Do Democrats need to get an actual plan other than lying to old people about SS?

[Smash255]

The personal accounts don't change anything for people who want to stay in the current system. If you want to say it won't be guaranteed for people with the accounts, then that's completely idiotic, because they're not going to lose money in a set of conservative investments.

Why the hell do you keep on bringing up 2042? You realize that's well before today's workers will retire, right?

Because 70% of the public does not have to pay for it. That's one of the situations in which I could actually see the Supreme Court striking down Social Security as unconstitutional.

Wrong

In order to pay for the mammouth transition cost, a chunk of that $$$ is going to come out of the $$ being paid into the system.  Meaning the amount of guarentted benefits that choose to stay in the current system will be cut because their isn't nearly the $$$ in the system to pay out those guarenteed benefits since they went towards the transition costs.  And just because its a conservative investment does not mean that it can't go down.  Plenty of Mutual Funds and whatnot are quite a bit lower now than they were 4-5 years ago

[A18]

Wrong; it can come out of your benefits.

[ATFFL]

To correct something Smash said:  the transition cost is up to $2 trillion.  Most estimates have it less.  Some have it much less.  The reality is that it will land at less than the $2,000,000,000,000 and more than the $500,000,000,000 I've seen as a low end.

[The Duke]

Smash 255,

The system is not solvent until 2042, its solvent until 2017.  The only way you can push it out to 2042 is if you assume that the money that should be in the trust fund actually is in the trust fund, but its not in the trust fund.  Its in highways, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, schools, and all the other things the government spends money on.  The trust fund only contains enough for a few months of benefits, the rest is IOUs owed by the general revenue fund to the trust fund.

This is why the debt kept going up in the late 1990s, even though we had "surpluses".  The actual debt obligation rose because there was a debt obligation from the GR fund to the SS Trust fund of over $100 billion per year.  The GR fund continued to be in deficit, and used SS Trust fund money to cover its tracks, just as it has for decades.  In 2017, the bill starts to come due.  BY 2027, $200 billion will be owed annually by the GR fund to the SS Trust fund.  By 2033, the annual cost will be $300 billion.

So no, its kinda not solvent until 2042.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Smash 255,

The system is not solvent until 2042, its solvent until 2017.  The only way you can push it out to 2042 is if you assume that the money that should be in the trust fund actually is in the trust fund, but its not in the trust fund.  Its in highways, fighter jets, aircraft carriers, schools, and all the other things the government spends money on.  The trust fund only contains enough for a few months of benefits, the rest is IOUs owed by the general revenue fund to the trust fund.

This is why the debt kept going up in the late 1990s, even though we had "surpluses".  The actual debt obligation rose because there was a debt obligation from the GR fund to the SS Trust fund of over $100 billion per year.  The GR fund continued to be in deficit, and used SS Trust fund money to cover its tracks, just as it has for decades.  In 2017, the bill starts to come due.  BY 2027, $200 billion will be owed annually by the GR fund to the SS Trust fund.  By 2033, the annual cost will be $300 billion.

So no, its kinda not solvent until 2042.

2017 is the year that according to some pessimstic estimates, SS starts running deficits. What they don't mention is that the rest of the federal government will owe SS almost $5 trillion, which is collecting interest.  That $5 trillion makes a huge difference. Right now the rest of the federal government is borrowing $160 billion a year from SS.

[The Duke]

jfern, can you not read or something?  Yes, the rest of the Federal government owes Social Security money.  I said that three or four times.  My point is the rest of the federal government doesn't have the ability to pay that $5 trillion back (with interest, of course).  The money isn't there.

The result will be one of three things:

1. Higher taxes, to the tune of $200-$300 billion per year starting in 2017.

2. $200-$300 billion in new deficits per year as the General Revenue fund borrows from the private market to pay back the debt it owes to Social Security.

3. The acceptance that the general revenue fund cannot make its payments, so benefits are reduced outright to cut Social Securities uncontrolled costs.

Whether Social Security is owed the money or not, the outcome is the same as if there had never been a trust fund to begin with: A choice between massive borrowing, higher taxes, or lower benefits.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

jfern, can you not read or something?  Yes, the rest of the Federal government owes Social Security money.  I said that three or four times.  My point is the rest of the federal government doesn't have the ability to pay that $5 trillion back (with interest, of course).  The money isn't there.

The result will be one of three things:

1. Higher taxes, to the tune of $200-$300 billion per year starting in 2017.

2. $200-$300 billion in new deficits per year as the General Revenue fund borrows from the private market to pay back the debt it owes to Social Security.

3. The acceptance that the general revenue fund cannot make its payments, so benefits are reduced outright to cut Social Securities uncontrolled costs.

What do you mean the government can't pay the money back? You Republicans claim that high deficits are no problem. It's not SS's fault that idiots like Bush run the rest of the government with no fiscal responsiblity. And you're using this as an argument that Bush should be allowed to change SS? That's a pretty sad argument.

[The Duke]

Again, I have to ask, can you even read?

I said in !FIRST POST! that even during the "surplus" years, the money was taken out of the trust fund and used to pay off general revenue debt, so this is not some new phenomenon under Bush.

A deficit that is 4% of GDP isn't that big a deal.  But when you talk about going from taking $100 billion a year out of Social Security and paying off the general revenue fund to having a $300 billion annual deficit from Social Security is a huge deal.

I'm no deficit hawk or anything, but anyone who understands the Federal Budget knows how important the Social Security and medicare trust funds are to the rest of the government.  Those funds have kept deficits manageable for decades, without those funds, deficits or 8-10% of GDP annually are not unrealistic, and that is simply more than the economy can bear.

Furthermore, there is a difference between deficits that are projected to shrink and ones that are projected to grow.  The Social Security probelm is projected to grow rapidly for an infinite horizon.  The current budget deficit is projected to shrink.  Shrinking deficits put central bankers and bondholders at ease, mitigating the effects of deficits.  The Social Security deficits are projected to grow continuously, however, and this is not something that bondholders OR central bankers will accept.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Again, I have to ask, can you even read?

I said in !FIRST POST! that even during the "surplus" years, the money was taken out of the trust fund and used to pay off general revenue debt, so this is not some new phenomenon under Bush.

A deficit that is 4% of GDP isn't that big a deal.  But when you talk about going from taking $100 billion a year out of Social Security and paying off the general revenue fund to having a $300 billion annual deficit from Social Security is a huge deal.

I'm no deficit hawk or anything, but anyone who understands the Federal Budget knows how important the Social Security and medicare trust funds are to the rest of the government.  Those funds have kept deficits manageable for decades, without those funds, deficits or 8-10% of GDP annually are not unrealistic, and that is simply more than the economy can bear.

Furthermore, there is a difference between deficits that are projected to shrink and ones that are projected to grow.  The Social Security probelm is projected to grow rapidly for an infinite horizon.  The current budget deficit is projected to shrink.  Shrinking deficits put central bankers and bondholders at ease, mitigating the effects of deficits.  The Social Security deficits are projected to grow continuously, however, and this is not something that bondholders OR central bankers will accept.

In 1999 and 2000, we ran geniuine surpluses, that is a surplus even counting money borrowed from SS.  We ran an $87 billion surplus in 2000. We ran a $560-something billion deficit last year.  The projected surplus for this decade was $5.6 trillion when Bush took office. Now it's arund a $4-5 trillion deficit.

The rest of the government borrows $160 billion a year from SS. During 2000, that money was used to pay down the national debt. When would SS run $300 billion a year deficits? Certainly not in 2017. Adjusted for GDP growth , it will probably never run $300 billion a year deficits. 

The deficit is about 5% of GDP. It's over $560 billion a year, and only going up.  The IMF reorganizaes any countries fianaces who are running 5% or more deficits.

Under the most pessimistic predictions, SS is good until 2041. Small changes like raising the cap on SS, as proposed by a Republican Senator, and supported by over 2/3rds of Americans will help a lot.

[The Duke]

You're a ing idiot.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You're a g idiot.

Republicans always have well thought out responses?

[The Duke]

I say thatbecause you STILL haven't managed to tell me where the money to pay back the trust fund os going to come from, all you've done is bitch about Bush.  You are not a serious person, you're an idiot.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I say thatbecause you STILL haven't managed to tell me where the money to pay back the trust fund os going to come from, all you've done is bitch about Bush.  You are not a serious person, you're an idiot.

Right now of the $7.625 trillion in national debt, $1.677 trillion was borrowed from Social Security. We'll pay for it just like any other government spending, increased taxes if we care about balancing budgets, increased borrowing if we don't.

http://zfacts.com/p/654.html

[The Duke]

You've mistated the amount of the unfunded liability by a factor of seven.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You've mistated the amount of the unfunded liability by a factor of seven.

Right now we're borrowing another $160 billion a year from Social Security, and that money collects interest, and this unfunded liability you talk about is probably not inflation adjusted.

[The Dowager Mod]

[2952-0-0]

LOL!!!!!!!