HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » So-Called Social Security...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 04:52 PM

So-Called Social Security ‘Crisis’ Solved With Facts

So-Called Social Security ‘Crisis’ Solved With Facts

February 6th, 2013 3:08 pm
Jason Sattler

If you’ve been following the debate over a so-called “grand bargain” to cut the long-term deficit, you may have been surprised to hear Social Security mentioned by both the GOP and the president, as if the program is part of what Republicans call our “spending problem.” It isn’t.

“Under the law Social Security is not supposed to be part of the budget,” writes Dean Baker, an economist and the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. “It is an entirely separate program financed on its own.”

And as a self-funded program, it has sufficient funds to pay full benefits until 2033. After that, it is funded to pay 75 percent of obligated benefits.


Raising (actually eliminating it according to the referenced study) the cap on taxed income over 10 years is the single most popular proposal to help fund the program fully for the foreseeable future. This option is far more popular than raising the retirement age to 67, another option that has been discussed in the “grand bargain.”

read more...

http://www.nationalmemo.com/so-called-socia-security-crisis-solved-with-facts/

12 replies, 1522 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 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply So-Called Social Security ‘Crisis’ Solved With Facts (Original post)
flpoljunkie Feb 2013 OP
forestpath Feb 2013 #1
flpoljunkie Feb 2013 #2
forestpath Feb 2013 #4
obama2terms Feb 2013 #3
jinx1 Feb 2013 #5
Thor_MN Feb 2013 #6
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #8
flpoljunkie Feb 2013 #9
av8r1998 Feb 2013 #10
flpoljunkie Feb 2013 #11
SharonAnn Feb 2013 #12
LineNew Reply .
blkmusclmachine Feb 2013 #7

Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:34 PM

1. President Obama isn't concerned about facts...he cares about "balance." You know, the kind of

 

"balance" where an 80-year old in a cold room saves up to buy a can of beans while a rich CEO can buy all the gourmet food he wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 05:44 PM

2. The president has not considered raising the Social Security eligibility age.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:49 PM

4. I didn't say he did. But he does want to make sure that the older SS recipients get, the

 

less SS they will get, which is indefensible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 06:37 PM

3. So far

Obama hasn't touched Social Security, he put on the table during the fiscal cliff dealings but that wasn't part of the final deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:26 PM

5. So last term

The president was willing to lead them to the water, let them see themselves and them watch them walk away as fast as possible. This term he won't even take them to the water, he is done with their disturbing means of negotiation. For that reason he is not interested in negotiating with them when they get "STUPID"!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:36 PM

6. "raising the retirement age to 67"?

For people my age, and anyone younger, it already is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 08:02 PM

8. Don't raise the retirement age...

 

Or maybe raise the retirement age?
I don't know.

I do know that when the program was conceived of, life expectancy was much shorter than it is now.

Social Security will need to change. That could mean a lot of things but as life expectancy goes up and retirement age doesn't, the next generation gets deeper and deeper in the hole to their parents.
That's not a sustainable path, by any math.

It will require more revenue, better planning, or a smaller obligation.

That's just simple math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to av8r1998 (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:28 AM

9. Raising the retirement age to 70 would reduce monthly benefits by 21% for future retirees

Raising the retirement age to 70 would reduce monthly benefits by 21% for future retirees. It would reduce Social Security's 75 year financing gap by 25%. This compares unfavorably to eliminating the earnings cap over 10 years--which reduces the shortfall by 71% over 75 years.

http://www.nasi.org/sites/default/files/research/What_Do_Americans_Want.pdf (p. 13)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 8, 2013, 09:42 AM

10. ??? ^^^

 

In aggregate or by individual?
Not sure I understand, please clarify

And is this based on current life expectancy? Or a calculation of rising life expectancy?
Inflation adjusted, in real dollars, or absolute dollars?
Or ... maybe that's all in the link that I can't read on my phone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 09:06 AM

11. You're right. The suggestion has been to raise full retirement age to 68 or 70.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thor_MN (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 25, 2013, 10:37 AM

12. It already is 67! It's Medicare that is still age 65 for eligibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flpoljunkie (Original post)

Thu Feb 7, 2013, 07:42 PM

7. .

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread