It is a lie that Social Security is underfunded. A total lie.

[MannyGoldstein]

The projection that the Trustees (led by Timmy Geithner) use to show that the Trust Fund would be empty in 2037 assumes ongoing average GDP growth of 2.1% per year. This is absurd. GDP growth averaged 3.2% over the past 50 years, and averaged 3.1% in the decade prior to the financial crash. For reference, GDP growth this year will be about 2.5%, and it's a suck-fest of a year - do you really think we should expect even lower growth for the next 75 years? That's nuts.

Another projection by Timmy's commission, the so-called "low-cost scenario", posits a 2.9% annual GDP growth - still significantly lower than what's historically accurate. This projection finds zero shortfall over the next 75 years. Zero shortfall. The Trust Fund will never run out under historically-reasonable conditions. Funny that Timmy and company aren't publicizing the more realistic results, no?

Don't believe me? Go read http://www.ssa.gov/oact/tr/2010/index.html">the Trustee's report yourself.

The attack on Social Security is a shameful, bald-faced attack on America's most vulnerable, based on a pile of utter lies. It stinks to high Heaven, and must be stopped. And the attackers and their enablers must be seen for scoundrels that they are, and they must be held accountable.

[DJ13]

1. the attackers and their enablers must be seen for scoundrels that they are

If Obama ends up being one of the scoundrels, what do we do?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Obama's already lying to beat the band

He continues to repeat the fringe-right lie that Social Security was originally created by FDR for widows and orphans, not for retirees. That is an absolute falsehood used to claim that we're doing things with Social Security that were never intended, and that we need to make adjustments to bring it back into line.

Shame!

[DJ13]

5. I have never regretted a vote more than my vote for Obama

:banghead:

[Sherman A1]

29. Agreed & Well Said

Allow me to pound my head with you. :banghead:

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[angrychair]

33. People that make statements like this

amaze me. I can only believe they are made out of an un-informed opinion. Do you really mean that? You would rather have had the alternative? You would have preferred the McCain/Palin ticket in the WH instead of the current president? Don't give me the "insert random progressive name here" would have/could have run nonsense. Because that didn't happen. the "I won't vote" speech either. To what end? to allow a rethug into the WH anyway. Inaction is still an action and one that works against the interest you claim to hold so dear. The current president is as progressive as any president in modern times. You may disagree with him on certain points and you have that right and you may even work to change his mind about policies you disagree with but your statement and the reality of the alternatives make is seem disingenuous and self-defeating.

[DJ13]

39. You would have preferred the McCain/Palin ticket in the WH (?)

No, I mean I wish I had voted for anyone else in the primary.

I refused to vote for Hillary because I was afraid she would follow Bill's example and sound liberal while actively pursuing the DLC conservative agenda.

But I failed to note the PTB had both bases covered by having an unannounced DLC'er (Obama) as the only real alternative to Hillary.

As far as McCain goes, as I have watched politics closely since I started voting in 1976 I have seen that in recent decades no matter how they talk GOP Presidents (outside of Bush jr, but he was influenced by Cheney) never follow through on enacting the most conservative of GOP policies.

But the last two Democrats (Bill, Obama) have been on the forefront of pushing the conservative wish list.

Ending Welfare, financial deregulation, failing to reenact financial regulations after another 1929 style meltdown, giving China MFN status that opened the floodgates to outsourcing, promoting corporate insurance as a pseudo national healthcare system, and now even the last vestige of the Democratic party's New Deal....Social Security.... long in the crosshairs of radical conservatives since the late 1930's is being threatened under our current Democratic President.

I certainly didnt trust McCain (or Palin the Idiot), but I doubt we would have much more conservatism in the WH than we have now had he become President.

[Martin Eden]

76. Nice Post.

I also started voting in 1976 (couldn't resist casting that first one for '68 anti-war hero Gene McCarthy) and I agree with many of your observations.

I couldn't vote for Hillary or Biden in the 2008 primary because I absolutely refused to vote for anyone who voted for the Iraqi War Resolution in October 2002 that gave Dim Son the authority to invade Iraq.

I didn't expect Obama to live up to the lofty expectations, but I really am taken aback and bitterly disappointed by his betrayals on the economic front.

[lark]

57. Wrong, wrong and more wrong

Obama is not progressive, he is an under-cover Repug thru and thru. Cutting social security is the Repug wet dream and Obama is enabling that - certainly the furtherest thing possible for a real Dem. McCain couldn't have done this, that's why the corporate masters didn't support him and instead supported and enabled Obama who has done their bidding every single step of the way.

[Sherman A1]

72. Pardon me if my comments seem to upset you

However, I would remind you and those who share your opinion. It is MY Vote and belongs to no one, but me. I am an informed voter and the vote is MINE to do with as I believe to be best.

You may believe that the current president is as progressive as any in modern times, that is your opinion. My opinion differs in that 20 or so years ago I believe he would have been a member of the other party.

I am not happy with what I have seen in this administration ,yet fully I understand your point that he is indeed better than McCain/Palin

I am not pleased at all with the performance of those elected to represent my interests, therefore I will likely choose another course in 2012, because I believe that to be best.

That is how this democracy thing works as I understand.

[Exilednight]

75. As progressive as a any president in modern times? Maybe you should take a history lesson.

Off the top of my head, LBJ and Jimmy Carter both rank higher than Obama. I will also point out that bot had more of their legislative agenda passed and signed into law than any other (Democrat or Republican) president of modern times (LBJ is ranked 1 and Carter is ranked 2).

And some point, Obama needs to take a stand on principal and hold Republicans accountable. Progressives had hoped it would be the Public Option, but that didn't happen. Then we hoped it would be on Gitmo, but that didn't happen. Then we hoped it would be on tax breaks for the rich, but that didn't happen.

After-all, this was the nominee that during his announcement speech stated that it was okay to compromise, as long as you didn't compromise your principals, but yet that is all this president has done. One compromised principal after another.

[Sherman A1]

102. Precisely

You have stated my thoughts as well rather elegantly!:toast:

[proud2BlibKansan]

92. Richard Nixon was more progressive than Obama

[BlueJac]

59. I hear that, me too!

[defendandprotect]

84. +1000% .... Q is, now that we know, where do we go from here ... more of the same?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

34. Obama is right!!! The program WAS created for widowers and the disabled.

It was extended later to include "old-age" pensions and other benefits. But initially did not include the elderly!

Here:

Civil War Pensions: America's First "Social Security" Program

Although Social Security did not really arrive in America until 1935, there was one important precursor, that offered something we could recognize as a social security program, to one special segment of the American population. Following the Civil War, there were hundreds of thousands of widows and orphans, and hundreds of thousands of disabled veterans. In fact, immediately following the Civil War a much higher proportion of the population was disabled or survivors of deceased breadwinners than at any time in America's history. This led to the development of a generous pension program, with interesting similarities to later developments in Social Security. (The first national pension program for soldiers was actually passed in early 1776, prior even to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Throughout America's ante-bellum period pensions of limited types were paid to veterans of America's various wars. But it was with the creation of Civil War pensions that a full-fledged pension system developed in America for the first time.)

The Civil War Pension program began shortly after the start of the War, with the first legislation in 1862 providing for benefits linked to disabilities "incurred as a direct consequence of . . .military duty." Widows and orphans could receive pensions equal in amount to that which would have been payable to their deceased solider if he had been disabled. In 1890 the link with service-connected disability was broken, and any disabled Civil War veteran qualified for benefits. In 1906, old-age was made a sufficient qualification for benefits. So that by 1910, Civil War veterans and their survivors enjoyed a program of disability, survivors and old-age benefits similar in some ways to the later Social Security programs. By 1910, over 90% of the remaining Civil War veterans were receiving benefits under this program, although they constituted barely .6% of the total U.S. population of that era. Civil War pensions were also an asset that attracted young wives to elderly veterans whose pensions they could inherit as the widow of a war veteran. Indeed, there were still surviving widows of Civil War veterans receiving Civil War pensions as late as 1999!

http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

[MannyGoldstein]

40. And the Magna Carta was America's first Constitution?

As we discussed on another thread, the Civil War Pension program was a prototype - but Obama specifically referred to FDR's Social Security, and that was primarily aimed at retirees - there was nothing in it about widows and orphans.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. I responded to your other post. n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

42. I know - this was for the benefit of readers of this thread. nt

[DeadEyeDyck]

77. the issue is not GDP growth

the issue is the ratio to receiving payment and those making payment.

[RandomThoughts]

6. The same with any other scoundral.

Much sorrow and sadness. Although I don't think he is a scoundrel, but how would I know.

And if he was not, and I thought he was not, how hard would it be for a few postings to try to get me to think he was. And then if I thought he was, how hard would it be for a few posts to get me to think the opposite.

Why I try to think on concepts and ideas, and not attach them to people. If you comment on a person someone just posts something out of perspective, untrue, or that you were unaware about the person. The only intent is to reverse what you think.

Think how tough it is to make decisions with multiple layers that information goes through, so doubt many people have the full set of information anyways.


But my point is this, no matter who you 'support' it is really easy for someone to post something to get you to think that was a bad idea to support them, a form of creating hopeless or despair by the concept of trying to get what you support to seem to be against you. Supporting an ideal, makes it much harder for them to trick you.

So you don't support a politician, you support an ideal, then anyone that sees that ideal in their actions knows you support them.


Besides there are a variety of possibilities of ranges of censorship or misinformation. Everything from people thinking everything is a joke so making up stories, to the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are on intelligence and private sector pr firms payroll. Then there is CGI, and other forms of manipulation.

So really, that is why to support ideals, and from that people that have the same ideals will get support regardless of filters.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. And shame on those who are unrec-ing this without a rebuttal

If you deny without evidence, you are enabling a crime.

[Enthusiast]

25. I agree....nt

[sabrina 1]

51. Rec'd

It's interesting that if Bush had appointed the exact same Commission with the barely hidden goal of attacking SS, this board would not have a single post apologizing for or trying to diminish the ramifications of what is going on.

What I have learned mostly since Democrats won a majority in Congress and the WH, that what I thought were Democratic principles widely held, were, for some people, simply political positions taken against the opposing party.

The other thing I have learned is that those really in charge understand this and when a Republican, like Bush, fails to achieve their agenda on say, SS, because of huge opposition from the Left, they simply give the job to a Democrat.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[defendandprotect]

91. kick

[JuniperLea]

105. How do you know there was no rebuttal?

Seems there's plenty here.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

111. because it makes them sound more righteous most likely(and it seems a common ploy to get recs) n/t

[Autumn]

4. K/R

:kick:

[whosinpower]

7. The problem is that no one wants to lend you money anymore

To fund the MIC.

It has already begun. China, Russia and a host of others have already begun their own deals regarding trade...oil trade....in their own respective currencies.

What does this have to do with Social Security? It means, in a nutshell, that you will have to pay your own way to maintain the 800 military bases....and that means one of two things. Either, pull the bases and go home.....or defund Social Security to pay for your military.

Interesting read over at Daily Kos regarding this -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/12/27/122057/98

snip - JAY: Well--but you don't hear that in the United States very--I mean, you hear it from very few people saying, let's get rid of 800-plus military bases 'cause they're boat anchors.

HUDSON: The reason you don't is, in the past, all of the money that the military spent abroad would be spent on foreign economies, and then they'd siphon up into the central banks. And the central banks would have nothing to do with these dollars but to keep their currency stable by recycling the dollars into US Treasury bills. If it weren't for the military deficit, America would have had to finance its own domestic budget deficit. It's been foreigners that are financing the budget deficit. Now that foreigners are essentially saying, we don't want any more dollars, we're not going to fund your deficit, all of a sudden they think: who's going to fund the deficit if not foreign central banks? The answer is: American labor, the American middle class and working families are going to fund it, not the military.

I agree with you that Social Security is not underfunded....but if you were the president, and you had to choose.....Military....or social security....and knowing full well that a vast majority of your export is military related.....which side of the coin are you going favour?

[Little Star]

52. Social Security is not part of the deficit so.....

there is no side of the coin to favor. Maybe he could try finding something that actually causes a deficit to fool around with.

[whosinpower]

66. 2 percent from the general fund

That was the Obama gambit.....the payroll tax holiday is paid for out of the general fund....

[boppers]

100. Social Security is part of the debt. By Law.

It's a crime to misrepresent it.

[demosincebirth]

8. Its hard to make teabaggers believe it is solvent.

[Frisbee]

58. Hell, you can't make 'em believe Obama isn't...

a foreign born Muslim terrorist. What CAN you make them believe if they don't want to? Seems facts have little to do with their belief system.

[pa28]

9. I never realized the 2037 report was a worst case scenario.

There's no reason to do anything with SS even under the 2037 numbers. The system works as it is, we need to act in defense of our party's historic anchor instead of giving credence to RW talking points and buying into the false memes Republicans have been promoting for years.

I'm telling you; when somebody on DU uses words and phrases like "entitlement", "unfunded liability", "actual debt", "worthless IOU's" or "Ponzi-Scheme" Frank Luntz kills a kitten.

[customerserviceguy]

10. Do you honestly think we can maintain the growth rates

that we've seen for the past fifty years? All with no resumption in American manufacturing, and restrictions on growth that have been necessitated by concern for the environment?

The simple fact that more is going out than is coming in is more than enough for me to think that Social Security is on the skids. When you add to that the fact that the first Baby Boomers to retire on full SS benefits starts NEXT FREAKING WEEK, with about nineteen years of them yet to come, it's a full-on disaster in the making.

I have few illusions that I'm going to be able to collect, and I'm 55.

[MannyGoldstein]

12. First off, if you think the next 75 years will be worse than this year

why would you stay in the US? This will be an awful place.

Second, nothing that's happening is significantly different than what Social Security has been planning for years. The numbers are not significantly different than what's been planned for. If you don't get Social Security, it's only because it's been stolen from you.

[lark]

64. agree and disagree

Put it this way, why would anyone want to stay in the US that is arrogant, cold hearted and steals the money from the working class to give to the richest? Theoretically, yes, we should either leave or fight and most do neither. For my family, I have an 86 year old widowed mother who is no longer in great health, who strongly depends on me and my immediate family and who would never go with us. There's no way I could leave her here by herself, it would be totally cruel.

Do I hate it here, hate the government sponsored injustice and theivery and want to leave so badly - hell yes! My husband and I are constantly looking and reviewing places to move when mom's no longer with us. My daughter's pursuing job opportunities in France, once she graduates, and we are looking into moving there as well if she is able to esablish residence there.

I'm sure quite a few of us have family or other obligations that keep us in place, whether we approve of our government practices or hate them.

[elocs]

11. The problem with "Go read the Trustee's report yourself"

is that the average person is unlikely to make heads or tails out of all of the information.

[MannyGoldstein]

14. Then read the Cliff Notes here:

by an excellent economist:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20090521_buchanan.html">The 2009 Social Security Trustees' Report: Good News Behind the Headlines

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/buchanan/20100401.html">Social Security Scare-Mongering and Trust Between Generations: There is No Crisis, Either Short-Term or Long-Term

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/buchanan/20100812.html">More Good News on Social Security: Reality Collides With Calls to "Fix" the System Sooner Rather than Later

[PoliticAverse]

24. This guy understands the basic issues better than most of the economists writing about SS.

Since he does understand that Social Security is involved in government surpluses and deficits:

(from the middle linked article):

...
"Social Security's surpluses served to reduce the total indebtedness of the federal government below what it would otherwise have been."
...
"When 2016 comes, therefore, and we start to draw down the Social Security trust funds, what we will really be doing is adding to the overall borrowing by the federal government."

One poster here on DU put the reason for the current social security 'reform' discussion best:
"they've already raided this cookie jar -- they're fighting to not have to put the cookies back"

[ieoeja]

31. Given that SSA holds the bonds, how would they do that?

There isn't a special SSA bond. They are the same bonds traded on the open market today. So the only way we can avoid paying back Social Security is if we default on all Treasury Bonds. Which puts the entire gov't into bankruptcy.

And given that our debt ratio is much, much less than most of the developed world, and much, much less that it was 80 years ago, it would be irresponsible and downright insane to put the United States into bankruptcy.

Unless, of course, you could enrich yourself by doing so. 80 years ago, for instance, we cranked up taxes to a 90+% highest rate. So if you are a multi-billionaire, it would not necessarily be insane from your perspective. Still irresponsible, but not insane.

Personally, I think we should worry about 300+ million Americans and not so much about a few hundred multi-billionaires who have the ability to take care of themselves. I'm fairly certain I could take perfectly good care of myself with a mere single billion.

[PoliticAverse]

32. They are different.

There is in fact a "special SSA bond". They call them "Special-issue securities".
They may only be held by the trust fund and may not be sold to the general public:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/specialissues.html
The trust fund in the past held regular Treasury bonds but they don't at the present
time, only the "special-issues".

They don't have to default on the special-issues to not pay them, they just have to
reduce social security benefits or raise taxes so the bonds never have to be redeemed.

Based on what happened with the recent (non) expiration of the "Bush tax cuts" can you
see taxes being raised on higher income individuals?

[ieoeja]

37. Wasn't aware they had changed that.

And we complain that the pols never take the long view. They have obviously been planning this theft for a long time now.

Outright, fucking theft. And almost half of all Americas will go along with having their money stolen as long as it is stolen by "their side".

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Both backed by "the full faith and credit" of the US government

If one goes bust, so does the other.

[ieoeja]

50. I have to disagree with you (and my original surmise) there.

I can think of no reason for SSI to have a special issue into which nobody else can invest, unless they wanted to guarantee that defaulting on that investment would not affect anything else.

For that reason, I doubt the financial world would lower the country's credit rating if they defaulted on the special issue. A credit rating is basically how the banks view the likelihood of the country stealing from the banks. I don't see this affecting that likelihood one bit.

Heck, the banks would probably INCREASE our credit rating for stealing from the old, poor and weak! "Good job, United States. Just what we would have done in your place."


The theft has already taken place. We are now fighting to get our money back. The problem is convincing the people that our money has been stolen. While they are fighting to convince them it was never there in the first place. And, as usual, they have the bigger megaphone.

[MannyGoldstein]

82. That's pretty scary

I hope you're wrong, but I wouldn't bet against you!

[TacticalPeek]

95. I have to disagree with you. Your original surmise was stronger than you may know for two reasons:

How Are the Trust Funds Invested?


The Social Security trust funds are invested entirely in U.S. Treasury securities. Like the Treasury bills, notes, and bonds purchased by private investors around the world, the Treasury securities that the trust funds hold are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. The U.S. government has never defaulted on its obligations, and investors consider U.S. government securities to be one of the world’s safest investments.

The Treasury securities held by the trust funds have some special features that make them even more attractive investments than other Treasury securities. First, the trust funds’ investments do not fluctuate in value and can always be redeemed at par. Even if the securities must be redeemed early, Social Security is guaranteed not to lose money on its investment. Second, all of the securities purchased by the trust funds — even short-term securities that will mature in one or two years — earn interest at the same rate as medium- and long-term Treasury securities (those not due or callable for at least four years).

By the end of 2009, the trust funds had accumulated over $2.5 trillion worth of Treasury securities, earning an average interest rate of 4.9 percent during that year. The annual report of Social Security’s board of trustees lists the specific securities owned by the trust funds, their maturities, and interest rates. The trustees project that the trust funds will earn $118 billion in interest income in 2010.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3299

I invite anyone in the investor class to try to show how that is not a sweet deal for the trust fund.

[applegrove]

13. The USA is a mature economy. It will not see the growth rates it saw in the 20th century.

Just and fyi.

[MannyGoldstein]

15. Were we brash and immature 1997-2007?

3.1% average GDP during that period.

2.1% is horrible.

[applegrove]

17. There will be peak oil. The price of commodities will rise. There will be inflation. And

there is very little left in the USA to be exploited (except for alternative energy). Whereas in india and china there are huge groups of poor people who can go through growth and get jobs and increase growth that way. So the growth in China, India and Brazil will be huge. The baby boomers in the USA will retire and that will help inprove employment so the USA will be at full employment (for jobs that can't be outsourced like nursing or health care aides..and not much will be outsourced because of the cost of transportation needing oil). Growth will not be so high in the USA. In the 20th century the USA didn't have to compete with the soviet bloc or europe rebuilding after two huge wars or backwards asia and africa. Now it does have to compete with all these places. Growth will be less.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Such pessimism!

I believe we can continue to do great things, and to grow at a reasonable pace - but only if Democratic principles prevail.

Do you realize that Germany is the second-largest net exporter in the world? Their GDP growth is expected to be 3.7% this year! Is their economy not mature?

[applegrove]

21. They have been integrating east germany for 20 years and they have huge immigration.

But yeah - the german economy does hold out hope for those of us in the West.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. according to tallibi (matt) commodities will rise even absent

an actual scarcity as our plutocracy-grifters have re-enabled commodity speculation on a scale not possible (in this country) since 1936.

[grahamhgreen]

65. It will if we become the leader in renewable energy.

[bluerum]

16. Even if there is a shortfall - we can sell a couple battleships and fund it for another 100 years.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. we don't have any battleships

at least not active ones.

[CrawlingChaos]

19. K&R

[jaxx]

22. I've read plenty from attackers and enablers on here, some today.

Nice to see you call them wrong.

[eridani]

23. For the debunking of another huge helping of conservative bullshit, see--

http://www.truth-out.org/joshua-holland-were-being-conned-social-security62974

According to Bruce Bartlett, in an incredibly typical scare-piece in billionaire granny-basher Pete Peterson’s Fiscal Times, that’s not true. Social Security’s problems are immense. “The 2009 report of Social Security’s trustees,” Bartlett writes, “showed a long-term actuarial deficit in that program of $15 trillion.” That is an almost unimaginably large number, given that the entire annual output of the United States was only $14 trillion last year.

But what does it really mean? Well, it turns out that Bartlett’s not even referring to the dubious 75-year projection of the Social Security “gap.” His terrifyingly big figure actually represents the program’s “shortfall” stretching out to infinity. That’s right-- it’s the program’s “unfunded liability” if everything remains as projected forever, and assuming the earth isn’t destroyed by a moon-sized meteor at some point before forever arrives. (The geeks at the American Academy of Actuaries have suggested that the “infinite horizon” measure is complete nonsense.)

According to the 2010 Social Security Trustees’ report, the 75-year gap is estimated to be $5.4 trillion -- still a big number. But there’s another way to express it: it equals just 0.7 percent of our projected economic output over that same period. That’s less than one penny on the dollar

[Enthusiast]

26. The problem is

the media doesn't do debunking of conservative bullshit. They foster it, every single day. This is where the anti-New Deal zealot's power lies. There is not a single dissenting voice heard on TV.

[BlueJac]

61. No kidding, you are right.

[Frisbee]

63. Is that because...

A: they're lazy
B: they just can't understand it (they're stupid)
C: they're carrying water for Right-Wing Corporate America
D: some combination of all of the above

my guess is D.

[Lorien]

70. "There is not a single dissenting voice heard on TV." Yet no one here will ever seriously discuss

the need to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

[MannyGoldstein]

86. I'll discuss it - we should bring it back

It's as simple as that.

[Enthusiast]

98. I'm all in favor of a new fairness doctrine. nt

[vssmith]

27. Also see this important data

As of 2009 the SSA has collected $2.5 trillion more than it has paid out.
In 2009 it collected $807,490,000,000 and paid out $685,801,000,000

The info can be found at: http://www.ssa.gov/history/tftable.html

Please note that the data in this table are in millions

[MannyGoldstein]

30. And the Trust Fund will go to $3.5 trillion over the next decade!

The lies put out by the slashers are incredible.

[Radical Activist]

35. Then it's also a lie that cutting the payroll tax cut is a threat to social security.

Social Security is still stable despite the fact that a regressive tax that punishes the poor was cut.
It will be interesting to see how you react when two anti-Obama talking points collide.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[former9thward]

43. Your economic forecasts are far too optimistic.

2009-2030 growth is expected to be about 2.3% http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx?articleid=1797046964&country=United%20States%20of%20America&gclid=CPLhiufEj6YCFcTb4AodTirFmw

[MannyGoldstein]

44. So growth will suddenly drop by a third?

Site is password protected.

If growth moving forward is lower than it even is today, we are doomed. Note that lower growth has been predicted for decades, and it has never come to pass.

[former9thward]

45. I don't know how it is password protected. I don't have any password.

But to answer your question, yes I think growth will drop dramatically from what it has been in the post WW II period. After WW II we were the kings of the world and our economy was the beneficiary. Now the emerging markets are eating our lunch. All sorts of countries now have the infrastructure, materials and workforce to do the things that we used to do. We just don't have the capabilities for the same rate of growth.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Germany's looking at 3.7% growth in 2010

We can do it too, and should.

I get a member login page when I click on your link.

[Statistical]

54. But nobody in Germany is foolish enough to think they can sustain >3% over next 75 years.

The low hanging fruit is gone. There will be productivity increases but 3%+ real GDP growth (adjusted for inflation) on mature economy for almost a century is insane. 3.5% growth compounded over 75 years is 917%. Do you honestly think a worker 75 years from now will be able to produce (in goods & servies) 10x as much as a worker today in the same amount of time. Really? Barring some super breakthrough like nanotechnology, limitless nearly free energy, or mind-machine interface that isn't going to happen.

GDP growth rates have and will continue to slowly decline. And lower years and recessions (negative growth rates) will bring down the average. Germany might even achieve 3.5% average over the next decade, but the decade after that might only be 3.2%, and the decade after that 2.9%, and the decade after that 2.6% and the decade after that a huge recession with -1.2%, etc.

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Yes, I do

"Do you honestly think a worker 75 years from now will be able to produce (in goods & servies) 10x as much as a worker today in the same amount of time."

Why not? Last time I checked technical progress was an exponential, not an S curve. Do you have reason to believe that the future is bleak?

[Statistical]

97. No sustainable growth is exponential.

If so given enough time a single person would have more productivity than entire world GDP.

Growth rates slow. The most mature nations have plucked the easiest and lowest hanging fruit.

Give a peasant in China some powertools and you may see significant productivity gain. To get the same gain (in % terms) in an industrialized nation gets harder and harder and harder.

No growth will continue exponentially.

[boppers]

101. People don't live 200 years.

Machines can, and do.

Are you familiar with Moore's law? We're in a doubling cycle every 18 *months*.

We already have machines crunching the problem of how to make other machines more efficient.

"No growth will continue exponentially."

That's about as accurate as saying "No person could ever have access to every book ever recorded".

The very concept seems absurd.... about 40 years ago.

Human manual labor productivity is not exponential, of course. We have made things that can evolve faster than us.

[Statistical]

103. Still aggregate output is a combination of

productivity
input costs

while you may see a faster growth in productivity (maybe even 3% in developed world) you won't see input costs fall, they may even rise. Maybe you can be more efficient in material use (less material in a car because of better design) but that component puts a drag on overall GDP growth. GDP will continue to grow but rising input costs will make REAL (inflation adjusted) GDP growth above 3% impossible.

Also lets take Moore law. Today a CPU has roughly 1 million times the computing power compared to one in 1970. Very impressive. However that hasn't translated into a 100,000,000% increase in productivity. Yes it has aided in productivity growth and a receptionist (just as an example) running modern software is far more productive maybe even 200% as productive as one in 1960s. Still the output productivity gains are a tiny fraction of overall CPU power increase.

No sustainable growth continues exponentially. Even Moore law (technically Moore's law deals with doubling of transistors on chip) will hit a brickwall in 2016-2020. We have kept up w/ Moore's law by shrinking gate size from roughly 3000nm to 32nm. We will move to 28nm, and then 20nm in the latter half of this decade. Silicon atoms are roughly 8nm across so the ability to make gates beyond 20nm is highly unlikely. So even Moore's law (classic example of exponential growth) will eventually come to and end. That isn't to say CPU won't get faster. Better designs, and multiple CPU, and faster subsystems will improve computers for decades to come but that we won't see that exponential growth from 1970-2020 again.

[MannyGoldstein]

104. Your Moore's Law example helps prove my point

Moore's law has been "just about to hit a brick wall" for at least 25 years. There's always a really good theoretical reason why it will happen, but it doesn't. You'd have gone broke betting against it.

And Moore's law is only one thing that makes up increasing productivity. Any one item may falter, but the odds of a whole lot of things faltering at once is pretty low.

Excelsior!

[ItNerd4life]

46. And if you are wrong? Oops, too bad, no money for seniors.

You always should plan for the worst case scenario, that way you aren't disappointed.
I don't want to gamble on your numbers for peoples retirement.

[MannyGoldstein]

47. As always - keep an eye on it and make changes if assumptions are wrong

But assumptions have not yet been significantly off base.

[ProSense]

89. See, this is the problem with the OP theory

Social Security is basically solvent, but there is nothing wrong with strengthening it. The other problem is basing the assumptions on GDP growth, which some progressives have written off as outdated and not reflective of the real economy.

You now say to "keep an eye on it and make changes if assumptions are wrong." That's a precarious way to devise policy. When should this be addressed? How much is enough lead time?

There should be no problem with strengthening Social Security, primarily with raising the income cap.

[MannyGoldstein]

93. Let's cut Social Security payments to $10 a month

Because that way we're really, really sure that we'll be able to pay it for 75 years.

You cool with that, Prosense? If not, why?

[ItNerd4life]

112. You lose all credibility with a nonsense statement like that. nt

[Kurovski]

49. Supr-duper K&R

The Republikaners have been singing that "SS is dying!!" song for decades, they finally figured out that they have to make the people complicit in their own destruction in order to have a chance at destroying SS.

The tea-slaggers still haven't figured out that their retirement checks come from the social security administration , and that that is the government.

[Statistical]

53. Economic growth slows for maturing economies.

The idea that we will have >3% GDP growth (including averaging cost of all recessions) over next 75 years is a pipe dream.

Europe long since slowed below 2% sustainable growth and we are no different.
While we may have good years of 3.0% or 3.5% those will be average in with the occasional recession (-1.7%, -2.1%, etc).

Virtually impossible for US to sustain 3%+ growth on $14 trillion economy over next 75 years.

There may be no way to convince you but you can check back in 75 years.

[totodeinhere]

55. That projection may be based upon overly pessimistic projections about future economic growth.

But that's not the same thing as an out and out lie. I am willing to give President Obama the benefit of the doubt for now and then wait and see what he actually proposes. Then if I disagree with it I will say so.

This reminds me of the people on this board who said that Obama had no intention of repealing DADT. Well, we know what eventually happened. So let's not jump the gun here. It could be a similar situation with this issue.

[golfguru]

60. There is another danger facing retirees on Social Security

Their annual raise is based on the PPI which does NOT
include FOOD & ENERGY! Those 2 items are inflating faster than
almost everything else besides health care.

Food & Energy are huge percentage of senior's living expenses.
Even if they are renters, the rent goes up commensurate with
heating cost for the landlord.

There was no raise at all for SS two years in a row. Anyone who
shops for groceries can see the inflation in food prices. And
now oil is heading for $100 per barrel and gas prices are moving
along with it.

[BlueJac]

62. We have been lied to and cheated for years..........

This country is so Right Wing it can't think straight anymore.

[Lorien]

69. Not so much the country; it's the owners and the government (both parties) that are further

to the right than about any other government in an industrialized Nation. On the issues, the people arre actually quite liberal, even if the owners have directed them via the MSM to reject that label.

[mistertrickster]

68. Exactly right. And now the question is why? Why come after the only program in

the federal gov't that actually brings in more money than it pays out?

The simplest explanation I can figure out is this: the corporatocracy already stole everything else.

The rich busted the unions, they outsourced the jobs, they pushed wages down to subsistence levels, they eliminated private pensions (except for the already rich of course), they lowered their taxes to 1929 rates, they used our savings for wild speculation and lost it, but were bailed out with our tax money anyway.

You paid more money in taxes last year than freaking Exxon-Mobile.

They've got it all . . . except Soc. Security.

That's the one big pot of money they haven't sucked dry yet, and it's galling them.

[mike_c]

73. that's my take, as well....

The wealthy mostly either don't pay recognizable amounts into SS or need it when they "retire," so the actual system really doesn't impact them at all. But what a pot of money if they could get their hands on it!

[defendandprotect]

88. +1000% ... but also about impoverishing more of the public ....

no safety net allowed to still stand --

they want to make sure that no one has the resources to challenge them

on anything --

Child labor will be back soon --

[BrklynLiberal]

74. One of the most successful "messaging" campaigns the repukes ever managed...

was to start the rumor that SS was in trouble..
Sadly, the Dems have done NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING of any substance to counter this lie that has been repeated so often that even some Dems, including President Obama seem to believe it.

Relegating SS to just another Federally Funded "entitlement " is anothe part of this huge lie.

This is paid for by the participants and their employers via the FICA deductions. This is insurance that we all pay into.
It is NOT an "entitlement". It is a return on an investment that we make during all our working years.

[bhikkhu]

78. Economic growth tracks energy availability and cost

...which is, when you boil down all the data and analysis, simply saying that the economy has a real physical basis beneath all the usual economic double-speak.

I would entirely agree with you, except that the projections for energy availability and cost in the US for the next generation or so are all negative - less availability, higher cost...and you can't grow an economy on that, even if the global situation were favorable, which it isn't. Back in the Clinton years we could imagine a way out of that, but that dream crashed and burned ten years ago.

Nevertheless - I do think that Social Security is basically sound enough to weather the long-term zero-growth economy we are likely to have; we just have to be realistic about the payroll taxes that will be required, and ask the wealthy (who got there by our sweat and labor, after all) to pitch in their fair share.

[ProSense]

80. Here

please respond to this poll.

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Done nt

[defendandprotect]

83. Thank you, Manny .. this was necessary --

too many believe right wing propaganda - even DU'ers!!

[MannyGoldstein]

85. Thanks - I just got so $%&*ing angry reading all the nonsense

accepting SS insolvency as fact - it drives me nuts.

[defendandprotect]

87. Shocking that we're still shocked at Obama ... after two years!!

But it does take our minds off of the back room deals with Big Pharma

re drug negotiation -- and the back room deals with private H/C industry

to keep single payer "off the table" -- !!!

All getting thrown at us at one time to make it near impossible to deal with!!


:nuke:

:)

[jeanpalmer]

90. The problem is they've stolen the trust fund

They have bonds/IOU's in the trust fund, but it's like having IOU's from a deadbeat debtor. If you had an IOU from a debtor who was taking in $40,000 a year and spending $60,000 and all the assets you lent him had been pissed away, how comfortable would you be that you'll ever get your money back?

What we need now is transparency -- an acknowledgement from the politicians that they stole our trust fund money. That's step 1. Once they own up to that, then we can decide what to do with them. What we don't need is some jive routine where we get blamed and are forced to take the hit.

[TacticalPeek]

94. No, "they" have not stolen the trust fund. No, the trust fund has not been "raided". That's baloney.

Is the Federal Government “Raiding” the Trust Funds?


No. Some critics have suggested that the lending of Social Security trust fund reserves to the Treasury represents a misuse of those funds. This view reflects a misunderstanding of how the Treasury manages the federal government’s finances.

When the rest of the budget is in deficit, a Social Security cash surplus allows the government to borrow less from the public to finance the deficit. (The “public” encompasses all lenders other than federal trust funds, including U.S. individuals and institutions, the Federal Reserve System, and foreign investors.) The Treasury always uses whatever cash is on hand — whether from Social Security contributions or other earmarked or non-earmarked sources — to meet its current obligations before engaging in additional borrowing from the public. There is no sensible alternative to this practice. After all, why should the Treasury borrow funds when it has cash in the till?

Back in 1938, the first Advisory Council on Social Security — a group of independent experts appointed to review the program’s long-term finances — firmly endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities:

The United States Treasury uses the moneys realized from the issuance of these special securities by the old-age reserve account in the same manner as it does moneys realized from the sale of other Government securities. As long as the budget is not balanced, the net result is to reduce the amounts which the Government has to borrow from banks, insurance companies and other private parties. When the budget is balanced, these moneys will be available for the reduction of the national debt held by the public. The members of the Advisory Council are in agreement that the fulfillment of the promises made to the wage earners included in the old age insurance system depends upon, more than anything else, the financial integrity of the Government. The members of the Council, regardless of differing views on other aspects of the financing of old-age insurance, are of the opinion that the present provisions regarding the investment of the moneys in the old-age reserve account do not involve any misuse of these moneys or endanger the safety of these funds.

Other Advisory Councils have reached the same conclusion.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3299

Fight the right war. Nobody has stolen or raided anything.

[jeanpalmer]

106. You gave him payroll taxes

He took the money with his right hand. He transferred it to his left hand, which spent it on on war. The money is gone. But the left hand gave the right hand a piece of paper, backed by his full faith and credit, that says IOU X amount of money. You, relying on an Advisory Council and the little piece of paper, believe he still has the money.

[golfguru]

114. You are smarter than other posters on this thread

since you explained the real situation so well.

[Inchworm]

96. People who depend on Social Security to eat are underfunded

:grr:

[Mimosa]

108. That's true. And Rethugs blame those who can't afford to save. n/t

[boppers]

99. The "trust fund" invested in a worthless asset.

The money was gambled away as it was collected.

[Mimosa]

107. Manny, thanks for standing up for the truth.

We can always depend on you. *hug*

[Manifestor_of_Light]

109. They don't talk about the illegal aliens keeping it afloat.

People paying in under fake S.S. numbers who will never see a dime unless they get citizenship.

[robcon]

110. It is a lie to say SS is NOT underfunded.

The statistics quoted are lies.

The U.S. has had only one year, 1988, in the last 25 years with real GDP growth over 3.5% (4.1%)

EVERY OTHER YEAR, GDP growth was less than 3.5%, or was negative. Geithner's projection is far more accurate than the OP.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?page=4&cid=GPD_30

[golfguru]

113. Correct, SS is not underfunded, US Treasury is!

Every dollar of social security surplus has been loaned to the
federal government and has been ALREADY SPENT!

And as every one knows federals are 14 TRILLION in debt and many
more TRILLIONS in unfunded liabilities.

What good is surplus if the money is loaned to someone who can
not pay it back?