I’m speechless.

“Corporate bonds are not Ponzi schemes.”

That’s my point.  And neither are the U.S. securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund.  The government could take the money and give it to Osama bin Laden, and the U.S. securities held by the Trust Fund would remain exactly the same.

Conservative Yankee - fair enough, the 70’s were a disaster but what you call an ‘oil shortage’ was really an oil embargo inflicted on the country by OPEC for geo-political reasons.  I agree with you, it was a serious crisis indeed.

PT - Corporate bonds are not Ponzi schemes. Period. Fraudulent corporations engaging in a Ponzi scheme might try to lure people into thinking they are investing in a legitimate debt issuance (corporate bond) while they are in reality ripping them off in a Ponzi scheme but the two are very different things.  If you were a victim of such a scheme that sucks but don’t mistake a fraud with the legitimate corporate bond market.

If you are talking about no-bid contracts for Halliburton I agree with your outrage but the fact remains that the government is probably raiding the Social Security trust fund to pay for those contracts.  The government takes your money and then they misuse it. Halliburton has never forced me to pay them a tax.  I only fork money over to them if I want to hire them to do work (which I would never have any reason to do). That was my point.  Still the real criminals are the bought and paid for politicians that are writing the checks and giving away your money with no recourse.  Corporations on the teet are despicable but we have to look at the root of the problem. If there were no teet, the ‘evil’ corporations would have no reason to spend billions to lobby Washington to try and get their hands on public funds!

You misrepresented my point.  Take a look at what you said:

“If an ‘evil’ corp. did the same it would at least be shut down, exposed to lawsuits, the executives would, in the least, be paraded around public in handcuffs by a limelight loving DA.”

I pointed out that corporations engage all the time in what you call a Ponzi scheme.  They are called corporate bonds.  You really need to take some economics.

And people are forced to fork over money to corporations all the time.  Halliburton is a case in point.  Furthermore, your money is far safer in U.S. securities (no defaults even in the 1930s) than Enron securities.

Comparing the voluntary purchase by any investor of a corporate bond to the forced contributions of every taxable worker in this country for Social Security is like comparing apples to golf clubs.  Literally no relation whatsoever.  Zero. zilch.

When was the last time you had money automatically deducted from your paycheck that was invested in a corporate bond which wasn’t going to pay you any interest or return principle until you were 65?

There seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of how the debt market works and how social security works.  I’m not trying to be rude but there is plenty of free information available that can help you understand how these markets and systems actually work.

I will also point out that just because the US Government has never defaulted on its debts outstanding doesn’t mean that it can’t or won’t.  We haven’t had a real financial crisis in this country since the 1930’s and as a result we have become complacent and lulled into thinking that ‘it can’t happen here’.  In fact it can happen here.  In fact, the risk of it happening here has never been greater than today.  Act accordingly

“Forcing everyone to automatically pay into a trust fund, then ultimately taxing the benefits paid from that trust fund, while simultaneously borrowing and spending the assets of that trust fund on anything other than paying the defined benefits of that trust, inevitably risking the viability of the trust fund is wrong and immoral.  A Ponzi scheme.
If an ‘evil’ corp. did the same it would at least be shut down, exposed to lawsuits, the executives would, in the least, be paraded around public in handcuffs by a limelight loving DA.”

Actually, corporations do it all the time.  They’re called corporate bonds.  The Social Security Trust Fund holds U.S. securities, the safest investment there is (never been a default).

Social security is a fine concept and an acceptable service for the government to provide but it should be voluntary, not compulsory, from a participation standpoint.  Furthermore, like any other financial contract or service, the trustees should be bound by fiduciary duty to protect the participant’s assets entrusted to them with very strict covenants. 

Forcing everyone to automatically pay into a trust fund, then ultimately taxing the benefits paid from that trust fund, while simultaneously borrowing and spending the assets of that trust fund on anything other than paying the defined benefits of that trust, inevitably risking the viability of the trust fund is wrong and immoral.  A Ponzi scheme.

If an ‘evil’ corp. did the same it would at least be shut down, exposed to lawsuits, the executives would, in the least, be paraded around public in handcuffs by a limelight loving DA.  Heck they might even possibly go to jail for a month! Sadly, the same consequences and accountability simply do not apply to Congress. Another major flaw.

As an aside, from what I understand, each member of Congress is entitled to roughly $15K per month in retirement benefits after only ONE term of public ‘service’.  Not too shabby!

Hillary’s claims that the system is solvent and everything is ‘honky dory’ is a statement that cannot be proven nor refuted. It is impossible to do. However, by making this statement she creates a positive talking point about one near/dear govt program which will lead many to make a favorable comparison about a far more ambitious plan for govt monopolized healthcare <also one with far more potential to abuse, fraud, lobby, crony, with life and death decisions folded in>

Hillary has done exactly what she aims to do if people conclude, ‘Social security is fine, the Republicans are lying about it being in trouble so they can steal it from you, and thus the govt running my healthcare will also be fine.’

Of course, following the same logic that we should ignore Hillary’s projection that SS is perfectly fine, we should also ignore Republican projections that SS is going to be bankrupt. Agreed!

But where does this leave us?  Right back to what is happening TODAY with our entrusted funds.  How is it being handled? Held in trust or is it being borrowed against and then spent? Properly accounted for? 

We must accept that projections are useless! Far too many variables and assumptions that can change the future reality too dramatically. As with all predictions, the further out projected, the less accurate projections are likely to be.  All about the future is nothing more than a guess.

Worse, there is no way to go back and see if projections were correct/incorrect and certainly no accountability for those who made them. Can’t rewind the clock to undo decisions made or not made based on them.

So again, the only thing that matters is what is done with that money today.  What can we do now?

The only thing that should be done with that money is paying benefits to those who have paid into the fund.  That money should never be borrowed against and spent.  It should never be privatized and invested to benefit the current political power players and lobbies and corporations.  It should be just what it was intended to be (I assume). A lockbox trust fund for those who have paid their blood, sweat, and tears into it. Not a line of credit. Not a political football. 

It should also, by its nature, be voluntary.  One could also argue with good reason that the government should open it to competition (lifting IRA limits etc) allowing people to have more control over their earned income if they desire it.  It should also be VERY transparent to participants and those considering participation what is paid in, what comes out, how it is invested and where etc.

Speaking of ‘oligarchy’......(and hoping folks still have time to read a book)
I recommend “The Iron Heel”..by the amazing Jack London.....written Very Early in the 20th century....
after that, try London’s:.."Burning Daylight”.....

“The difference is that where democratic socialists envision the concept of res publica in which government serves the common good--or as stated in the preamble to the Constitution “to promote the general welfare"--the hard-right sees the purpose of government as insuring that the blood, sweat and tears of the many create massive profits for the few.”

Thanks Ernest Canning

So true.
I think they call it Oligarchy!

When I said I didn’t mind paying tax, I didn’t mention I don’t like corruption, but that should be obvious.

Paying tax is not the problem. Taxation without representation is the problem.

When those who are entrusted with the key to the treasury do not represent the interests of We the People, corruption sets in. We see today how people who do not represent the interests of the people gain and maintain power. Those who have the money control the media and the campaigns and the outcome. And those who want to represent welcome the control! So in the end, we know who they will represent. The watchdogs of the tax revenue will continue to represent the Oligarchy, and the corruption will continue.

I cant recall a previous time in my life when that truth has been so glaringly obvious!

No one can serve two masters. Something they all think wont apply to them. But in the end, they realize they are bound. Bought and paid for and no different, than that which they promised to replace!

The fact that the hard right uses and has used tax as a political issue binding their followers to their hip is telling when you think about it. Because their devoted followers are victimized by the corruption that uses and abuses government treasury as much as we.

From a comment I posted earlier regarding Cuba:

“And the really big question, why does the United States of America not only feel the need to meddle in the affairs of every other country in the world, but believe they have the right too?!!

Is that the REAL reason the CIA was created? Not to discover threats, but to create threats. Given CIA connections to the Bush name and by association the names of wealth and power players going back to the CIA’s creation, maybe that IS the real reason! Since Communism became a world force, the Oligarchy has been under threat.

It should be noted, the Oligarchy did not see Fascism as a threat, in fact embraced it and made a good bit of profit along the way. Not until it became politically expedient to turn their backs on Fascism, did they.

Or, did they?

Communism, like any political force that gains absolute power became corrupt. [Look at where we are today!] The communist force that ruled in the last century bore little resemblance to the principles laid out by Karl Marx, in the previous century. Principles that called for an equal share of the wealth. Principles which were the complete antithesis of the Oligarchy.

Of course, communism had to be the enemy.

Which brings me back to Douglas Chalmers comment.

KURTZ “ Are my methods unsound?”

WILLARD “I don’t see any method at all, sir.”

The notion that somewhere there is a grand plan, laid out in fine detail, for the “good” to fight the “evil” is absurd. There is no such plan. There is only wealth and power, working diligently day and night to keep and get more, until they have it all. And they never find a shortage of folks who will climb on their coat tails and lick up the crumbs. Just one reason why it is so easy to persuade the masses that what conscience clearly says is wrong, is right.

Louise, though their ideology denies it, right-wingers like our disembodied “Voice” who deludes him or herself into thinking that he/she is the sole repository of “truth,” favor the use of government for purposes of redistributing wealth.  The difference is that where democratic socialists envision the concept of res publica in which government serves the common good--or as stated in the preamble to the Constitution “to promote the general welfare"--the hard-right sees the purpose of government as insuring that the blood, sweat and tears of the many create massive profits for the few. 

While the middle and working classes are being pressured to surrender what is left of the New Deal safety net, the wealthy have had no qualms about extending a hand to receive government subsidies, as occurred between 1989 and 2002 when the U.S. government spent over $250 billion to bailout hundreds of Savings and Loan institutions which had been mismanaged into insolvency.  Perhaps the most blatant example, on an individual level, is the billionaire New York stockbroker, whom Jim Hightower refers to as Charles “Duckey” Schwab, proud owner of 1,500 acres of No. California rice growing wetlands--"Casa de Patos.” Although Schwab grows the rice merely to attract ducks so he can treat his friends and clients to a duck hunt, that didn’t stop him from placing his “Home of the Ducks” into the federal farm program so that he can cash in on a $500,000 annual subsidy because he doesn’t market the rice.  “Sadly,” Hightower observes, “it’s legal, and it’s a fine upstanding example of what George and his base like to call ‘entrepeneurship.’”

As absurd as it may seem to pay a billianaire $500,000 per year not to market rice he has no intent on harvesting, Casa de Patos is but the tip of an iceberg.  In “The Great American Job Scam,” Greg LeRoy documents how, over the past fifty years, corporations have obtained massive subidies, outright gifts of land and property and enormous tax breaks from city, county, state and regional entities by enticing bidding wars between them through empty promises of job creation that are most often never fulfilled and which, from a national perspective, do not create jobs but instead merely shift them from one region to another.

And subsidies are but a small part of governmental assistance to corporate America.  Broad policies ranging from a willingness to engage in resource wars, to denial of the science behind global warming, to the suppression of California’s short-lived requirement for increasing percentages of new, zero-emission auto sales, government has served the insure record oil industry profits--profits that were augmented by $7 billion in subsidies when the Republican-led Congress passed the so-called “Energy bill.”

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we providce enough for those who have too little.” Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt

“The greatest challenge we face is the growing gap between the rich and poor people on earth.” Pres. Jimmy Carter

“More than anything else, I want to see the United States remain a country where someone can get rich.” Pres. Ronald Reagan

Dear voice of truth,

I never did stick with gizzards. It’s those SO-CALLED conservatives who get their gizzards fried every time they have to think about “socialist” programs which have grown out of the “new deal” real deal concept. Real in the sense that conservative values, at least as alleged to have been taught by that oft’ quoted conservative socialist Jesus, suggest it’s a good thing to share our gold and grub with those less fortunate.

That Social Security is monitored by the government in know way changes the fact that the money is ours. And personally if I see someone who has a need that is greater than mine I’m happy to see they can get the help they need. Even if it does mean sharing, or losing a bit of MY social security. Tough concept to conceptualize, I know.

But then I never did think of Social Security as a tax. I don’t even freak over having to pay tax, although the Tax man can be pretty freakin’ scary!

Call me weird, but I like having a few guarantees.

I like having my garbage picked up and my streets cleared of snow. I like having mail delivered and a fire truck showing up when the neighbors house catches fire. I even like having a standing military. Just wish we could get them standing back home where they belong.

Momma came to love her SS check because years of investing and saving and a secure pension provided by years of faithful employment fell far short of meeting actual needs. No matter how well we plan, the dollar will never be worth tomorrow what it is today. For Momma, Social Security was the safety net that took up the slack, which after all, was what it was intended to be.

My preference is still chopped liver. Guess some might say that has me focusing on the trivial, but sometimes the trivial is the spice that wakes up the senses

Louise, Louise, Louise, you should have stuck with gizzards

As a conservative (not a so-called one), even I can see the utility of the New Deal.  I also know, however, that what those programs have morphed into was never part of the original deal.  Social Security as a supplement, the income tax only on the top 1% (I know, not really part of the new deal, but you get it), food stamps and welfare as a get back on your feet thing, not a way of life.

Of course your mom’s attitude changed, she was a beneficiary.  Also, your comment of “I remember momma” reminds me of a funny movie I once saw, “I Dismember Momma, May She Rest in Pieces”.

Left, right, somewhere in the middle.

I remember growing up listening to Momma curse that “Gol-derned” Roosevelt!

Nothing but a communist, wanting to turn our country into a socialist state. Particularly outraged every time she had to pay that SS tax!

I remember years later my Moms concern as she lamented, “By the time I retire, there wont be any money left in Social Security!”

Still later, I remember Momma thanking God for Social Security disability money that helped pay for the life-time care of a friend permanently brain damaged in the Korean War.

And still later, I remember how gratefully Mom accepted that check every month, because it helped her stretch her retirement dollars.

Point being ... peoples attitudes change, once they are the recipients of that “Socialist Program.” I doubt she ever thought about it, but at some point in time the “Thank God Social Security was never done away with when we wanted that to happen!” Should have crossed her mind.

And one other point. Whether you like it or not, Roosevelt’s “New Deal” was the real deal. A fact that so-called conservatives have had to look at and try to ignore for more than half a century. Because the realness of that success shines the lack of success on the so-called conservative side. A side full of sound and fury and “Gol-derned” little else!

Again, the only way one can say that Social Security works is if you ignore that is was supposed to be a retirement supplement and believe that it is actually a redistribution of wealth.

Under those circumstances, yes, it is a great program.

“P.T.  Do you really think billionaires like Bill Gates are worried about receiving a Social Security pay-out?”

Can’t say.  Might depend on the size of the payout.  I’ll ask him the next time he drops over.

Social Security being one of the few government programs that works and works well it is no surprise that Conservatives want to eliminate it. Good for Hillary for saying what anyone that has done any research into this area all ready knows. I am now on Social Security. I remember well back in those halcyon days when I never thought I would get old enough to be on Social Security all those “doom and gloomers” that insisted there would be no money for us when we retired. Wrong then, wrong now.

Keeping Promises to Seniors

With our country’s finances stretched thin, our credit limit fast approaching, and our currency inflated to the breaking point, there is no indication yet of any urgency on the part of Congress to rein in spending.  The predictable answer to the government’s voracious spending habits is this week’s proposal by some Democratic Congressional leaders for tax increases to pay for operations in Iraq .  Here at home, however, there are promises our seniors heavily rely upon.  We must keep these promises.

An analysis of the Social Security “Trust Fund” shows we are not doing a credible job of keeping these promises.  Official reports show the trust fund having assets of $2.1 trillion.  In reality, those dollars are just IOUs the government is writing to itself when it borrows from the fund to spend on unrelated programs.  There are no real assets in the Social Security Trust Fund.  This is similar to taking money out of your savings account, spending it, then replacing it with an IOU to yourself, and calling that IOU an asset.

In addition, this money we owe to our seniors is not even included in official budget deficit figures.  In fiscal year 2006 alone, $185 billion was borrowed from Social Security.  The official deficit was reported to be $248 billion.  The actual deficit for 2006 would be $433 billion when combining the two.  This sort of accounting would land private sector executives in prison for fraud.

Yet this is done every year by the federal government.  The truth is that while politicians in Washington differ about what programs to spend Social Security money on, they are united in wanting to spend it on something other than benefits for seniors.

This approach can continue only until Social Security stops running “surpluses” the government can raid.  Trustees of Social Security estimate this will happen in 2017.  At that time, the amount owed to the Trust Fund will be between $4 trillion and $5.2 trillion, depending on the economy.

When that day of reckoning comes, there will no longer be “excess” payroll tax receipts available to prop up government spending, and the risk of financial crisis will be significant.  Instead of forward thinking solutions, politicians are discussing alarming proposals, such as an agreement with Mexico to let their citizens collect social security money intended for our seniors.  This would break the bank even sooner.  But, current Members of Congress will no longer be in office to face the wrath of seniors and their families when the trust fund goes bankrupt.  Instead, they will be retired and enjoying their own plush Congressional pensions. 

I have been working to reverse this trend.  My Social Security Preservation Act, HR 219 would make sure this Trust Fund has real assets such as certificates of deposit in FDIC-insured institutions so that in 2017 and beyond, Social Security payments would continue for those who are depending on them.

Congress must take action now, so we can keep the promises we made to our seniors.

Ron Paul - October 7, 2007

P.T.  Do you really think billionaires like Bill Gates are worried about receiving a Social Security pay-out?

Ostensibly, the reason for the cap on Social Security taxes is because payouts also are capped.  Getting rid of the cap on taxes would increase progressivity but decrease the resemblance to an insurance or retirement program.

“The only thing that government does better than the private sector is the redistribution of wealth.”

The health care mess in this country compared to single-payer systems proves otherwise.

By the way, that computer and Internet you’re using:  both government programs.

Jim Shaw, any problems in future SS fiscal solvency would easily be resolved by removing the cap that permits the wealthy to pay no more than the middle class.  What am I saying?  A plan to make the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes?  My goodness, how un-American is that?

The only thing that government does better than the private sector is the redistribution of wealth.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Conservative Yankee, but sometimes government does a better job than the private sector. When government is accountable to the people there is oversight, but when it is sold to the highest bidder, who may be free market de-regulators- than it only serves those who pay to play. Unfortunately government is our only recourse to air grivances--no matter how flawed it may be at times. There will never be a perfect government--as in all things in our imperfect existence, but it is far better than the law of the jungle with no obligation to the survival of others with justice and humanity. The recent corporate scandals as a result of de-regulation are more than ample evidence, yet free market types keep on a tooting their horn, totally, irrationally ignoring the evidence.
Libertarians are fond of spouting on about the constition and the founder-framers as their demi-gods. Don’t you find some irony in that since they were involved and organizing the tewwible, tewwible gubbermint? If there wasn’t a need for it, what would be the point?

“Privatization” of Social Security Poses Risks
Federal Government Should Not Play the Stock Market with Your Retirement Funds

...SS, when instituted in the 1930’s, represented a promise by the federal government to working Americans. In exchange for their participation in a retirement savings program (via payroll taxes), Americans would be guaranteed monthly payments when they retired. 65 years later, when the majority of America’s families own stocks or mutual funds, it is easy for some to forget that many retired Americans continue to rely on a monthly SS check for all or most of their income. These Americans funded the system throughout their working lives, and they deserve to know that their retirement funds are secure- after all, it’s their money. I believe Congress must work to insure that the federal government meets its promise to our seniors.
Concerns over the future solvency of SS have prompted proposals for “privatizing” the system. Many proposals include plans to allow the federal government to put tax dollars into certain approved stock market investments.
I certainly support policies that encourage individuals to invest for their retirement. I believe Congress should lower taxes, allowing workers to keep more of their paychecks to invest. I also support legislation increasing the amounts individuals may put into tax-deductible or tax-deferred IRA, 401(k), and similar pension plans. Furthermore, I have cosponsored legislation that would end the terrible income tax on Social Security benefits.
However, I believe government-managed investment of SS funds poses undue risks for our nation’s seniors. Although the stock market has done well in recent years, market investments never are completely safe (especially with the Federal Reserve’s risky inflationary policies). Our nation’s seniors could lose their benefits if the U.S. stock market (or markets worldwide) experience a severe downturn. Remember that SS payments were promised to our seniors, and they paid for them during their working lives. Congress cannot risk breaking the SS promise, because it cannot risk the well being of millions of our nation’s seniors.
Furthermore, government involvement in the private stock market would have dangerous consequences. Who would decide what stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or other investment vehicles were approved? Which politicians would you trust to create an investment portfolio with your taxes? The federal government has proven itself incapable of good money management, and permitting politicians and bureaucrats to make investment decisions would result in unscrupulous lobbying for venture capital. Large campaign contributors and private interests of every conceivable type would seek to have their favored investments approved by the government. In a free market, an underperforming or troubled company suffers a decrease in its stock price, forcing it either to improve or lose value. Wary investors hesitate to buy its stock after the price falls. If the company successfully lobbied Congress, however, it would enjoy a large investment of your tax dollars. This investment would cause an artificial increase in its stock price, deceiving private investors and unfairly harming the company’s honest competition. Government-managed investment of tax dollars in the private market is a recipe for corruption and fiscal irresponsibility.
Such “privatization” of SS would not really be private at all. Private companies would become a “partner” of sorts with the government. Individuals still would not truly own their invested SS funds. Payroll taxes likely would be raised to make up for dollars taken out of the SS trust fund. Political favoritism, rather than market efficiency, would determine what investments were made. Worst of all, our nation’s seniors would be threatened with the loss of the benefits they already paid for.
Ron Paul - October 2, 2000

A few weeks ago, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan—whose word the media usually takes as a kind of gospel—told Tim Russert on Meet the Press (9/23/07) that there was no urgent Social Security crisis at all. “Social Security is not a big crisis,” right-wing Greenspan admitted.

Yeah, when it comes to something that is a no-brainer, like the solvency of the Social Security system, Hillary Clinton does not find it difficult to speak the truth in the face of nonsense, but when confronted with the truth about her voting to authorize the war in Iraq, the need to get out of Iraq now, not sometime after 2013, her vote for Kyle-Lieberman, which opens the door to Cheney’s plans to attack Iran, single-payer healthcare as opposed to her bogus “universal coverage” plan that will simply subsidize the healthcare insurance industry, the need to repeal NAFTA & the WTO so as to end the betrayal of this nation by our economic elites via outsourcing of our manufacturing base in an endless search for the $2/day laborer, Hillary Clinton can only mumble nonsense to obscure the truth.

Yeah, you are right Maria Cocco, some of the hard-right who spent the 90s smearing the Clintons are still at it, but others, including Ruppert Murdoch, the military-industrial complex and the healthcare insurance lobby are funding her campaign.  For the smarter ones within the corporatocracy there is a realization that the next president is not going to be a fascist/Republic so they climb on the bandwagon for Republican-lite.

This article would be far more impressive if Ms. Cocco provided some insight into that particular truth.

“the lack of real assets (other than the government’s word) to back the SS promise.”

U.S. government securities aren’t real assets? By the way, I’d rather have the U.S. Treasury’s word than Enron’s.  The former has never defaulted—nothing safer.

I gave up gizzards, [darn near impossible to chew!] but I still like chopped liver in the stuffing

“And, I still maintain it fry’s their gizzards”

I remember the day I realized that my mother put ground gizzards into her turkey stuffing :(

“Next time you hear an Idiot-American spouting off about “managing my own retirement money”, ask him how the markets will be able to make up the difference if the economy is only going to grow half as fast as it has for 60 years.”

That’s a big contradiction the privatizers have not been able to explain.  The only way out for them would be for price/earnings ratios to go to unheard of levels.

What the government does with the Social Security surplus (held as government bonds) is irrelevent.  Again, the Social Security trust fund holds bonds.

In addition, the government has spent money it got from rich people who purchased bonds.  Are those bonds now worthless?  Are the U.S. bonds the Chinese and Japanese purchased worthless?

If you borrow money from the bank and spend it, do you no longer owe the money?

This shouldn’t be so hard to understand!

The Social Security Trust Fund is the United States federal government’s means of accounting for workers’ and employers’ paid-in contributions to the Social Security system and benefits paid out to retired or disabled workers or their survivors, as well as administrative expenses.

More importantly, it also provides the legal basis for making benefit payments in the future when FICA contributions will be less than aggregate benefit payments.

Contributions that are in excess of current payments to beneficiaries the amount not yet needed for Social Security purposes, are invested in securities issued by the government; those securities constitute the assets of the Trust Fund. These securities are counted as part of the national debt.

The Social Security system is primarily a pay-as-you-go system, meaning that payments to current retirees come from current payments into the system.

In the early 1980s, however, expenditures were expected to exceed the revenues in the immediate future. In addition to fixing the short-term problem with tax increases, the Commission headed by Alan Greenspan took the projections which indicated that the eventual retirement of the numerous members of the post-World War II baby boom would cause expenses to exceed revenues.

Accordingly, the Social Security tax was increased in 1983 so that it would be greater than necessary to pay for current expenditures, thus accumulating a reserve that could be drawn upon when necessary. The surplus is accounted for in the Social Security Trust Fund.

As of the end of calendar year 2004, the accumulated surplus stood at approximately $1.7 trillion. 

Projections are that current receipts will continue to exceed expenditures until 2017 (according to Charles Blahous, Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy). Thereafter, there will be a shortfall that will be made up by withdrawals from the Trust Fund, although the Trust Fund will continue to show net growth until 2025 because of the interest generated by its bonds.

The Trust Fund will gradually be drawn upon to cover the difference between tax receipts and benefit payments. It will be completely depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office).

However, if the US economy performs better than the economic assumptions and projections used by the SSA and CBO, the trust funds may remain solvent indefinitely.

***

So, in addition to those who want to take this money and hand it to Wall Street the only other real threat to the Social Security System is a collapsing economy. And given current administration policy we should all be worried about that. And not just because of Social Security. The first and worst pain, if that were to happen, would be felt on Wall Street.

And, I still maintain it fry’s their gizzards that they can’t touch that money!

And, they cant

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/funds.html

#109039 by Louise on 10/23 at 12:08 pm

“And THEY CAN’T TOUCH THE MONEY! “

Sorry Louise, but that is just plain wrong.  As stated earlier, all inflows into Social Security are lumped into the general treasury and spent like same.  In years when SS tax inflows are greater than benefit outflows, the “surplus” just goes to fund other pet pork projects.

So, you see, they have touched it, and will continue to.

At least one person here knows the truth, though the Conservative Yankee and I don’t usually agree.

There is no “social security trust fund”.  Just like there was no balanced budget under Clinton.  Social Security (or as I like to call it, the Great Socialist Wealth Redistribution Plan for Those Unable to Save Anything in 65 Years) currently takes in more in taxes than it pays out in benefits.  However, the squeasels (its a squirrel and a weasel) in Congress started just adding the “surplus” into the regular budget.  Hence, they spent it.

Now, once taxes fall below benefits payouts, and they will (though I am not going to predict the year), the US will have a finite set of bad choices.

1.  Raise taxes on the “wealthy” - always popular, until one realizes the government’s definition of wealthy.
2.  Cut or eliminate benefits for the “wealthy” - see above.
3.  Reduce other government spending - yeah, right.
4.  Go further into debt as a country - YES! none of us have to even worry about it!!!  (that was sarcasm).

In years past, the influx of immigrants helped to offset the falling birth rate.  Now, however, the largest influx of immigrants is illegal, so there are no inflows to SS (this is a fact, not a judgement).

Social Security is in trouble.  Unfortunately, it is not in dire straights for a decade or so, which means no one will do anything about it.  Me, I’d love to take my 6.2% of income and put into something that will actually make money AND be something I can actually count on receiving back when I do retire.  I’m not fool enough to think SS will be there for me, and certainly not the amount I have put in.

#109019 by Conservative Yankee

“A good question until one realizes there IS NO “Social Security Trust Fund” All this money paid in is like the money paid to US steel as “employee portion of retirement premiums” It has been spent by the Company… Uh, I mean government.”
***

Some people just like to see the negative. I know, because I often do myself. But in this case, the negative is just one more lie created by the repubs to undo something they decided more than half a century ago they didn’t want.

Pointing out along with their other positions, like they are actually conservative [NOT!] they carry grudges like Atlas packs the world around.

Is Social Security in crisis? No, Social Security is under siege. Has been as long as any repub could spit out the two words. Biggest problem being, like US Steel, repub congressaurs [and a few bad apples on the dem side] have a long and predictable record of dipping into the piggy bank! If memory serves me, that was the crisis Clinton spoke of. And the Congress fixed.

Then along comes “thought process challenged” and announces he’s going to “save” Social Security by giving it to Wall Street!

Arghhh!!!

Fortunately, even the reddest of the red constituents aren’t quite that dumb! They’re smart enough to realize, giving the money to Wall Street really would be a crap-shoot!

But that wont stop the siege. Because as long as lobbies lobby and greedy people in government see a pile of money they CANT touch, they’ll demand it be put where they CAN!

So I know better than to relax. As long as a repub, any repub walks onto the floor of the House, Social Security will be under siege!

Notice none of those gloom and doom folks call for ABOLISHING Social Security!

Nu-uh ... because it works!

It just fry’s their gizzards that something they’ve fought so hard against all these years WORKS!

And THEY CAN’T TOUCH THE MONEY!

“But there is no Social Security trust fund.”

Of course there is a trust fund, and it holds a huge amount in government bonds.  Is the U.S. government going to default on its bonds (never has before)?  If so, there are going to be a lot of unhappy Chinese and Japanese and others.

One of reasons that people have been duped is because they forget about economic growth.  Even if Social Security taxes need to be raised modestly sometime down the road, workers will still have higher average real incomes after paying those taxes than they do today.