HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Workers have been paying ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:41 PM

 

Workers have been paying higher social security taxes than necessary for 30 years. In 1983,

when they jacked up the rates and changed the rules (raising the retirement age, taxing benefits), they told us we were prefunding our own retirements & the changes would save the system.

We didn't sign on for 30 years of higher SS taxes to give rich people & corporations 30 years of income tax cuts, then turn around and cut benefits again to make sure rich people would never have to pay higher income taxes.

82 replies, 7209 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 82 replies Author Time Post
Reply Workers have been paying higher social security taxes than necessary for 30 years. In 1983, (Original post)
HiPointDem Nov 2012 OP
woo me with science Nov 2012 #1
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #2
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #3
dmr Nov 2012 #6
leftstreet Nov 2012 #7
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #22
Flatulo Nov 2012 #23
Vincardog Nov 2012 #28
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #41
Flatulo Nov 2012 #52
Lefty Thinker Nov 2012 #65
Vincardog Nov 2012 #78
lalalu Nov 2012 #76
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #80
progressoid Nov 2012 #27
Flatulo Nov 2012 #33
truebluegreen Nov 2012 #39
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #45
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #44
FogerRox Nov 2012 #50
JoeyT Nov 2012 #55
FogerRox Nov 2012 #79
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #34
Mnpaul Nov 2012 #37
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #42
SomeGuyInEagan Nov 2012 #66
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #4
meti57b Nov 2012 #18
ToxMarz Nov 2012 #29
Vincardog Nov 2012 #30
SomeGuyInEagan Nov 2012 #67
Vincardog Nov 2012 #77
SomeGuyInEagan Nov 2012 #81
Vincardog Nov 2012 #82
dixiegrrrrl Nov 2012 #31
On the Road Nov 2012 #40
lumberjack_jeff Nov 2012 #46
Warren Stupidity Nov 2012 #47
Starfury Nov 2012 #53
dmr Nov 2012 #5
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #8
dmr Nov 2012 #10
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #35
Samantha Nov 2012 #54
AnotherMcIntosh Nov 2012 #62
Samantha Nov 2012 #72
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #43
aggiesal Nov 2012 #25
OnlinePoker Nov 2012 #63
PETRUS Nov 2012 #64
OnlinePoker Nov 2012 #74
PETRUS Nov 2012 #75
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #71
benld74 Nov 2012 #9
former9thward Nov 2012 #36
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #48
WillyT Nov 2012 #11
Jim__ Nov 2012 #12
Dustlawyer Nov 2012 #13
Starry Messenger Nov 2012 #14
cer7711 Nov 2012 #15
ErikJ Nov 2012 #16
Liberalynn Nov 2012 #17
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #19
reformist2 Nov 2012 #20
RepublicansRZombies Nov 2012 #21
Sherman A1 Nov 2012 #24
Teamster Jeff Nov 2012 #26
TBF Nov 2012 #32
Starfury Nov 2012 #38
sabrina 1 Nov 2012 #56
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #60
LongTomH Nov 2012 #69
nashville_brook Nov 2012 #49
Generic Other Nov 2012 #51
Le Taz Hot Nov 2012 #57
HiPointDem Nov 2012 #58
Live and Learn Nov 2012 #59
Agony Nov 2012 #61
pansypoo53219 Nov 2012 #68
WCGreen Nov 2012 #70
Laelth Nov 2012 #73

Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:47 PM

1. K&R Thank you for this important reminder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:55 PM

2. There is zero reason for SS to even be mentioned in these discussions about Government Debt.

The SS fund belongs to the People, it is a separate fund and has nothing to do with what Debt the Fed Government accumulates or does not. Every politician who even mentions SS in the same sentence as the Deficit is perpuating the Republican lie and they are attempting to deceive the people.

Bernie Sanders has no problem explaining this simply fact. I have no idea why there is still any confusion about the lie told for decades by Republicans about SS. A simple statement 'SS funds are completely separate from the Federal Govt and SS has a surplus of over 2 trillion dollars. SS is solvent for the next two decades at least, even with this economy.

It is infuriating that there is no clear statement from the Dem leadership putting this Republican lie to rest.

I see one Dem, Tammy Baldwin has done so, let's hope that others will join her now and get SS out of these discussions completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:56 PM

3. +1

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:05 PM

6. Thank you. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:14 PM

7. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:28 PM

22. "infuriating there is no clear statement from the Dem leadership putting this Republican lie to rest

 

yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:37 PM

23. But didn't the gov't 'borrow' all that money over time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:24 PM

28. If you have any "worthless" US TBills please sent them to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #23)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:46 PM

41. That has nothing to do with SS creating any deficit. That fund belongs to the people who paid

into it. It is not part of the Federal Budget. If the Fed Government borrowed from it, then that loan became a debt that must be repaid, just like any other loan, from China eg, they took out. Iow, SS has a surplus of 2 trillion dollars, most of it airc, is in Treasury Bonds. Those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

If the Gov borrowed from that fund, that is the same as the Gov borrowing from China. Does anyone claim that China, a creditor of the US Govt, as is the SS Fund, caused the deficit?

The fact that the money was borrowed in no way means that SS contributed in any way to the deficit. It simply makes the owners of that fund, The American People, creditors of the US Govt like all its other creditors, China eg, the US Government borrowed from.

And if the US Gov defaults on any of its creditors, in this case it would be the American People, the US would lose the trust of all of its other creditors. Which is why they have never defaulted on loans. It would immediately cause other creditors to start calling their debt and it would plunge the value of Treasury Bonds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #41)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:42 PM

52. Thanks for the explanation. Isn't it also true that if the credit rating of the US

is downgraded, the the bonds they sell to finance the debt must pay out higher interest rates, commensurate with the higher risk? Who gets the interest? The SS trust, or the government?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #52)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:53 AM

65. Well

The US government's bond rating was dropped one level, but the result (surprising unless you subscribe to Modern Monetary Theory) was US bond yields actually went down (effectively, a lower interest rate).

The dirty truth Wall Street doesn't want the public to know is that the US government will always be able to repay it's debts because Congress can create money on demand (see Article II, Section 8 of the US Constitution about coining money). There might, depending on the situation, be some inflation as a consequence, but the capability is always there.

Many people, Ben Bernanke included, actually feel we don't have enough inflation right now, which is allowing corporations to sit on huge piles of cash rather than investing it to increase production (and thus employment). So a little more inflation might actually do us all some good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #52)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:05 PM

78. The SS fund "and by extension US" gets the interest

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #41)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:59 PM

76. I am glad someone else is pointing this out.

 

I am just mad that so many people on the left are allowing the right to continue blaming social security for the deficit. If anything some of the surplus from social security was used to keep the government functioning.

This is just another way of trying to blame social security and destroy it. Wall street is still salivating over the prospect of taking over this money. I would think by now people would have woken up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lalalu (Reply #76)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:37 PM

80. Yes, it is a huge lie and should be corrected every time it rears its

ugly head. Boehner is telling it, Romney told it, and the MSM will never correct it. But no Democrat should be falling this lie, they should know better.

And I am expecting that the president will be announcing soon that SS had zero to do with the deficit and will not be part of any discussions on the Deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:17 PM

27. Except that the government has been borrowing against it for a long time.

The SS Trust Fund has not been put in a "lock box" and Al Gore suggested. Those borrowed funds are considered part of the national debt and they will need to be replaced at some point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:36 PM

33. That's what I was thinking. Since the Trust is filled with IOUs, benefits are being

paid with more borrowed money. Maybe not exactly borrowed, but monies raised by the sale of US Treasuries, on which we will have to pay out interest.

I don't quite see the difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:27 PM

39. The difference is WE already paid for our SS--we DID our part

and now they think we should pay AGAIN? Because THEY didn't do THEIR jobs?

Nuh-uh, not happening--especially since all they would do with the money is waste more on the military and tax cuts for the rich.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Flatulo (Reply #33)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:56 PM

45. Borrowing money to pay off debt is a harmless exercise.

It is immaterial if China is redeeming the bonds they hold or the SS trust fund is. Borrowing money to pay off the debt owed to SS recipients doesn't add to the debt at all.

The problem is one of accounting. Because SS receipts have been counted as general tax receipts, the cashflow makes the deficit appear smaller. Since the cashflow from here out will be negative, it shows up on paper as a bigger deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:07 PM

44. Yes they have, which puts the American People in the same category as China and Japan

two other creditors of the US Gov. We don't blame those creditors for contributing to the deficit because they didn't. So why is anyone trying to blame SS which loaned money also to the Fed. Gov? They issued loans, just like we the people did. And those loans have to be paid back to the creditors. Including to the SS fund.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #27)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:19 PM

50. You would stop the SS Trust fund from earning interest?

Would it be wise to actually take 3-4 trillion dollars and lock it in a bank vault? Removing 3-4 trillion dollars from the economy would cause a recession. Is that what you want.

Banks take your deposit and then lend out your deposit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FogerRox (Reply #50)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:05 AM

55. Yeah, but the bank doesn't have the

power to tell you "No, we rather enjoyed using your money. In fact we'd rather think of it as our money now, and we don't think we should have to give you any of our money."

Nor does the bank get to tell you "You want to make a withdrawl? Yeah, remember when you deposited the money we told you you could withdraw it in June? Well we changed our minds. You can't have any of your money until October."

Edited to add: I don't think they should immediately yank 4 trillion out of the economy either. I just don't agree with using banks as an analogy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #55)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 10:08 PM

79. well then please suggest

where the money should be kept?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:37 PM

34. Tammy Baldwin for President, 2016. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:45 PM

37. Actually, there is one reason

We need to go back to paying interest on that money borrowed from S.S. During the Bush admin., we stopped paying it. Bush spent about $1 trillion that should have gone to S.S. Their reasoning was that we owe it to ourselves and don't need to pay it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mnpaul (Reply #37)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:53 PM

42. Well, the US Govt has other creditors, China eg. And I believe now, Japan. The SS fund they

borrowed from make the American People just one more creditor. It's interesting that no one blames those other creditors for the deficit. SS had nothing to do with creating the deficit. We the people are creditors now of the Fed Govt who have been borrowing money to pay for Wars and for the Bush tax cuts.

They did borrow the money and they don't want to pay it back. They want to privatize that enormous fund, which is set to double by 2023 and gamble with it on Wall Street.

Read the Third Way plans for SS. 'Savings Accounts' instead of the way it is now set up. The Third Way is part of the Dem Party so it's not just Republicans who want to use the People's Fund to gamble with on Wall Street. It is people like Erskine Bowles who has been trying to do that since the Clinton years.

They must be stopped, there is no other way around it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #2)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:16 AM

66. + 1000 ... SS is the best-funded program ever ...

... *funded* out for another few decades. FUNDED! ALREADY FUNDED!!!

Medicare/Medicaid are also ALREADY FUNDED into the future. I believe everything else has to go back year-after-year to ask for money.

More than a few Dems fall into this same trap.

This has nothing to do with debt, it has everything to do with:

1) Shifting even more wealth to the wealthy (stealing the silver on the way out of the door)
2) Destroying anything that FDR or LBJ created for the common good
3) The mental derangement which is hard-wired into those who are conservative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 02:57 PM

4. yup, and now they want to claim that we cant spend the surplus we have plowed into

the trust fund. "they" can go fuck themselves. Pay up you rich fucks. We aren't that stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:19 PM

18. Is there actually money in that trust fund? ... or did the government borrow it all,

...and leave us with worthless promises to pay it back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meti57b (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:27 PM

29. They don't keep the money in a bank account

They buy US Treasury bonds, the only truly 'safe' place to keep it. So yes the government has borrowed it all by selling treasury bonds. But the government would have sold them anyway, and Social Security needed a safe place for their money. We just owe less to China (who would never accept repayment of less than we borrowed plus interest). STUPID right wingers are being duped into not being paid back because it is socialist evil system. They would rather let the wealthy steal it, which is essentially what they have done as that money has funded their tax break, war profits, and corporate welfare. Now they have to pay more taxes to pay back what they have taken, or get us to agree not to be paid back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meti57b (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:27 PM

30. If you have any "worthless" US TBills please sent them to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #30)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:19 AM

67. If US TBills ever become worthless, our troubles will be MUCH bigger than an SS debate

If that happens, we're all in a deep world of shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomeGuyInEagan (Reply #67)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:02 PM

77. Duh, tell it to meti57b with his "money has been spend" BS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vincardog (Reply #77)

Fri Nov 16, 2012, 10:48 PM

81. Wasn't disagreeing with you, Vincardog.

Meant to reinforce your point. Apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SomeGuyInEagan (Reply #81)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:48 AM

82. No need to apologize you are doing good. Keep up the good work

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meti57b (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:27 PM

31. Of course the gov't spent it all.

which is one reason they are doing all this dancing around the issue of SS being "broke".

Look, on PAPER, the fund is fine.
On PAPER, the budget is ok.
On PAPER, the banks are solvent.

But in reality..........

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meti57b (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 06:35 PM

40. I Know People Say That, Meti57b,

but as far as I can tell, that argument shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a bond is and should be completely disregarded.

Corporations or government entities issues bonds in order to borrow money. The money is always spent -- that's why bonds are issued. Regardless of the reason, the bond is an asset. It is generally safer than stocks or most investments. The Social Security fund has a surplus of over $2 trillion of these bonds.

Whatever Congress spends for defense, medicare, or any other purpose is irrelevant. The bonds are in the rough equivalent of a pension fund and earmarked for Social Security shortfalls that will occur as the baby boomers retire. Theoretically, the Social Security fund could trade them for corporate bonds or bonds of other government entities, but they buy Treasury bills in order to reduce risk. In hindsight, it's not too bad a trade.

Any Chief Financial Officer that invested the pension fund in company bonds and then tried to tell retirees or other bondholders "Oh, those bonds we issued? We spend that money on a factory" would be summarily laughed off the stage, fired, sued, and end up in jail. It's an utterly ludicrous argument to anyone with any knowledge of financial instruments. It appears to be designed to impart a sense of sophistication to those ingenuous enough to trust their sources, repeat that line to others, and build up a consensus for cutting Social Security.

If that happens, I really don't know what would happen to the bonds in the trust fund. They won't evaporate and can't be used for anything else. If there is an attempt to appropriate them, it would have to be voted on by Congress. In that case, the only justification i can think of would be: "But the pension fund was just sitting there!"

As far as "worthless promises to pay it back," the behavior of bondholders (primarily the very rich and pension fund managers) indicates that the "promise to pay it back" is held in higher regard than virtually any other government or corporate entity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meti57b (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:59 PM

46. Can a question be an oxymoron?

Money IS debt.

The only thing that underlies our entire economic system is a series of "worthless promises" (e.g. "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America").

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meti57b (Reply #18)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:10 PM

47. Is there actual money in a treasury bill?

No, there isn't. And yet investors buy treasury bills at ridiculously low rates because they are such a safe and secure investment. What is in the trust fund are t-bills, backed by the full faith and credit of the us government. The FICA surplus is invested in interest bearing bonds, the government, as it does with all revenue form treasury notes, uses that revenue for current expenses, including of course payouts on debt.

It might seem circular and confusing, but really it isn't. The trust fund is not some huge mountain of debt that comes due in one 4trillion dollar swoop, it is an already accounted for part of the federal debt, and it will be paid out slowly to finance the boomer retirement, until the demographics return the account to a surplus as the boomers (alas that's me) fade away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to meti57b (Reply #18)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:29 AM

53. Yes. The Fund is composed of special obligation bonds.

Inasmuch as any fund or account (including your bank account) can be said to have money in it.

How Social Security Trust Funds earn interest

OAS & DI Assets
OAS & DI Trust Funds Receipts

The SS Trust Fund earned over $114 billion in interest last year, for example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:03 PM

5. Thank you. I keep telling people this, & for some reason

many don't believe me.

That pre-funding is a hell of a lot of money.

I remember it well, & I never complained about the increase because I knew I am a part of a large generation that would have a huge impact once we reached retirement age. It angers me today that there are those who want to renege on the American people regarding this benefit that we paid into without complaint.

I collect SS now & am on Medicare. I want these benefits to be available for all generations to come. It's a promise we all make to each other; one we pay into; one that is excellently managed, and one that should be left alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmr (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:19 PM

8. I think it is obvious that the people need to launch their own campaign to counter this

decades long propaganda about SS. We have relied on politicians to do it, but they have failed obviously since so many still believe it.

I am encouraged though that more and more people do seem to realize that is a lie.

It would be a huge betrayal of the people if SS is not removed from these discussions and now is the time to deliver the message to Republicans, very, very publicly.

The media helps perpetuate the lie also. Maybe it's time to launch a huge campaign to set the record straight once and for all. Because obviously it is up to the people now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:45 PM

10. Any ideas on how we can do this?

I'm in to add my voice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmr (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:39 PM

35. If Tammy Baldwin is the only one to openly defend SS at this point: Baldwin for President, 2016

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #35)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:29 AM

54. Bernie Sanders has been all over this for some time now

"If anyone tells you Social Security is broke, don't believe it." He is also working to get other Senators to back him up.

The Republicans are just using a down economy to get Social Security privatized so that their "friends" can gain access to all those automatic deposits. Wall Street has wanted this money for decades, and now the Republicans are trying to weave Social Security into the deficit issue when it actually has no business in that debate whatsoever. It is not broke, it has a 2.6 Trust Fund built up since that 1982 or 1983 agreement, babyboomers have prepaid their retirement, and there is also a Medicare Trust Fund. Funny, we never hear anything about that, do we?

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Samantha (Reply #54)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:49 AM

62. Thx. If the Reps are using this so that their "friends" can benefit, I wonder who their friends are.

 

Please tell me that none are 3rd-wayers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #62)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 04:51 PM

72. Their "friends" are the people who finance their campaigns who expect favors in return

Some really well-known businessmen, such as the Koch Brothers, absolutely do not want to pay a FICA tax. They want these "entitlement" programs abolished. And the Repubicans are carrying their water for them.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmr (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 07:01 PM

43. Well, maybe take a lesson from how the Republicans spread around their propaganda. They

set up Think Tanks eg who constantly wrote 'thoughtful' articles pushing the lies about SS.

Why don't Democrats have Think Tanks?

We could ask organizations like Moveon who are now joining the Unions and several other Progressive organizations and SS advocacy Groups, to launch a campaign of ads in major News media explaining how SS is a separate fund from the Fed Govt. How the Govt borrowed from the fund, making the American People creditors of the Fed Govt like China eg.

We do not blame China for contributing to the deficit because they didn't. The Fed Govt borrows from other creditors and we the American People are just one of their creditors. Creditors do not cause people to get to the point where they need to borrow to pay for things like Wars and Tax Cuts for the Wealthy. They do loan money which has to be paid back when someone asks them if that someone is trustworthy enough to be sure they will pay it back. So far, the US Govt has been able to borrow, but if they default on the American People, that will be the end of them borrowing from anyone else.

And SS/The American People's Fund, China, Japan are all creditors of the US Govt, but none of them created the deficit. Unnecessary wars and tax cuts for the wealthy added to the deficit because we really couldn't afford them and borrowed to be able to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dmr (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:10 PM

25. Let's back up the cart . . .

There was a reason for this.

Currently we are the only generation funding OUR retirement and OUR PARENTS retirement.
You see, Social Security was extremely underfunded by the time the Baby-Boomers were set to retire.
Reagan of all people saw this, and passed a law that raising the maximum amount. At that time it was
only around $53K (I think), while today its around $108K.
Doing this saved Social Security for all of us.
There is enough money in Social Security to pay 100% till 2042(?), and then it pays out about 75%
after that. If we raise the limit from $108K to unlimited, Social Security would be funded for everyone
forever (And you know Republicans won't let us have that!!!)

As far as the SS Trust fund, the gov't bought gov't bonds with the SS funds. Every month the gov't
cashes in some of those bonds to cover the shortfall we are currently experiencing. But, this was planned.
We knew that around 2010, that SS would be paying out more then it was taking in. It will be this was
until 2042(?) when the surplus finally runs out. That's why SS will only cover around 75% after that,
unless the rules are changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:20 AM

63. The trust runs out in 2033

Last edited Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:57 PM - Edit history (1)

After that, only 3/4 of the money going out will come from contributions. The rest has to come from taxpayers. The Disability Insurance portion of the fund is in worse shape, projected to run out of funds in 2016.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #63)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 09:37 AM

64. 3/4 not 1/3

And even that represents higher benefits than we're paying today (due to cost of living increases). Further, the tax increases necessary in order to pay out scheduled benefits in full are miniscule - about 5% of projected wage growth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PETRUS (Reply #64)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:02 PM

74. Edit the post to 3/4 vice 1/3

I don't know where I got that figure. This is what comes of too many nights of less than 4 hours sleep in a row...I don't see things clearly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnlinePoker (Reply #74)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:41 PM

75. Hope you get some rest eventually!

Lack of sleep sucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #25)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:49 PM

71. All that needs to be done to prepare for that eventuality

three decades from now is to raise the cap on SS and increase employment, which hopefully will happen anyhow. The projections you made are based on the current economy and as anyone can see, even in a bad economy with high unemployment, SS has still had a surplus every year.

That is partly due to the fact that SS has two other sources of income, one being interest on the Treasury Bonds.

We are being lied to, outright lied to by John Boehner and Romney most recently, who shamelessly claim that SS is 'going broke' but considering who they work, no surprise.

What is also shameful is the lack of a clear statement from the Dem Leadership putting that lie to rest. I am waiting and hoping to hear such a statement and to finally see SS removed from any discussion of the Deficit since it had, has nothing to do with the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:33 PM

9. One of the MANY arguments, (ok heated discussions) I had with my Repub father back in the day,,

when he went on one of his rails against the Democrats. He stated his case and I calmly looked him in the eyes and said, "How can you be against the Democrats when it was the Republicans that raised your SS taxes AND are going to TAX you on them when you receive them."


Crickets,,,,,,,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to benld74 (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:44 PM

36. The 1983 negotiations were bi-partisan.

Congress, both House and Senate, were controlled by Democrats. Without that support no changes could have been made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to former9thward (Reply #36)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 08:50 PM

48. yep. the committee was bipartisan and the congresspeople who approved the final bill were

 

from both parties.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/tally1983.html

it was a bipartisan love-fest, just like today. they always manage to compromise for things the ruling class likes.

you'll notice that three of our leading liberals, conyers, kennedy & gore, are recorded as 'not voting'. pffft. safe cowardly vote.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:52 PM

11. HUGE K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 03:55 PM

12. Exactly!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:08 PM

13. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:12 PM

14. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:12 PM

15. Beautifully and Succinctly Said!

Bravo!!!

:::applause-applause:::

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:17 PM

16. That's one reason SS has a $2.6 trillion surplus.

And it will peak about $ trillion then by 2037 the surplus will be gone.

Wasnt the SS hike supposed to expire after 30 years or so? Since the boomer bulge will be going away?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:19 PM

17. Yes you said it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:20 PM

19. Kick.

Like others have said, Social Security does not contribute at all to the debt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:22 PM

20. That $3 trillion in bonds the SS trust fund? That's a $3 trillion claim on rich Americans' money.


In other words, the middle class put $3 trillion into the program and the rich essentially borrowed against it to fund their tax cuts. But let noone say the money was stolen. The SS fund has $3 trillion in bonds that are every bit as good as US Treasuries held by any billionaire anywhere in the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:24 PM

21. Perfect!

 


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 04:43 PM

24. Precisely

something I have been asking for a long time. SS was fixed for this generation in 1983, so I wonder just why we need to fix it again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:12 PM

26. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:28 PM

32. K&R nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 05:49 PM

38. And the Trust Fund earns interest

I don't believe I've ever heard mentioned in these sorts of discussions, but not only is there currently a huge surplus, it earns interest. From How Social Security Trust Funds earn interest:

By law, the assets of the Social Security programs must be invested in interest-bearing government securities or securities guaranteed by the government. The Trust Funds hold a mix of short-term and long-term government securities. The Trust Funds can hold both regular Treasury securities and special obligation securities issued only to federal trust funds. Currently, all securities in the Social Security Trust Funds are special obligations.

The rate of interest on special issues is determined by a formula enacted in 1960. The rate is determined at the end of each month and applies to new investments in the following month.

The average of the 12 monthly interest rates for 2010 was 2.760 percent. The effective interest rate (the average rate of return on all investments) for the OASI and DI Trust Funds, combined, was 4.6 percent in 2010. This higher effective rate resulted because the funds hold special-issue bonds acquired in past years when interest rates were higher.


I read elsewhere that the effective interest rate for 2011 was 4.4%. Not too shabby in the current investment climate...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starfury (Reply #38)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:26 AM

56. Thank you, I now I have mentioned it many times, as it is another

source of revenue for the SS and one of the reasons why even in this economy, with unemployment high, the SS fund still had a surplus over the past few years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starfury (Reply #38)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:08 AM

60. Yes, but right wingers want it in the stock market where they can steal it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starfury (Reply #38)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 12:04 PM

69. Thanks for the info and the link!

I need to be able to use this in arguments with my RW family!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:00 PM

49. thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Wed Nov 14, 2012, 11:29 PM

51. That's the deal and they are sticking to it

or else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:34 AM

57. I wish to hell more people would remember this.

And one more thing. Beginning in the 1970's women started joining the workforce en masse which means that even MORE money was poured in SS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Le Taz Hot (Reply #57)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 06:59 AM

58. I don't think most people knew it in the first place.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:06 AM

59. 100% right.

No argument on this post, HiPoint. That was what we were told. We were paying our own way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 07:16 AM

61. When people retire they hoard _all_ their money in a teacup, right?

or do they inject it back into the economy by spending it on... oh say
food
housing
the grandkids
medicine
maybe even dinner out once a week
...

SS recipients are the real job creators.

We should be fighting to lower the retirement age not scrapping over how to hold the line...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 11:51 AM

68. BUTBUTBUT GREENSPUD SAVED SOCIAL SECURITY!

of course he limited what COULD get FICA. fucking eliminate the cap + lower the tax! + index everything. the rich get NOTHING!. they can use their BOOTSTRAPS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 02:30 PM

70. Very well stated and very well tying the cause the effect.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Original post)

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 05:44 PM

73. Ah, the Great, Good Ronald Reagan!

Gotta love him.



-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread