They would be 89 considering their level of wealth and the great health care package they’ve voted themselves most of the bastards will still be around and in the senate keeping anything from getting done.

I’m surprised the median age is only 62 I’d think more it’d be 82. Bunch of worthless old fucks reguardless.

Yay! I’m looking forward to that.

May the Social Security cutters rot in Hell.

But, but… what about the debt the US government owes SS? Doesn’t this have to be repaid soon, and doesn’t this mean (gasp!) higher taxes? Everybody knows that the government is going to have to start repaying in three years. Where’s the money coming from? How can we finance our wars if the government has to pay its SS debt, which as we all know, it just a piece of paper that nobody in his right mind ever thought would be honoured.

That S&P jerk that has been on the nooze says the downgrade was because the US didn’t include revenue or cuts to entitlement programs. Well, that tells me that the NeoCons pulled that string.

If the US is unstable because of that and needs downgrades, then what would the world think if it defaults on its own insurance programs?

MAKES NO SENSE! The only way you can put that in perspective is to think the NeoCons are working it from behind the scenes.

Grins!

We might need to call up Turbo Tax, Timmeah and ask him about that. Oh yeah, didn’t he say there was NO CHANCE of downgrade?

Yet, Benito Obama is begging him to stay on.

Thank God Obama, the Administration and Congress don’t live in a reality based existence or they’d have nothing waste their time on.

“Sluts Cut”

How come I only get these facts and this perspective from ‘a couple of blogs nobody reads’, to quote Jane Hamsher. I”ve seen the scare segment on 60 Minutes about SS. (Duck! It’s raining Baby Boomers! Shoot ‘em before they hit the ground!) I hear pundits and MOTU intone solemnly that ‘long term debut must be addressed.’ (That’s code foR; SS must be cut). NPR and PBS are on the same page as ‘commercial media’ and the only defence I ever hear, of these programs, is at the Lake. And a few other places.

Will people wake up one day to find that Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security are all dead and be greatly surprised?

Spot on – good post.

Of course, the fact that they will be dead by then is what motivates them to STEAL it all now.

C’mon. Let’s kick the can down the road.Let’s fix it in the future.Let’s deal with tommorrow , tomorrow….AT SOME UNDETERMINED COST.
What’s that you say……”Ignore S.S. recipients after the date of insolvency”
Raise the retirement age 5 years down the road.Means test recipients. Raise the amount of income subject to payroll taxes.MORE THAN EVER , S.S. MUST HAVE FUTURE SOLVENCY ADDRESSED NOW.
IDEOLOGY ABHORS FACTS…THE TRUTH.

This isn’t about the solvency of SS. It about the fact that the Government borrowed all that money and it is now an unfunded liability. Both sides are looking at that and they’re trying to figure out a way of avoiding those payments.

You should ask yourself why they use “special” treasury notes for the money they borrowed? If they had used standard t-bills, it would have pushed down the overall cost of borrowing to the government. By issuing “special” T-Bills, a default wouldn’t affect the standard treasury bonds.

Or just remove the cap on Social Security (currently at $106K I believe) – it would place SS in full solvency far beyond things like raising the eligibility age or means testing.

X2

The other thing that would narrow any gap would be an actual functioning economy, full of JOBS.

No one is saying “do nothing” and you know it. They are saying this is not a crisis that demands we destroy the most successful federal program of all time so that we can “save” it.

To the rest of the community, I apologize if this looks like I am feeding a troll and I will not respond to any more from this poster – this particular comment is very disingenuous.

the job of the rich is to spend their money and boost the economy.
lower-end consumers are either unemployed or running out of cash and the credit they formerly used to keep the economy going–or both unemployed and running out of credit.

if the rich dont do their job with their money, we will take it from them and do it for them.

Please be careful about spewing the same talking points george w used throughout his social security bamboozle tour.

It would not make sense to have all of those funds sitting in a box as cash either.

Where would you want this money invested, the stock market?

Up until the current contrived fiscal crisis and the sham “debt ceiling” crapola, few would have argued that T-bills were an inappropriate investment.

Endless unfunded wars, tax cuts that are not paid for, and repug part D scam fully undermined the fiscal integrity of US. Sadly, obama now owns this too.

More sad is that repugs (and increasingly dems) don’t want to pay the legal obligations owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. This is literally STEALING it.

But it would not be wise or helpful to pretend that the entire Social Security Trust Fund should be a box of cash that just sits there.

Let’s see? We’ve got the unpaid for decade long Bush tax cuts worth nearly $3 trillion, two unfunded decade long Wars that Stiglitz estimates at $5 trillion, and the $16 trillion US government guarantee to honor a Wall Sreet and mortgage banking ponzi scheme, and all they keep harping on is entitlement spending.

Reminder Most Senators Will Be Long Dead before Social Security Trust Fund is Exhausted

Not dead enough.

Most Senators have no need of Social Security. Their retirement funding is secure and many, if not most, don’t even need their government pensions for that security. That’s our problem. The Senators are wealthy and their contributors are wealthy. Getting them to take an interest in the problems of common Americans would demand too much of them, a willingness to subordinate their own interests.

Insurance programs? You mean Mand Medicaid? (SS isn’t insurance.)

CBO projects that the trust funds will be exhausted in 2038. In the following year, revenues are projected to equal 81 percent of scheduled outlays. Thus, payable benefits will be 19 percent lower than scheduled benefits. The gap between scheduled and payable benefits will shrink slightly for the following decade, falling to 15 percent in 2050. It will then widen, and by 2085, payable benefits will be 23 percent smaller than scheduled benefits.

Is there ANYONE around here smart enough (I’m not) to figure out what a one penny increase to the employer portion only of social security taxes NOW would mean for that projection??

I’d sure love to know. I think it would be bigger than most think. And it’s damn sure a fair way to help fix things considering employers have been eating up all the poductivity gains of the last 25-30 years without increasing wages.

If 1 penny doesn’t do it, make it 2, on the employer portion only. For those unsure of what I mean, a person’s total payroll taxes are paid half by withholding from his/her pay and the other half directly by the employer (this was before the payroll tax holiday and will be the way it is when that horrible idea is put to rest). I’m simply saying add 1 or 2 pennies to the portion that the employer pays so as to not affect a person’s take home pay.

I’d bet that alone would take care of a great deal of the shortfall. Maybe even all?????

EDIT: And I mean that penny or two should be added NOW, not in 2038 or whatever. NOW.

There is no trust fund, only the government’s ability to pay with new revenue.

That would be quite the maneuver of the Baby Boomers to say that after decades of underpaying into the Treasury, that when they retire they suddenly “discover” the need to tax the shit out of subsequent generations against whom they have shipped all of the jobs overseas.

No jobs, no revenue, no social security (in that order).

Guess what stage of that sequence we are entering?

A lot of them will be surprised, yes. Some of them think that Medicare isn’t a government program and that SS is really insurance. (I saw a letter from some people who were complaining because they didn’t get anything from SS when their father died. The person answering them had to clue them in that SS isn’t insurance.)

Yes it is: Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance)

It’s the OASDI line for deductions on paychecks.

I thought it was called Old Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI)??

I’d like to see the same stuff done to their retirement and health plans that they propose for SS and Medicare. (It might require an amendment to the effect that all laws, rules, and regulations intended to apply to the general public shall also apply to all elected officials.)

Doh, not fast enough for the fastest gun in Colorado…

Whatcha drinkin’ sir?

It isn’t insurance in the way that they’re thinking: see my comment about the people who were expecting to collect on their father’s SS: that’s the ‘insurance’ idea they have.

Got any ice tea? It’s pumpin’ up to be blazing hot here.

Not surprised that there’s a lot of confusion.

But if they were minor children at the time of the dad’s death? Yep, they would have received a stipend until adulthood.

That’s exactly the case for Rep. Paul Ryan.

Slidin’ down the bar. Stay cool!!!

This is the gist of Walker’s posting on thiis sobject.”Here are the facts on solvency based on the CBOE on funding.Let’s not do anything BECAUSE we really don’t know what the future will bring.”
That’s a “grown up” respone to a problem that needs adressing?
My respponse was to take action on a known…the funds available in the future…and address that issue NOW when the remedies will be LESS Painful.
To the poster who promised “not to reply to the troll”………you haven’t a fuckinng clue.
IDEOLOGY ABHORS THE FACTS…..LEFT AND RIGHT.

So can we start addressing global warming now??

It’s a lie that “baby boomers underpaid” into the Social Security system: as a matter of fact our deductions were doubled at some point, to waylay just that problem.

The problem is: our insurance payments were “borrowed’ (stolen) to pay for things like tax cuts for the rich and endless wars for corporate profit.

The rich, Republicans and Obama don’t want to pay back what was “borrowed” from our lifetime savings.

Al Gore wanted to put Ss funds into a “lockbox” so they couldn’t be borrowed and spent, which is more than likely why the election was stolen from him.

#34

let’s use your model as a basis for car repairs: the brakes are bad and the muffler is a bit noisey; therefore we MUST fix the muffler now!

Most of the Baby Boomers will be dead by 2050, 12 years after the benefits will have to be reduced. So unless there is some kind stealth effort to create a new baby boom generation, there really is no crisis. It is simply the fact that the government has stolen the trust fund and does not want to pay it back.

Which brings me to my second point. Why would anyone in their right mind agree to anything the government claims they want to do to fix the problem. My gut tells me they will just steal whatever they can, as often as they can from an ignorant, naive public that still believes their government actually cares about them.

Oh, and when I say government, I mean corporations and wealthy, powerful, soulless monsters posing as government.

(this was before the payroll tax holiday and will be the way it is when that horrible idea is put to rest).

I just want to clarify that.

IMO it’s a horrible idea POLITICALLY. Yes, if you’re going to do tax cuts, these would be the best IMO. But I don’t believe it’s a good idea at all politically.

IMO there’s going to be a huge right wing talking point next year about how Social Security reciepts were waaaaayyyyyy below expenditures, proving it’s insolvency.

It will be a cynical attempt to mislead based on the tax cuts, but IMO it will have an effect on the debate. And that’s why IMO it’s a horrible idea politically.

Just wanted to clarify that.

YMMV

If they suffered commensurate losses to their retirement and health care funding, they might be more careful in what they impose on the rest of us.

This same ploy against Social Security, that it will go somehow go bankrupt or otherwise fail, has been used for decades. In the mid-90s the CBO projection about Social Security was that, at worst, it would pay out only 85% of what recipients expect to get over a similar time frame.

The two largest factors in reduced expectations for Social Security payouts are the little to no wage growth over the past three or four decades and our new unemployment economy, that is drastically reducing the amount of money being paid into the current system and the “trust”. (I believe we are now dipping into that trust to make current payments, which is a few years earlier than projected.)

Then there is this: Obama’s little touted payroll tax cut is to FICA taxes, not our payroll income taxes. So he reduced the amount we are paying into our savings for Social Security. If you cut the amount you are saving for retirement, you are going to have less money when you retire. And he says we need to fix Social Security.

I’m guessing that someone is paid to shave Obama because I cannot figure out how that guy can look at himself in the mirror.

The issue of solvency for Social Security misses the point. It is obvious (meaning, I’m not going to bother trying to prove it to anyone) that the United States could continue offering Social Security at its current levels indefinitely if that were its priority. The closest to an actual policy position is: “If we are happy with the amount we are paying for Social Security, it should last for about 27 years (according to the CBO).” Well, there’s nothing “magical” about the current level of funding for Social Security other than the fact that it is the current level.

The real issue is whether or not Social Security is of sufficient priority for the United States to continue it at its current level. The money received for Social Security could be used elsewhere and some people would prefer that version of America’s future. Others would suffer severely if Social Security were cut too much. Still others would prefer large-scale increases in the social safety net.

But the “Social Security is solvent” position by itself contains a major logical flaw and the same argument could be applied to other governmental spending – resulting in conclusions we may not want. With just as much credibility (but a totally different agenda), someone could say “The war funding in the Middle East is solvent” or “The Bush Tax cuts can be maintained indefinitely” – either of which would be true if it were our country’s top priority.

This is the real issue and it gets to the real point: we can do some things but not all things. So what do we want to do as a people and why? Argue that Social Security should be at or near the top priority, not that it is solvent for some time period.

Social Security, Glass Steagall Act & SEC were the three master solutions FDR implemented so that next generation of Americans never suffer the horrors of Depression which plagued his Presidency and took so much of his time.

Glass Steagall Act prevented the financial community to play fast and loose with other peoples savings by mixing and dicing it. SEC is supposed to oversee financial community to follow rules.

Social Security enabled constant stimulus to the economy close to 40% since Seniors will always be present in any society and at any time.

Glass Steagall Act is out. SEC is defunded and is a hollow shell from what I seen on sub-prime mortgage, flash crash and last week crash even before s&p came out with politically motivated rating obviously due to leaks.

Now all this hullabaloo of Social Security is to take away that stimulus so that our economy can be crashed at will. If we enter Depression then 1 out 3 people will literally be on the streets scraping for food on the roads and living under trees for shelter. This is what cannot happen even now because of social security because the funds come from US Treasury and the economic stimulus it generates covers close to 40% of the economy.

In that context of Depression actually happening forget about accountability Government will give money to those who crashed the economy to help re-build the economy. This power & lordship is what they want. Complete proof of no accountability action by elected reps since there is a remote chance even now that there will be a new Pres. Theodore Roosevelt showing up to ensure accountability.

Have you ever heard of the notion of taking a penny each day for a month increasing it by one more each day? Turns into a very large number quickly. Someone, please, correct me if I’m wrong.

All bonds are obligations of the gov and a default on one is a default on all – special series is no different from any other bobds.

The “special bonds” were forced on SS in WW2 by the GOP that claimed investment in the market was “social by the back door” – and having stopped investment in the market folks felt that meant no investment in the gov bonds that were in the market. But the GOP said that the SS should invest the peoples money in the world’s safest investment – gov bonds.

The answer to your question is in the SSA annual actuaries report.

Taking a penny each day for a month, increasing it by one more each day (so $0.01 the first day, $0.02 the second day, etc.) totals:

(n+1)(n)/2 pennies over n days.

So the total for a…
28-day month: $4.06
29-day month: $4.35
30-day month: $4.65
31-day month: $4.96

Keep it up for a year and it’s just under $668.

So, actually I was right. Factor 30! gives 265 million. So, I say, add a penny every day for 30 days to bump up the SS trust fund.

Sorry, I was premature in my assessment. I was not exactly “right.”
Granted your numbers are correct, but $668 dollars times 150 million people comes to $100 billion dollars. The previous post of 30 factor was a misapplication and I apologize. My point was that increased funding would not be a very hard thing to do for SS. Thanks for the calculations. As it turns out, I was confusing mathematical ideas, and was not thinking well enough before making the post. I hope I didn’t waste anyone’s time.

The $45 billion Koch brothers fortune, would be zero in 1,422 years, assuming they paid $1 dollar every second until then. Even if they spent $10 a second they would go broke after 145 years. So, right now the Republicans in the House would rather take money from the retirees and the disabled or rather, they prefer to increase these guys and others like them’s fortune than to pay back the funds they co-opted to pay for wars and taxcuts.