• 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!

SS Reform?


Why on earth would they not save any of their money? My guess is, without social security there will be a much stronger public conscious about the need to save and not spend.
 
cpwill said:
So long as the General Fund runs enough of a surplus to cover it, certainly!

Unfortunately, Medicare is screwed, and when it goes, it takes SS with it. And, according to the President, there is no way we will be able to fund it with taxes.
Click to expand...

I think you have it backwards. SS often runs a surplus, and sometimes it goes to the general fund.

Yep, Medicare is in trouble -- we need single payer healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. There is no alternative.
 
a351 said:
Yeah, those numbers aren't quite up to speed. Last years deficit was roughly 48 billion, in addition to nearly identical shortfalls the previous two years.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/spec.pdf (Page 465)
Click to expand...

The numbers are actually identical. The $565.8 Billion in receipts from your chart is the combination of Social Security receipts in the amount of $483.7 Billion and Disability Insurance receipts in the amount of $82.1 billion from the link I gave you. I'm not sure what "Outgo: To the Public" is supposed to include but it's pretty doggone close to the $730.8 Billion I cited.
 
If you exclude interest from the equation entirely.
 
a351 said:
If you exclude interest from the equation entirely.
Click to expand...

And what is that interest? It's interest on US Treasuries which is "earned" by current taxpayers and due from future taxpayers. For that reason I don't count it at all because for all practical purposes it isn't an offset.
 
Lutherf said:
And what is that interest? It's interest on US Treasuries which is "earned" by current taxpayers and due from future taxpayers.

For that reason I don't count it at all

because for all practical purposes it isn't an offset.
Click to expand...
The yearly excesses in FICA revenue are invested in treasury securities in order to keep pace with inflation and an aging work force in a low risk manner. Direct revenues combined with earned interest are weighed against annual costs. Cut and dry.

The folks who manage the finances of the actual program seem to disagree.

No? Just where are the proceeds socked away?
 
head of joaquin said:
I think you have it backwards. SS often runs a surplus, and sometimes it goes to the general fund.
Click to expand...

SS is running a permanent deficit. Which means it is dependent upon the General Fund. Unfortunately, the General Fund is about to get sunk by Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.

Yep, Medicare is in trouble -- we need single payer healthcare like the rest of the civilized world. There is no alternative.
Click to expand...

Without giving it credence, that argument is quite possibly why Obamacare is designed to produce a healthcare crises.
 

Into IOU's, not treasuries. They are "special promissory notes" which have no inherent value as they cannot be traded or sold. It's a "pretty promise"
 
cpwill said:
SS is running a permanent deficit. Which means it is dependent upon the General Fund. Unfortunately, the General Fund is about to get sunk by Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare.
Click to expand...

And quite possibly net interest on the national debt.
 

If by "deficit" you mean in 30 years it won't be able to pay out 100% benefits, but rather only 80% for another half century after that, then yeah it's running a deficit.

But of course that only makes sense in bizarroconservative world.

Economic predictions over 10 or 15 years are pretty inaccurate. For all we know, the economy will grow so much in the next decade that SS will be able to pay out for a century. Point is a 30 year window of solvency = forever in economic terms.
 
cpwill said:
Into IOU's, not treasuries. They are "special promissory notes" which have no inherent value as they cannot be traded or sold. It's a "pretty promise"
Click to expand...

Almost all of the SS trust fund is in t-bonds and cash (about $3T total). The IOU nonsense is typical rightwing noise machine disinformation.
 
head of joaquin said:
Almost all of the SS trust fund is in t-bonds and cash (about $3T total). The IOU nonsense is typical rightwing noise machine disinformation.
Click to expand...

It represents debt the government owes itself.
Pretty much everyone here understands, that's completely moronic.

In order to redeem said bonds, they'll have to either, raise general taxes to cover the short fall or issue more marketable debt.
Either way, that's not representative of a trust fund.

Debt swapping and potential tax increases, are not a surplus.
 

T-bonds represent the safest security on the planet. Would you prefer the SS fund buy pork belly futures?

To call T-bonds an IOU is like saying cash is just paper. If the US can't pay back its debt, you'll have bigger problems than SS defaults. You'll have mutants in the street. Nor will your gold and stock be worth a dime.

Why is it that conservatives seem compelled to bet against America and its future, and act as if that's somehow witty?
 
head of joaquin said:
Almost all of the SS trust fund is in t-bonds and cash (about $3T total). The IOU nonsense is typical rightwing noise machine disinformation.
Click to expand...

Except that NONE of the IOUs are in T-Bonds, they are all in direct promissory notes;

Promissory notes differ from IOUs in that they contain a specific promise to pay, rather than simply acknowledging that a debt exists. In common speech, other terms, such as "loan," "loan agreement," and "loan contract" may be used interchangeably with "promissory note" but these terms do not have the same legal meaning.

Note that this is just a promise to payback NOT an investment with any interest or exchange value of any kind.

Oh crap now your stupid meme goes right out the window huh?

Unless you just want to deny it, then you are once again, only fooling yourself.
 

They aren't trade able Tbonds, you're using deceptive terminology.
SS shouldn't play games, there is no trust fund, it has always been a pay go system.

What do you accuse everyone, who doesn't agree with you, as being a conservative?
I mean really, if you look at the world political stage, you're a conservative.
 
The trust fund represents a legal obligation to Social Security program recipients and is considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. A debt created by a tax surplus accumulated over the years, huh - now that's real Alice and Wonderland stuff. As of April 2012, the SS intra-governmental debt was $4.8 trillion. Intra-Governmental debt is meaningless as it mean your left hand is owes your left hand. SS therefore is sustainable into infinity unless there is inflation. At that future time it would be time to take money out of the economy via tax increases/spending cuts to cool it off.
 
cpwill said:
Into IOU's, not treasuries. They are "special promissory notes" which have no inherent value as they cannot be traded or sold. It's a "pretty promise"
Click to expand...
Correct, but I think we arrive at very different conclusions based on that fact.
 
Jessica22 said:
The trust fund represents a legal obligation to Social Security program recipients
Click to expand...

The Social Security Website says that that is incorrect. According to the Supreme Court, the United States government has no legal obligations to Social Security recipients. They could cut off every left-handed, balding senior tomorrow and it would be perfectly legal. Social inSecurity.

Intra-Governmental debt is meaningless as it mean your left hand is owes your left hand.
Click to expand...

That, however, is spot on

SS therefore is sustainable into infinity unless there is inflation.
Click to expand...

and that is not. Since SS is dependent upon the General Fund, it can only be sustained so long as that fund continues to operate. Unfortunately, that fund is scheduled to explode soon, and will take SS with it.
 

You are referring to limited Supreme Court case law - Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960).

"In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated."

Mr. Nestor's denial of benefits was based on an act of legislature. The Social Security cannot unilaterally deny benefits. It takes an act of legislature.

http://http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

cpwill said:
Since SS is dependent upon the General Fund, it can only be sustained so long as that fund continues to operate. Unfortunately, that fund is scheduled to explode soon, and will take SS with it.
Click to expand...

The pay roll taxes created a surplus over the years and somehow that is counted as part of the national debt (Alice in Wonderland stuff). The Government can continue to make payments when there is a deficit in taxes as a surplus caused the same thing. The Government does need taxes to fund itself, as it issues the currency, but there are other reasons for them. The Federal Government is not a giant household. Households are users of the currency. If the Federal Reserve can create trillions of balance sheet dollars for the banks to "re-open the Wall Street gambling casino" why not for things that benefit old people?
 

That is correct. The US Government does not legally owe a single penny to a single recipient. We can alter the payout in any way that we like at any time.


Because doing so every year for year over year in anything close to the amounts necessary to cover our entitlements would result in serious devaluation of the currency, which would result in an effective default on both our national debt and our old people. Good luck with Social Security when the average benefit is still $1200 a month, and your grocery bill alone is $1500. In the meantime, old people live off of their savings, savings that we would have destroyed through inflation. Oh, grandma, you did the right thing and saved your entire life? Well your $450K is now worth $50K. I hope you don't plan on living longer than the next twelve months, because SS isn't going to be able to cover you, either.


Printing money doesn't create wealth. It just shifts wealth from the current holders of dollars to the person with the printing press. It's effectively a tax on having a dollar.



Everyone who has looked at this problem set - from the IMF to the CBO to President Obama to Simpson-Bowles to Paul Ryan has come up with the same basic fact: the United States cannot avoid a massive fiscal crises unless it reduces expenditures in its' entitlements.
 
Last edited:

There is no excess FICA revenue. Everything that comes in is converted to treasuries and spent as general funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…