The Social Security Crisis

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
linkage

Demography made the whole arrangement work for a long time. In the 1930s there were 41 workers for every retiree; the payroll tax could thus be set at a low rate--about 2% for the first $3,000 of earnings. It was quite a deal for the beneficiaries--the average rate of return for people retiring in 1940 was 114%.

And like all income redistribution programs, Social Security presented politicians with lots of incentives for sweetening. In the 1950s, Congress started increasing both benefits and the number of people covered. At the same time, however, the demographics were turning sour. Life expectancy was rising to the 78 years it is today, from 69 for men born in 1940. And fertility rates were declining, from 2.2 children per woman in 1940, to a peak of 3.7 in 1957, to two per woman right now.

No surprise, then, that the ratio of workers to retirees began to fall--in 1950, it had dropped to 16 workers to one retiree and now it is just three to one. Payroll taxes have had to rise accordingly--they are now 12.4%. And real rates of return have gone into a free-fall; real returns for workers born in 1960 and retiring in 2025 are less than 2%.


...

The immediate problem is that payroll taxes during the surplus period that began in the 1980s were not saved in the mythical Trust Fund; instead the taxes were used to finance other government spending. The Fund is merely the repository for special-issue bonds that are a liability to the federal Treasury. In order to redeem these bonds, the government must increase taxes or borrow (thus making concrete, or recognizing, the debt the bonds do in fact represent). And we're talking about huge amounts: Bonds credited to the Trust Fund now exceed $1.5 trillion. By 2016, when the shortfall begins, that figure will have grown to over $3.2 trillion in today's dollars.

This isn't just an accounting crisis. According to figures from the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security is running at about 4.4% of GDP and revenue at about 5%. While revenue is expected to stay fairly constant, outlays will rise to 6.1% of GDP in 2030. Combine Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is running at 7% of GDP. By 2030, when most of the boomers are retired, spending on these three programs will shoot up to almost 15% of future GDP


And here lies the real problem with social security.

 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Bullsh!t. The problem lies with the other $6T in federal debt, and the interest on that growing monstrosity, brought to you by GWB and Cronies, Inc...

If SS liabilities were the only federal debt, there would be no real problem. The whole thing is contrived, a classic misdirection play.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Sucks for those who aren't Baby Boomers, out numbered and out voted means they will be paying into something they will never reap the benefits from...unless they start having 4 to 5 kids each themselves.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Bullsh!t. The problem lies with the other $6T in federal debt, and the interest on that growing monstrosity, brought to you by GWB and Cronies, Inc...

If SS liabilities were the only federal debt, there would be no real problem. The whole thing is contrived, a classic misdirection play.

Try reading the article. This was a problem before Bush took office.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
17,044
5,109
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public

:thumbsup: Shhh. They don't like it when you speak the truth.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public


Those are the optimistic reports. It not wise to plan your retirement base on optimistic view. Other reports have funds running low in 15-20 years. I am planning for worst case that it wont be around by the time retire. decades of putting in 13.% of my income and nothing in return. That is a real possibility.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: umbrella39
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public

:thumbsup: Shhh. They don't like it when you speak the truth.


This isn't just an accounting crisis. According to figures from theCongressional Budget Office, Social Security is running at about 4.4% of GDP and revenue at about 5%. While revenue is expected to stay fairly constant, outlays will rise to 6.1% of GDP in 2030. Combine Social Security with Medicare and Medicaid, and spending is running at 7% of GDP. By 2030, when most of the boomers are retired, spending on these three programs will shoot up to almost 15% of future GDP.

Are you ready to see the truth? Or would you rather read krugman?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
17,044
5,109
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public


Those are the optimistic reports. It not wise to plan your retirement base on optimistic view. Other reports have funds running low in 15-20 years. I am planning for worst case that it wont be around by the time retire. decades of putting in 13.% of my income and nothing in return. That is a real possibility.


Optimistic reports?

The Federal Budget Office.


I trust The Federal Budget Office more than some alarmist editorialist.


People like that have been claiming the sky is falling regarding S.S. for decades.






Edit... The Bush tax cut analogy is from Krugman, but the figures are ALL from the Federal Budget Office.


Are you interested in facts, or discrediting those who state them?






 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public


Those are the optimistic reports. It not wise to plan your retirement base on optimistic view. Other reports have funds running low in 15-20 years. I am planning for worst case that it wont be around by the time retire. decades of putting in 13.% of my income and nothing in return. That is a real possibility.


Optimistic reports?

The Federal Budget Office.


I trust The Federal Budget Office more than some alarmist editorialist.


People like that have been claiming the sky is falling regarding S.S. for decades.


Read the damn the article i posted. These numbers are based off the CBO.

The sky keeps falling on SS. Those taxes keep going up(13.5% now) and the boomers have not even retired yet.
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
17,044
5,109
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public


Those are the optimistic reports. It not wise to plan your retirement base on optimistic view. Other reports have funds running low in 15-20 years. I am planning for worst case that it wont be around by the time retire. decades of putting in 13.% of my income and nothing in return. That is a real possibility.


Optimistic reports?

The Federal Budget Office.


I trust The Federal Budget Office more than some alarmist editorialist.


People like that have been claiming the sky is falling regarding S.S. for decades.


Read the damn the article i posted. These numbers are based off the CBO.

The sky keeps falling on SS. Those taxes keep going up(13.5% now) and the boomers have not even retired yet.






I read "The Damn Article".


It Is BS.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public


Those are the optimistic reports. It not wise to plan your retirement base on optimistic view. Other reports have funds running low in 15-20 years. I am planning for worst case that it wont be around by the time retire. decades of putting in 13.% of my income and nothing in return. That is a real possibility.


Optimistic reports?

The Federal Budget Office.


I trust The Federal Budget Office more than some alarmist editorialist.


People like that have been claiming the sky is falling regarding S.S. for decades.


Read the damn the article i posted. These numbers are based off the CBO.

The sky keeps falling on SS. Those taxes keep going up(13.5% now) and the boomers have not even retired yet.






I read "The Damn Article".


It Is BS.



Then why are you quoting krugman, rather than what the cbo says?
 

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
17,044
5,109
136
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: feralkid[






I read "The Damn Article".


It Is BS.




Then why are you quoting krugman, rather than what the cbo says?






As I stated above (It was in an edit / p.s. you may have missed)


The Bush tax cut analogy is from Krugman...All of the figures are from The Congressional Office.


P.S. oops, sorry about the bold and italics...don't know how that happened

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public


Those are the optimistic reports. It not wise to plan your retirement base on optimistic view. Other reports have funds running low in 15-20 years. I am planning for worst case that it wont be around by the time retire. decades of putting in 13.% of my income and nothing in return. That is a real possibility.

It's 6.2% of your income and 6.2% tax on your employer. The other 1.45% if Medicare, which is an even worse problem in the long run than SS.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: charrison
The sky keeps falling on SS. Those taxes keep going up(13.5% now) and the boomers have not even retired yet.

and the FLL Yo Yo's complained of me saying the Sky is falling. :roll:

Totally predicted.

After the Election now SS is a crisis and also Bush conveniently says he has lowered the Jobs forecast that he said before the Election of 3 Million new jobs to a paltry 750,000.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

.54% of which gdp, todays or the estimated gdp in 2052?

btw if it goes broke in 2052 what are they expecting the tax rate to be when it goes broke? 100%?
And then it will only cover 81% of the population?

So what do you suggest, we deal with this in 2051?

 

Genesys

Golden Member
Nov 10, 2003
1,536
0
0
Originally posted by: feralkid
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Sure it was, Charrison, you're not wrong there. GWB and Cronies, Inc. includes the Reagan and Bush1 Admins, who more than quadrupled the debt...

GWB is a figurehead for the Cheney/ Rumsfeld/ Norquist/ you-know-the-rest faction of the Republican Party...

The only solution to our Fiscal issues involve fiscal restraint, bigtime, and that wouldn't include wars of adventure, military spending greater than the rest of the world combined, or the lowest federal taxes of developed nations, either... not to mention corporate offshoring subsidies, special interest tax breaks, and a deliberately and deceptively strong dollar inviting collapse...

Anybody having a lick of sense can see that the only possible answer to SS solvency is solvency of the US Treasury, something currently being deliberately torpedoed by the folks you voted for...



So you going to completely ignore the real problem of baby boomers and the descreased ratio of workers to retirees?

Lets also remember congress has been spending the surpluses for 20 years now. They even did it during clintons term! But those are minor details i dont expect you to pick up on.




He's right...it is BS.

According to the Congressional Budget Office the fund won't run out untill 2052.
Even then, it will cover 81% of benefits.

To cover this shortfall (47 years from now) would cost .54% of GDP, which is equivalent to the amount of the Bush tax cuts which goes to people earning $500,000 per year.

This is an invented crisis, brought to you by those who stand to profit, and have no qualms about screwing Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public



I'm 21 now, in 47 years, ill be ready to retire. That, and im tired of paying into a bottomless pit, i'm angry that I will never see the money I put into the SS pot, i'm angry at the fact that the government thinks it knows how best [rather than I] to plan and save for my retirement.

You guys are setting yourselves up for dependancy on the government, which as we can all attest to isn't very reliable nor trustworthy. I want control over all financial aspects of my future, and yes, that includes TOTAL control over my retirement.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
More of the usual flippancy from Genx87-

"So what do you suggest, we deal with this in 2051?"

No, I suggest we deal with it now, before this whole cut taxes and borrow more money charade comes crashing down on us. As I've pointed out many times, and the righties desperately try to ignore, SS solvency is only a problem within the context of US Treasury solvency.

This whole "crisis" is utterly contrived, and an attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Bushistas are attempting to borrow us into an inescapable financial hole...

Privatizing SS is just an attempt to escape the political consequences of this scam... John Snow and the other Bush Economists know full well that their policies will shortly lead to extreme currency devaluation and inflation, so they want to be able to blame it all on market forces, rather than their own ideological agenda...
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Jhhnn
More of the usual flippancy from Genx87-

"So what do you suggest, we deal with this in 2051?"

No, I suggest we deal with it now, before this whole cut taxes and borrow more money charade comes crashing down on us. As I've pointed out many times, and the righties desperately try to ignore, SS solvency is only a problem within the context of US Treasury solvency.

This whole "crisis" is utterly contrived, and an attempt to divert attention from the fact that the Bushistas are attempting to borrow us into an inescapable financial hole...

Privatizing SS is just an attempt to escape the political consequences of this scam... John Snow and the other Bush Economists know full well that their policies will shortly lead to extreme currency devaluation and inflation, so they want to be able to blame it all on market forces, rather than their own ideological agenda...

East Jhhnn, you're going to give yourself a Coronary.

This is what the Sheeple want so let em eat cake.

 

jahawkin

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2000
1,355
0
0
There is no SS crisis. Under current conditions, full benifits will be paid until 2041. This drops to 68% of scheduled benifits in 2078. link
70 years from now and SS will still be paying out. Change the system by raising taxes a bit and the system will be solvent for years and years.

 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: jahawkin
There is no SS crisis. Under current conditions, full benifits will be paid until 2041. This drops to 68% of scheduled benifits in 2078. link
70 years from now and SS will still be paying out. Change the system by raising taxes a bit and the system will be solvent for years and years.

Then the righties won't get the benefit of raping and pillaging the funds NOW before they bankrupt everything else.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
I'm retired. I watched every paycheck over the years and I saw the ever increasing amount taken out each week for Social Security. Now I get a check every month in return for working, paying my share, and keeping my mouth shut, which is exactly what this cry baby generation should do today.

Bush manufactured the SS crisis so he can get his hands on the over $2 trillion SS kitty. He and his ilk have hated SS since the day it began and now they think they have a chance to raid the SS kitty just as they raided the treasury. When thieves plan a robbery they go where the money is. That's just what this thieving Bush administration did with their budget busting tax cuts, and it's what they are trying to do with the SS kitty.

If, as someone mentioned, we knew the baby boomers were going to be a problem for SS, then why did Bush push through his irresponsible tax cuts when much of the money he handed his friends from the treasury was owed to SS through the general fund? They've been balancing budgets for years off of SS taxes but when the time came to decide what to do with the surplus Bush decided to empty the treasury instead of planning for the future.

Like I said, the SS "crisis" is Bush manufactured. The system is solvent until 2052 and most baby boomers will be long gone before then. They just want to get their hands on that $2 trillion SS surplus.

And what would you people do if after dumping money into the market instead of SS you're retirement age arrives as the market tanks like it did in 2001? I guaranty you the Bushies will tell you then that you should have been aware of the inherent risks...as they stole the next kitty...the privatized portion of your SS funds.

You're being set up. Wake up.