Social Security fund will be drained by 2037

[ericlp]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41293592/ns/politics-more_politics/

Well, I guess we got a number to look forward too.

Lets see... 2037... 26 more years. Damn! I'll be exactly 68 years old. If I live that long (odds are not in my or your favor) That will be the Year (if they don't raise the time to collect yet again) I'll be eligible to collect!

Hmmm, after I paid into for 40 years --- No money for you chump! Some how I see our politics screwing us yet again. Thanks Bush! It's just an IOU right?

 

[her209]

Politicians should reform Social Security. What they shouldn't do is reform it and then use the savings to fund other programs like they've been doing for so many years now.

 

[Ausm]

Politicians should reform Social Security. What they shouldn't do is reform it and then use the savings to fund other programs like they've been doing for so many years now.

I agree totally that have been using it like a teenager with their first Credit Card and yes the party of "Fiscal responsiblility" ( What an f'in joke) is also involved

 

[piasabird]

This statement does not make sense. This year the SSN system will not make the payments to all of the recipients and will have to take money out of the budget to make payroll. So this statement seems kind of stupid. Congress has been borrowing all of the excess Social Security for years and putting it in the general budget. So it is really all just General Budget money. If new money comes in every year, then how do they run out of money?

Cant Fix Stupid!

If money is taken out of your paycheck every month for Social Security where does it go? Just reduce the SSN Payments and kick undeserving people off the rolls.

 

[nick1985]

A failed government run program?

 

[Ausm]

A failed government run program?

That's the GOP back it like they had something do with it...maybe it's because 85% of their constituency is drawing off of it

 

[Zebo]

LOl what fund? It's going to suck 45 billion in borrowed/printed money this year.

There are no "Social Security Trust funds"

None. They do not exist.

 

[Anarchist420]

That's bullshit, it's been drained for at least 8 years. They seriously need to cap payments at $1,000/month.

 

[umbrella39]

More FUD. Hints at not being part of the problem, there are many but here is one big one...

Don't fund wars and recessions with tax cuts. Stop spending like drunken sailors is another... More to come

 

[nick1985]

That's the GOP back it like they had something do with it...maybe it's because 85% of their constituency is drawing off of it

Huh?

 

[Zebo]

No love from workers either so the 45 billion shortfall may be low.

In the week ending Jan. 22, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 454,000, an increase of 51,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 403,000. The 4-week moving average was 428,750, an increase of 15,750 from the previous week's revised average of 413,000.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

 

[rcpratt]

Just destroy it now before it gets any worse.

 

[QuantumPion]

As others have said, SS is already "drained" as of last year. The term drained is sort of a misnomer, as there is no SS fund per se. SS is merely a transfer of wealth from the working to the retired. Starting this year, the payments to the retired exceed the pure FICA tax income from the working, and therefore additional general income tax has to be allocated. 2037 is the point where the entire federal budget will be unable to cover SS expenses with current projections (which is grossly optimistic IMO, I think it will be closer to 2020-2025).

 

[PeshakJang]

More FUD. Hints at not being part of the problem, there are many but here is one big one...

Don't fund wars and recessions with tax cuts. Stop spending like drunken sailors is another... More to come

The budget deficit THIS YEAR is about half a TRILLION more than the TOTAL cost of both wars for the last 10 years.

Think about that.

SS spending for FY11 is $730 billion. About 60% of the total cost of BOTH wars for the last 10 YEARS.

But go on... I love hearing about how SS is not a problem, that the trust funds are brimming with money, and that the real problem is not taking an extra $70 billion/year from the evil rich. PLEASE GO ON.

 

[her209]

The budget deficit THIS YEAR is about half a TRILLION more than the TOTAL cost of both wars for the last 10 years.

Think about that.

SS spending for FY11 is $730 billion. About 60% of the total cost of BOTH wars for the last 10 YEARS.

But go on... I love hearing about how SS is not a problem, that the trust funds are brimming with money, and that the real problem is not taking an extra $70 billion/year from the evil rich. PLEASE GO ON.

Where's the tax to pay for the last 10 years of both wars?

 

[Zebo]

As others have said, SS is already "drained" as of last year. The term drained is sort of a misnomer, as there is no SS fund per se. SS is merely a transfer of wealth from the working to the retired. Starting this year, the payments to the retired exceed the pure FICA tax income from the working, and therefore additional general income tax has to be allocated. 2037 is the point where the entire federal budget will be unable to cover SS expenses with current projections (which is grossly optimistic IMO, I think it will be closer to 2020-2025).

Started running in hole last year 29 billion.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep.../03/15/20100315social-security-shortfall.html

Will be 45 billion this year
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/ap_on_re_us/us_social_security

Wait till boomers come fully online though...they just started last year. Just start adding.

 

[PeshakJang]

Where's the tax to pay for the last 10 years of both wars?

I didn't say anything about that. I think they should have been financed more responsibly... but that's not the point I was making.

You can't point to the wars and say, "That's the problem!", and point to SS and say, "Not a big deal.", when the numbers simply don't support that conclusion.

 

[jhu]

You think SS is in bad shape? You should see Medicare. It's in even worse shape.

 

[her209]

I didn't say anything about that. I think they should have been financed more responsibly... but that's not the point I was making.

You can't point to the wars and say, "That's the problem!", and point to SS and say, "Not a big deal.", when the numbers simply don't support that conclusion.

You're trying to compare the spending associated with the Social Security program for one year to the spending for two wars over 10 years and assign it as a huge contributing factor to the budget deficit. Bit disingenuous.

 

[QuantumPion]

You think SS is in bad shape? You should see Medicare. It's in even worse shape.

Heh, what an understatement. The GDP of the entire planet is not sufficient to cover the unfunded liability of medicare. And that is before Obamacare is factored in (which is an order of magnitude greater).

 

[Zebo]

Yup. And boomer are just hitting. Basically any numbers thrown out by cbo is complete BS because, while they have demographics correct, they rely on 50% tax increases and economy improving when they make them. Not cutting taxes and continued offshoring.

 

[nick1985]

Side note:

Total unfunded liabilities for the US = 112 trillion and counting. Medicare being 77 trillion of that. Thats over 1 million per taxpayer.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

lol

 

[Svnla]

......Hmmm, after I paid into for 40 years --- No money for you chump! Some how I see our politics screwing us yet again. Thanks Bush! It's just an IOU right?

From your very own link:

For much of the past 30 years, Social Security has run big surpluses, which the government has borrowed to spend on other programs

Don't forget to thanks other Democrat Presidents, Senators, and Reps.

ALL of them have been stealing..opps.."borrowing" the money from SS for years, yup, years and years, NOT just Bush Sr and Jr.

I did not know Bush Sr. and Jr. ran the government for the whole 30 years...ROTFLMFAO.

 

[classy]

A failed government run program?

God if you ever like know facts or true history you actually post something worthwhile. SS has been very successful, too successful. The problem with SS is every administration since Reagan has borrowed from it, heavily. Now because of poor economics, all that borrowed money can't be paid back. Clinton borrowed from it also, but had balanced the budget enough to put back money into it, but along came Bush 2, 2 wars, $600 checks for re-election and thats all she wrote.

 

[nick1985]

God if you ever like know facts or true history you actually post something worthwhile.

Like your quote in my sig?

I stand by my statement. The program is a failure.

SS has been very successful, too successful.

This might be dumber than your OJ quote. Wow.

The problem with SS is every administration since Reagan has borrowed from it, heavily. Now because of poor economics, all that borrowed money can't be paid back.

? You just made my case. Its a failed program. You contradicted yourself.

Clinton borrowed from it also, but had balanced the budget enough to put back money into it, but along came Bush 2, 2 wars, $600 checks for re-election and thats all she wrote.

Yep. Once again you are making my argument, the program is a failure.