Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:53 PM
Omaha Steve (35,819 posts)
Social Security heading for insolvency even faster
Source: AP-Excite
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR WASHINGTON (AP) - Social Security is rushing even faster toward insolvency, driven by retiring baby boomers, a weak economy and politicians' reluctance to take painful action to fix the huge retirement and disability program. The trust funds that support Social Security will run dry in 2033 - three years earlier than previously projected - the government said Monday. There was no change in the year that Medicare's hospital insurance fund is projected to run out of money. It's still 2024. The program's trustees, however, said the pace of Medicare spending continues to accelerate. Congress enacted a 2 percent cut for Medicare last year, and that is the main reason the trust fund exhaustion date did not advance. The trustees who oversee both programs say high energy prices are suppressing workers' wages, a trend they see continuing. They also expect people to work fewer hours than previously projected, even after the economy recovers. Both trends would lead to lower payroll tax receipts, which support both programs. Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20120423/D9UASMEO2.html
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner listens during a news conference on the Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports, Monday, April 23, 2012, at the Treasury Department in Washington. Trustees update forecasts for the government's two largest benefit programs, which are laboring under the weight of retiring baby boomers, revenue shortages and politicians' reluctance to take painful action to fix them. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
|
51 replies, 4379 views
| Author | Time | Post | |
| Omaha Steve | Apr 2012 | OP | |
| orpupilofnature57 | Apr 2012 | #1 | |
| onethatcares | Apr 2012 | #2 | |
| lib2DaBone | Apr 2012 | #3 | |
| TheWraith | Apr 2012 | #5 | |
| maddiemom | Apr 2012 | #38 | |
| Chemical Bill | Apr 2012 | #51 | |
| cstanleytech | Apr 2012 | #12 | |
| TheWraith | Apr 2012 | #4 | |
| customerserviceguy | Apr 2012 | #19 | |
| newspeak | Apr 2012 | #39 | |
| 0rganism | Apr 2012 | #48 | |
| fascisthunter | Apr 2012 | #6 | |
| woo me with science | Apr 2012 | #14 | |
| WHEN CRABS ROAR | Apr 2012 | #7 | |
| customerserviceguy | Apr 2012 | #20 | |
| shcrane71 | Apr 2012 | #45 | |
| newblewtoo | Apr 2012 | #8 | |
| PSPS | Apr 2012 | #15 | |
| msongs | Apr 2012 | #9 | |
| Throd | Apr 2012 | #10 | |
| customerserviceguy | Apr 2012 | #21 | |
| mike_c | Apr 2012 | #11 | |
| MannyGoldstein | Apr 2012 | #27 | |
| dflprincess | Apr 2012 | #33 | |
| Fire Walk With Me | Apr 2012 | #13 | |
| customerserviceguy | Apr 2012 | #23 | |
| happyslug | Apr 2012 | #25 | |
| customerserviceguy | Apr 2012 | #34 | |
| melm00se | Apr 2012 | #50 | |
| Fire Walk With Me | Apr 2012 | #36 | |
| radarluv | Apr 2012 | #37 | |
| closeupready | Apr 2012 | #40 | |
| ieoeja | Apr 2012 | #42 | |
| closeupready | Apr 2012 | #44 | |
| Igel | Apr 2012 | #46 | |
| customerserviceguy | Apr 2012 | #49 | |
| madrchsod | Apr 2012 | #16 | |
| RebelOne | Apr 2012 | #17 | |
| MannyGoldstein | Apr 2012 | #18 | |
| JoePhilly | Apr 2012 | #22 | |
| MannyGoldstein | Apr 2012 | #26 | |
| JoePhilly | Apr 2012 | #28 | |
| MannyGoldstein | Apr 2012 | #29 | |
| JoePhilly | Apr 2012 | #31 | |
| MannyGoldstein | Apr 2012 | #32 | |
| closeupready | Apr 2012 | #41 | |
| happyslug | Apr 2012 | #24 | |
| Igel | Apr 2012 | #47 | |
| grahamhgreen | Apr 2012 | #30 | |
| unkachuck | Apr 2012 | #35 | |
| 4th law of robotics | Apr 2012 | #43 |
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 06:56 PM
orpupilofnature57 (10,553 posts)
1. Does he look very attentive? or waiting for a
|
Flight?
|
Response to orpupilofnature57 (Reply #1)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:00 PM
onethatcares (6,632 posts)
2. is it going to affect him?
|
for some reason, I think not.
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:07 PM
lib2DaBone (8,124 posts)
3. Billions for Foreign Aid... Billions for War...Billions for China....
|
So sorry.. no money left for America.....
|
Response to lib2DaBone (Reply #3)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:10 PM
TheWraith (24,331 posts)
5. You know how little money we spend on foreign aid?
|
Less than one percent of the federal budget.
|
Response to TheWraith (Reply #5)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 06:47 AM
maddiemom (643 posts)
38. What we spend on unnecessary wars, however...
Response to TheWraith (Reply #5)
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 06:02 PM
Chemical Bill (2,629 posts)
51. Much foreign aid is hidden in the military budget. n/t
Response to lib2DaBone (Reply #3)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:48 PM
cstanleytech (5,292 posts)
12. Its not so much as whats spent as whats not coming in.
|
They were dumb as nails in lowering the taxes the way they did because there was no stick so as to make the wealthy and the corporations to actually spend money to hire people, in fact they have been doing the opposite not to mention all the loopholes in place for said corporations and wealthy in place that they exploit.
In the end its no wonder the whole country is going to pot. |
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:08 PM
TheWraith (24,331 posts)
4. Don't take these projections too seriously.
|
It's like trying to predict the weather next August. There's far too many variables, which vary too quickly, to really make an accurate projection. Economic upturns push more money to the SSTF, downturns mean less, and there's room for a LOT of those over the next 20 years.
|
Response to TheWraith (Reply #4)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:52 PM
customerserviceguy (14,704 posts)
19. While it's folly to predict anything longer than ten years away
|
You can still look at the direction that we're going. Every year that passes, we're three years closer to seeing Social Security going broke, and that's assuming there is a political will to pay off the IOU's.
While there is nothing I would like to see more than an economic upturn, I'm afraid that at best all I can see is a muted recovery, where people who are trying to get back to work have to take lower paying jobs. This will put downwards pressure on all wages, and that's not good for the Social Security System. |
Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #19)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 11:28 AM
newspeak (4,847 posts)
39. those are my thoughts
|
lower wages brings less into the pot. I also wish they'd take away the cap.
|
Response to TheWraith (Reply #4)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:11 PM
0rganism (16,915 posts)
48. projections' accuracy isn't the real story, IMHO
|
Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:11 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) this is part of a long-term media campaign to undermine trust in the SocSec program, such that the American people will consider it a failed program and vote for those who will gut it. There are real solutions which could shore up the program at its current level of payouts pretty much indefinitely, but they involve raising taxes on the "job creators" and we just couldn't bear to do that, could we?
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:16 PM
fascisthunter (28,608 posts)
6. and so it begins
Response to fascisthunter (Reply #6)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:49 PM
woo me with science (19,551 posts)
14. Yup. Predictable as hell.
|
Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (3) Cue the scripted drama and faux angst-filled, impassioned "debate" from our rulers, insultingly costumed as "representatives."
We are in serious, serious trouble in this country. |
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:21 PM
WHEN CRABS ROAR (2,519 posts)
7. Increase the cap and bring in more funds.
|
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
|
Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #7)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:55 PM
customerserviceguy (14,704 posts)
20. Well, you can't just do that alone
|
For starters, you need to limit the amount of the maximum benefit based on additional FICA taxes for top earners. Right now, when you up the cap, you up the maximum benefit.
Here's an idea: Keep the cap reasonable (keeping the maximum benefit lowered) and make the sky the limit on the employer's share of FICA. If a bailed-out megabank wants to pay it's CEO ten million dollars to run the thing into the ground, let them pay FICA tax on all ten million. |
Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #20)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 08:57 PM
shcrane71 (1,706 posts)
45. I like your idea. It could induce a bit more
|
equity in distribution of wealth. I have a hard time believing that CEOs and managers who have run the world's economy into the ground are worth the millions upon billions of bonuses and compensation that they give themselves.
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:30 PM
newblewtoo (397 posts)
8. and yet the payroll tax
|
holiday continues?
It is time to get real about taxation and means testing. Millionaires are laughing all the way to the bank. They are still getting their Bush tax cut. The forty dollar payroll tax cut is a drop in the bucket to them. Increase the cap and increase the rate progressively. Fully fund Social Security. |
Response to newblewtoo (Reply #8)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:52 PM
PSPS (4,192 posts)
15. No means testing
|
Social Security is not a welfare program so it should never be means tested. It's a retirement insurance plan into which we all pay premiums for a defined benefit. Means testing was specifically prohibited when it was created because it was never intended to be a welfare program.
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:40 PM
msongs (30,475 posts)
9. our president/congress have loads of $$$ for the military industrial complex
|
for which they really work, so all you seniors and working people can just eff off
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:42 PM
Throd (3,610 posts)
10. Yay! The whole thing is going tits up the same year I become eligible!
Response to Throd (Reply #10)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:03 PM
customerserviceguy (14,704 posts)
21. If Congress does nothing
|
It will be busted way before you get there. I have little faith of it being there for me, and I'm 56.
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:46 PM
mike_c (31,505 posts)
11. what "painful action?"
|
For cryin' out loud, just raise the cap on earnings taxed. The only people who will suffer "pain" are people who make decent salaries exceeding $107,000. The vast majority of Americans would feel no pain at all, because we make less than that and already pay withholding on our entire earnings. This is just further proof that you and I are not our congress persons' real constituents. We're not rich enough to matter.
|
Response to mike_c (Reply #11)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:29 PM
MannyGoldstein (21,416 posts)
27. Obama's "Deficit Commission" (Simpson-Bowles) recommended a $50,000 cut in lifetime benefits
|
per retiree to fix this fully-fake crisis.
|
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #27)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:01 PM
dflprincess (19,517 posts)
33. And wasn't that before Obama cooked up the 2% cut in Social Security taxes?
|
We've been had and badly.
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 07:48 PM
Fire Walk With Me (37,004 posts)
13. Monsters desperately want to steal the SS pool of funds.
|
Watch them come up with ANOTHER excuse to try.
|
Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #13)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:05 PM
customerserviceguy (14,704 posts)
23. Here's a secret: It's been stolen.
|
Congress has zero intention of ever redeeming those IOU's. That's the same thing as stolen, in my book.
|
Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #23)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:23 PM
happyslug (10,746 posts)
25. Congress has been paying it back since 2009
|
2009 was the last year we had a Social Security Surplus, in 2010 and 2011 we had a deficit that the Treasury had to "make up" i.e pay.
For details see: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/lr4b1.html |
Response to happyslug (Reply #25)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:09 PM
customerserviceguy (14,704 posts)
34. They're paying interest on the principle
|
not repaying the principle. At some point, the borrowing for that is going to get expensive, but at today's ultra-cheap interest rates, it's not a major part of the Federal budget.
Get the interest rates to where they have historically been, when a savings account would pay three to five percent, and you'll see a new unwillingness to put that bulge in the budget. Add that to the tax-holiday that will never go away, and you have the basics of a really big problem. |
Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #34)
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 08:04 AM
melm00se (2,426 posts)
50. debt service
|
for the US Federal public debt is approaching 20% of tax revenues.
Fiscal Year...............Federal Tax Revenue...........Cost to Service debt.........% 2011........................$2,303.5 B...........................$454.4B....................19.7% 2010........................$2,162.7 B...........................$414.0B....................19.1% 2009........................$2,105.0 B...........................$383.1B....................18.2% 2008........................$2,524.0 B...........................$451.0B....................17.9% 2007........................$2,568.0 B...........................$430.0B....................16.7% 2006........................$2,407.0 B...........................$406.0B....................16.9% 2005........................$2,154.0 B...........................$353.4B....................16.4% 2004........................$1,880.0 B...........................$321.6B....................17.1% woe be tide us when interest rates go up. |
Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #23)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:46 AM
Fire Walk With Me (37,004 posts)
36. :(
Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #23)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 01:16 AM
radarluv (26 posts)
37. Better hide your book or they'll steal that too.
|
You bring up a good point. They've been borrowing money from Social Security for years, everyone forgets that and they want it that way. First they get rid of your pensions, then you lose the value of your 401K, they strip the union gains, then they get rid of your medicare, then your social security. When does the class warfare start, and where do I sign up?
|
Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #23)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 11:34 AM
closeupready (19,438 posts)
40. They can default on the treasury bonds held by SS, but
|
then the US' credit rating dips into junk bond status. How likely are the oligarchs going to like that prospect?
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #40)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 11:52 AM
ieoeja (7,881 posts)
42. Except that those bonds are not marketable.
|
Since the bonds held by SS can not be bought/sold on the open market, defaulting on them affects nobody except social security. Once upon a time SS held the same bonds into which you and I could invest. They shifted it to special only-SS bonds in theory to guarantee better yields. In doing so they made it possible to get rid of SS without impacting the market where the wealthy play. But I'm sure that was just a coincidence. |
Response to ieoeja (Reply #42)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:55 PM
closeupready (19,438 posts)
44. Nope. Default on them, and our credit rating is kaput.
|
No way around that.
|
Response to closeupready (Reply #44)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:01 PM
Igel (17,557 posts)
46. So don't "default."
|
Just order the SSA to rip them up.
Or issue a check to the SSA for the full amount, and then order SSA to turn the money over to Congress. Same thing. All the bonds we're talking about are held by the SSA and only by the SSA, by law. Given that, there are lots of ways of doing the same thing as "defaulting" which have the exact same outcome. |
Response to closeupready (Reply #40)
Wed Apr 25, 2012, 07:10 AM
customerserviceguy (14,704 posts)
49. Long before they would default
|
They will raise FICA taxes, cut benefits, print money, or some combination of those things.
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:31 PM
madrchsod (55,708 posts)
16. well i guess i`ll be dead by then so i`ll get mine!
|
tough shit to the rest of you!
just kidding.. put people back to work and raise the tax on the 1% and it should be fine for years |
Response to madrchsod (Reply #16)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:40 PM
RebelOne (26,798 posts)
17. I'll be dead then too.
|
I am already collecting social security and have been for the past 8 years. But I worry about my kids and grand kids.
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 08:50 PM
MannyGoldstein (21,416 posts)
18. The bipartisan war on Social Security continues
|
Another "crisis" based on cooked estimates.
The 1% want those trillions bad. Real bad. Wake up, DU. This Republican/Third Way bullshit needs to stop. |
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:05 PM
JoePhilly (15,971 posts)
22. I thought Obama killed Social Security 2 years ago.
|
Oh wait ... didn't happen.
But its absolutely, definitely gonna happen!!! I hear Obama is also going to take everyone's guns if he gets a second term. Yup ... not doing it in his first term is part of his secret evil plan. He'll kill SS and take everyone's guns in his second term. Yup. Definitely. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #22)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:23 PM
MannyGoldstein (21,416 posts)
26. I thought Obama killed the Bush tax cuts 2 years ago.
|
Oh wait ... didn't happen.
But its absolutely, definitely gonna happen!!! I hear Obama is also going to end job-obliterating "free" trade agreements if he gets a second term. Yup ... not doing it in his first term is part of his amazing chess game. He'll kill the Bush tax cuts and end job-obliterating "free" trade agreements in his second term. Yup. Definitely. |
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #26)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:29 PM
JoePhilly (15,971 posts)
28. The difference is, my post is ON TOPIC. Yours, not so much.
|
But thanks for playing.
You were predicting the death of SS under Obama ... he was going to gut, cut, slash ... yet it has not happened. But any time a fear mongering story on SS hits the media, like the one here .... BAM!! You are there to reinforce that nonsense. So stick with it ... you'll only have to put up with President Obama for about 4.75 more years. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #28)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:33 PM
MannyGoldstein (21,416 posts)
29. Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP
|
Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) Rep. Conyers: Obama Demanded Social Security Cuts--Not GOP
I've simply pointed out that Obama is working to slash Social Security and predicted that he'd openly call for it - and he has. I think that you're better than abetting politicians using fabricated projections to steal tens of thousands of dollars from from retirees and throwing millions into poverty. |
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #29)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:46 PM
JoePhilly (15,971 posts)
31. Except your first claim is false.
|
"Obama is working to slash Social Security".
Its BS. He gave the GOP some rope. And they've tried to hang themselves. They attacked SS under Bush, and they continue to do so. They won't stop after Obama wins a second term. And they won't stop after we get a new President in 2016. And so ... for the next few years ... you'll be here to remind us about how you think Obama is planning to kill SS, even as no such thing actually happens. Stick with it ... it works for you. |
Response to JoePhilly (Reply #31)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:55 PM
MannyGoldstein (21,416 posts)
32. So appointing the two biggest foes of Social Security to run a "deficit commision"
|
Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:56 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) was... what?
Calling for Social Security to be cut was... what? Using cooked projections to show that Social Security will become insolvent is... what? |
Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #32)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 11:36 AM
closeupready (19,438 posts)
41. Super secret maneuver!!!
|
|
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:20 PM
happyslug (10,746 posts)
24. Just able to pay 75% of expected beneifts is "Exhaustion"????
|
Last edited Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:21 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1) That is what the actual table indicate.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/lr4b3.html It sounds like what SSA will pay NOTHING, when all actual table say SSA will be only able to pay 75%. That is NOT exhaustion of the Social Security, just of the surplus that has been built up since Reagan. What is upsetting the GOP, is that at the present time the surplus is no longer becoming bigger, Social Security has to go to the Treasury and ask for the money the Treasury borrow under, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush jr and Obama. Social Security is no longer a cash cow, it is a drain on the Treasury. Part of the report that shows that the surplus is no longer getting bigger, but SS is costing the Treasury since 2009. http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/lr4b1.html The complete report if you want to research it: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2012/lrIndex.html |
Response to happyslug (Reply #24)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 10:03 PM
Igel (17,557 posts)
47. "Trust fund exhaustion."
|
That's precisely what the data in the table indicate.
It's also precisely what the article said. |
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 09:41 PM
grahamhgreen (9,786 posts)
30. We simply need to raise the cap on SS funding, and eliminate the Reagan tax cuts.
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Mon Apr 23, 2012, 10:26 PM
unkachuck (6,295 posts)
35. capitalists and their political stooges....
|
....are trying to force us to give our retirement security to the crooks and gamblers on wall-street so they steal it legally rather than have us pay taxes into a guaranteed government program that will actually deliver retirement benefits....
....it ain't gonna work, it wouldn't be prudent....if they think we're going to believe and go along with this bullshit they're sadly mistaken....there's going to be hell to pay if anyone, I mean anyone, touches Social Security or Medicare.... |
Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)
Tue Apr 24, 2012, 12:01 PM
4th law of robotics (6,801 posts)
43. Set a fixed amount for everyone
|
maybe a bit more than what half of recipients are getting currently to gain support.
Increase that amount yearly to cover inflation and some reasonable amount on top of that (1% a year? I dunno, something manageable). Also slowly work the retirement age downward to a better age. Set taxes on current workers to be whatever is necessary to cover last years expenses so it will never be insolvent (no cap on income, probably include capital gains and whatnot) and there won't be any vast reservoir of money laying around to be raided for other projects (tax and spend immediately). Might work, I don't know. Just spit-balling here. |

