General Discussion

TheWraith

(24,331 posts)

35. By that definition, there is no such thing as solvency for Social Security.

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:25 PM

Dec 2011

Because there will ALWAYS be future debts arising as long as more people are being born. Is there a potential point on the horizon when the Social Security Trust Fund runs out of money? Yes. And before that happens, we need to deal with the problem, most likely by raising the cap on payroll taxes. As far as the bonds being paid out, the treasury is constantly issuing new bonds as old ones roll over.

Plus, this doesn't have to be done right now--we've got a number of years before the SSTF is going to be needing more than a small fragment of it's bonds, and it certainly won't be all at once. Even if you're talking about cashing in the entire SSTF over just 10 years, that's $260 billion a year, a VERY manageable amount. That's time enough to bring the economy back, which instantly improves the inflow to the SSTF, as well as improving general tax revenues for the general government. Remember the projected budget surpluses in 2000? Get the economy going like that again and watch the problem go away.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Let's try this again: No, Social Security is NOT insolvent. [View all] TheWraith Dec 2011 OP

It would have been helpful if the President hadn't idiotically made deficit hysteria.. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #1

Count on DU to have someone try to turn anything into a smear on Obama. TheWraith Dec 2011 #3

it only took one post for a lame anti-obama smear to show up. ahh.. DU... dionysus Dec 2011 #10

Who would trust the administration to protect Social Security at this point? girl gone mad Dec 2011 #20

Yes, the meme of the imaginary Social Security cuts returns. TheWraith Dec 2011 #25

What you've written is outside of my point. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #27

No one has argued that? There have been DOZENS of assertions of that just on DU. TheWraith Dec 2011 #36

... elleng Dec 2011 #5

k&r rhett o rick Dec 2011 #2

Thank you. It really irked me that every Republican presidential candidate said "we all know ... Scuba Dec 2011 #4

For being so relatively simple, a LOT of people don't understand it. TheWraith Dec 2011 #11

you are correct. Plus, where some of this meme came from was when FICA revenues fell short of wiggs Dec 2011 #6

Good fact PATRICK Dec 2011 #8

Bingo. Going into red ink is the entire point of the Trust Fund. TheWraith Dec 2011 #9

Thanks, Wraith! elleng Dec 2011 #7

Glad I could help your mood. :) nt TheWraith Dec 2011 #12

Where is the money kept for the trust fund? Snake Alchemist Dec 2011 #13

Well, THAT should stop Republican demagoguery and fear-mongering on the subject gratuitous Dec 2011 #14

There is no "shorter full benefits horizon." TheWraith Dec 2011 #15

Define "insolvent" econoclast Dec 2011 #16

Spot on analysis exboyfil Dec 2011 #18

Nice..... sendero Dec 2011 #19

Our reserve currency status is not very important in the scheme of things. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #22

I disagree.. sendero Dec 2011 #33

The US doesn't borrow. girl gone mad Dec 2011 #21

By that definition, there is no such thing as solvency for Social Security. TheWraith Dec 2011 #35

Some Investment lacrew Dec 2011 #17

Try fact-checking yourself. You just come off as knowing nothing. TheWraith Dec 2011 #26

EXACTLY!!! It pure GOP bull shit JUST like the GOP under the Bush administration put the USPS Justice wanted Dec 2011 #23

Two words: unified budget joshcryer Dec 2011 #24

At some point government income is going to have to exceed government expenditures.. Fumesucker Dec 2011 #28

Investing the social security trust fund in government securities was a stupid move Taitertots Dec 2011 #29

Your plan has to assume that income taxes on the rich could have been raised instead muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #31

Why couldn't they increase the tax rate for the rich? Taitertots Dec 2011 #32

Perhaps it should muriel_volestrangler Dec 2011 #34

I don't buy into the counter productive framing imposed on the situation Taitertots Dec 2011 #38

Sorry, but that's a big load of Republican talking points. TheWraith Dec 2011 #37

The money was taken from the workers to support huge tax decreases on the wealthy Taitertots Dec 2011 #39

Yes, it's got a trust fund Yo_Mama Dec 2011 #30