Social Security fund will be drained by 2037

[classy]

Like your quote in my sig?

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




This might be dumber than your OJ quote. Wow.



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



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

God you are fvcking moron, you know many trillions have been borrowed from SS?

http://247wallst.com/2010/03/15/social-security-begins-to-take-back-money-treasury-borrowed/

The Social Security Administration wants back the $2.5 trillion its has loaned to the US Treasury. It is no wonder. The agency will have to pay out $29 billion more this year that it takes in from payroll withholding, according to the AP.

The tension between what the Treasury’s needs and what the Social Security Administration needs is about to set up an epic battle which could affect what America will have to borrow to cover deficits in the next ten years, a period when borrowing is expected to be at record levels without repayment of Social Security loans..
Fifty-two million people get Social Security payments, according to the news service. But, the ability the agency has to pay them could be compromised if the federal government has trouble paying back what it owes. The Social Security Administration estimates that it has enough money to last it until some time after 2030, but assumptions about what will happen that far in the future are often well off the mark.

The US national debt is expected to rise to close to $20 trillion by the end of this decade. If GDP growth is slow then, the Treasury’s ability to borrow money will be stymied forcing it to raise interest rates, further increasing the deficit with large debt service obligations. That will be about the time that the Social Security Adminstration will want all of its cash back, and the Treasury may have to stonewall.



The system needs to be changed, but the crisis is not because of failure, but because we took from it.

 

[QuantumPion]

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.

Actually it was Johnson that started borrowing from SS to pay for the great society programs.

And if you think it was Bush's $600 stimulus checks that broke SS, well then fuck, you are dumb.

 

[nick1985]

God you are fvcking moron, you know many trillions have been borrowed from SS?

http://247wallst.com/2010/03/15/social-security-begins-to-take-back-money-treasury-borrowed/

I see you are already so pissed off you have to launch hateful personal attacks. Standard for debating you.

Anyway, yes trillions have been borrowed. The program has failed because of it(as well as many other reasons)

The Social Security Administration wants back the $2.5 trillion its has loaned to the US Treasury. It is no wonder. The agency will have to pay out $29 billion more this year that it takes in from payroll withholding, according to the AP.

2.5 trillion is a drop in the bucket for it needs.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Right now SS has 14 trillion + in unfunded liability.

By 2015 that number is over 18 trillion

http://www.usdebtclock.org/2015-current-rates.html

2.5 wont do jack.

The tension between what the Treasury’s needs and what the Social Security Administration needs is about to set up an epic battle which could affect what America will have to borrow to cover deficits in the next ten years, a period when borrowing is expected to be at record levels without repayment of Social Security loans..
Fifty-two million people get Social Security payments, according to the news service. But, the ability the agency has to pay them could be compromised if the federal government has trouble paying back what it owes. The Social Security Administration estimates that it has enough money to last it until some time after 2030, but assumptions about what will happen that far in the future are often well off the mark.

classy, you are saying what I am saying. Washington fucked up SS, their pet project is a failure.

The US national debt is expected to rise to close to $20 trillion by the end of this decade.

Uh...?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/2015-current-rates.html

It will be over 22 trillion by 2015. Its much worse than you think it is.

If GDP growth is slow then, the Treasury’s ability to borrow money will be stymied forcing it to raise interest rates, further increasing the deficit with large debt service obligations. That will be about the time that the Social Security Adminstration will want all of its cash back, and the Treasury may have to stonewall.


The system needs to be changed, but the crisis is not because of failure, but because we took from it.

You are playing semantics. Since SS has no money and is gutted, you think it wasnt a failure because the politicians took from it.

I think SS is a failure because the government created it and ruined it. But keep calling me names if you think it strengthens your argument.

 

[classy]

Actually it was Johnson that started borrowing from SS to pay for the great society programs.

And if you think it was Bush's $600 stimulus checks that broke SS, well then fuck, you are dumb.

The $600 checks were supposed to be put back in SS. It was part of the problem. Bush 2 knew that state of SS and Clinton had finally got us to a point we could at least beging to stabilize SS, but Bush did his thing. I am not blaming Bush 2, because its just been every Presidents fault. Dummys, complete ignorant and teatering on retarded people like Nick just quote bs talking points, completely void of facts. The SS system needs to be revamped, but the crisis was not because of failure, but because quite frankly we looted it. It has been used the rainy day fund and unfortunately we can't put it back.

 

[Engineer]

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.

Per Yahoo, it's 45 billion before the 2% drop in SS tax (from 6.2 to 4.2%). It's 130 billion after that but the Congress promised to make up the difference from the general revenue.

 

[classy]

I see you are already so pissed off you have to launch hateful personal attacks. Standard for debating you.

Anyway, yes trillions have been borrowed. The program has failed because of it(as well as many other reasons)



2.5 trillion is a drop in the bucket for it needs.

God its snowing, I am sore and I gotta read your stupid sh1t. The 2.5 trillion that was lost would have been invested so its more than 2.5 trillion. The program failed because it was looted, not because it was a social program, jackass.

 

[nick1985]

The $600 checks were supposed to be put back in SS. It was part of the problem. Bush 2 knew that state of SS and Clinton had finally got us to a point we could at least beging to stabilize SS, but Bush did his thing. I am not blaming Bush 2, because its just been every Presidents fault. Dummys, complete ignorant and teatering on retarded people like Nick just quote bs talking points, completely void of facts. The SS system needs to be revamped, but the crisis was not because of failure, but because quite frankly we looted it. It has been used the rainy day fund and unfortunately we can't put it back.

More attacks. You are not classy at all.

What BS talking point did I quote? I ignored the facts? Dude, did you just have a lobotomy? I didn't quote any talking points, instead I posted my own commentary backed up by facts.

Show me the "talking points" I quoted on this subject. Go ahead, I dare you.

 

[Slew Foot]

See the sig bitches

 

[nick1985]

God its snowing, I am sore and I gotta read your stupid sh1t.

Then sign off if you don't want to read it. Because someone disagrees with you and wants to debate you doesn't mean you need to get all butt hurt and start calling names. Grow up.

The 2.5 trillion that was lost would have been invested so its more than 2.5 trillion.

They gutted the program. They took the money, they would not have invested anything. What makes you think they would have? Their track record sure points in the other direction, even you have said it.

The program failed because it was looted

Yep, so what makes you think they would have invested it again???

jackass.

Ok what is wrong with you? Honestly


*edit*

I like how you ignored about 90% of the post of mine you quoted. I guess you are ceding those points.

 

[classy]

More attacks. You are not classy at all.

What BS talking point did I quote? I ignored the facts? Dude, did you just have a lobotomy? I didn't quote any talking points, instead I posted my own commentary backed up by facts.

Show me the "talking points" I quoted on this subject. Go ahead, I dare you.

What facts m^%&%*%*(%*?

This all you said

"A failed government run program?"

Isn't time for your feeding from Palin?

 

[piasabird]

Since SS is just a big lie, then call it Income tax. Just call it all welfare.

 

[nick1985]

What facts m^%&%*%*(%*?

This all you said

"A failed government run program?"

Isn't time for your feeding from Palin?

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

I've posted that and used that as the basis for all the numbers and figures I have been giving. I also used the 2015 projections to correct your false assertion of what our debt will be by 2020.

Since this thread is about numbers, and the money behind SS, I provided the best facts I can to back up my statements.



Again I'll ask you, what talking points did I quote and parrot?. You claimed that I quoted talking points and used no facts. Please back this statement up.

Now is time for your retort.

 

[Ldir]

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.

You are right. SS is a great success. The failures are the politicians who looted it. Nick is blaming the victim instead of perpetrators. That's probably because most of the looting happened under Republican presidents. Tax cuts FTL!

 

[IndyColtsFan]

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

But wait -- I was repeatedly assured by the resident lefties that both programs were models of how things should be done, especially with respect to Medicare. Surely they weren't wrong, were they?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You are right. SS is a great success. The failures are the politicians who looted it. Nick is blaming the victim instead of perpetrators. That's probably because most of the looting happened under Republican presidents. Tax cuts FTL!

So tax cuts are equivalent to looting? That an interesting, albeit retarded, theory.

 

[Brainonska511]

So tax cuts are equivalent to looting? That an interesting, albeit retarded, theory.

It would be if you cut taxes that go towards general revenue, keep spending at the same levels, and then cover the shortfalls by borrowing from SS surplus (at the time) funds.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

It would be if you cut taxes that go towards general revenue, keep spending at the same levels, and then cover the shortfalls by borrowing from SS surplus (at the time) funds.

So tax cuts caused deficits in other areas, resulting in looting of SS to pay for it. I can buy that, but I still don't believe SS was going to be adequate without further tax increases up to and possibly including an increase in FICA withholding. The baby boomers are killing it and we won't have enough workers to pay for it and have any left over for their own retirement.

 

[JSt0rm]

all the babyboomers will be dead by then so why would they care?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

all the babyboomers will be dead by then so why would they care?

I wouldn't count on that. Most will be in their mid to late 80s by then and that means millions will still be here.

 

[Zebo]

Per Yahoo, it's 45 billion before the 2% drop in SS tax (from 6.2 to 4.2%). It's 130 billion after that but the Congress promised to make up the difference from the general revenue.

OMG! <off to garage to check food & water supplies>

 

[Ldir]

So tax cuts are equivalent to looting? That an interesting, albeit retarded, theory.

They cut taxes while increasing spending and looted money from SS to help pay for it. It's not that hard to understand. If you can't, I see your expertise in being retarded.

 

[tk149]

The answer to all of this is really quite easy.

Americathon!

Yup, go ahead and laugh now. Just wait a few years.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

They cut taxes while increasing spending and looted money from SS to help pay for it. It's not that hard to understand. If you can't, I see your expertise in being retarded.

Yes, after reading many of your posts, I suppose I have become an expert. 😀

Seriously though, I underlined the key component in your post above. And now, thanks to our incompetent politicians on both sides of the aisle, guess what? We're going to have to raise taxes AND cut spending. Do you think that will happen? Of course not.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

The answer to all of this is really quite easy.

Americathon!

Yup, go ahead and laugh now. Just wait a few years.

LOL, John Ritter is the president.

 

[Ldir]

Yes, after reading many of your posts, I suppose I have become an expert. 😀

😀

(It is polite to laugh when your kind makes lame jokes. We don't want you to feel bad. 😉 )

Seriously though, I underlined the key component in your post above. And now, thanks to our incompetent politicians on both sides of the aisle, guess what? We're going to have to raise taxes AND cut spending. Do you think that will happen? Of course not.

No. That doesn't make Social Security less of a success. It just shows our politicians are failures.