Social Security: The Cost Of Doing Nothing

[FederalRepublic]

But despite your cheap shot insults you are impotent to actually negate what I said on the topic.... here it is again in case you want to get serious

What you do not seem to get is that SS is a program which can be at the discretion of Congress and there is absolutely no political will to do anything but keep it going.


We must get more money into the system and I have already told you how to do that and provided the information on its fiscal impact. The longer we wait, the more difficult the step will be --- but make no mistake - we as a country will take that step.

We will do it for many reasons but the main reason is that it is the will of the American people that it be done and the program be saved. Why do you think its called the third rail for heavens sake.

In the end - political will and the control of Congress by the people on this issue trumps all your objections to tax increases and budget shifts. It trumps them all.

In short: "We won, you lost. So you have to go to the back of the bus."

What's the proper response to such a substantive post? Glitter.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Which is why people PAY into Social Security. SS doesn't contribute one penny to the deficit or the national debt. And when SS runs out of money - which it will, since the conservatives believe that only those who make $106K a year should make payments in proportion to all their income, that the rich don't have to worry about paying into Social Security after the first $106K - then there will be no more SS.

And I guess that will make you happy.

Speaking of which, why is it that the middle-class and poor have to pay full price for SS, but the rich don't? That's not fair to the rest of us. If taxes should be at the same rate for all people, poor as well as rich - as conservatives believe - then so should SS.

The payout is limited. Why? Because the rich don't need social security. Why would you talk about fairness and who pays what into the system, and then ask for it to be unfair?

 

[FederalRepublic]

Now you know how rich people feel.

Oh, Snap.

:blowup:

 

[FederalRepublic]

Hiding ones head in the sand and playing ostrich while watching FOX news pretending that societies do not fall apart when the masses feel they are getting screwed out of what they feel they deserve is the worst sort of denial.

I can think of no other single event that would anger the masses more than if they were screwed out of their earned social security and pensions. In fact, perhaps that is what the right wing wants as I can think of nothing that would cause people to lose faith in their government more than that same event.

I guess it becomes very very clear why right republicans are on the wrong side of this issue.

and cp - don't you get it yet? :doh I am NOT attacking your for your salary or for your job. :shock: All I am telling you is that it is ALL GOVERNMENT SPENDING which contributes to the debt and the deficit and to single out social security and make it pay for those things is simply as silly as saying it is all the American militaries fault for that same debt and deficit.

The masses of working people are getting screwed...by your friends in the government.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Question for you: if the problem is a shortage of money why is not an influx of money to erase the shortage the proper answer?

But the problem isn't a shortage a money. That's just a symptom of the problem that you've caused.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

But despite your cheap shot insults you are impotent to actually negate what I said on the topic.... here it is again in case you want to get serious
[/B]

This from someone who calls someone a liar because data that you introduced was questioned by 'professionals' who don't even work for Social Security Administration.

I have already told you how to do that and provided the information on its fiscal impact. The longer we wait, the more difficult the step will be --- but make no mistake - we as a country will take that step.

Actually you are factually wrong here. You haven't provided any how. Your solution is to simply change the priority of the system over other government priorities. You want to divert the taxbase away from controlling the deficit. So your priority is more SS and less debt control. SS is an interesting choice at a time when we are cutting things like Head-Start and Meals On Wheels.

You have no how. Your argument is that we need to make SS a higher priority. So you expect younger workers to pay for the debt that retirees ran up as younger voters by not paying for the amount of government that they wanted. Then you expect the workers to support the retirees in comfort. Don't be surprised if the workers decide that supporting the debt is enough.

 

[iguanaman]

The EITC is the Earned Income Tax Credit. It means that low wage workers paid into Social Security. The Federal Government gives them a refundable tax credit. The terms are if you paid into Social Security we will give you a check. Bribing people to pay their Social Security cost the general taxpayer $60 billion in 2010. The payroll tax holiday was financed by the general taxpayer with a 250 billion gift.

Here is the factcheck on Social Security doesn't add to the deficit.

Democrats Deny Social Security’s Red Ink

So now the $2.5 Trillion surplus that American workers paid into SS is adding to our debt? How ridiculous. Borrowing the money to pay off the T bills that SS owns might raise our deficit but it comes right off our DEBT.
Cashing in T bills lowers our outstanding debt. Isn't that what you want?

 

[haymarket]

In short: "We won, you lost. So you have to go to the back of the bus."

What's the proper response to such a substantive post? Glitter.

Not at all. You are entitled to any seat on the bus. But the bus is a settled issue.

 

[haymarket]

The masses of working people are getting screwed...by your friends in the government.

I know not a single person on social security who feels that way. And I suspect the tens of million who are set to collect within the next decade do not have many deniers within their ranks.

 

[haymarket]

But the problem isn't a shortage a money. That's just a symptom of the problem that you've caused.

Oh really!? :doh then why do we hear ad naseum how SS is running out of money if the the problem is not a shortage of money? :roll:

 

[haymarket]

Actually you are factually wrong here. You haven't provided any how. Your solution is to simply change the priority of the system over other government priorities. You want to divert the taxbase away from controlling the deficit. So your priority is more SS and less debt control. SS is an interesting choice at a time when we are cutting things like Head-Start and Meals On Wheels.

You have no how. Your argument is that we need to make SS a higher priority. So you expect younger workers to pay for the debt that retirees ran up as younger voters by not paying for the amount of government that they wanted. Then you expect the workers to support the retirees in comfort. Don't be surprised if the workers decide that supporting the debt is enough.

Why are you lying? Why are you denying what I have previously posted. I stated very clearly how to fix the program. I told you that we should
1- have all workers pay FICA on 100% of their earnings the way the lower 92% now do
2- tax all money going into an earners pocket or accounts for FICA purposes
3 - freeze benefits at todays levels plus a modest inflation rider

I also provided a link to show that this would close up to 85% of the shortfall.

All I am expecting is for America to honor its commitments. It is sad that you and others want to turn your back on that and betray the promise made to American workers.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Let me know when you work out the details for that plan as it is completely unworkable in the real world as we would have to exempt every person for any share for the debt before they were born or would extend it to when they actually reach voting age..... plus they enjoy the benefits of what that debt paid for which hardly seems proper policy.

I lived in a free country because of what we did in World War II and rung up a massive debt paying for it for many years of my life. And I have no objection helping to pay for that.

Says the guy who wants to take what we spend on the military and give it to people who aren't working...talk about screwing over the next generation. Raise their taxes and leave them defenseless? Somehow I'm the one who's supposed to feel guilty?

:thinking

 

[CalGun]

Deny all you want - I quoted your post - you lied. You directly lied just like your chosen dictator.

You make no sense.

You are talking gibberish.

You pointed out no lie.

 

[CalGun]

Corporate tax breaks are not theft, they are legal. Corporate tax breaks often create jobs which is why our government made them legal. Tax breaks / corporate welfare is huge, and so are the numbers of jobs created thanks to them so when you feel like taking them away remember you are destroying someone - making it impossible for them to pay your beloved govt taxes.

I don't complain about McDonalds or Wal-Mart - why would I? The last time I heard they had more applicants then jobs so maybe they pay too much. People should be free to work in this nation but thanks to minimum wage some can't even get jobs.

You talked about how many cheat the system, how many dead beats and can I prove then numbers - well your turn - prove to me those needing social security put in a career at minimum wage! I'll also say this as an opinion and put it out there - the 5% you want to steal from to give to the others who'll vote for your chosen losers are probably less in number then the dead beat losers who won't bother to try and make anything of themselves except a higher score on some xbox game.

Mm-hmm. What you need to do is to show that the number of actual deadbeats is as great as you believe it to be. Can you prove this point? Can you show that it's more than a small percentage of the total? Can you?

I don't think you can.

And how many times have we seen the rightists claim that people that the government helps are deadbeats? Guy, you SHOULD be bitching about how we gave the rich $154B in special corporate tax breaks - corporate welfare - last year.

Why aren't you bitching about how Wal-Mart and McDonald's pay their workers so little that they're forced to go on the dole to make ends meet? These people are WORKING - but they still need help just to make ends meet, just because corporate America thinks it makes sense to pay them peanuts.

Think about that, guy - any business that is paying minimum wage for full-time work is not paying a living wage. Instead, that business is relying upon taxpayer dollars to help their employees put food on the table. These people are NOT deadbeats, guy - they're WORKING PEOPLE. But Fox News doesn't tell you about them, do they?

 

[FederalRepublic]

If you do know - why do you persist at it just the same?

Good question.

 

[CalGun]

Fail. Your individual answer has no merit in how tax breaks for corporations produce jobs - we were talking corporate tax breaks not individual one's. Nothing stopped you from ignoring the break for buying an air conditioner. A new air conditioner means more efficiency, less electricity used, and lower cost of electricity for all - including businesses that might determine how many people they can hire based on how much they have to pay for power. (I did in my business).

The point is that deductions largely don't create anything. In 2009, the government paid me to replace an air conditioner that wasn't broken or really in need of repair. I bought an air condition, but didn't paint my house which needed to be done. The people who say tax deductions count the job of the air conditioner installer, but fail to count the job lost of the painter.

 

[FederalRepublic]

I know not a single person on social security who feels that way. And I suspect the tens of million who are set to collect within the next decade do not have many deniers within their ranks.

So you've done a good job selling the pyramid scheme to those at the top of the pyramid. Nice work.

 

[FederalRepublic]

Oh really!? :doh then why do we hear ad naseum how SS is running out of money if the the problem is not a shortage of money? :roll:

Most people who have a headache caused by a brain tumor do not view the headache as their problem, nor will treating the headache make their problem go away.:doh

 

[cpwill]

When we talk about the debt and the deficit, my point is a simple one: every dollar spent by the feds contributes to the bottom line deficit

Precisely - and that applies just as equally to every dollar sent out in a Social Security Check, and to a provider to pay for a Medicare - covered procedure.

However, when we look at the drivers of federal spending, now and in the future, the biggest expenses, and the expenses that are scheduled to get bigger, are the entitlements. Defense is already scheduled for sharp reductions, despite the fact that it's already at historical lows. We could cut the rest of it in half (if we like) and it still would not save the entitlements.

If your income is $3,000 a month, and you you have a variable rate mortgage that's about to go from $1,200 a month to $2,300 a month, cutting into your beer money is not going to save you.

One simply cannot claim that one part of the budget is responsible while laying low on another part.

Actually we can identify responsible vice irresponsible vice unsustainable spending. For example, we have a nice, 21st Century Economy that is dependent upon a liberal world trade order and free and protected sea lanes. So we can correctly identify the U.S. Navy as responsible spending, as it sustains our economy. We can similarly point to other, simple political transfer payments that do not serve much of a social purpose as irresponsible spending - Cowboy Poetry Festivals fall into this category. We can also identify current structured programs that are set to become impossible to fund - this is unsustainable spending.

You are singling out programs like SS and medicare as part of your long established anti baby boomer crusade.

No - I am singling out our entitlements because A) they are the drivers of our deficit and B) they are going to become even more so in the very near future, threatening the fiscal stability of our government.

I welcome a national discussion about budget priorities and we certainly need that to guide our representatives to make wise choices in adopting budgetary priorities. I suspect if and when that happens the American people will come out loud and clear to save social security and not so strong for foreign wars in places like the Middle East.

They have already done so - and the DOD is currently scheduled for some pretty serious cuts. Time for other programs that are actually the financial threat to face the same.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So you've done a good job selling the pyramid scheme to those at the top of the pyramid. Nice work.

You must also note that most, if not all, schemes to "remove" SS benefiits also honor that idea - by including some sort of "if you like your SS checks then you can keep them" for current (and soon to be) SS benefit recipients. The simple turth is that it is political suicide to run on removing SS benefits, more so for republicants than demorats due to voting patterns.

 

[imagep]

You must also note that most, if not all, schemes to "remove" SS benefiits also honor that idea - by including some sort of "if you like your SS checks then you can keep them" for current (and soon to be) SS benefit recipients. The simple turth is that it is political suicide to run on removing SS benefits, more so for republicants than demorats due to voting patterns.

You got THAT right!

Social security spending is the least politically viable spending to cut, period. it's not gunna happen, ever. It's just plain silly for anyone to suggest it.

 

[cpwill]

You got THAT right!

Social security spending is the least politically viable spending to cut, period. it's not gunna happen, ever. It's just plain silly for anyone to suggest it.

Actually it is gonna happen, for the simple reason that it is not the least politically viable. The least politically viable is Medicare and Social Security for those that need it. Americans will have no problem kicking multi-millionaires off of Social Security in order to protect the checks of the lower-middle-class.

However, unfortunately, people also lack the ability to discount risk well, and so they are only likely to even do that once it is already too late.

Which is why any political answer to social securities' problems must find a way to guarantee the continuation of the benefit, despite the fact that the government will not have the money to make good on that guarantee as it currently stands.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You got THAT right!

Social security spending is the least politically viable spending to cut, period. it's not gunna happen, ever. It's just plain silly for anyone to suggest it.

Yep. Removing SS seems to be supported by those which are sure that they can save enough to secure a comfortable retirement, will never get disabled and yet still want to have a "safety net" (undefined, yet ever present) to help those other "unfortunate" folks that were not as lucky as they plan to be.

 

[Kushinator]

You have shifted from claiming that an argument that the current structure was unsustainable to claiming that you meant to of course include the possibility of changing the current structure.

As stated before, mathematically impossible ≠ unsustainable. This is simply a matter of fact.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So what? there are plenty hear who do and you do not have to look far on this very site to see its fans and its ardent apologists.

CP - Everytime I try to pin you down on this you back away. So let me ask you straight out three simple questions-

1- how much is the annual shortfall in Social Security?
2- 85% of that shortfall can be made up in popping the cap, taxing all monies for FICA, and freezing benefits. So why are you against that?
3- if we don't make everyone pay on FICA tax on 100% of their income like the lower 93% of earners do, how much annual would we need from general tax revenues?

Lets see what we can afford and what we cannot.

I look forward to your answers.

What, exactly, do you mean by freezing benefits? Using the same average SS monthly benefit today as in 2000 would save many billions, but make living on that amount ($300/month less) very hard to do.