General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSocial Security Disability Seen Insolvent Unless Congress Votes
By Brian Faler - 2012-05-29T04:01:00Z
A U.S. government entitlement program is headed for insolvency in four years, and it’s not the one members of Congress are talking about most.
The Social Security disability program’s trust fund is projected to run out of cash far sooner than the better-known Social Security retirement plan or Medicare. That will trigger a 21 percent cut in benefits to 11 million Americans -- disabled people, their spouses and children -- many of whom rely on the program to stay out of poverty.
“It’s really striking how rapidly this is growing, how big it’s become and how D.C. is just afraid of it,” said Mark Duggan, a University of Pennsylvania economist and adviser to the Social Security Administration.
Part of the reason for the burgeoning costs is that the 77 million baby boomers projected to swamp federal retirement plans will reach the disability program first. That’s because almost all boomers are at least 50 years old, the age at which someone is most likely to become disabled.
MORE...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-29/congress-unwilling-to-address-disability-plan-s-shortfall.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
annabanana
(52,791 posts)ties every single damn vote to radical, extremist RW "drowned the government" riders...
dkf
(37,305 posts)Well at least people will begin to understand what the future holds for their SS and can plan properly.
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)day to day eats up every penny. And for many the concept of a job might be a thing of the past due to increasing population and increasing worker productivity.
The challenges facing America in the 21st century are herculean, and given the record of politicians over the past several decades, and the ignorance of Americans, I doubt America is up to the task for many remedies.
dkf
(37,305 posts)If this site full of pretty well informed people can't see it why do we expect the less involved to?
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)additional help. When my father retired, for example (non-union), he had a generous retirement package plus corporate health care. When he died, it passed onto my mother. Today, the 401k's are laughable. Many have lost about as much money as they've put into their 401k.
Yep, you are correct, it's a serious problem and not being very well addressed IMO. Also, at some point, societies need to determine just what is a job. Today, it's completely haphazard. I know many in the US like this idea of self-made men, rocks standing alone, etc., etc, ... but in the 21st century that is going to be a fool's stance.
Given the ridiculous polarization in this country, the spewing level of RW media and the ignorance of many citizens, I don't have high hopes for solutions. Other countries might come up with some solutions and then America can follow along in the rut.
... that all said, I think many in America in the 21st century will be living in poverty in some type of theocratic dystopia.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The problem is with the Plutocrats who want to make it go away.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Move along...nothing to see here.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)The damage being done to Social Security will never be fixed by addressing this as a "problem with Social Security". That totally allows the Plutocrats to frame the argument in their favor. The problem is with the Plutocracy and their refusal to fund the program with appropriate taxes on the rich.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And what do you mean, "Now what"? We need to elect more people like Bernie Sanders, that's what.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Which members of congress don't fit that definition? 
And what do you mean, "Now what"?
Nancy Pelosi is worth $35 million, for example. Does support for her challenge the so-called "plutocrats"?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts) Zalatix
(8,994 posts)And she was fighting for a lot MORE, but she was held down by 2 years of GOP obstructionist madness.
Edited to add: Most notably, this:
CURRENCY REFORM/FAIR TRADE, to promote U.S. manufacturing jobs, by giving our government effective tools to address the unfair trade practice of currency manipulation by foreign countries, including China; their undervalued currency makes Chinese exports cheaper and America’s exports to China more expensive, putting U.S. manufacturers at an unfair disadvantage; bill is WTO-compliant. (Passed by House)
Romulox
(25,960 posts) Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Nancy Pelosi has fought hard for the 99%. Her history clearly shows it. Any failures in her record are largely the result of the GOP's obstructionism.
I have shown you proof that she fights for the 99%. Now it's up to you to show where that's not true, if you think that the Plutocracy equals HER interests.
Being wealthy is not a sin. Being a PLUTOCRAT and a ROBBER BARON is.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)power is not a "plutocrat" by which definition?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)A Plutocrat is someone who is at the top of and who fights for an economy that is by and for the rich. A Plutocrat NEVER fights for the 99%. Nancy Pelosi isn't worth nearly enough to be at the top of that game, and she DEFINITELY does not fight to preserve the Plutocracy. She fights for the 99%.
Mitt Romney just MIGHT be a Plutocrat; at his level of wealth (under $300 million in personal worth), he is more than likely just a powerful minion.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)made since 2009.
And you argue that she is making that money DESPITE fighting "against her own interests" in some way that you simply can't specify...
The argument isn't strong.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I challenge you to show documentations that back up your claims that Nancy Pelosi doesn't fight for the 99%.
NO Plutocrat fights for the 99%. Period. That IS the whole cloth right there.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)I notice you have no facts to back you up.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)
Romulox
(25,960 posts)definition. 
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Mairead
(9,557 posts)I think they're a much better metric of which side she's on.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Mairead
(9,557 posts)As you yourself have said more than once --or am I confusing you with someone else? --bad stuff doesn't magically become good when "our side" does it.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)This means that when you say Nancy Pelosi has taken things off the table, it's up to you to show what she has taken off the table.
So far you have absolutely nothing to back up your case.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)Are you claiming that it's not common knowledge that she refused to put, e.g., single-payer and BushCo prosecution on the table?!?
What do you get out of taking such an obstructive position? Do you think that people here don't know what she did (or in those cases, didn't)?
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You claim that Nancy Pelosi has taken pro-99% legislation off the table. I challenged you to show when this has happened. You have yet to come up with any proof except "it's common knowledge".
I have provided a cite of all the things that Nancy Pelosi has done to fight for the 99%. Once again, here it is.
http://www.democraticleader.gov/about?id=0002
I stand firmly behind those facts and you have no facts to counter.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Once again I will remind you of the facts, which you refuse to even address:
No one who fights for the 99% is a Plutocrat. Nancy Pelosi has fought for the 99% in many, many ways. Cite: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/26742.html
Mairead
(9,557 posts)Oh please! It should be beneath anyone here to be so disingenuous. You know perfectly well what "common knowledge" means, and why it's probative unless refuted.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)If what you say is so "common knowledge" then you'd have some cites, right?
I betcha what you come up with in no way comes CLOSE to negating what Pelosi has done for the 99%.
Tell ya what. You come up with a cite on what Pelosi has shelved. And I'll put that against the efforts she has put into fighting for the working class (http://www.democraticleader.gov/about?id=0002). Let's see which is greater?
Mairead
(9,557 posts)to try to engage with someone who's not playing it straight. You'll just have to play with yourself.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Have a nice day!
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)All because you lost your argument here, and badly.
Nancy Pelosi is NOT a Plutocrat.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)"Yes, and when you do suggest it and I do it, you call for me to be banned." is NOT accusing you of starting a thread in Meta.
But you know that, don't ya?
Romulox
(25,960 posts)is what it's called.
Zalatix
(8,994 posts)It's obvious you don't recall inviting me to put up a post in Meta, now you're accusing me of saying YOU put up a post in Meta... do you even recall what you've been saying? Fortunately I've got the ability to cut and paste your own words to convict you.
Of course this could all be little more than a distraction from your hopelessly lost attempt to portray Nancy Pelosi as a Plutocrat.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)Mairead
(9,557 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)You want to belittle an elected Democrat who has a solid record of fighting for us, as shown by the cite I posted.
Well, if you really believe what you say, then you have but one course of action available to you: try to get her ousted from office. If you aren't up for the task then everything you've said has zero meaning. It's just empty posturing. Your agenda here leads to a dead end.
And I know you're not up to it because you know that trying to do this will only mean you'll get a Republican in her place. Betcha you won't feel happy about that. Again, that means your direction here leads to a dead end.
Or perhaps you know that pushing for an incumbent Democrat to be kicked out is against the DU rules. Which again leads your accusations against Pelosi to a dead end.
You know this. Everyone else on here knows this. Pelosi is NOT a Plutocrat. But if you think she is, then you must try and stop her re-election. And you know you won't do that, because it'll only result in a REAL Plutocrat being elected.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)why does everybody need to argue with you on DU about the need for Social Security's full preservation?
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)The fact that you state it is a trust fund is a clue as to why your statement about being depleted is not factual.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Gee thanks for all the informed input. I was worried about those disability recipients for nothing!
girl gone mad
(20,634 posts)Yet you continue to push conservative talking points.
dkf
(37,305 posts)We are so screwed.
Kingofalldems
(38,419 posts)Mairead
(9,557 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the poster means.
the tf is a place to put excess tax collections, which are then borrowed into the general fund.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)The programs are financed from the respective TFs, by statute.
The "borrowed into the general fund" is a de-facto tax increase, since the actual money is being replaced by IOUs which we, not the borrowers, must later repay, thus being charged for SS twice. That comes very close to being theft in my book.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)the TF, but from current tax receipts. It's surplus collections that are put into the TF, and before Reagan, it never contained more than the equivalent of a year's receipts, and often less.
Today it contains something like 5 years' worth.
The original social security legislation REQUIRED that all surplus collections be borrowed into the general fund.
To some extent, it's true that "we" are being taxed twice to provide SS (though many low-income workers pay minimal income taxes).
That's why building up a huge surplus in the TF is so stupid. As workers, we pay more than is needed to fund the program. The remainder is borrowed into the general fund, the super-rich are given tax breaks, then when it comes time to repay the gov't pleads poverty and tries to figure out ways to cut promised benefits or make us pay more.
Returning to the original pay-go design and avoiding all calls to collect even MORE SS surplus tax avoids that problem.
The top 10% pays the majority of income taxes. They also got the majority of the bush tax cuts. They will repay the majority of the SS RF borrowing -- but they don't want to.
And a lot of them didn't pay SS taxes in the first place, because they make their money off capital, not from wages.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)I'll presume you have the right of it, since I don't know chapter and verse myself, haven't time to research it, and the 'explanation' at ssa.gov, when examined closely, looks as though it was written by weasels.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)The investment rules governing payroll tax income were also established in the 1935, and are essentially the same ones in use today.
Specifically, the 1935 Act stated: "It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals.
Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States." (See Title II, Section 201of the 1935 law)
In the 1939 Amendments, a formal trust fund was established and a requirement was put in place for annual reports on the actuarial status of the fund. Specifically, the law provided: "There is hereby created on the books of the Treasury of the United States a trust fund to be known as the 'Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund'. . . . The Trust Fund shall consist of the securities held by the Secretary of the Treasury for the Old Age Reserve Account on the books of the Treasury on January 1, 1940, which securities and amount the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to transfer to the Trust Fund, and, in addition, such amounts as may be appropriated to the Trust Fund as herein under provided." (Title II, Section 201a)
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
"invest in US securities" = lend money to the US government in return for US securities, i.e. lend the money to the general budget.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)It should make no difference to soc-sec solvency what role the trust funds play. Either they're meant to act as an accounting pass-thru, or as a temporary overflow basin. But they're not meant to act as something that consumes our taxes. So if that's what's happening then there are some politicians that need to go to prison for embezzlement.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)checking account.
They've become a slush fund for the general budget & a covert way of undermining the progressivity of the income tax.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)and therefore, don't plan for it. Not even the most responsible people foresee themselves as disabled.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)RKP5637
(67,083 posts)give a damn what we think. And the voters think they're back in Eisenhower days. And our governor just signed the most regressive tax bill in the history of the US making this the #1 most regressive state.
http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=206548
The representatives literally don't give a damn about we the people. Get in their way walking down the street, they'll run over you.
KansDem
(28,498 posts)This sounds very familiar...
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)If you give up without letting them know what you think and want, and how it will impact you or people you know, you've lost already. Some GOP have reversed their votes on such things before. Yes, it really has happened in the face of opposition from people that do vote.
If the voters of the state believe they are in the Eisenhower days, there must be some advantage they are getting out of the system the Teabaggers are creating. Perhaps the demographics of the area, property ownership, businesses and income level favor those positions.
I've lived in some of the red areas in my state that are Teabagger in all but name. They are generally more affluent, churched and refuse to pay taxes for schools, roads and other infrastructure projects unless they get a job from it and consistently speak out against all social infrastructure, schools, community centers, clinics and parks.
Where I live is a blue area and we consistently vote for levies for parks, police, emergency services, schools and other such things. You get what you ask and vote for, I'm found. At times a person is located in an area in which they do not fit the majority in income or property and are quite dissatisfied.
There is not a lack of caring about everything in any area, but politicians reflect the views of the people that go out and vote for or against them. They build coalitions all year long with groups, GOP or Democratic in districts. Decisions are not made in a vacuum, they have constant input.
In GOP areas they meet with people who are churched, those with leisure time to play on golf courses, who are independently rich and don't need social services and their votes reflect those people. Even those who are not rich but may be related by marriage or employment or belief, will vote that way.
My area is not like that but some of them are moving in with their church schools and making inroads in other ways and keeping our elections very tight. It is only by setting the agenda with the representatives in meetings advocating for social and physical infrastructure that we keep our little town progressive.
Don't give up. It is what you make it, if you are able to participate. I am sorry that you live in an area that does not reflect your values. But if you don't tell them you disagree, nothing will change.
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)so discouraging. I live in KS, and often I feel I'm right at the epicenter for a lot of the loony politicians in the RW teaparty. I've sent so many letters, signed petitions and made phone calls, but often you start to feel like a flickering candle in a rain storm.
With the recent tax shenanigans just signed by our governor, I've decided to just leave. I've been working on making that happen for a couple of months now. Sometimes, I think eventually one has to just walk away from it all. The books written about KS are on target and Bill Maher actually did a movie about KS. It's a nice place in many ways, but the regimented RW republican voting here is unbelievable.
It's a place quite scary to grow old in ... with the recent tax legislation more and more safety nets will be removed, schools will be way underfunded and property taxes are possibly going to soar. The tax legislation will leave KS in the red by several billion dollars. It's going to be a horrible scenario, many fear.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Don't buy the propaganda.
U.S. growth is better than expected, and will rise sharply due to a variety of factors in the next two years.
former9thward
(31,925 posts)"The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons. The actuarial deficit in the Medicare Hospital Insurance program increased primarily because the Trustees incorporated recommendations of the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Panel that long-run health cost growth rate assumptions be somewhat increased. The actuarial deficit in Social Security increased largely because of the incorporation of updated economic data and assumptions. Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers."
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)The Social Security Trustees long term projection is just that, and assume varies factors stay the same, so what you posted is not new information. Even the most bullish Kudlow (of the Kudlow Report) will acknowledge U.S. growth will not stay so stagnant over a long period of time. Yes, the most potential for growth comes from the LDC's or even the emerging markets, and the U.S. is already an established, matured MDC. But social security will always be solvent as long as U.S. growth continues to improve, because it is afterall a trust fund.
former9thward
(31,925 posts)I am posting what the Treasury Secretary and the other trustees have stated. I guess they are just so dumb and don't have the great insights on the economy that you do. Sorry I'll trust them over anonymous internet posters who post no information but just unsubstantiated opinions.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)how it works. You are a new poster on this board, so I will cut you some slack.
The trustees have made several projections about social security. There is one projection deemed as the worst case scenario, which is stagnant growth over a large period of time. As public servants it is their responsibility to plan for the worst case scenario and let the public know for the greater good. But is also their responsibility to point out that is only one projection, and there are other projections. You do realize this yes?
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/sabrina%201/242
former9thward
(31,925 posts)If I am a "new poster" what are you? I have been posting far longer than you and I have almost three times the number of posts that you do. The trustees are projecting what they think is most likely. I do understand that even if you don't.
Mairead
(9,557 posts)I imagine they're projecting what they're told to project, and are doing it to keep their jobs.
When some "problem" is a pure artifact of political decisions (like the post office's "shortfall" and, yes, the "projected" social-security "shortfall"
, yet the ones talking about it act as though it's all due to some poorly-understood and completely uncontrollable natural phenomenon, you should check your clothes for turnip leaves if you believe them.
marmar
(77,049 posts)nt
"The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons. The actuarial deficit in the Medicare Hospital Insurance program increased primarily because the Trustees incorporated recommendations of the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Panel that long-run health cost growth rate assumptions be somewhat increased. The actuarial deficit in Social Security increased largely because of the incorporation of updated economic data and assumptions. Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers."
Show me a Capitalist that will put big money down that U.S. growth will stay stagnant over 4,10, 20, or 50 years and that person will expose themselves as a fool.
Marr
(20,317 posts)Something tells me that, after the election, "grand bargain" is going to be the political buzzword again, across the political establishment.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Simple solution. 
RC
(25,592 posts)Problem solved.
RKP5637
(67,083 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)That implies that ALL boomers over 50 will go on SSDI before they reach 65 (or 67 or whatever age the austerity-mongers come up with) and go on OASDI, that is, what most people think of as "Social Security". Clearly that isn't the case.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)I am tired of this lying shit put forward. in the year 2023 or something like that social secuirty will be able to pay out 75% of benefits to recipients (baby fucking boomers by the millions).
It is NOT in financial trouble...Unless you count the republican assault on privatizing it financial trouble.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)By that definition, a mere 25% shortfall does indeed make the program "insolvent".
LongTomH
(8,636 posts)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)before, which is to OK inter-fund borrowing.
The writer acts like the sudden draw on disability is a big mystery:
“The weird thing is disability enrollment is going up like crazy”
Uh, duh, we just went through the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and there are fewer jobs today than when Bush II took office, but you can't figure out why disability went up?
No, they can't explain anything, but they sure can hype the fear. They're good at that.
And the public, even democrats who ought to know better, eats it up like pablum.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)because they cannot find jobs but do have disabilities - they would prefer to continue working but without job options they do this. I also read that many of our returning vets are applying. That adds up. Raise the damned cap.
