Social Security is a fund that workers have paid into and not everyone lives to collect but it is

[nanabugg]

there for those who paid into it AND it has never defaulted on benefits unless I am wrong. On the other hand many, many people have paid into private pension funds other retirement accounts only to have it be destroyed by the corporate state (think ENRON). This should be one huge talking point for the Dems. Social Security is sound for the 30 years at least unless a GOP President and Congress find some way to destroy it. Each generation has a way of fixing the problems facing it so does anyone really believe that in 30 years s solution to retirement security won't be found if the government protect it? And the folks who think it's ok to vote for R/R don't realize that when they mess with Medicare it will eat into their "protected SS" faster than they think.

[msongs]

1. SS can also be a gouge that does not honor its agreement to pay up nt

[HiPointDem]

33. can you explain what you're talking about?

[customerserviceguy]

2. The payments the workers paid

went solely to current beneficiaries. The phrase in the title of your OP: "..paid into," implies that it is some kind of investment account, and that's absolutely not the case.

Think of it like term life insurance. If you took out successive ten-year term policies, and then after forty years, the company didn't wan't to insure you any more (or simply was unable to because of a very weak financial condition) it wouldn't make a tinker's damn worth of difference that you'd paid premiums for four decades, you didn't die during that time, so their obligation to you is finished. Your premiums went to pay benefits to the heirs of people who did die.

[FarCenter]

4. It doesn't even really work like insurance

For example, a spouse can collect on a former spouse's contribution record, even though they weren't married for long and both have since remarried.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Yes, it has all kinds of features

that real insurance would never have, that have allowed it to get to the dire situation it is that much faster.

Most of the really early SS retirees got many, many times back what they and their employers paid in taxes. Each generation it becomes a little less generous, until we have today, where most in the baby boom generation (who have paid collectively the most in FICA taxes) will be lucky to break even, even if they live beyond their current life expectancies, and the government manages to print enough money to pay them throughout.

Social Security was a far-thinkiing concept in the mid-30's, but it depended on the kind of perpetual growth that Americans thought was possible until about the 1970's. The baby bust after the baby boom doomed it to the condition we see it in today.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. You're entitled to your own opinions. You're not entitled to your own facts.

1) The SS trust fund consists of actual certificates, in an actual room, imprinted with the words "backed by the full faith and credit of the United States of America" totaling $2.7 trillion dollars. It isn't in trouble even if the government that owes workers that money is resistant to the idea of repaying it.
2) it's EXACTLY insurance. The observation that it's a novel form of insurance is immaterial. We pay premiums proportional to our income to purchase insurance that indemnifies us of the risk of inability to work.

It was a good idea then and it's a good idea today. Aside from reforming health care finance, the tweaks required are trivial.

[customerserviceguy]

45. And I have opinions about those certificates

As for your point #1, that promise to pay is only as good as the willingness of present and future US governments to do what is necessary to pay them backl. There are an awful lot of mortgages out there secured by homes that are worth far less than the face value of the underlying notes. Many of them are not going to be paid off if the borrower chooses to walk away from the debt. You have far more faith in those pieces of paper than I do.

As for #2, it's term insurance, not whole life insurance with a cash value. Every dime you or I, or anybody reading my words had taken out of our paychecks went to pay current beneficiaries. Not a single penny went into "an account" for us. It's gone, simply gone, and we are dependent on the prosperity and generousity of future generations if they feel like they still think it's a good deal. Romney and Ryan are going to do everything they can to convince undecided younger (and middle aged) voters that it's not a good deal. Polls show they have a head start:



From: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141449/six-workers-hold-no-hope-receiving-social-security.aspx

And that was two years ago, when the recession was still pretty young, and there was hope that we could pull out of it.

I agree that tweaks will be needed, but they will not be considered trivial by the people who get tweaked. We need for the President to tell us what his tweaks will be, so that we can compare them up to Romney-Ryan.

[Common Sense Party]

52. Mostly correct.

Every dime you or I, or anybody reading my words had taken out of our paychecks went to pay current beneficiaries.

That wasn't true until recently--last year, I believe. For most years since its sinception, SS FICA taxes coming in the door each year were MORE than sufficient to pay the current beneficiaries. The surplus was supposed to be in the mythical "trust fund," which politicians dipped into and spent on other government obligations each year.

Today, incoming FICA revenues are no longer sufficient to cover the outlays to beneficiaries each year, so the SSA has to dip into the trust fund (supposedly $2.75 Trillion karge) to make up the shortfall each year. By 2033 (but probably much sooner at this rate), the trust fund will be exhausted.

[HiPointDem]

34. it's not in a dire situation, & the wounds you describe have been inflicted by 1%-ers. we have

had continuous growth. the 1%, since the 70s, simply decided they wanted a bigger cut & a slower economy (which is the consequence of their bigger cut).

the baby bust did fuck-all. The difference between 1% growth and 2% growth has a bigger effect than the baby bust.

[customerserviceguy]

46. And some of those one-percenters

have been congresscritters, who decided to give away the store when there really was plenty of money in the system as the baby boom generation started contributing mightily to the trust funds.

They should ALWAYS have been invested strictly in negotiable government securities, not in the funny-money IOU's they're in now, that are redeemable at the pleasure of Congress.

[rgbecker]

27. 10 years of marriage isn't long?

[FarCenter]

28. No. 10 years is only about 1/4 of a working career

So the spousal benefits should be based on those years and whatever other years are worked by the divorced retiree or by their subsequent spouses.

(Admittedly, being married for 10 years might seem like a long time...)

[exboyfil]

56. Also I think S.S. takes the highest situation

It is not cumulative. For example you are married for four times at 10 years each and did not work. You would get paid the spousal benefit (1/2 of the earner's S.S. on the highest earner of the four). You are already entitled to a minimum of about $9K no matter what happens (assume U.S. citizen) through a combination of S.S. and SSI. You are not entitled to the spousal benefit until you reach 65 (62 reduced benefit). Of course having children when you are very old and dying can cause considerable payments over time for these children.

[FarCenter]

61. SS uses the entire work record of each ex-spouse and uses the one that computes the highest benefit

I think that the age for full spousal benefit has increased from 65, depending on year of birth. However, once you attain full eligibility, there is no further increase for delaying the spousal benefit, unlike the benefit on your own record, which increase 8% for each year until age 70.

[Scuba]

3. The Republicans would rather you just paid it directly to their owners...

... in the future. As for what's in the fund today: they want it.

[flamingdem]

5. Yes, they are drooling over it, plus it fits

their government in a bathtub drowing scenario so well.

The first move will be to push back benefits, I bet several accountants are working up the (fake) number today to sell the idea that if we don't do it... no one will get anything! fear fear

[sabrina 1]

6. They've been drooling over it for decades. Their greedy eyes see that huge fund

as cash they could be pouring into the Wall Street Gambling Casino. It kills them to see trillions being used for the purpose for which it was intended, the PEOPLE when they could be 'investing' all of it in their favorite Gambling Casino.

Democrats have protected it from their grubby little fingers for a long time, but Democrats seem to be weakening in their resolve. They need to find the strength to fend off the would-be Thieves and Gamblers and they can find that in the PEOPLE if they want to.

[customerserviceguy]

11. Don't know where you've been

but that "huge fund" as you put it, has already been borrowed. There's a few file cabinets in a Social Security administrative office full of IOU's (Bernie Sanders' term for them, in a speech he once gave) that are properly called "specialized Treasury securities" that represent money that the US Government owes to the system that has already been appropriated for tax cuts and military spending.

There are only three ways to redeem them:

1) Run budget surpluses that can be used to pay them off.
2) Borrow money on fully negotiable Treasury bills and notes (refi with China).
3) Run the printing presses, and have a series of QE events to pay them off with inflationary dollars.

Which one do you prefer?

[sabrina 1]

14. And we the people want that money put back where they borrowed it from.

They certainly have it don't they? But they don't want to pay it back. That's too bad. When you run up gambling debts with other people's money, someone is going to be coming after you.

I realize their stooges in Congress are trying to cover for them, but the people are not blind, we know what they are up to.

[customerserviceguy]

18. Yes, the people do indeed want it back

We agree on that. We just don't agree where we think it will come from.

I'm in favor of the budget surplus way of paying it back. The rich pay their fair share (like they did during the Clinton years) and we stop funding futile Asian wars that leave the places we fight just as backwards and uncivilized as they were before we went in, only with more corruption.

Of course, it will take near-supermajorities in both houses of Congress of truly progressive Democratic officeholders to accomplish this. That leaves borrowing from the Chinese and the printing press as the only ways out of this. The former raises interest rates, and the latter raises inflation (which also raises interest rates), so it seems that borrowing (as long as we can get away with doing it) is going to be the answer.

[HiPointDem]

35. omg, you're parroting bush's 'file cabinet with iou's' meme.

Last edited Mon Aug 13, 2012, 03:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Bush offered the filing cabinet as proof that "there is no trust fund — just IOUs."

Bush: "We take your payroll taxes, we pay out the benefits to current retirees, and with the money left over, we pay...for other programs. And there's nothing left but file cabinets with IOUs. And that's how it works."


not to mention the 'printing press' meme, and the 'there are only the choices *i* say there are' meme.

[customerserviceguy]

39. Ah, yes

If you can't actually answer a post with facts, try these words: Parroting, meme, and the ever popular "talking points".

Instead of nonanswers, what's yours? How do those IOU's get paid off?

[HiPointDem]

43. the way they always have & are currently. by redeeming the trust fund iou's. duh.

[customerserviceguy]

47. There have been a few accounting gimmicks

Like paying the interest, with funds borrowed on the open market. That trick is going to run dry as soon as interest rates get out of the trough they're in. Right now, we have the lowest interest rates for the longest time in modern history, and they cannot be sustained.

[HiPointDem]

53. SS Securities are *regularly & constantly* being redeemed, and that's been true since the program

began. Nothing's changed.

You don't understand it. You're just repeating crap you heard someone else say, because you have it fixed in your head that there's some huge problem so you believe anything that supports your idee fixee.

[me b zola]

55. Send people to prison

They stole our mother fucking money, send them to prison. Now, pay us what we are due. And STFU.

[customerserviceguy]

58. Who, dead congresscritters

who bought votes with those dollars? Or live ones, who are retired?

Bernie Madoff got sent off to prison, that didn't get anybody their money back. It's gone, simply gone.

[marlakay]

7. And I personally know of people who worked for companies

for many many years think 20-25 and got laid off with zero pension given to them….

They thought they had pension with the company and then boom gone with nothing….

[customerserviceguy]

12. How many people with a 401K

under their sole control that got nothing? Yes, I know there were people in the casino (aka the stock market) who lost a goodly chunk of it back in the various bubble bursts, but those who kept them in Treasury funds or money market funds didn't lose a dime.

Pensions are just a promise to pay you some money if the company is still alive and profitable, from the labors of people who come after you. How is that different from the Social Security pyramid scheme?

[dkf]

8. It may be there but the level of benefits and taxes can be changed at will by legislation.

Thus in the end the question is how much do workers have to pay and how much do beneficiaries get.

You are therefore at the mercy of lawmakers.

Look at all the benefits that have been promised to Europeans and see what happens to people who had complete faith they would be taken care of. Not having your own resources leaves you completely vulnerable to decisions made by others. I think people who think they can depend on government largesse are too trusting. But that is me.

[customerserviceguy]

13. A lot of younger folks see things your way

They are ripe for the pickings for Paul Ryan. We have to come up with a better way to show them why they will have something in the future, and part of that might be allowing them to save something on their own.

For the last two years, I've taken my extra 2% from the payroll tax "holiday" and stuffed it into my 401K, which is invested 100% in money market funds. No, it's not getting squat for a return, but either my kids or I will get to eventually have it when I'm retired or dead.

All we've got to show the next couple of generations is, "Trust us, it will be there," when they see the whole thing hurtling off the cliff, and the news will just get worse with each year. Every year, the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund tell us that the date at which full benefits can be paid two has receded by two years. That's three years for every one that passes. A 25 year old can do the math on that really quickly, even without a calculator.

[HiPointDem]

37. they see things her way because they've been propagandized by ryan-bots for 30 years. you're

losing value to inflation in money market funds.


"Every year, the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund tell us that the date at which full benefits can be paid two has receded by two years."

this is completely false, did you just make it up?

Date of expected trust fund exhaustion under the intermediate assumptions, per SS Trustees' reports for each year:

1991: 2041
1992: 2036
1993: 2036
1994: 2029
1995: 2031
1996: 2029
1997: 2029
1998: 2032
1999: 2034
2000: 2037
2001: 2038
2002: 2041
2003: 2042
2004: 2042
2005: 2041
2006: 2040
2007: 2041
2008: 2041
2009: 2037
2010: 2037
2011: 2036
2012: 2033

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/index.html

This year's report dropped the expected date of trust fund exhaustion (intermediate forecast, there are two others as well, one more optimistic & one more pessimistic) basically because of the continuing shitty economy.

If the economy was better next year, it affects the assumptions which affect the forecast -- just as the forecasts of the early clinton years were low (lower than this year's) because of the impact of the clinton recession on the assumptions.

At any rate, your claim that every year the forecast drops two years is utter bullshit.

And the variance in the Trustees' predictions should give you a clue that those forecasts aren't set in stone, and are dependent on current economic conditions and the assumptions the trustees choose to use in making their forecasts.

[customerserviceguy]

38. Ok, if you go all the way back to 1991

I've been talking about just recently, ever since the start of the Great Recession, when good paying jobs have evaporated, and the first waves of baby boomers hit the system with requests for early retirement.

I doubt that a young person who's 25 right now cares what the health of the system looked like when he/she was in kindergarten. Doesn't that drop from 2041 to 2033 mean anything at all to you? And I think those numbers are optimistic, it's very, very difficult to predict financial things even five years out.

It's clear that the trend has dramatically shifted, not only do young Americans feel it, a lot of middle-aged ones do, too:


From: http://www.gallup.com/poll/141449/six-workers-hold-no-hope-receiving-social-security.aspx

[HiPointDem]

44. Let me repeat what you claimed:

"Every year, the Trustees of the Social Security Trust Fund tell us that the date at which full benefits can be paid two has receded by two years."

Yet if you look at the list of dates the Trustees have forecast the TF will be exhausted, there is no such sequence of "every year".

1991: 2041
1992: 2036
1993: 2036
1994: 2029
1995: 2031
1996: 2029
1997: 2029
1998: 2032
1999: 2034
2000: 2037
2001: 2038
2002: 2041
2003: 2042
2004: 2042
2005: 2041
2006: 2040
2007: 2041
2008: 2041
2009: 2037
2010: 2037
2011: 2036
2012: 2033

And the fact that the same thing happened in the Clinton recession should give you a hint at how stupid such grandiose claims based on this one statistic are.

No, the drop from 2041 doesn't mean any more to me than the drop from 2041 to 2029 did between 1991 and 1994. Or the jump from 2029 in 1997 to 2041 in 2002.

Because I know how the numbers are calculated, the kinds of (often dubious) assumptions it's based on, I know that there are three sets of forecasts & this intermediate forecast is only one (& not the most historically accurate one), & I know why they started putting out this report in this fashion in the first place (political fuel for the move to privatize SS).

I don't mean to be rude, but it's clear from what you write that you haven't looked beyond the hyped-up news flashes designed to push americans into agreeing that "something must be done, we must make sacrifices".

bullshit. the banks got bailout money created out of thin air, but according to you to repay SS we must borrow from china.

bullshit, a million times bullshit.

[customerserviceguy]

48. Yes, I should have said

"every year for the last few years". Busted. Does that make you feel any better about what younger people will think of your chart?

[HiPointDem]

51. that isn't true either, so i don't know why you keep insisting that it is. it's not *my* chart,

it's the social security trustees' chart. you know, the source for all the numbers about social security, which apparently you don't pay any attention to since the numbers in your head please you more.

like i said, you don't know squat about SS. And the fact that you not only refuse to admit your error, but also keep insisting on its truth, speaks volumes.

[customerserviceguy]

59. Your chart, their chart, what's the difference?

The fact remains that younger people and most middle-aged people in this country believe they have a better chance of winning the lottery than getting a Social Security check someday. It will be that belief that Romney-Ryan will work on as they seek to divide and conquer.

They have a plan. It's an evil plan, but it's something. You can't fight something with nothing. All the President has to show for his efforts is the Simpson-Bowles commission, and there's no reason to believe that a second term for him would produce anything different, since he doesn't have to worry about being re-elected.

All I'm asking is for Barack Obama to come up with some solid economic plans for saving Social Security, Medicare, getting us through the expirations of the doc fix and UC, and how we're going to deal with the fiscal cliff. I guarantee you that when the time is right, Romney-Ryan will launch specific proposals for each thing. We won't like them, we need the President to counter with his own plans that we will like better.

[sabrina 1]

16. And if we let the Global Cartels do to us what they did to Europe, we will

end up in the same boat. They certainly have been working on it here and have done quite a bit of damage.

Europe was fine until the Global Wall Street Gamblers moved in and imposed, through the puppets they helped install in several Governments, their disastrous policies. And are still shoving them, failed as they are, down the throats of the people over there.

However the winds of change are blowing in Europe and hopefully they can restore, as France is now doing and Iceland before them, the kind of system they had before which was for the People, not Wall Street Bankers.

Glad you brought it up, it makes it all the more imperative to fight them over here before it's too late.

[dkf]

30. When no one wants to lend to you and you have promised more than you make you have no options.

[kestrel91316]

9. It is INSURANCE. We all pay premiums based on our income, and most of us

live to collect the dividends.

It's not welfare, as the fascists would have us believe.

[DURHAM D]

15. JFTR - you don't have to pay into SS to collect it.

Non-working spouses receive SS even though they never paid in a dime. At retirement age they get 1/2 the amount of what their working spouse receives. So, a one income family becomes a two income family at retirement.

[sabrina 1]

17. That's fantastic. Looking out for the working people and recognizing that their

spouses contributed to their contributions. If only we had enlightened politicians today who were capable of thinking like that.

[DURHAM D]

19. I find absolutely nothing to celebrate in a policy

weighted unfairly toward marriage.

[sabrina 1]

20. I find anything that looks out for the working class as it is so rare in this society today,

to be admirable. I'm way more concerned about the huge flow of our tax dollars into the coffers of the top 400 wealthiest Americans. The pittance given to the 'little people' is not a concern for me as it barely registers on the scale of where our tax dollars go. Should be more, if you ask me.

[DURHAM D]

21. In the "working class" today both spouses are working -

thus paying into the fund and deserving of the benefits. The current policy benefits the upper middle class and upper class.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. There are plenty of families where only one spouse works outside the home

And many of them are living paycheck to paycheck, i.e., the working class. If one parent is staying home to raise the kids and take care of the homefront while the other parent is working at a job, damned right the stay at home parent should get some SS from that. That stay at home parent is contributing just as much, though differently, to the family as the working parent.

[DURHAM D]

25. A very small percentage of working class families in this day and time

will end up with a spouse who never works outside the home. The current policy benefits upper income couples.

And an even bigger bias with this old pro-marriage policy is that gay people can't marry.

[exboyfil]

57. I agree that gay couples should be able to marry and gain

spousal S.S. benefits. That is really the only legitimate argument against gay marriage, and fairness dictates they should have the same rights.

As far as upper income people look at the funding formula for S.S. Those making $50-105K are carrying the system on their backs. Even with spousal benefits the payback is low.

The 1/2 share only goes so long as one spouse survives. Also most high income individuals also will have a portion of their S.S. taxed.

I happen to think their is a societal advantage to having one parent stay home with the children. The S.S. spousal 1/2 share are those individual's retirement.

[dkf]

31. This is a middle/lower income tax, not an upper income tax.

It's designed to mostly pay back what you put in except married or even divorced non-working spouses get extra.

[trof]

22. I'd like to see the stats on early deaths.

There must be millions(?) who have paid in for years and die before retirement age with no dependents.
It's a crap shoot.

[FarCenter]

29. Men die sooner than women

On the other hand, women make less than men, so maybe their lower benefits make it a wash.

The relatively few quarters of earnings needed for full benefits make benefits received only a weak function of amount paid in.

[customerserviceguy]

40. African-Americans die sooner than whites

At some point, I expect Paul Ryan to bring that up. It won't influence any black vote, but it might sway some independents.

[dsteve01]

26. So, does that mean

that Republicans want to see starving old people in the streets?

Sounds like it. Because as soon as the retirement fund would go up in smoke, I, for one, would love to see Mittens come out and be like, "That's the free market, baby, YEAH!"

That would be a funny day. Funny day, indeed.

We all know Romney wouldn't give a flying (chicken butt).

[cbrer]

32. One simple piece of legislation

Will keep SS solvent for the next 80 years. Raise the income cutoff at which you pay the SS tax.

[HiPointDem]

36. reading the responses to this thread, being anti-SS seems to be becoming a democratic value.

[customerserviceguy]

41. It's not anti Social Security

to want a real solution to the problem the system genuinely faces. I'd like to see our side come up with an actual counterproposal to put before the voters.

Maybe you prefer the approach the President took during his first term, which is to just shove the problem off to a committee to study and report back on, with many of the same things as the Ryan plan.

[HiPointDem]

42. actually i've studied it in great detail, & yeah, i prefer the president let a committee study it

indefinitely.

as you reported false information in another post, i don't think you have read the trustees reports.

[customerserviceguy]

49. So, that's the fantasy

We will have endless Cat Food Commissions, whose recommendations are never taken, and things will go along merrily just because they always have.

Demographics will eventually catch up to that head-in-the-sand attitude really soon. The baby boom will keep hitting the beaches of Social Security in ever bigger waves until 2024, and there will still be another seven years of boomers right behind them. And most of the pre-1957 boomers will still be alive during that time.

Unless the kind of jobs that fed the system from the 1960's through the end of the millenium come back, there will be no effective way to deal with the onslaught.

[HiPointDem]

50. you haven't even copped to your earlier error. so far as i'm concerned, the error & the refusal to

admit it = you don't know what you're talking about.

as you demonstrate in this post as well, since even if the trust fund goes bust in 2033 SS will still be paying out 77% of scheduled benefits, per the trustees' forecasts -- which in real terms will be more than recipients make today (since adjustments are built into the future funding formula).

should this scenario come to pass, the adjustments needed to correct it are quite minor, nothing so draconian as uncapping fica or increasing the retirement age -- let alone privatizing accounts, which would be a disaster.

the baby boom & bust is built into the forecasts already. you act like it is some unforseen development and *you're* sounding the alarm.

you don't know anything about social security, its financing or the forecasts the numbers are based on.

[NNN0LHI]

60. Being anti-SS became a democratic value about the exact time being anti-union did

It all started about the same time Reagan became president.

Don

[HiPointDem]

62. +1

[RebelOne]

63. I am definitely not anti-SS because I am collecting it now.

I was laid off my job on 2010. I was already collecting SS and working full time. I really miss that paycheck. If is wasn't for SS, I would be eating cat food now.q

[bhikkhu]

54. Beware Gordon Gekko

...who in current RW political guise looks at government like a company you don't even have to buy - people elect you to run it! And the Social Security is the biggest fattest pension fund around to be shut down and liquidated. Imagine the profits if we all had to pay into privately managed funds on the stock market instead!