General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(105,456 posts)

179. Yes, I do disagree with what you said - it's incorrect

Thu Oct 24, 2013, 12:04 PM

Oct 2013

As I said, the amount that politicians 'borrow' from Social Security is not affected by government decisions on things like wars or other expenditure from the general fund. The Social Security fund has not been affected by the spending Bush did on war in Iraq. It has not been affected by his tax cuts.

"Who other than you has said with respect to the funds to be paid out: "It has not 'disappeared' in any sense ..."?"

Everyone who understands Social Security.

"Didn't one of our candidates want to put the Social Security funds in a "lock box"?"

They are in a 'lock box'.

"Do you, like the poster that you mentioned, view this as a "blue team vs red team" type of thing? "

I cannot see anyone in this thread who has talked about a "blue team vs red team" type of thing. I mentioned PoliticAverse, who pointed out the $6.5 trillion figure was far different from what the Daily Kos writer thought it was. Who are you talking about?

"If the DC politicians are wearing the right color jerseys, can they spend an apparent endless amount of money on war and military-related activities without having any effect whatsoever on their paying Social Security benefits? "

Any politician can spend on war without affecting the Social Security benefits. What they would affect is the deficit, and the future interest payments to Treasury bond-holders. This isn't about a side - it's about understanding how Social Security is funded, and how the general federal fund, from which things like wars are paid for, is funded.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

195 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

As it is the plan is to cut social security benefits by 25% when the trust funds are spent. [View all] dkf Oct 2013 OP

So you're for the CPI? trumad Oct 2013 #1

My personal calculations don't rely on social security. dkf Oct 2013 #9

Are you for a 25% cut in 20 years? Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #61

so you're for chain CPI as well. trumad Oct 2013 #63

No, Im not. Are you for a 25% cut in 20 years? Do you think that is an idea that should be Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #66

See post 62. trumad Oct 2013 #68

I hear the website for SS has been a little buggy. BluegrassStateBlues Oct 2013 #2

opinion or fact? link spanone Oct 2013 #3

Wow. You still haven't internalized these basic numbers? dkf Oct 2013 #27

While SS is actuarially sound for the next 10-15 years Swede Atlanta Oct 2013 #4

NO, that's not the only possible choice. Dammit. grasswire Oct 2013 #16

No means testing makes SS a welfare program. Vincardog Oct 2013 #54

Are student loans welfare? demwing Oct 2013 #78

Unemployment insurance is not means tested in any State I know of. Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #87

There is no means test for Unemployment Insurance nor do I believe that anyone is denied Student Vincardog Oct 2013 #190

1. Unemployment benefits require I search for work demwing Oct 2013 #191

I agree. It is foolish to just say SS is OK, or there are simple fixes. Hoyt Oct 2013 #20

The cap has been raised more than once before, the last time in the late 80s-early 90s period brush Oct 2013 #33

The Congressional Budget Office for one thing. Hoyt Oct 2013 #35

Raising the cap means . . . brush Oct 2013 #37

Raising the cap means everything above roughly $105k, gets hit with a new 6% FICA tax. Hoyt Oct 2013 #44

Still no need to cut SS brush Oct 2013 #50

Like what, food stamps, jobs, unemployment benefits, education, etc. We could cut military, but Hoyt Oct 2013 #51

How about the obvious brush Oct 2013 #91

I just said that above. But, again, that will cost lots of jobs, and the thugs will want retribution Hoyt Oct 2013 #98

I keep seeing Unemployment benefits linked with entitlements DeadEyeDyck Oct 2013 #137

And it runs out on most people in today's economy. Hoyt Oct 2013 #140

Boo hoo, by the way, for the 105K club having to pay the same FICA tax on more of Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #88

You aren't getting it. SS is only one place where we need tax revenues. Hoyt Oct 2013 #89

It's not an either-or choice. Raise taxes on the wealthy - all taxes, not just SS, leveymg Oct 2013 #131

What does boo hoo mean brush Oct 2013 #92

I think he is for it, as am I. But make no mistake, it does not solve the problem. Hoyt Oct 2013 #96

You think you can find a Democratic candidate who will support a 6% tax increase for SS, and Hoyt Oct 2013 #95

ELIMINATE THE CAP!! Bobcat Oct 2013 #132

"SS is actuarially sound for the next 10-15 years" only if the politicians don't borrow more from it AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #32

Excellent point. And that should be on the table too, to prevent if from ever happening again. Hoyt Oct 2013 #36

Um, no. jeff47 Oct 2013 #72

"When individuals pay SS payroll taxes, the money goes into the General Fund of the Treasury with AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #75

Exactly. It is gone, and no use crying about it. Hoyt Oct 2013 #100

It really doesn't work that way. ucrdem Oct 2013 #105

The value of those bonds would pay today's SS benefits for about 3 years. Hoyt Oct 2013 #108

If that was true, we would have no national debt. jeff47 Oct 2013 #113

They didn't borrow trillions in FICA taxes in excess of the amount of the trust funds. PoliticAverse Oct 2013 #107

Really? You're going to quote Republicans on how Social Security works? jeff47 Oct 2013 #112

Dailykos is not a Republican-run website. In fact, it is critical of the GOP. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #116

Read your own damn quote. jeff47 Oct 2013 #119

Read the entire thing in context, or not. AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #122

I am. You're trying to blame Republicans for something that doesn't make any sense jeff47 Oct 2013 #126

Daily Kos is wrong. The $6.5 trillion is what the fund would need to fund 75 years of payments muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #146

"default on the US debt"? It doesn't have to go that far. For those of us who have paid into SS AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #177

Yes, I do disagree with what you said - it's incorrect muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #179

86 billion dollars per year over 75 years is needed to sustain Social Security? CreekDog Oct 2013 #192

$6.5 trillion is the extra amount that would be needed to be paid into the trust fund now muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #193

but that doesn't make any sense, why would you need it now? CreekDog Oct 2013 #194

It's a standard way to measure money muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #195

The bonds are barely enough to cover benefits for 3 years - not much of a trust fund. Hoyt Oct 2013 #121

Because 0 taxes are being paid. jeff47 Oct 2013 #123

Actually, I'm not desperate to destroy it, just the opposite. Hoyt Oct 2013 #127

Facts like the 1% GDP growth you are projecting? jeff47 Oct 2013 #128

First do you have a cite for the 1%. Second, even at 2%, a few years of recession will bring the Hoyt Oct 2013 #133

It's in the trustee's report that also has the shortfall. jeff47 Oct 2013 #135

The "low" assumption in Trustee's Report is over 2%. Hoyt Oct 2013 #138

Great Point Bobcat Oct 2013 #134

I think it would be foolish to expect the US to keep up the growth it achieved in the last 100 years muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #147

Growth isn't zero-sum jeff47 Oct 2013 #156

Lift the cap. The solution is easy, unless you're not a Democrat. eom leveymg Oct 2013 #130

Is anyone under 45 actually including SS as a material part of their retirement plans? Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #5

All the better, Wall Street thanks you. When they get their hands closeupready Oct 2013 #8

No idea how this applies to what I said Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #10

Well, try thinking - it helps. closeupready Oct 2013 #25

Thinking...you should try it first little guy Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #45

So who are you now - Yoda? closeupready Oct 2013 #109

You were done before you started. Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #160

So yesterday. Wow. closeupready Oct 2013 #182

Your 'prudent thinking' is 'I think I will be rich, so no-one under 45 should assume SS will exist'? muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #148

You can shorten it to that Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #158

What you said, in reply #5 muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #176

Let me help you think through this... Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #178

" Planning for a full SS benefit in its current form 20+ years from now is not prudent. " muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #180

With merely 800+ posts, he's a right-wing disruptor, IMO. closeupready Oct 2013 #183

I'm right wing? Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #187

It is prudent for everyone Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #186

How can something impossible for some people be prudent for them? muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #188

Your conclusion is a huge leap Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #189

Agreed, on all points. n/t AnotherMcIntosh Oct 2013 #181

I agree 100%. I'm not. dkf Oct 2013 #12

Solidarity! Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #13

With who ... Republicans? No. closeupready Oct 2013 #184

Yes, the working poor, and millions of other Americans. ProSense Oct 2013 #23

Yes, my entire life is based on "luck" Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #47

Right, ProSense Oct 2013 #67

Who suggested SS get cut? Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #161

You still had luck. jeff47 Oct 2013 #70

It also ignores that people have lost their life savings due to ProSense Oct 2013 #76

It will be "broke" as in it will have used all surplus funds. dkf Oct 2013 #77

And that prediction is based on GDP growth of 1%. jeff47 Oct 2013 #111

Are you sure about that 1% figure? muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #149

The older reports from the Bush years used 1% GDP jeff47 Oct 2013 #172

This is not "luck" Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #164

That wasn't an exhaustive list. jeff47 Oct 2013 #165

I don't need an exhaustive list from you as I've seen the character of your data points Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #166

Yet your point is there was no luck involved in your financial life. jeff47 Oct 2013 #170

You're hopeless Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #171

Not at all. jeff47 Oct 2013 #173

Straw man and still wrong Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #174

The pressure will be off just us Oct 2013 #46

I keep hearing on DU that SS should never be cut at all, in any circumstances. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #64

I'm 46. It isn't part of my retirement plan. Throd Oct 2013 #102

the majority of people with a 401(k) have less than $100,000 in it so I would say a lot of people liberal_at_heart Oct 2013 #106

That's fine Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #162

you're not a bad person, just lucky. Not everyone is as fortunate which is why we have to make sure liberal_at_heart Oct 2013 #185

Where did you get that figure? brush Oct 2013 #6

I've read the same thing Bunnahabhain Oct 2013 #14

A wholesale revolt would produce even larger cuts, and austerity. Not very smart. Hoyt Oct 2013 #124

Even the IMF has finally come out against austerity because it didn't work . . . brush Oct 2013 #136

A revolt you'd support dang sure wouldn't improve things here. Hoyt Oct 2013 #139

There are times in life you have to take a stand . . . brush Oct 2013 #141

I earned them too, and need them, but sometimes you gotta accept realities. Hoyt Oct 2013 #142

My realities are different than yours. Chan790 Oct 2013 #155

Yeah, what is your point? cui bono Oct 2013 #7

So someone propose it. I'm just trying to lay out the options as proposed. dkf Oct 2013 #15

Someone has proposed it, Blue_In_AK Oct 2013 #29

Belief that the trajectory of the economy is frozen is wrong HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #11

The borrowed money is being used. That is the trust fund. dkf Oct 2013 #18

Yes, I don't object to that. But it also must be repaid. HereSince1628 Oct 2013 #30

Not exactly. ucrdem Oct 2013 #17

I guess, if you assume the economy will improve dramatically. I'm not that optimistic. Hoyt Oct 2013 #26

It's a highly pessimistic projection. ucrdem Oct 2013 #40

Not pessimistic enough, IMO. Disability Fund, "having a little trouble." That's understatement too. Hoyt Oct 2013 #42

The portion of the payroll tax supporting disability should be broken-out separately ... dawg Oct 2013 #48

Still only solves only a portion of problem, not to mention Hoyt Oct 2013 #49

The prediction is based on 1% GDP growth. The average for the last 100 years is closer to 3%. jeff47 Oct 2013 #71

Where does it state that the prediciton is on 1% growth? grantcart Oct 2013 #83

In the details of the report everyone is citing. jeff47 Oct 2013 #110

Just as I thought you have no clue what you are talking about. grantcart Oct 2013 #143

I like how you point to a report that disagrees with your earlier statements jeff47 Oct 2013 #157

I quote the SSA's trustee report which is in absolute agreement grantcart Oct 2013 #175

Probably you are correct because the Trust Fund was created to finance the Baby Boomer retirement Samantha Oct 2013 #58

Good point. ucrdem Oct 2013 #86

So our only two options are chained CPI or a 25% cut? Scaremongering bullshit. n/t winter is coming Oct 2013 #19

Exactly! Scaremonger bullshit. brush Oct 2013 #21

Yes, it is scaremongering. randome Oct 2013 #22

Yes, the cap should be ended, coverage expanded, retirement age lowered. closeupready Oct 2013 #28

Where would funds come from for that? If you tax upper 5% at 100%, it wouldn't cover that. Hoyt Oct 2013 #31

Wow....so much wrong. jeff47 Oct 2013 #59

Do you really think our economy is going to react like historical averages? We aren't going back Hoyt Oct 2013 #93

You being pessimistic is not an economic model. jeff47 Oct 2013 #118

cutting the military budget WILL do something for social security. madrchsod Oct 2013 #115

They have different funding streams. jeff47 Oct 2013 #120

But you have to ask: Is it better than Canadian-style single payer? ProSense Oct 2013 #24

I see we've entered the "It's Only Sensible" stage. Marr Oct 2013 #34

I see we've entered the "What other people think" stage Kolesar Oct 2013 #41

Well, no -- Chained-CPI would cut most retiree's benefits by about 5.5% Kolesar Oct 2013 #38

So, in summary, we should accept the hair cut now on the off chance we might have to have Warren Stupidity Oct 2013 #39

Those long-term trust fund forecasts have proven frightfully inaccurate ... dawg Oct 2013 #43

Yeah during the Reagan years the changes were supposed to suffice for 80 years. dkf Oct 2013 #79

Or ... the current estimates might be overstating the problem. dawg Oct 2013 #168

You are aware that SS was a pay as you go system for the first 50 or so years and the OVERPAYMENTS Vincardog Oct 2013 #52

What you've just written pretty much covers our end of the debate. pa28 Oct 2013 #53

Too damned true. Notice the crickets form the "moderates"? Vincardog Oct 2013 #55

Pay as you go works especially fine when you've got a lot more workers than recipients. dkf Oct 2013 #80

agree..... madrchsod Oct 2013 #125

"INCREASE the numbers of jobs and wages of those jobs" - well, that would be nice muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #150

They've been predicting Social Security will run out of money in 20 years jeff47 Oct 2013 #56

Actually Republican opponents of the plan said Social Security would run out of money Bluenorthwest Oct 2013 #90

The answer is to eliminate the cap. Not raise it, eliminate it. nt stevenleser Oct 2013 #57

Some people seem to think a 25% cut is just dandy, if it comes in 20 years. Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #60

see post 62..thats where I stand. trumad Oct 2013 #65

I was referring to the wording of a prior OP where that was tossed in as an afterthought like Warren DeMontague Oct 2013 #69

I have a radical idea dsc Oct 2013 #62

You've got a fundamental error in your post. jeff47 Oct 2013 #73

use the funds to pay the benefits dsc Oct 2013 #74

Can't. jeff47 Oct 2013 #114

so? dsc Oct 2013 #144

I think the suggestion is to pass a law allowing general fund spending to pay some SS benefits muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #151

I'm nervous about 2016 and SSDI madville Oct 2013 #81

You got it. Democrat politicians who stick their head in the sand aren't doing us favors. dkf Oct 2013 #82

"Democrat politicians" ProSense Oct 2013 #84

"Democrat" politicians, huh? Marr Oct 2013 #117

By 2031, not 2023 - p.54 of the CBO 2013 Long-Term Budget Outlook muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #152

Bullshit. 99Forever Oct 2013 #85

The cut would be only 5.5% @age 70, It is not a 25% cut. Kolesar Oct 2013 #94

No...when the surplus trust funds are spent the payroll taxes are expected to cover only 75% dkf Oct 2013 #97

You don't understand Chained CPI Kolesar Oct 2013 #99

I'm not asserting any calculation on chained CPI. dkf Oct 2013 #101

You mentioned chained CPI in the first sentence of your post, Kolesar Oct 2013 #103

Asian female in Hawaii...my odds are good. dkf Oct 2013 #104

I'm jealous. dawg Oct 2013 #169

Why are people so resistant to just raising the cap? LongTomH Oct 2013 #129

and if republicans would stop spending social security B Calm Oct 2013 #145

That is pretty damned mystifying. nt Codeine Oct 2013 #163

Here's a CBO estimate of the median taxes and benefits for different ages muriel_volestrangler Oct 2013 #153

Solve the problem when Democrats regain control in the House. MrsKirkley Oct 2013 #154

Your trust fund will be just fine Capt. Obvious Oct 2013 #159

Chained CPI won't avoid that Yo_Mama Oct 2013 #167