$22 trillion Social Security surplus revealed on C-SPAN

[WI_DEM]

When Peter Coy, the Bloomberg Businessweek Economics Editor, appeared this morning on "Washington Journal," he brought along a chart for his discussion of the magazine's cover article, "Why the Debt Crisis is Even Worse Than You Think." But, the chart, purported to show a national fiscal gap, did not match Coy's talking points. As Coy concluded commenting that cuts would be needed to Social Security and other entitlements, C-SPAN moderator Susan Swain pointed out that Coy's chart showed a long-term surplus for Social Security of $22 trillion. Coy confirmed as accurate her interpretation of the chart and, after some stumbling, admitted that, "The trust fund is not the crucial issue." Indeed, his own figures show that it is not an issue at all. So, why did he continue to insist that Social Security cuts are needed?

SWAIN: Well one thing just to note..as you're saying Social Security is part of the solution....In this illustration you have here...social security...taxes... let's see.one side is revenue and one side is debt. It shows social security in a surplus. Right. 132 in what is receives versus 110 trillion? Am I reading that correctly? So, people who social security be set aside we've paid into it it's really solvent for right now. Why should that be part of the discussion?



COY: That 's a good point. The social security numbers...the trust fund is not the crucial issue. That's why people say that medicare is where the bigger problem...but, social security...um... probably going to have to have a higher...um...retirement age..but, you know...funny thing...I think that's a good point you're making there. I'm going to go back and look at that more closely for next week's story.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/29/1000366/-$22-trillion-Social-Security-surplus-revealed-on-C-SPAN?via=siderec

[DCKit]

1. Oops. nt

[JHB]

2. Note to world: an economics editor didn't bother to check his numbers...

Special note for Bloomberg subscribers.

[Love Bug]

3. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain"

[hvn_nbr_2]

36. "Pay no attention to real numbers! We have an ideology to push." nt

[Wilms]

4. Another whistleblower is about to get busted. n/t

[elleng]

5. Susan usually does well. Bet she + c-span are happy today!

[Ship of Fools]

6. I am so very tired of the lying, coniving thieves. SO FUCKING TIRED!!!!!!!

[Control-Z]

7. Wow.

This needs to be seen by everyone.

[sabrina 1]

8. That's the big lie, and he got caught telling it. Kudos to one

Media person for calling him on it. The rest of our useless media lets them get away with that lie, as do most of our politicians.

[russspeakeasy]

24. Isn't it the equivalent of shouting "fire" in a crowded theater?

All the lying bastards should be jailed in one of the "prisons for profit" in florida. And then, hopefully, they can meet our governor in the near future.:nuke:

[dkf]

9. If he doesn't understand this he doesn't understand anything about the debt.

How embarrassing.

[bigmonkey]

10. These people who say that Social Security is broke.

Do they consider themselves broke on the weekends, because their expenditures exceed what they're earning those two specific days? Or do they consider themselves, for the same reason, broke on every day except payday?

[bluerum]

11. errp glorp slorging

[anamandujano]

12. "I think that's a good point you're making there. I'm going to

go back and make a different chart look at that more closely for next week's story."

[librechik]

13. Busted! Triple SS checks now!

let's get some geezer cash on the streets and floating the economy!

[damntexdem]

14. SS is part of the discussion because the assholes want to steal from it.

They want to steal OUR money we paid in, and give more to the rich.

[JDPriestly]

59. Precisely. Obama let them get by with stealing people's homes

and equity. Obama let them get by with defrauding the investors who bought the mortgage securities. Obama let them get by with defrauding the homeowners to whom mortgage brokers made false promises. Obama let all the big guys by with their lies on every issue.

So why should they worry about stealing the Social Security Trust Fund in order to finance the tax cuts to the super-rich?

There has got to be a special place in Hell for every one of the folks who concocted this grand theft that is taking place before our eyes.

Let's remember that the Social Security taxes are utterly regressive. The poor pay pay a higher percentage of their income into the Social Security Trust Fund than the upper middle class and wealthy.

So quite literally stealing the Social Security Trust Fund is stealing from the poor to pay the rich. It is the opposite of Christian teachings. The utter opposite.

[Faryn Balyncd]

15. The whole point is to STEAL $22 trillion in payroll taxes to subsidize deficits in the general fund

...caused by slashing income tax rates on the uber-rich to historically low rates, while simultaneously conducting multiple unfunded wars.


The real welfare queens are the Right Wing pirates who are not content to steal the current $2.3 trillion trust fund, but want to slash SS benefits so low that they can steal $22 trillion in FUTURE Trust Fund surpluses to subsidize an underfunded General Fund (that is, unsustainably low income tax rates.

[Faux pas]

16. Sounds about right to me.

[Uncle Joe]

17. Yep, that about sums it up.

:thumbsup:

[Donnachaidh]

19. that's the ONLY reason we're being sold a bill of goods by BOTH sides

This really really pisses me off.

[Desertrose]

29. That's why they BOTH piss me off, too.

Forget right left...we're way past that...it's rich vs the rest of us.

[WinkyDink]

20. Agree 100% about the looting; disagree 100% about the intended resting place. ;-)

[JDPriestly]

61. What do you mean, WinkyDink?

[Warren Stupidity]

23. we have to keep repeating this over and over and over until we are blue in the face

this is all about NOT making good on the treasury notes in the trust fund. It is all about protecting, and INCREASING, tax cuts for billionaires, subsidized by pension cuts for peasants.

[Desertrose]

28. Bingo!! nt

[woo me with science]

31. Thank you. nt

[Major Hogwash]

32. *Ching ching*

Rings up the register.

[harun]

40. We have a winner.

[KT2000]

48. Yes! This is what

was done to the private pensions as well - opened them up to be raided.

[JDPriestly]

60. And even more galling is the fact that the uber-rich took the money

and invested it in countries where they can exploit workers for next to nothing.

It is probably the biggest financial crime in the history of the world.

[Igel]

18. Understanding is good.

Let's assume it's not a typo. Such things happen, esp. when the person producing the graphics *isn't* the person writing the text. (In other words, is the guy doing the talking the guy who made up the graph? Are they his numbers? Correct?)

If it's not a typo, some questions come to mind.

What's that $22 trillion surplus? What's in the bank? This year's surplus? This decade's? Perhaps this month's? Is it for the next 100 years? 150? Does it matter? Absolutely. I expect to make $50k next year. That won't help my mortgage payment next month. The issue is cash flow and short-term factors.

Would it matter if SS has a $22 trillion surplus between now and 2100, with a $34 trillion surplus scheduled between 2080 and 2100? Sure: It would mean a cash flow crunch between now and 2080 on the order of $12 trillion.

So we *know* that $22 trillion surplus isn't over my lifetime--I'm in my early 50s. The projections for the next 35 years are fairly clear that it'll be in the red for revenues if we keep benefits at current levels and before my death most plausible scenarios have the trust fund at $0 and benefits at about 75% of today's.

We also know that the current trust fund is $2 trillion and change. Paying that back is going to be a bitch.

So where's the surplus? After the baby boomers are dead, that's pretty much where it has to be. Is it a logical conclusion? Sure. Did he say this? No. But he also didn't say that the $22 trillion is in the next decade, so using that to battle numbers that seem pretty well accepted doesn't fly. It's "Maybe he meant this" versus "this is what the numbers we've crunched say." Wishful thinking is fine, but let's not confuse it with reality. Leave that for those we always accuse of living in la-la land.

Further, is the surplus in constant dollars or does it include inflation? What are the assumptions for economic growth and for benefits levels? Assuming that we really want to trust a budget projection for more than 5 years, much less more than 50.

Ah. He didn't provide the information. Small problem. Nothing that a devoted denial of critical thinking can't mask. Look! A squirrel!

[SlimJimmy]

21. K&R

[JDPriestly]

63. Igel, you are so right.

The conservatives are hoisting up a big flag with a slogan on it.

But finance and economics do not work that way.

Everything in economic projections and analysis depends on the validity of the assumptions.

If we change our trade policy, find new sources for raw materials or discover new ways to use the raw materials that are plentiful and bring our economy generally and the job market in particular back to its former levels, we could continue to build surpluses.

We have to stop fighting wars and start focusing on developing new technologies.

Obama could have called Americans to focus on this more positive effort.

But instead our attention has been drawn and our time wasted on worrying about economic projections that are based on conjecture and assumptions.

But unless we get leadership that is inspiring instead of mired in corruption, we will not be able to reach our potential.

[mmonk]

22. LOL.

Maybe he shouldn't take charts to his next event. People will believe a lie straight up, no props.

[theophilus]

25. Ummmm.....uhh....NO! We're not going to have to have a HIGHER retirement age

Coy you evil, stupid, troll. And I mean that in the nicest possible way.

[jerseyjack]

26. Most amazing, when Coy was called out, he didn't try to obfuscate.

Rather, he agreed to recheck his reasoning.

[lyonn]

27. Too bad more people don't or can't watch C-span

The guest are fairly equal. On occasions the repubs really step in it. Of course it never makes headlines on basic tv.

[Major Hogwash]

33. True, but I can't stay awake half the time waiting for somebody to score a goal.

So, it's either C-Span or Australian Rules Football half the time, and the other half the time I have to work, and the other half the time I am outside looking for a 4-leaf clover.

[Cleita]

30. Bernie Sanders has been trying to get the message out

that Social Security is not the problem, but until CNN and Fox News etc. pick it up and run with it, the majority of the American people will be ignorant of that fact.

[thelordofhell]

34. That's what he gets for taking his lies to a truth fight

Now he's got to go back and make up more lies

[Overseas]

35. K&R.

[marions ghost]

37. K&R

:wow:

[KoKo]

38. K&R! Why is SS even on the table? Because Wall Street wants the money...

and it's always been hardline Repugs who've wanted to privatize it.

[Major Hogwash]

39. Bingo! The GOP has had their eyes on the SS account for over 35 years!!

We should have put it in a lockbox like Gore said years ago!!

[Octafish]

41. It's the biggest chunk of cold, hard cash that the Reich hasn't already stolen.

What Willie Sutton said about why he robs banks"

"It's where the money is."

[Zookeeper]

50. And anyone who thinks that the stock market is a safe....

substitute for Social Security is a fool or a liar. My widowed mother lost 3/4 of her hard-earned investments when the market crashed. She actually tried to sell early, but her fund representative didn't return her calls until after the market bottomed out. I'm sure he was taking care of himself and his favored clients, though.

At least Social Security can't play favorites.

[JDPriestly]

64. Precisely.

Social Security does not play favorites. The stock market con artists do.

[mistertrickster]

42. The SS surplus should be closer to 2.2 trillion, IIRC. nt

22 trillion would be one third of the GDP of the entire world.

[a2liberal]

43. K&R (n/t)

[beac]

44. Hoist by his own cue card, as it were.

;)

[Firebrand Gary]

45. OH REALLY, Seems like the "lock box" is doing quite well.

[hansberrym]

46. I know its true, because I saw in on TV ? n/t

[JackRiddler]

47. Because that surplus should go into taxcuts, wars and bank bailouts, like always until now...

The crisis is that SS should ever tap into its accumulated surpluses, nothing more. Because although those surpluses were accumulated, the money to cover a potential SS deficit still has to come out of current revenue or borrowing. The surplus money has been spent.

By combining SS and Medicare into the general budget they've been hiding the size of the deficits and financing discretionary spending via payroll tax, instead of income tax, since forever. If they could just retire the SS trust fund somehow (lower "intergovernmental liabilities") that's an enormous diminishment of the total debt, and leaves more room for the all-important Pentagon, more subsidies and giveaways to the rich clients and contractors who single-handedly Create All Wealth, and, of course, the Banksters Rainy Day Fund.

Another way of seeing it: Since the tax cuts they've been letting the rich keep a million instead of losing it to the tax man, and also giving the rich the opportunity to stick that million in a guaranteed investment with interest (t-bills) by lending it to the government that didn't tax them for it. Which would you rather do, pay a million in taxes or get to deposit the same million with the government at interest? What idiot wouldn't go for that, indeed as an alternative to investing the million as capital in a risky private economy? When taxes are cut, the rich invest less! It takes away their damned incentive. Would you rather worry about your million in some unknown business venture, or know you're getting interest on it?

And the perpetual SS surplus has helped pay for that all along. That's why it must either be retired or continue to accumulate without being paid to SS recipients instead of war contractors et al.

[PaulaFarrell]

49. isn't the problem that the surplus doens't actually exist?

it's not sitting a bank anywhere waiting to be paid out because the federal goverbment has borrowed all of it for other purposes. so when the time comes to pay out, there will be a problem because the fed will have to repay the money it owes the social security fund and that is where the crunch will come. I remember a political science professor explaining this 30 years ago and i can only imagine the situation has gotten much worse. By reducing benefits, they hope to continue to mask taht they have bankrupted the fund through bad management.

[WillyT]

51. HUGE K & R !!!

:kick:

[TheKentuckian]

52. Fucking duh, the agenda is to use our money for their own ends and never replace it

Instead, they will leave a figleaf of a program to "watch out for the poorest" and use the payroll tax as a regressive slush fund.

They are transparent and many on our side are blind and give too much credence to the beltway who are in place to reinforce the exact conditions and themes the thieves want.

I will consider anyone who goes in on this scam a deadly enemy and/or well beyond stupid. Possibly evil as well. No excuses and no quarter.

[JDPriestly]

65. I have warned my members of Congress that I will not vote

for any candidate who agrees to cuts to Social Security or Medicare or any scheme to hide the fact that they are agreeing to those cuts.

[fascisthunter]

53. this government, and it's bribed politicians are trying to steal OUR money

...this conspiracy we have all been witnessing.... ask yourselves why this wasn't spoken about by Obama himself? Hmmm... you think he didn't know about this? And then ask why he would EVER place SS, on the chopping block?

[TheDebbieDee]

54. This whole thing about SS being on the verge of insolvency is a lie!

And it has been a lie since the repukes started repeating this meme in the mid-90s.

The thing is, this lie has been repeated so many times by the repukes in the last 15 - 18 years that people have started to elieve it!

It's just like the * admin's lie that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks - NOT TRUE! But many Americans believed it because the lie was repeated so many times.

[socialist_n_TN]

55. Isn't this something that most of us have been saying

for decades now?

[Kip Humphrey]

56. Rule #1 for Republicons: Never let the data interfere with your talking points.

[DeSwiss]

57. K&R

It ain't robbery, it's a business cycle

Capitalism is about one thing: aggregating the surplus productive value of the public for private interests. As we have said, it is about creating state sanctioned "investments" for the workers who produce the real wealth. Things like home "ownership" and mortgages, or stock investments and funds to absorb their retirement savings. That crushing 30-year mortgage with two refis is an investment. So is that 401K melting like a snow cone at the beach.

As the people's wealth accumulates, it is steadily siphoned off by government and elite private forces. From time to time, it is openly plundered for their benefit by way of various bubbles, depressions or recessions and other forms of theft passed off as unavoidable acts of nature/god. These periodic raids and draw downs of the people's wealth are attributed to "business cycles." Past periodic raids and thefts are heralded as being proof of the rationale. "See folks, it comes and goes, so it's a cycle!" Economic raids and busts become "market adjustments."

Public blackmail and plundering through bailouts become "necessary rescue packages." Giveaways to corporations under the guise of public works and creating employment become "stimulus." The chief responsibility of economists is to name things in accordance with government and corporate interests. The function of the public is to acquire debt and maintain "consumer confidence." When the public staggers to its feet again and manages to carry more debt, buy more poker chips on credit to play again, it's called a recovery. They are back in the game.

~ http://www.joebageant.com/joe/2010/07/waltzing.html">Joe Bageant, "Waltzing at the Doomsday Ball"

[pam4water]

58. Yeah but that money is held in US bonds, so if we default that money goes away too.

[Rex]

62. They don't care anymore, the whole things fucked anyway

so why pretend? America...wtf.

[guruoo]

66. knr nt