Social Security

[Mursilis]

So what you are saying in broad terms is ll that money borrowed from social security wasn't borrowed at all. It was just stolen and is gone.... Nobody should expect the federal government to actually make good on that debt?

How can the fed. gov't "steal" something it already owns? Legally, SS taxes, like any federal taxes, belong to the gov't. They can't "steal" from themselves - that's just silly.

The Bush tax cuts expired under the current Republican Congress not the Democrats.

But couldn't the Democratic Congress ended the Bush tax cuts early? Of course they could have. But they didn't. So again, what are the Dems doing to increase revenues? A whole bunch of nothing, mostly.

[JMS]

How can the fed. gov't "steal" something it already owns? Legally, SS taxes, like any federal taxes, belong to the gov't. They can't "steal" from themselves - that's just silly.

Actually social security taxes are not like any other taxes "legally". Social Security taxes are mandated by the social security bill which set those funds aside for the specific use of paying for the social security benfits. That language was legally changed in the 1960's to allow the federal treasury to borrow against the surplus. So LEAGALLY you are wrong.

But couldn't the Democratic Congress ended the Bush tax cuts early? Of course they could have. But they didn't.

:doh: No they couldn't. Unless your position is the Democrats embraced the bush tax cuts and protected them during their tenure in control of congress. Which is certainly not the case.

So again, what are the Dems doing to increase revenues? A whole bunch of nothing, mostly.

So now you are saying that Obama who inherited the worst economy since the great depression failed to raise taxes? And that's a problem how exactly? Bush grew the deficit and debt just about every year with greater domestic and military spending. Obama inherited a huge deficit and has basically heald that deficit constant. Trying to get the unemployment down a little before the cuts come. But the cuts will come.

[Hubbs]

Yeah, the nation's finances don't work conceptually like a piggy bank. We agree on that, but evidently disagree on why that is a problem?

So what you are saying in broad terms is ll that money borrowed from social security wasn't borrowed at all. It was just stolen and is gone.... Nobody should expect the federal government to actually make good on that debt?

Erm... no. I was only explaining the status of the so-called "trust fund", not making any policy suggestions (at least not in the part you quoted).

Or stated another way... The Republican party has other uses for social security outlays and doesn't want to use that money to keep the nation's elderly above the poverty line. The Republican party would rather slash the tax rates for the nation's top 1 % of earners from 38% to 35%. That's really what it boils down too. The Bush tax cuts extended for the next 10 years would pay for the social security deficit for the next 70! Republicans leaders want to do the former and not the latter.

You're extraordinarily desperate to turn this into a partisan issue. You're the only one trying to focus on one party. I was simply addressing the math of Social Security.

:doh:

Actually I didn't compare opting out of social security "to Nazi Germany invading half of Europe"... ( although Nazi Germany actually invaded 90% of Europe, all but Spain and Switzerland, but that's different issue...)

I was responding to a poster who believed the merits of a policy were based upon the willingness of the policy maker to let folks opt out of that policy. And to be entirely accurate, I didn't "say" anything but rather I made an observation. I noted when we got involved in WWII to defend the globe from fascism and defeat Hitler we didn't let citizens "opt out" of paying for it, I also noted that in the History of the United States, We typically don't let citizens "opt out" of tax policy based upon their own preference....

That "opting out" seems to be rather in conflict with the entire philosophy of a constitutional republic.. it's more of an anarchist's philosophy than a liberal or conservative one.

I don't think I need to explain how much you're demonstrating your own ignorance when it comes to the "opting out" discussion.

Take Healthcare reform... Bush tackled healthcare reform in 2006 cost $950 billion didn't pay for a dime of it. Wrapped the entire expense into off budget package and asked the Chinese to send him a check. Bush's "plan" amounted to giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the healthcare trusts on the promise they would do their best to hold costs down... Then of coarse Bush's top congressional healthcare advisor (see Billy Tauzin) left congress pre-maturely weeks after Bush's bill was passed and became the highest paid healthcare lobiest.... "Conservative" leaders kind of held their noses and softly whispered among themselves. Grass roots entirely silent. That's a demonstration of GOP fiscal responsibility.

Now Take Obamacare. Obama tackles healthare and get's the non partisan CBO to verifty that his bill is 100% budget neutral over 10 years and will save the government hudreds of billions conservatively after that. Republicans grumble the CBO the gold standard in congressional spending is mistaken.. But the facts are that Obama got concessions and spending cuts in place before he passed his healthcare bill which paid for most of his spending. The savings documented by the CBO are actually smaller than the cuts and repeal of grants which Obama already lined up.

That was a representative difference in the approach of the two congresses.

The Bush tax cuts expired under the current Republican Congress not the Democrats. A compromise was struck to allow them temporarily to remain in place. They weren't extended for another 10 years nor were they retired.

To date military spending under Obama has all been put on budget and has gone up slightly but not been cut. I consider that a huge victory knowing that military spending under George Bush's administration for both on budget and off budget about trippled over 8 years.

Bush inherited a Military which cost greater than the next 16 top military powers combined; and over eight years transformed it into an industry which eclipsed the rest of the globe combined in military spending.

Using Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich's formula for balancing the budget. Holding spending constant and allow the economy to grow out of the deficit is a reasonable approach. I personally think it's not ambitious enough... Given George Bush Sr actually cut the military spending 10% a year for three successive years.... But their is no way you can compare holding spending relatively constant tripling it.

If this thread was about Republicans, you'd have yourself a nice post. But this is a thread about the mathematics of Social Security. I know you're chomping at the bit to talk about the GOP, but some of us would like to stay on topic.

[Darth Tater]

I think there are two reasons... one) conservatives have always hated it. Two) some forecasts make it look unsustainable in the future.

Conservatives have generally LOVED social security in my lifetime, it is FICA they hate. Under Bush, they even wanted to make sure we could never get rid of it.

[Mursilis]

Actually social security taxes are not like any other taxes "legally". Social Security taxes are mandated by the social security bill which set those funds aside for the specific use of paying for the social security benfits. That language was legally changed in the 1960's to allow the federal treasury to borrow against the surplus. So LEAGALLY you are wrong.

You can't even spell 'legally' and you expect me to take your word for all of that?

:doh: No they couldn't. Unless your position is the Democrats embraced the bush tax cuts and protected them during their tenure in control of congress. Which is certainly not the case.

No, my position is, Congress is the legislative branch, which makes the laws. At any time when they controlled Congress, under the Constitution, the Dems could have repealed the Bush tax cuts. They choose not to do this, but they easily could have done so. The Dems aren't any more serious than the GOP about solving the nation's budget problems. They do fool a lot of dummies, though.

[JMS]

Erm... no. I was only explaining the status of the so-called "trust fund", not making any policy suggestions (at least not in the part you quoted).

But you did say that the money the federal government borrowed from social security was gone. Did you not? That it's not going to be repaid? Or were you just saying it was spent and not addressing the whole difference between borrowed and stolen?

You're extraordinarily desperate to turn this into a partisan issue. You're the only one trying to focus on one party. I was simply addressing the math of Social Security.

Yeah, exactly.... How dare I discuss politics in what is basically a party line position on one of the most partisan political fights in the modern history of the country....

If this thread was about Republicans, you'd have yourself a nice post. But this is a thread about the mathematics of Social Security. I know you're chomping at the bit to talk about the GOP, but some of us would like to stay on topic.

Yes and I was pointing out how the mathematics of social security are entirely being driven by partisan politics.

[mcsluggo]

however, it is telling that now the assumption is that the DEMOCRATS are the ones that are at least PRETENDING to be serious about the issue. That is a shocking reversal.

(but overall you are right, neither side is serious about it....)

[JMS]

You can't even spell 'legally' and you expect me to take your word for all of that?

Again Sloppy Murilis.. If you had focused on my post you would have noticed I did demonstrate properly the spelling of legally before demonstrating the improper spelling. So logically you are wrong again... I could and did spell it correctly. And on a side note... It's really really telling when you can't even win a discussion on spelling with me... You should be pretty ashamed at that.

As for taking my word for it....

Absolutely not...You can review the social security act of 1935.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/SocialSecurityAct.html

You can speak to your employer. You can get yourself a coloring book to explain it for you.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/oh1.html

And if you did read the newspaper occasionally then you would be aware of this fact too.

Here is a NYTIMES article from 2006 which I thought was telling back in the day because it disputed the GOP which at the time was claiming the very expensive 2001 tax cuts were having a positive economic effect in 2006 but still speaks to borrowing not confiscating social security surplus.

and many independent budget analysts note that overall revenues have barely climbed back to the levels reached in 2000, and that the government has borrowed trillions of dollars against Social Security surpluses just as the first of the nation's baby boomers are nearing retirement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/washington/09econ.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

We are discussing public knowledge here. By all means do not take my word for it. Social Security funds are not part of the general revenue of the country. The treasury has access to those funds only through legislation authorizing the borrowing of it..

No, my position is, Congress is the legislative branch, which makes the laws. At any time when they controlled Congress, under the Constitution, the Dems could have repealed the Bush tax cuts. They choose not to do this, but they easily could have done so. The Dems aren't any more serious than the GOP about solving the nation's budget problems. They do fool a lot of dummies, though.

Yes like they easily could have passed health care reform, or financial regulation reform, or a new trade agreement... In the vacuous void of reality all that is simple. In the reality of this existence however those things aren't simple or even achievable. Coarse you have to have that appreciation in order to make the judgement. Familiarizing yourself with a newspaper on repeal or extension of the bush tax cuts wouldn't hurt either.

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 05:08 PM ----------

however, it is telling that now the assumption is that the DEMOCRATS are the ones that are at least PRETENDING to be serious about the issue. That is a shocking reversal.

(but overall you are right, neither side is serious about it....)

I don't think the democrats are serious about social security reform as some in the GOP have framed it. Because the Democrats and honestly many Republicans don't see it as fundamentally broken. they see it in need of a tweak, an adjustment much like the adjustment which occurred in every decades since the 30's.

The republicans want to focus on 40 years out.. but seriously you think they had an accurate understanding of where the country would be in 1975 when they passed social security in 1935? That's what we are talking about here. a 40 year projection... given wind velocity and all things remaining constant... please..

I think some republicans are philosophically opposed to the program and are looking for any excuse to scrap it and really always have been. My fundamental problem with this isn't on their philosophical position which I disagree with. The fundamental problem I have with them is their inability to state their policy for an honest discussion. Tactically scaring the hell out of folks is more expedient I guess. Problem is those scared folks come to boards like this and represent those arguments for serious discussion and often are upset when reality smacks them in the face. Get all put out and grubbily.

The nation isn't in a financial crisis so much as hurting from a decade of financial mismanagement. Social security isn't in a crisis at all, There is no problem in social security which hasn't been fixed in every decade since it's inception.

[techboy]

And on a side note... It's really really telling when you can't even win a discussion on spelling with me... You should be pretty ashamed at that.

He's got a point, there, Mursillis. When you can't beat JMS on spelling, it's time to give up.

I'd note, by the way, that it's kind of bad form to pick on spelling in any case. JMS in particular has acknowledged having difficulty (a learning disability perhaps?) in that area, and it's not like it's inherently the sign of a poor argument.

There are lots of reasons JMS' arguments are poor, that don't have to invoke spelling.

[Hubbs]

But you did say that the money the federal government borrowed from social security was gone. Did you not? That it's not going to be repaid? Or were you just saying it was spent and not addressing the whole difference between borrowed and stolen?

I didn't say that it wasn't going to be repaid, and I'm not the one who brought up borrowed vs. stolen. That was someone else. It would behoove you to read carefully before posting your criticisms.

I specifically said that I was responding to the OP, who asked about the, um, "surplus" SS is sitting on. I was explaining the status of the so-called surplus. I'm sorry if it didn't provide a lot of Republican-style red meat for you.

Yeah, exactly.... How dare I discuss politics in what is basically a party line position on one of the most partisan political fights in the modern history of the country....

You've been, by far, the most partisan poster in this thread. Here's the biggest contribution you could make to turning this into an honest discussion: Go away.

Hell, I'll even provide a flow chart you can study while you're gone:

Yes and I was pointing out how the mathematics of social security are entirely being driven by partisan politics.

No, this is what you were doing:

OP: What's the deal with SS?

Several posters: [intelligent responses]

JMS: Something something something Republicans. Something something something complete.

(Congratulations to the eight people who will get that reference.)

[JMS]

I didn't say that it wasn't going to be repaid, and I'm not the one who brought up borrowed vs. stolen. That was someone else. It would behoove you to read carefully before posting your criticisms.

Sorry for mischaracterizing your position. I thought when you said that the social security money wasn't their any longer. IT was spent and is gone. you actually were saying it wasn't their any longer, it was spent and gone. I didn't have my hubbs decoder ring to divine the actual intent of your statements....

Like me telling my bank about my house, car and credit card. Bank... that money is gone.. I spent it. Sorry dudes. Too bad, so sad. Catch you back on the flop side.....

Here is what you actually said.

The "surplus" has been redirected into the federal government's general budget and spent on other programs every year for decades now. The money isn't there. It's gone.

What you meant to say I'm guessing is the money wasn't actually kept in the pillow cases and mattresses of the first armored corps recently stationed at fort Knox. That money was in fact used and replaced by scripts and loan agreements. And the Federal government pays on those loans to the social security program every year and has for decades. I guess that's what you were meaning to say.?

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 08:29 PM ----------

I specifically said that I was responding to the OP, who asked about the, um, "surplus" SS is sitting on. I was explaining the status of the so-called surplus. I'm sorry if it didn't provide a lot of Republican-style red meat for you.

Again I must apologize. When you quoted my words directly in the post and then began with "good grief", my thought was you were addressing what I said in the quote you actually quoted. My mistake again for divining your intent incorrectly.

You've been, by far, the most partisan poster in this thread. Here's the biggest contribution you could make to turning this into an honest discussion: Go away.

Hell, I'll even provide a flow chart you can study while you're gone:

No, this is what you were doing:

OP: What's the deal with SS?

Several posters: [intelligent responses]

JMS: Something something something Republicans. Something something something complete.

(Congratulations to the eight people who will get that reference.)

I see you've reached the extent of your ability to discuss the issues civilly. I see when somebody makes a statement of fact as I've done continuously that it's hard to refute that argument on the basis of the discussion and you feel the need to attack me personally.... I applaud your moxie, if not your originality.

Social Security is a fierce partisan political issue and has been such for it's entire existance. Party lines and partisan politics have long shaped the debate on this wildly sucessful program. Thus any discussion on social security which fails to address these core political issues fails to touch the real issues which face social security.

I catagorize this program as wildly sucessful because in 1935 when it was established 80% of seniors lived below the poverty line. Social security is credited with living the vast majority of those seniors above the poverty line. Today social security is credited with keeping 50% of all seniors aged 65 or older above the poverty line and this progam had run a surplus in every year of it's existance other than 2011.

[Hubbs]

Sorry for mischaracterizing your position. I thought when you said that the social security money wasn't their anylonger. IT was spent and is gone. you actually were saying it wasn't their anylonger, it was spent and gone. I didn't have my hubbs decoder ring to devine the actual intent of your statements....

You seem to be equating "it's gone" with "it won't be repaid." The two are completely different things.

Like me telling my bank about my house, car and credit card. Bank... that money is gone.. I spent it. Sorry dudes. Too bad, sooo sad. Catch you back on the flop side.....

No, it's actually not at all like that.

Here is what you actually said.

What you meant to say I'm guessing is the money wasn't actually kept in the pillo cases and matresses of the first armored corps recently stationed at fort knox. That money was in fact used and replaced by scripts and loan agreements. And the Federal government pays on those lones to the social security program every year and has for decades. I guess that's what you were meaning to say.?

If that's what I meant to say, I probably would have said it. You need a better decoder ring.

[JMS]

There are lots of reasons JMS' arguments are poor, that don't have to invoke spelling.

Evidently not because all they've got is my spelling and "partisanship".

It's one thing to throw out partisan facts and be called on the carpet for being wrong or misinformed. They are just objecting to being told of the conflict between the GOP's actions and their words without actually calling into questions any of my statements.

---------- Post added March-28th-2011 at 08:52 PM ----------

[/color]

You seem to be equating "it's gone" with "it won't be repaid." The two are completely different things.

Yes, gone like in not there. Gone like in being away from a place; absent or having departed. Not gone like in still present in the form of a loan.

No, it's actually not at all like that.

Not like me telling my bank the money they loaned me on my home, car or credit card was gone. But like Hubbs said the money in the social security surplus fund was "gone". It's an inflection thing?

If that's what I meant to say, I probably would have said it. You need a better decoder ring.

Or you need to learn how to convey your message without contradicting Websters dictionary so people won't need decoder rings and divining rods to discern their meaning.

[Hubbs]

Again I must apologize. When you quoted my words directly in the post and then began with "good grief", my thought was you were addressing what I said in the quote you actually quoted. My mistake again for divining your intent incorrectly.

You mean when I quoted a small chunk of your words in which you threw out some hyperbole about returning to the "dawn of the Industrial Age," and then I said, "Oh, for ****'s sake" before moving on by saying, "To answer the OP's question" in the very next line?

Yes, I can see how that would appear to be directed at you.

I see you've reached the extent of your ability to discuss the issues civilly. I see when somebody makes a statement of fact as I've done continuously that it's hard to refute that argument on the basis of the discussion and you feel the need to attack me personally.... I applaud your moxie, if not your originality.

I'd be thrilled if your posts were full of "statements of fact."

Social Security is a fierce partisan political issue and has been such for it's entire existance. Party lines and partisan politics have long shaped the debate on this wildly sucessful program. Thus any discussion on social security which fails to address these core political issues fails to touch the real issues which face social security.

Are you seriously arguing that any discussion of Social Security must, by definition be nothing more than a partisan ****fest?

That certainly explains your posts....

[Nerm]

My thoughts on the SS issue. --- It will remain solvent for 20+ years, however, the sooner we tweak it, the less we have to tweak it and the more time people have to prepare. While I think people are irresponsible when they say the system is going to collapse, I was very disappointed in Harry Ried’s recent comments that the system is fine and he wants to wait 20 years before he considers any legislation on the issue. The changes at that point would have to be substantial, but there can be very minor changes now that will extend the program much longer. If no changes were made, I think that benefits would be cut more than 20% across the board when the trust fund runs out, however it wouldn’t be “bankrupt” because money keeps coming in the form of payroll taxes.

My thoughts are that the best (likely) strategy is to gradually move up the eligibility date over time. This will almost certainly be a part of any adjustments that pass. I also think that a mild change in how cost of living adjustments are calculated could help a lot over the long term. Finally, my guess is that there will also be an increase in the amount of income that is taxable. I don’t like this part of the plan, as the people that currently pay in the most get a much worse deal than those who pay in the least. While the progressive nature of the system is understandable, I think that the more that the system becomes unfair, the less support it will have. These are the changes that are most likely to happen, if politicians are actually willing to address the issue.

A number of proposals are also trying to focus much more on reducing (or eliminating) the amount of benefits that wealthy people get and significantly increasing the amount they pay. I’m a little concerned about this due to the fairness issue, but it also transitions the program from an insurance/safety net program to more of a welfare program. I don’t think this would pass, as even some liberals are against it due to the fact they think support for the program will decrease if it is seen as welfare. I also don’t want to see people saying to themselves “you mean if I save as much as I can for retirement, I lose my social security… I better go spend some of this money I saved.” I don’t see any partial privatization programs passing either. I think that there are some merits to the idea of partial privatization, but I don’t see any way that type of change actually happens. I have ideas about some other possible changes that I have not seen advocated before, and could possibly appeal to both parties, but I’ll save that for another post.

A few other important notes – A huge benefit from the program that isn’t often discussed when discussing SS is the death/disability portion of the program. I have seen survivor and disability benefits make a dramatic difference in peoples lives. Many of them would otherwise end up homeless. The safety net is a very important one.

Also, I think the SS program is much better off due to the investment in US bonds. While I don’t like the idea of deficits that resulted in the need to borrow from social security, this borrowing has strengthened the social security program. The program would be in much worse shape without the interest from those bonds.

Here is a great site for numbers and how things have changed over the years.

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp

[techboy]

Evidently not because all they've got is my spelling and "partisanship".

Oh, I was speaking generally.

I'm not actually following this particular argument too closely, as political debates are becoming more tedious to me as the years pass.

My personal, unsolicited opinion, is that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme (and not just a bit, as Larry suggests), but that's not necessarily a bad thing, since the government can force continued participation and the goals are fairly modest. It is, I suppose, a Ponzi scheme that works.

Honestly, though, I think the real solution to the problem is to stop pretending it's an investment where people get back what they put in (it's not), and just treat it like what it is... a cash payment so old people don't starve in the streets. You can keep the seperate tax line item if you want, but put it on the books, set a benefit level, and pay it. This would also allow us to stop paying Social Security to millionaires, just because they "earned it", and would have the nice side effect of stopping this silly little shell game with "lock boxes" and the Treasury and what not.

[chipwhich]

Honestly, though, I think the real solution to the problem is to stop pretending it's an investment where people get back what they put in (it's not), and just treat it like what it is... a TAX so old people don't starve in the streets. You can keep the separate tax line item if you want, but put it on the books, set a benefit level, and pay it. This would also allow us to stop paying Social Security to millionaires, just because they "earned it", and would have the nice side effect of stopping this silly little shell game with "lock boxes" and the Treasury and what not.

Fixed that for you.

[Thiebear]

No SS or Medicare for those that make more than 4k a month. (42 and below) (you have 20 years to get to 5k a month an not notice ss/med)

New age is 72 as the age has gone up a fraction of the lifespan. (42 and below) (you have 30 year to get option1)

An extended depression makes 2035, 2021 and then 2017 isnot the first too much out than in but iou's are due with freshly printed money to do it.

President Obama has a Career decision as he is 2008-2012 and possibly 2012-2016 and will be the decider.

[chipwhich]

No SS or Medicare for those that make more than 4k a month. (42 and below) (you have 20 years to get to 5k a month an not notice ss/med)

New age is 72 as the age has gone up a fraction of the lifespan. (42 and below) (you have 30 year to get option1)

An extended depression makes 2035, 2021 and then 2017 isnot the first too much out than in but iou's are due with freshly printed money to do it.

President Obama has a Career decision as he is 2008-2012 and possibly 2012-2016 and will be the decider.

Why not just make the age 80. Tax earnings up to 200K. Drop those making more than 2K a month ineligible.

Call it what it is and get it over with.

[Hubbs]

Yes, gone like in not there. Gone like in being away from a place; absent or having departed. Not gone like in still present in the form of a loan.

*sigh*

You're right, JMS. When I specifically said that the SSA was sitting on trillions in non-marketable Treasury securities rather than cash, and then specifically wrote out the process by which the SSA will go about redeeming those securities for cash raised by the Treasury through sales of ever more debt, and then specifically stated that the big problem with this picture is the rapid acceleration of our debt crisis, which could only be the big problem if the Treasury was indeed forking over all necessary cash to the SSA, what I really meant is that the SSA would never see one red cent of what it's owed.

Congratulations. You nailed me.

Or you need to learn how to convey your message without contradicting Websters dictionary so people won't need decoder rings and divining rods to discern their meaning.

Or you need to learn to both read and comprehend. I think they have a term for that....

Honestly, though, I think the real solution to the problem is to stop pretending it's an investment where people get back what they put in (it's not), and just treat it like what it is... a cash payment so old people don't starve in the streets. You can keep the seperate tax line item if you want, but put it on the books, set a benefit level, and pay it. This would also allow us to stop paying Social Security to millionaires, just because they "earned it", and would have the nice side effect of stopping this silly little shell game with "lock boxes" and the Treasury and what not.

Every once in a while, I imagine what it would be like to live in a crazy parallel dimension in which the safety net used to provide for elderly folks who face extreme poverty is the same safety net used to provide for everyone else who faces extreme poverty.

[chipwhich]

You're right, JMS. When I specifically said that the SSA was sitting on trillions in non-marketable Treasury securities rather than cash, and then specifically wrote out the process by which the SSA will go about redeeming those securities for cash raised by the Treasury through sales of ever more debt, and then specifically stated that the big problem with this picture is the rapid acceleration of our debt crisis, which could only be the big problem if the Treasury was indeed forking over all necessary cash to the SSA, what I really meant is that the SSA would never see one red cent of what it's owed.

Please don't try and sell this to Larry. He has a hard time understanding a treasury note is DEBT. Apparently others on this board don't understand it either.

[The Sisko]

My personal, unsolicited opinion, is that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme (and not just a bit, as Larry suggests), but that's not necessarily a bad thing, since the government can force continued participation and the goals are fairly modest. It is, I suppose, a Ponzi scheme that works.

Honestly, though, I think the real solution to the problem is to stop pretending it's an investment where people get back what they put in (it's not), and just treat it like what it is... a cash payment so old people don't starve in the streets. You can keep the seperate tax line item if you want, but put it on the books, set a benefit level, and pay it. This would also allow us to stop paying Social Security to millionaires, just because they "earned it", and would have the nice side effect of stopping this silly little shell game with "lock boxes" and the Treasury and what not.

There's no way in hell this ever happens for three reasons. First, it makes too much sense. Second, it increases transparency so that the taxpayers might actually understand what's going on. Third, it makes too much sense. And yes, I do realize items one and three are the same, but these are politicians we're talking about here.

As for Chip's pointing out that it's actually a tax, that's true but so what? It's one of those govt. programs that actually works, probably because it's fairly straightforward, i.e. we give old people $$$ so they aren't begging in the street. Techboy's suggestion would only serve to make it even more straightforward.

[chipwhich]

As for Chip's pointing out that it's actually a tax, that's true but so what? It's one of those govt. programs that actually works, probably because it's fairly straightforward, i.e. we give old people $$$ so they aren't begging in the street. Techboy's suggestion would only serve to make it even more straightforward.

No it's not straightforward because people on this board think treasury bill backing is legit, and not a debt.

Straightforward is spending what you need, and not borrowing the excess to use for other concerns.

[Thiebear]

(I picked those sources just to keep the craziness in here to a minimum)

We only have to really use nothing but GAO and SS articles to keep this as accurate as possible and not our own myopic views.

They need 12.5 Billion dollars right now for admin purposes to keep up with the Boomers.

SOCIAL SECURITY

News Release

Statement of Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security,

on the President's Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request

(Printer friendly version)

For over seventy-five years, Social Security has provided hundreds of millions of Americans with an economic safety net. As the baby boomers retire and reach their disability-prone years, Social Security's workloads continue to grow. In addition, the economic downturn has greatly increased the demand for our services. Despite this dramatic growth in our work, through increased employee productivity, new initiatives, and improved funding we have reversed a trend of declining service and an increasing backlog in our disability workloads.

The President's budget request of $12.522 billion for Social Security's administrative expenses will allow us to maintain staffing in our front-line components, fund ongoing activities, and cover our inflationary increases. It will allow us to reduce our hearings and initial disability claims backlogs, and to continue to reverse the decline in our program integrity work. Program integrity work not only pays for itself, but also produces considerable savings to the taxpayers.

Full funding by Congress of the President's budget request is critical. This budget request is the minimum the agency needs to continue to reduce key backlogs and to increase deficit-reducing program integrity work. It will allow us to build on the considerable progress we have achieved, progress that is vital to the millions of people who depend on our services and to the American taxpayer.

For more information about the President's 2012 budget request for Social Security, visit www.socialsecurity.gov/budget.

This probably didnt help that 2017 number:

In FY 2009, Congress provided us with over $1 billion in additional resources in the Recovery Act to handle the huge

unexpected increase in benefit applications caused by the economic downturn and to replace our aging national

computer center. We are spending our Recovery Act funds effectively, and we are making progress toward the goals

we outlined in our Recovery Act program plans.

This is the kind of stuff you want to read on page 53: (Good News)

Traditionally, our program payments are exceptionally accurate; however, our payment accuracy rate with respect

to Supplemental Security Income (SSI) overpayments has been a distinct challenge. In FY 2008, our SSI overpayment

accuracy rate was 89.7 percent, the lowest rate since the early days of the program. To address this decline, we

conducted more redeterminations in FY 2009 and FY 2010. Largely, as a result, the SSI overpayment accuracy for

FY 2009 rose to 91.6 percent, which is a statistically significant improvement over the FY 2008 rate.

They've gone GREEN (Leading by example is never a bad thing)

Nationwide, we have converted over 77 percent of our light-duty

vehicles to alternative fuel vehicles, and at Headquarters, we have converted 95 percent of these vehicles.

Though for those that say its in okay shape: Both the SS and GAO both say this recession is a killer.

Jan. 26 2011 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Social Security program will run a deficit this year and will continue spending more on benefits than it receives in revenue for the foreseeable future, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The nonpartisan agency said today the program will run a $45 billion deficit this year and see a total shortfall of $547 billion over the subsequent 10 years. The calculations exclude interest payments earned on the program’s trust fund.

Larry:

Again: The 2017 number became 2016 and that number became 2010 (with the caveat that it would go back to normal as soon as we got out of this).

That 2035 number is what now? a year after President Obama's next term?

(I'm not an economist, but if we "borrow" the money of the SS fund to keep the General fund even)

We are now going to run a deficit in both that will not be as easy to hide and will seem twice as deep?

Can we put IOU's based on Tbills in the General Fund?

[Larry]

Please don't try and sell this to Larry. He has a hard time understanding a treasury note is DEBT. Apparently others on this board don't understand it either.

Yep. Please don't try to tell this to Larry, because if you do, he'll point out that a treasury note is an ASSET, to the person who holds it. Apparently others on this board would like very much to pretend that that isn't the case.

---------- Post added March-29th-2011 at 09:02 AM ----------

No it's not straightforward because people on this board think treasury bill backing is legit, and not a debt.

That's because people on this board live in reality, where pretending that something doesn't exist doesn't cause it to not exist.