Even AARP says Social Security is solvent until 2042

[Carolab]

<snip>

Q. But isn't Social Security in financial trouble anyway?

A. Not for a long time. Social Security is projected to have enough assets to pay 100% of benefits until 2042. Even then, incoming revenues will be enough to pay more than 70% of benefits for decades to come. This isn't enough— we need to strengthen the system so that it remains strong for our children and grandchildren. And doing this will involve some hard choices. After all, there is no such thing as a "free lunch."

<snip>

http://www.aarp.org/socialsecurity-about/Articles/a2003-03-26-ssprivatization.html

[Vincardog]

1. Duh what about the surpluss? Where is all the extra money I have been pay

ing in for the last 40 years?

[Goldmund]

2. I'll be turning 67 in 2042

uh-oh...

[Carolab]

4. Read the entire article

to see what they say

[Goldmund]

6. I did, I just thought it was funny

[vixengrl]

10. I'll be turning 70.

And I'll be *sooooo* ready to retire by then, as if I'm not *now*. But I'm so used to people saying "No Social Security by such-and-such" that I'm like my grandparents' generation, ready to save every paper bag, twist-tie, and free restaurant sugar. If I don't *know* the benefits with be there for me--what can I do? Save. But the idea of investing in the stock market? This is why my grandparents' generation learned to save every paper bag and restaurant sugar. Because investing only pays off if it doesn't lose money. And if it lost the nestegg somoeone wanted to retire on? And they were left with the benefits' equivalent of minimum wage or even nothing?

:shrug: You can only save so much and work so long.

[Carolab]

3. Read this from today's Democracy for America website also

Read this also from the Democracy for America website from today--actually, go there and read it because there are links in these paragraphs to other articles and information.

Monday, January 10, 2005
Rapid Response on Social Security, Ohio and Reform
While much media coverage continues the Social Security debate following too closely to President Bush's doom and gloom script, there were signs of appropriate skepticism as Bush's habit of crying wolf was politely noted. However, most Americans didn?t read that this administration has even turned the Social Security Administration into its propaganda arm, playing "the sky is falling" misinformation to unsuspecting retirees on hold. As nervous citizens risk being conned into giving up their social security for a chance at the roulette wheel of privatization, Alan Sloan valiantly tried to slap us back to reality:


"Bush talked about Social Security's being a $10.4 trillion problem... But the shortfall in Bush's Medicare drug program is $17 trillion. In other words, the problem that Bush himself created a year ago is two thirds again as large as Social Security's problem. What's more, the drug plan starts costing taxpayers big bucks just a year from now, in 2006. We'll borrow it, of course. Social Security, for all its flaws, will take in more than enough cash to pay for itself for a dozen years even if nothing changes. So which is a "crisis"? A $17 trillion problem that starts next year, or a $10.4 trillion problem that starts in 2018?
***
http://blogforamerica.com/

[BayouBengal07]

5. Don't let that get in the way of the GOP

If you convince people there's no crisis, how can the Repubicans eliminate Social Security? Can't put a roadblock in the way of their elimination of the welfare state!

[Carolab]

7. We can and we WILL.

It is up to US, the people, to tell our legislators that we KNOW there is NO crisis and they must NOT allow privatization to occur. They have been educated by progressive economists on sensible, viable alternatives. Even the New York Times came out today and said this is a "manufactured crisis" and that the administration is trying to deliberately and maliciously "sow ignorance". It is encouraging that at least some of the media are telling the truth. I believe that we should write to THANK the New York Times for their op-ed piece, and to encourage them to CONTINUE educating the public.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html?oref=login

[BlueInRed]

8. A couple of other things you might find interesting

This NYT editorial hits the fallacy of Bush's argument (posted elsewhere at DU as well):

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/10/opinion/10mon1.html
<snip>
"According to Congress's budget agency, the system comes up short in 2052; according to the system's trustees, the date is 2042. The year 2018 is when the system's trustees expect they will have to begin dipping into the Social Security trust fund to pay full benefits. If you had a trust fund to pay your bills when your income fell short, would you consider yourself insolvent?

In suggesting that 2018 is doomsyear, the president is reinforcing a false impression that the trust fund is a worthless pile of I.O.U.'s - as detractors of Social Security so often claim. The facts are different: since 1983, payroll taxes have exceeded benefits, with the excess tax revenue invested in interest-bearing Treasury securities. (An alternative would be to, say, put the money in a mattress.) That accumulating interest and the securities themselves make up the Social Security trust fund. If the trust fund's Treasury securities are worthless, someone better tell investors throughout the world, who currently hold $4.3 trillion in Treasury debt that carries the exact same government obligation to pay as the trust fund securities. The president is irresponsible to even imply that the United States might not honor its debt obligations."
</snip>

Also, on another long SS thread yesterday there was a link to Bush's SS report: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/trsummary.html

Hope these help people looking for more info.

[Yupster]

11. "if you had a trust fund to pay your bills when ...

your income fell short, would you consider yourself insolvent?"

LOL

Only if there was no money in the trust fund.

[BlueInRed]

12. just treasury bills

so is your point the treasury bills aren't worth anything?

Edit:
Back on the main topic, I just noticed that Krugman's Tuesday column is on Bush's SS plan at http://nytimes.com/2005/01/11/opinion/11krugman.html .

[Cha]

9. Fuck "free lunch"! We paid in ...

we take out! It's great for people who don't have pensions or 401K's!

If Gore had got in..we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Happy 1984!