• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and othe [W:508;687]

Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

For a third time, the SS Trustees in 1997 projected that the Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2029. In 2007, they said it would be in 2042. The intervening years were not special (some good ones under Clinton, some bad ones under Bush) and there were no significant modifications in the SS system itself. Yet instead of getting ten years closer, exhaustion of the Trust Fund got three years further away. How do you explain that? Maybe try answering the question this time?

Of course, no predictions are perfect. Little details and changes can have an effect on everything, but do you even bother to look at and read the links provided? The facts and reasonable predictions based upon those facts are provided here.

Trustees Report Summary

Social Security

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012.

Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable earnings will grow rapidly from 11.3 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17.4 percent in 2035, and will then decline slightly before slowly increasing after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and the Trustees project these costs will increase gradually to 6.4 percent of GDP in 2035 before declining to about 6.1 percent of GDP by 2050 and then remaining at about that level.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.67 percent of taxable payroll, up from 2.22 percent projected in last year's report. This is the largest actuarial deficit reported since prior to the 1983 Social Security amendments, and the largest single-year deterioration in the actuarial deficit since the 1994 Trustees Report. This deficit amounts to 20 percent of program non-interest income or 16 percent of program cost. The 0.44 percentage point increase in the OASDI actuarial deficit and the three-year advance in the exhaustion date for the combined trust funds reflect many factors. The most significant factor is lower average real earnings levels over the next 75 years than were projected last year, principally due to: 1) a surge in energy prices in 2011 that lowered real earnings in 2011 and is expected to be sustained, and 2) slower assumed growth in average hours worked per week after the economy has recovered. An additional significant factor is the one-year advance of the valuation period from 2011-85 to 2012-86.

While the combined OASDI program continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance, it does satisfy the test for short-range financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined trust fund assets will exceed one year’s projected cost for more than ten years, through 2027.

However, the Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the long-range test nor the short-range test. DI costs have exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the Trustees project trust fund exhaustion in 2016, two years earlier than projected last year. The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

Do you have any point here at all? There is no debate over what the Trustees report says -- it's printed in high-contrast black-and-white. Very easy to make out. The question is over their baseline and their forward assumptions. Those are the things that have long marked their work as unnecessarily negative, leading to the sort of overly pessimistic results that I have identified above. Pointing to perjured testimony as the basis for your claims isn't very persuasive. Maybe you believe that Nixon was not a crook as well.

For a third time, the SS Trustees in 1997 projected that the Trust Fund would be exhausted in 2029. In 2007, they said it would be in 2042. The intervening years were not special (some good ones under Clinton, some bad ones under Bush) and there were no significant modifications in the SS system itself. Yet instead of getting ten years closer, exhaustion of the Trust Fund got three years further away. How do you explain that? Maybe try answering the question this time?

It's almost as if you are saying to ignore the direction things are heading and go with the status quo because predictions have been wrong or have needed tweaking in the past. :roll: Where is the logic in that?
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

Of course, no predictions are perfect.
We aren't talking about perfection. We are talking about being hideously, laughably off the mark, year after year after year.

Little details and changes can have an effect on everything, but do you even bother to look at and read the links provided?
LOL! I'm telling you to go back and look at the report for 1997, and you think the current one must be the first one I've ever seen.

The facts and reasonable predictions based upon those facts are provided here.
For the umpteenth time, there is nothing reasonable about them. This is why their track record is so poor.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

It's almost as if you are saying to ignore the direction things are heading and go with the status quo because predictions have been wrong or have needed tweaking in the past. :roll: Where is the logic in that?

It's okay to kick the can down the road. Politicians are known for addressing long-term problems before they hit the fan.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

It's almost as if you are saying to ignore the direction things are heading and go with the status quo because predictions have been wrong or have needed tweaking in the past. :roll: Where is the logic in that?
They aren't predictions, they are projections, and it is YOU who wants to believe in them, even though they have long been and still are illogically pessimistic.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

It's okay to kick the can down the road. Politicians are known for addressing long-term problems before they hit the fan.
More useless babble. You read the work of patent propagandists and consider yourself well-informed? That's not really a recipe for success.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

More useless babble. You read the work of patent propagandists and consider yourself well-informed? That's not really a recipe for success.

"Patent Propagandist"

Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

(From the SSA's own website!!!)
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

They aren't predictions, they are projections, and it is YOU who wants to believe in them, even though they have long been and still are illogically pessimistic.

Yes, I will choose to believe the people whose job it is to oversee what is going on with social security as opposed to some dude on the internet, of course. :roll:
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

It's okay to kick the can down the road. Politicians are known for addressing long-term problems before they hit the fan.

Just trust the politicians? :lamo
 
I see folks on here and other forum's speak of "Entitlement" as though it's a dirty word,,,,,,and I'm not sure why,,,,,,,,In my opinion, any citizen that paid into Social Security is entitled to receive Social security payments when they reach 62. They paid for it....just as military personnel are entitled to their retirement and disability income as that was/is a part of their benefits they signed up for at enlistment.....now comparing these to Free Medical, free phones, Food stamps and welfare (which AREN'T entitlements) is wrong. Food stamps and welfare are fine, when we can afford it, but right now we can't.....But there are a lot of folks out there that could work, BUT WON"T, because of all this free stuff....We are creating/advocating another class of citizens, Certainly we have to take care of our children, elderly, and disabled.......but all of these adult folks that could work, BUT WON"T....let'm starve!

I paid into SS for 50 years, and I paid the maximum for over 20 years....so I feel as though I'm entitled to the small check I get once a month.....Now, am I wrong? Why is "Entitlements" a dirty word?

You are oh so right! Somebody is trying to make it a bad word, just as they've done with the word "liberal" which in 1800 was a good word, implying for the individual and against government.

Orwell observed that once the language is corrupted, the natural result is that the thought processes become corrupted too. A corrupted language will lead to corrupted thoughts.

Under penalty of law, I contributed to SS for my entire life. Now that it's time to collect it, I'm supposed to feel like a criminal? Something is wrong with that picture.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

"Patent Propagandist"
Yes, as in your having swallowed all that ridiculous malarkey based on short-term moves in the super-luxury real estate market in Paris that were taken out of context to begin with. Not well played there at all.

Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.
(From the SSA's own website!!!)
Yes, the sooner one does anything that actually needs to be done, the easier it is to do it. The question however is over what, if anything, actually needs to be done, and the projections of the SS Trustees are so flawed as to not be a useful indicator of that. What can be said for certain is that there is no such thing as a crisis and that if people suspect that there is a need to shore up long-term system financing, there are many alternatives available by which to do that.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

Yes, I will choose to believe the people whose job it is to oversee what is going on with social security as opposed to some dude on the internet, of course.
The internet does not have filters to block access to those with more training, more experience, and a better and less politically motivated understanding of the situtation than what the SS actuaries annually display.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

The internet has no filters, nor any way of verifying that people are what they say they are. Someone posting anonymously on the internet is just that, nothing more or less.

(I tried to post a picture, but for reasons known only to computer geeks, it would not upload. Instead, I now have this random picture that I can't delete.) Oh, well, here it is anyway.
 

Attachments

  • alligator mating.webp
    alligator mating.webp
    37.1 KB · Views: 27
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

Yes, as in your having swallowed all that ridiculous malarkey based on short-term moves in the super-luxury real estate market in Paris that were taken out of context to begin with. Not well played there at all.

It's as if, simply calling it malarky is sufficient for you. It is incomprehensible to you that high taxation on the rich is driving the rich out of France.

To think they would all just start selling multi-million-dollar real estate on a whim. They saw it coming, it is here, and they are leaving. Deal with it.

Yes, the sooner one does anything that actually needs to be done, the easier it is to do it. The question however is over what, if anything, actually needs to be done, and the projections of the SS Trustees are so flawed as to not be a useful indicator of that. What can be said for certain is that there is no such thing as a crisis and that if people suspect that there is a need to shore up long-term system financing, there are many alternatives available by which to do that.

A classic example of the defender of government meritocracy, saying to disregard warnings from the government because they are always wrong. How rich.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

How many times does it need to be explained that the base pay rate structure is what was frozen in 2010.

You can say it as often as you like but you will still be wrong. Federal workers got pay raises during that time period. A step raise is a raise whether you refuse to see it or not.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

You are quite confused over both the origins and particulars of this process. Locality pay is an aspect of comparability pay. General comparability tables apply in areas where federal salary lags the private sector by 0.5% to 5.0%. Locality-specific pay tables apply in areas where the gap is 5.0% or more. The entire structure is based on detailed surveys done jointly across the country by OPM and BLS. Those surveys are concerned with prevailing pay rates for comparable work. They have nothing to do with cost of living. Federal workers do not receive a cost-of-living adjustment.

Yes they do, whenever the base pay for a grade is increased. Why do you think they change them?
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

It's as if, simply calling it malarky is sufficient for you. It is incomprehensible to you that high taxation on the rich is driving the rich out of France. To think they would all just start selling multi-million-dollar real estate on a whim. They saw it coming, it is here, and they are leaving. Deal with it.
You were gullible enough to fall for yet another stupid right-wing propaganda meme. That's all. You didn't check it out. You didn't try to verify anything. You just swallowed the whole nine yards of it, hook, line, and sinker.

A classic example of the defender of government meritocracy, saying to disregard warnings from the government because they are always wrong. How rich.
To no particular effect, you have been arguing against experts in general, apparently believing that the notions of people as easily fooled as to believe that the wealthy are abandoning France en masse are smart enough to handle the job. I am arguing against specific economic calculations that repeatedly have and still do suggest that the authors of them might have been just as easily fooled themselves. Certainly fifteen years of failure haven't taught them much.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

You can say it as often as you like but you will still be wrong. Federal workers got pay raises during that time period. A step raise is a raise whether you refuse to see it or not.
If everybody gets it, it's a pay raise. If only you get it, it's a promotion.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

Yes they do, whenever the base pay for a grade is increased. Why do you think they change them?
It has nothing to do with the cost of living. It is supposed to close the pay gap between the public and private sector for comparable work, but it ends up being just a rabbit pulled out of somebody's hat. I'm sure explaining it to you for a fifth time won't have any effect either though.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

If everybody gets it, it's a pay raise. If only you get it, it's a promotion.

You really don't have a clue do you?
Look I'll type slow and use small words so you can understand. You are wrong. Federal workers got raises during the time you claim their wages were frozen. I have 3 family members and a number of close friends who work for the Federal government and ALL of them got raises in that time period.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

It has nothing to do with the cost of living. It is supposed to close the pay gap between the public and private sector for comparable work, but it ends up being just a rabbit pulled out of somebody's hat. I'm sure explaining it to you for a fifth time won't have any effect either though.

Gee 5 times huh?

Well I guess it beats the 4,901 times and counting, that you have been wrong and that is just on this forum.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

Gee 5 times huh?

Well I guess it beats the 4,901 times and counting, that you have been wrong and that is just on this forum.

Don't you know that he is superior being. If he says it, it must be so! No links or evidence of any kind necessary! :lamo
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

Google it, guys. The truth is out there. Lift a finger now and again. You'd be a better and smarter person for it.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

It has nothing to do with the cost of living. It is supposed to close the pay gap between the public and private sector for comparable work, but it ends up being just a rabbit pulled out of somebody's hat. I'm sure explaining it to you for a fifth time won't have any effect either though.

So every governmant postiion pays less than the private sector? So you are saying that everyone in the government is paid less than the private sector? That's funny. I see you are up to 4,931 incorrect posts now. That total is climbing faster than the nations debt!

Raises to the base and step salary are cost of living raises. They apply to everyone at that grade and step regardless of their position.
 
Re: Entitlements - help me understandI see folks on here and other forum's speak of "

So every governmant postiion pays less than the private sector? So you are saying that everyone in the government is paid less than the private sector? That's funny. I see you are up to 4,931 incorrect posts now. That total is climbing faster than the nations debt!
How embarrassing for you. You couldn't even do ridiculous and wild-eyed extrapolations well.

Raises to the base and step salary are cost of living raises. They apply to everyone at that grade and step regardless of their position.
Increases in the base pay tables are pay raises. That's what's frozen. They are not based on any cost-of-living number in any case. Meanwhile, only one person is affected by either a full- or a within-grade promotion. Those are not cost-of-living increases either. Federal employees do not receive cost-of-living increases. Federal retirees do. Maybe you and your disinformed friends and family members should get together sometime and read aloud the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990. You might learn something. No guarantees though.
 
Back
Top Bottom