Something you should know:

[mmonk]

The Social Security program never has, and by law cannot, contribute to deficits. This year despite bad economic conditions, the 2011 social security surplus will be $69.3 billion. The accumulated surplus is currently $2.7 trillion. Tell them to sell their snake oil somewhere else.

[geckosfeet]

1. Stupid uninformed peope do not want to know. But your point is well taken.

[Hawkowl]

41. Why do you call Obama names?

:sarcasm:

[Jakes Progress]

45. We can only hope that he is stupid and uninformed.

The alternative is even ghastlier.

[gateley]

2. We know it and they know it yet they persist. Well, we who know

know it, and those who don't know don't know it, and I'm going to stop here before I channel Rumsfeld any further. But suffice it to say, the great majority of citizens DON'T know it.

[LiberalAndProud]

3. They spent the surplus. They borrowed money from us and don't intend to pay it back.

It's out-and-out theft. Fuck us.

[Plucketeer]

37. That's the way I see it too

They don't want to pay it back. :grr:

[MiniMe]

4. I think the real problem is that the repukes don't want to pay

back the tbills for SS & Medicare. It does contribute, but only because they had borrowed against the fund. So they would have to borrow money to repay their loans.

[krispos42]

5. k&R n/t

[customerserviceguy]

6. I'd like to know where you got that figure

The $69.3 billion surplus, not the amount of imaginary money in the trust fund. From what I've been reading, Social Security outflows have exceeded FICA tax receipts for about a year or so now. I don't see it turning around any time soon.

[mmonk]

8. Nancy Altman.

Who do you get yours from?

[customerserviceguy]

56. I get my sources

from the guys with the rose-colored glasses, the Social Security Trustees:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

From that report: "Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years."

Yes, there's some interest involved as part of a bookkeeping process, which adds to what the US government has to borrow. Not enough to cover future needs as the baby boom generation hits retirement age, unless interest rates go up, which is likely in the future. It's not gonna be pretty for the economy when that happens, though.

Also from the report: "Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided."

Even with rose-colored glasses, they can see that something needs to be done.

[mmonk]

9. In go of $807.7 billion, out go of $738.4 billion.

[BeFree]

15. 68 billion a year

Ahhhh, so what is going on in DC is they see the free money shrinking.

68 billion this year, 45 billion next year. 0 soon. -20 thereafter.

And then they will have to start paying back to SS what it borrowed and adding to the deficit.
Today, it decreases the deficit, but that gravy train is coming to an end.

[mmonk]

16. In 25 years, it will continue to cover 77% for awhile if they do nothing.

25 years is plenty of time before anything in general revenues has to cover any shortfall and plenty of time to fix it then.

[BeFree]

17. How will the trust fund be paid back?

Raise revenues? Raise taxes? How?

Do the math: 100% minus 77% is.... 23% that has to be found. Where will the 23% come from?

[mmonk]

18. Payroll tax change or cap change adjustments.

The funding mechanism is to be outside general revenue funding as its always been. Also, in 25 years, the baby boomer stresses will be gone.

[BeFree]

19. So they say

In the meantime, where will the money to pay back the trust fund come from?
It has to come from the general fund. Problem is the general fund is already in deficit.

You aren't gonna let them just write it off are you? 'Cause that is what they are trying to do.

[mmonk]

20. There has been no program public or private that has been this

efficient. Want to take care of the general fund? Put taxes at a point where revenues cover expenses. That is economics 101. All else is voo doo economics.

[BeFree]

22. Exactly

And that is the last thing the thieves want: To payback, through higher taxes, what they stole.

That's what this is all about. The general fund will have to cover the shortfall.

[mmonk]

29. And also if someone views a treasury bond bought which produces interest is an asset

or liability as opposed to an issued bond to cover an expense such as a revenue shortfall.

[earcandle]

52. exactly! any househild knows this.

[customerserviceguy]

59. "Baby boomer stresses will be gone"

The tail end of the baby boom was 1964, by the reckoning of most demographers I've read (Landon Jones is my favorite, he actually coined the term 'baby boomer'), and in 25 years from now, those folks will be only 72.

According to the IRS life expectancy tables in Publication 590 ( http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ar02.html ) anyone living today who was born in 1964 (turning 47 years old this year) should expect to live another 37 years. That is, half of them will be dead by 2048, and half won't. In 2036, most of them will still be alive and kicking.

Besides, after the rest of the baby boom generation hits Social Security, talking about their stresses being gone is pretty much like talking about how aftershocks won't cause any further building collapses after an 11.0 earthquake has devastated a city.

[rhett o rick]

42. I believe the trust was just intended to cover the baby boomer surge. nm

[rurallib]

35. that projection was based on a very low economic growth

as was another back in the '80s that had us running out in the early 2000s.
IIRC it was based on a 2% growth. Which is what you get with Republicans.

[sce56]

40. Come on please cite the refference we need the facts and the way to prove them!

A web reference from reputable source would be great! Thanks

[customerserviceguy]

57. Source, please? n/t

[davekriss]

25. Stop saying that!

It is no more nor less "imaginary money" than that in the hands of any other Treasury Bond holder. The difference is the Establishment in DC/Wall Street think they can default on the American working class while continuing to benefit from low marginal tax rates and interest on the Treasury Bonds they hold. Blatant, shameful class theft!!!! Shame on the rest of us if we let them get away with it!

[rhett o rick]

43. I think he just stopped by to drop that little turd and move on. nm

[customerserviceguy]

54. Sorry, I posted it at the end of the day

and didn't come back to see responses. I usually don't get too many responses to my thoughts on Social Security, since many here don't bother to engage me in discussion that they don't really have an answer for.

[customerserviceguy]

53. Well, if it's the same as any other Treasury Bond

then let them try to sell it on the open market, like you can a T-bill or T-note. The problem is, they can't.

The US Congress, together with a willing President, is the only thing that can change that. So far, nobody's been willing to move from the status quo on the status of the specialized securities that the Trust Fund holds.

[sabrina 1]

26. SS DID have a surplus last year and this year. It has more than

one source of income. The Fed. Govt has to pay interest on the Treasury Bonds, and it has, every year. That interest more than makes up for any shortfall in income taxes.

That is why we know they are lying. And whether or not they want to repay the money they have stolen, they will still have to pay that interest.

[jtown1123]

28. Yes, not counting interest, which is what the MSM does, makes it look like it's in the red

but it's not.

[sabrina 1]

32. And they also neglect to mention it has happened 11 times

before. So there is nothing to even begin to panic over. Unless, of course there is something they are hiding, even worse than the corruption we are already aware of that collapsed the Global economy. In that case, we have a lot more to worry about than just SS.

[customerserviceguy]

55. Ah, yes, interest

And where does that come from? To the extent we don't run a surplus, it comes from borrowing. Hence, it is part of the national debt.

[customerserviceguy]

60. At post 56

I've cited my source. What's yours? How much interest did we borrow to pay interest to Social Security?

[jtown1123]

27. That was a lie perpetuated by AP. If you read the Trustees report, SS is still in the black

[customerserviceguy]

61. Go to post 56

The Trustees don't seem to be saying that to me. If you count the specialized securities in the Trust Fund as true assets, then, yes, right now SS is in the black. But I don't see any mechanism in place to either repay them, refinance them into negotiable securities, or run a surplus to pay them back. The only thing the government can do is print money to "redeem" them.

[SkatmanRoth]

7. K&R

[boston bean]

10. plain and simple they stole our SS surplus to give the wealthy tax breaks, and wage war.

Now instead of getting some of our money back from those who took it, we have to pay back what they stole.

It's like someone stole my diamond ring, then pawned it, and the only way for me to get it back is to buy it back from the pawn shop.

edit sp

[CleanGreenFuture]

14. No...no...no! The war was paid for with Iraq's oil. Everybody knows that.

[reformist2]

31. They borrowed it for awful reasons, but the SS trust fund still has $3 trillion in assets

We must never say the money isn't there. It is.

We must not ever let the rich default on the SS bonds. When it's time to cash in the bonds in the trust fund, we must make sure the money comes from income taxes on the rich.

[OneGrassRoot]

11. K&R n/t

[mmonk]

12. A useful site for information to defend social security.

http://strengthensocialsecurity.org/

[MelissaB]

13. K&R

[piratefish08]

21. you don't have to search very far to find threads welcoming cuts

and cheering the President for them.


it's bizarro world........

[lonestarnot]

23. K & R!

[Kind of Blue]

24. Thank you, MMonk for your patience

in explaining this. KnR!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. And, the reason that Obama offers to cut benefits is........???

[MessiahRp]

33. Definitely sharing these figures. Thanks!

Rp

[MessiahRp]

34. Also.. remember when Obama was asked about what would happen if we defaulted?

He said he didn't know if SS checks would be sent out. Considering that SS has nothing to do with the debt, that to me was an eye opening look at who he considers expendable.

Rp

[blkmusclmachine]

36. The con artists in DC are being paid to NOT know.

See, "stupidity" pays. They want to steal our SS/M&M, and they're gonna peddle every lie under the sun to get it.

[Recursion]

38. No, it was a political zing (nt)

[SpankMe]

39. Can anyone explain this to me?

FactCheck.org is saying that SS does contribute to deficits.

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/

Are they playing semantics? Can anyone "de-complexify" this?

[Yo_Mama]

44. Unfortunately this is untrue

Earlier, SS ran a surplus. Had we actually invested that in regular Treasury bonds, we would not now be facing the same problem we are.

But we didn't. Therefore, all the amounts in the Trust funds are, in effect, future debt. (If we had just had the Trustees for Medicare and SS go out and buy regular Treasury bonds, this would not be a problem!).

Therefore, as soon as SS & Medicare stop running a surplus, these programs do add to the yearly deficit, because as the Trustees turn in their special obligations, Treasury has to run out and issue NEW debt (not replacement debt), i.e. borrow new amounts.

The "deficit" is defined as the amount by which our yearly income exceeds our yearly outgo. Since both SS & Medicare are paying out more in benefits than they receive in allocated revenue now (Medicare for years, SS beginning last year), they ARE contributing to the deficit. The deficit is the measure of yearly borrowing.

I claim that the debt is legitimate (these amounts were paid in by future retirees and are owed future retirees) and should be paid to future retirees, but I refuse to assent to the myth that they do not contribute to the deficit. They do.

Originally, when SS was set up, the Trustees actually did go out and buy Treasury bonds or bills just like any other investor. That was changed to allow us to run a higher real deficit but mask it with the excess revenues. We are facing the results of that error now.

[XanaDUer]

46. Tell it like it is!

It has to be self-sustained, and you cannot mix the SS fund with the general fund, either.

For Repubs to get their hands on SS surpluses, they have to borrow it from SS and they want a back-door method to borrow the surpluses that, technically do not add to the debt.

[earcandle]

51. I think they may have already illegally raided it and don't want to pay it back.

How can we tell?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. K&R and shout it from the rooftops!

[bertman]

48. Thanks, mmonk. REC. nt

[defendandprotect]

49. Right wing has worked for decades to confuse the public re Social Security -- !!

[Yo_Mama]

62. And apparently the left wing can't recognize reality

Because SS is mostly definitely adding to the deficit.

[defendandprotect]

50. Quick -- someone should tell President Obama that -- not to mention GOP.... !!!!

Thanks for the info -- I've saved it --

But I have a sneaking suspicion that Obama does know -- and that he's sleeping

very well at night --

while so many seniors are living under stress because of him and the his threat to SS --

Imagine the disabled and the stress they must be under!!

[dkf]

58. So when the "trust funds" are used up, do SS payments drop by 25%?