Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member


(32,324 posts)
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:12 PM Dec 2012

A very decent discussion of Social Security over at DailyKos

I was surprised to find out, by reading among the comments, that those who are saying there is a massive crisis ahead for Social Security are not taking into account the interest the Fund is supposedly receiving annually! (I myself have no idea how much interest that Fund should be getting.)

And one other thing that struck me - the "experts" are now, of course, using the fact that revenue to Social Security is down (Due of course, to the middle class "payroll deduction cuts" that Obama has branded as our middle class "tax cut) and how that all figures into the hoopla of how much trouble the fund is in. And revenue is also down due to the fact that the job market is offering only one new job for every three people seeking work - and often that job doesn't pay anything!

Read it for yourself and see if you don't learn something:


A very decent discussion of Social Security over at DailyKos (Original Post) truedelphi Dec 2012 OP
Good post ..thanks! Vietnameravet Dec 2012 #1
I saw this part and disagreed. Let's do it before the GOP does it?? madfloridian Dec 2012 #2
I totally get what you are saying and stand with you truedelphi Dec 2012 #11
Soc Sec Trust Fund, FAQ's - pinto Dec 2012 #3
Look, Newt was speaker and my representative. I daa Dec 2012 #4
Quite agree. Cut the Crap and raise the CAp. truedelphi Dec 2012 #10
SS has three sources of income. We have discussed this here many times before sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #5
1% administrative overhead: The problem, the SSA sets a good example and makes the capitalists byeya Dec 2012 #6
+1 freshwest Dec 2012 #7
You are right, byeya. JDPriestly Dec 2012 #8
Great point. nt woo me with science Dec 2012 #9


(88,117 posts)
2. I saw this part and disagreed. Let's do it before the GOP does it??
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:31 PM
Dec 2012

"This is where Realpolitik rears its brutal, ugly head. Forget about Social Security being left alone; that is just not going to happen. So given that and the fact that we have no guarantee Dems will remain in power four years out, it really is best to fix Social Security now instead of possibly leaving it to some future GOP administration. The best we can hope for is waiting until 2014 to see if we take back the House, but again; that's taking the gamble that we hold the Senate as well.

And so we are left with what we can get past the GOP House and Senate delegations. That is why Chained CPI is part of the discussion now; it's about the only SS fix that could actually happen in the current political climate. It could easily be structured to supplement incomes for those over 80, for whom medical expenses do nothing but rise with time, and the poorest of the elderly. "

Pardon my expression, but baloney.

I would that under Lesson #3 or maybe just file it under the lazy way out.

"Lesson Number Three: Obfuscate, Obfuscate, Obfuscate. Tell reporters that you are not at all in favor of cutting benefits, but that there is a tiny, little technical change, the "chained CPI," which will result in a more accurate COLA. Don't go into a lot of detail about how it would shave off of everyone's COLA about 0.3 percentage points a year. Just tell them that it has to do with "substitution effects across categories." If that doesn't put them to sleep, tell them there are a lot of economic advisors who say it is a great idea. Oh yes, do not mention the the 300 economists and other social insurance experts who recently wrote that there simply is not an "empirical basis for reducing the Social Security COLA." Or many others who say, that it is more likely that the current COLA adjustments, just 1.7 percent for 2013, understate the impact of inflation on because the health care expenditures of seniors and people with disabilities have been rising at a substantially greater rate than inflation."



(32,324 posts)
11. I totally get what you are saying and stand with you
Mon Dec 24, 2012, 04:07 AM
Dec 2012

On every objection.

On the one hand, we have "experts" that tell us the future is such a bumpy ride that many people currently among our population might be underwater, earthquaked or volcanoed out of existence, plus additionally "experts" worry that some contagion might do us all in, and the fact that the Monsanto crappola seed and crops could lead to famine in short order, yet on the other hand, we are supposed to worry about a system that is not in dire straights until 2041.

Seems rather silly to add to the numbers of people who won't be able to survive, by cutting back on the monies they need to buy groceries or to pay for their medial needs.


(106,886 posts)
3. Soc Sec Trust Fund, FAQ's -
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:33 PM
Dec 2012
Trust Fund Data

Frequently Asked Questions about the Social Security Trust Funds

1.What are the Social Security Trust Funds?

2.How are the trust funds invested?

3.What interest rate do the trust funds' assets earn?

4.What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?

5.If all the income is invested, how do benefits get paid each month?

6.What were the amounts of securities bought and sold during recent years?

7.Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism?

8.Can the Social Security Trust Funds remain solvent without making changes to the program?

9.Were the assets of the Social Security Trust Funds depleted in the past?



(2,621 posts)
4. Look, Newt was speaker and my representative. I
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 05:56 PM
Dec 2012

went to a town hall and he said they fixed social security. Don't worry about social security, worry about the cost of Medicare. I never heard of social security cuts until Obama brought it up 2 years in a row and Madame ex-speaker now agrees. I don't. They want to CUT social security. If they were serious they would scrap the cap and for Medicare, negotiate drug rices like the VA. Even chimpy gave up real quick on his privatize social security scheme. Now Obama and Pelosi are am wanting to head the cat food commission. I did not support candidates that want to do that and did not vote for that!


(32,324 posts)
10. Quite agree. Cut the Crap and raise the CAp.
Mon Dec 24, 2012, 03:58 AM
Dec 2012

Problem solved.

And it is not at all unfair - the chances are, the more affluent you are, the more likely you will live to receive your Social Security.

And al;ready some 11% of us Baby Boomers are raising up daisies. For the most part, when you die in your later forties or fifties, your Social Security payments stay in the Fund. (Unless you have a surviving spouse.

sabrina 1

(62,325 posts)
5. SS has three sources of income. We have discussed this here many times before
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:00 PM
Dec 2012

It is one of the most efficient fiscal programs ever and anyone stating that it is 'in trouble', 'out of funds' or that the money borrowed 'won't be paid back', is a right wing liar. There is not other way to say it.

SS has had a surplus throughout the last several years even with a high unemployment rate, even when there was a shortfall in the SS tax, because of the Interest on the Bonds it holds and because the Fed Govt has never not paid that interest to its creditors. WE are creditors of the US Govt.

It is an absolute shame that there are any Dems who would try to push the scare mongering all of which is lies, that we only expect from the Right Wing in this country.



(2,842 posts)
6. 1% administrative overhead: The problem, the SSA sets a good example and makes the capitalists
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 06:11 PM
Dec 2012

look bad. I think that's part of the reason they want to do the dirty on SS.


(57,936 posts)
8. You are right, byeya.
Sun Dec 23, 2012, 10:17 PM
Dec 2012

It is embarrassing to Wall Street.

Social Security deposits money in my bank account every month.

My 401(K) granted it is not that large, does nothing of the kind. Interest is less than 1% right now. Wall Street can't get it up. The US government can. And that's what this is all about.

As we age, Wall Street wants to take more and more of our money.

The US government returns our money with a little interest and an increase to match inflation.

Wall Street should get out of the business of managing retirement money. Wall Street should be for investment for those who can afford to take risks. It isn't safe for the rest of us, especially not after the crash of 2008.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»A very decent discussion ...