baby daughter.

Yet Harry Reid expects me to swallow another delay in dealing with these issues. From his site:http://reid.senate.gov/topics2.cfm?code=ss_gen

"We must still make some changes to the system to meet the needs of the retiring Baby Boom generation, but we have time to make changes."

The endless delays that have occurred on this issue have allowed the Repugs to steal it from us. If we had kept some of the promises we made in past campaigns this would still be a democratic issue. Instead it was left wide open for BushCo. theft. What we needed was action not more rhetoric about "plans".

Apparently Social Security is the third rail of liberal blogging as well as the third rail of politics!

[x_y_no]

67. Ummm ...

Looks to me like Kerry was saying what most here are saying - at worst there's a shortfall by 2042, but at any rate it's "manageable."

IOW, not a crisis, not a justification for breaking the system in the name of dixing it, but just a minor problem requireing some adjustment.

[greenohio]

73. There is a problem.

Cutting benefits and raising taxes apparently are the ongoing solutions. As birth rates decline, you raise taxes and cut benefits. As they continue to decline, you raise taxes and cut benefits.

[TheKingfish]

104. Kerry is a politician, and a bad one at that

He decided that the best way to combat a lie was to meet it half-way. See also Iraq

[x_y_no]

66. Question:

Does anybody know what rate of growth of the economy the Bush administration uses in projecting that they will cut the deficit in half by 2009, and how that compares with the rate of growth assumed when claiming that SS benefits exceed payroll taxes by 2018?

[bush_is_wacko]

68. I agree that there is a crisis...

but the biggest crisis in SS right now is that Bush and his cronies will get their hands on SS! They will drain it dry all the while touting the success of their "history making" change! The Dems have been working on alternatives, and quite frankly, anyone ignorant enough to think SS will EVER be the answer to retirement for them should see a shrink! My grandparents thought SS and a military pension would be enough. They died flat broke and they lived on handouts for decades! None of their children were angry at them about it because they knew it was not their fault, but none of their children and grandchildren will EVER rely on SS as their sole resource! SS reform should not include giving our government free access to dictate where it is "invested" or how much gain a person can have on their investment.

[seekinguniqueness]

86. YOU ARE RIGHT...!!!

But Medicare is an even more pressing issue.

Nevertheless, I will never understand why many folks around here appear to be inclined bury their heads in the sand and hope for the best.

(Especially when one considers the nature of the party that is running things these days!)

[greenohio]

89. Welcome to DU

I know little about the Medicare situation. Have any links on that?

[Justin54B20L]

95. I think you all are assuming one critical thing.

That the amount paid into SS by workers will remain the same or degrade with the retirement of the boomers.

Not saying that that will happen, but I'm curious to know how the Echo's, Millennial, whatever you want to call them will effect the amount paid into SS.

Many Echo's (echo boomers, boomer's children) are just now starting to enter the workforce. Many more will start entering in the near future with the youngest of the Echos still in grade school.

With this new influx of workers wouldn't the problem over the next decade or two self-correct?

I don't know the answer, I'm just curious as to the effect it will have.

[greenohio]

108. SSA and CBO take census projections

into account in their projections. They are the ones saying there are serious problems. This will NOT be self correcting. We need to make changes to pay promised benefits.

[robbedvoter]

96. I get so f*ing tired of defending my grandparents rights! Abortion,

Social Security - what's next? Women's right to vote? Slavery? The 8 hours work day? How far are you worms going to bend in your efforts not to get squished? Values, screw the gays, screw the poor, screw the old....
And everyone kindly agrees , oh, so politely....:argh:

[DistressedAmerican]

98. Its the BuchCo. Wayback Machine!

Couldn't agree more. I keep waiting for the Leave it to Beaver and McCarthy hearing reruns to show up on all of the major networks!

[TheKingfish]

103. You are puking rw talking points

The US currently runs a huge budget deficit while SS runs a surplus.

Sometime in the very far future SS will also run with a deficit.

Just borrow the money. Its not rocket science. You make it sound like we don't already borrow money hand over fist as it is. If you want a crisis then fix the DEFICIT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW not the ONE WE MIGHT HAVE IN 50 YEARS.

You can call it:
Homeland Security Crisis
Department of Defence Crisis
Tax exemptions for churches Crisis
Tax cuts for the rich Crisis

[DistressedAmerican]

109. Why are you so linear as to think that

they all can't be worked on at the same time. Everything you point out is an issue of serious concern that should be dealt with. The existence of other problems does not negate the existence of this one. As far as borrowing more money. If you can't see the problem with that approach then I don't have much to say to ya.

Please tell me why this was democratic talking points until after the election when Bush co-opted the idea? What the heck changed. Tell me. This has bee staple Democratic fare for years. Why the change? Why is it suddenly a RW talking point?

Because we failed to take action for so many years that the Repugs finally got wise and stole the momentum! Now the best the party leadership can come up with to counter Bush is to act like everything the party has been saying for years was apparently wrong and that now there is nothing pressing to deal with. Thats Why!