Is Social Security in trouble?

[Sugarcoated]

I'm not really as up on it as I should be. I do remember Clinton saying it was in a crisis back in his term. And Gore with putting SS in the notorious "lockbox"

My mom insist SS in America is in shambles and it will be gone in ten years.

Does someone have a concise way to splain?

[givemebackmycountry]

1. Simple - Tweak the Monkeys Tax cuts and it's all good n/t

[toddzilla]

2. before bush it was ok until like 2040 ..

now it's still solvent for a long time, but he's fucking it up on purpose so they can steal it for the stock market.

[Cleita]

3. It's late and I'm tired. If you are seriouse

google Thom Hartmann and Social Security. Everything you need to know should come up.

[Clark2008]

4. Read Krugman to her

Privatizing Social Security - replacing the current system, in whole or in part, with personal investment accounts - won't do anything to strengthen the system's finances. If anything, it will make things worse. Nonetheless, the politics of privatization depend crucially on convincing the public that the system is in imminent danger of collapse, that we must destroy Social Security in order to save it.

I'll have a lot to say about all this when I return to my regular schedule in January. But right now it seems important to take a break from my break, and debunk the hype about a Social Security crisis.

There's nothing strange or mysterious about how Social Security works: it's just a government program supported by a dedicated tax on payroll earnings, just as highway maintenance is supported by a dedicated tax on gasoline.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=10&ItemID=6823

[Patchuli]

5. SS is solvent until 2052

if nothing is done to it. At that time, it will pay 75% of promised
benefits.

If it's tweaked (i.e., raise the paying cap), it will be solvent longer
with payments at promised amounts.

I don't know where your mom got that idea! * lied, as usual. He
wants to pay off Wall Street for their assistance in the recent (s)Election.

[Telly Savalas]

15. And if we take solvent to mean...

taking in the same or more revenue than it pays out, then it's doing a fuck of a lot better than the government on the whole, which has been insolvent since fuckface's taxcuts for the rich. Bush's "concern" for SS is like worrying about having to get the oil changed in your car in a few months when there's a serial killer breaking into your house right now.

[SharonAnn]

6. It's not in trouble. And if it were, privatizing it would make it worse.

See Paul Krugman's article in the New York Times. Best one I've seen yet.

The basic point is, if you assume the economy will be good enough that privatizing Social Security pays better than today's conservative estimates of what Social Security will pay, then it'll be good enough to fully fund Social Security in the future.

If you assume today's conservative estimates of Social Security funding are correct, then the economy will not grow enough to benefit the holders of "personal accounts" any more than leaving Social Security untouched.

You can't have it both ways.

Paul Krugman's article here:

Many Unhappy Returns
By PAUL KRUGMAN February 1, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/opinion/01krugman.html?hp=&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=

[jojo54]

9. U beat me too it, Sharon

This is probably one of the best articles about the "crisis" SS is NOT in.

[salin]

17. biggest danger appears to be

if bush can convince people that forfeiting a guaranteed benefit for a "private account" - that, according to the details they are starting to release now, lets the government KEEP the investment (that paid in), and ONLY pays a benefit on earnings on the investment that are above 3% (adjuste for inflation). That is - you invest $40,000 - and never see it again. If the market goes up and down and up and down so that you earn say 3.1% what you recieve - is the .1% (of the earnings - NOT including the initial investment).

IF bush convinces folks to stop fully paying into the system - then social security IS in danger because there will be a much smaller pool of money for the payouts/benefits - which WILL have to be reduced for everyone.

[K-W]

7. The Lockbox was not about saving social security

it was about preventing further borrowing from the trust fund.

[AG78]

8. Get rid of the cap

If people like Bill Gates were to pay their fair share into Social Security, there could never be a problem.

But these same forces have been trying to kill Social Security since the day it was created. I have no reason to believe it won't be done. Yeah, yeah, yeah, politics. Well I don't think these guys give a damn about politics. Grover Norquist is waiting...waiting...I said waiting...for the WWII generation to die, because he thinks they're unAmerican.

[DieboldMustDie]

10. Of course it's in trouble. Bush and his cronies want to destroy it...

and they're running the country.

[against all enemies]

11. Read Paul Krugman's column's in the NYTimes. He has done a

few about SS and how it really isn't in trouble. It can pay benefits till 2042 then it can only pay 75% of benefits. So if you took a small percentage of the Bush tax cut and applied it to SS, it could pay 100% of benefits into the year 2100 and beyond. Their numbers don't add up, it is all about fear again.

[Zinfandel]

13. Exactlly, read Paul Krugman's last five columns for the truth about SS

The NY Times...

http://www.nytimes.com/

[hiley]

12. No, there is no crisis

"http://www.thereisnocrisis.com/"

Also, go here for info
link below.
Here's what the Bush plan will mean for your retirement:

If you retire in 2022, Bush will cut your benefits by almost 10 percent.
If you retire in 2042, Bush will cut your benefits by more than 25 percent.
In 2075, our children and grandchildren will face a staggering cut of 46 percent to their benefits.
And this is just the first step of the Republican Party's plan to dismantle the entire Social Security system that has kept generations of America's seniors out of poverty. Soon Bush will launch a $40 million TV ad blitz to convince Americans that our grandkids will be left out in the cold if Social Security is not privatized.

We will not stand by and allow that to happen.

http://www.democrats.org




this is from dairy http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/2/223515/1125
http://www.dailykos.com/user/Senate%20Democratic%20Communications%20Center
Bush Failed to Address Benefit Cuts: Tonight Bush said, "Your money will grow, over time, at a greater rate than anything the current system can deliver - and your account will provide money for retirement over and above the check you will receive from Social Security."

* But, CBO Says Bush's Plan Will Cut Benefits by 45 Percent or More for Seniors. The Bush plan will reduce benefits for all seniors, even those who choose not to invest in privatized accounts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, "benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be...30 percent lower...and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be...45 percent lower."

Bush Failed to Address Increases in Debt: Tonight Bush said, "We will make sure this plan is fiscally responsible, by starting personal retirement accounts gradually, and raising the yearly limits on contributions over time, eventually permitting all workers to set aside four percentage points of their payroll taxes in their accounts."

* But, The President's Plan Adds Over $4.5 Trillion in Debt. "Over the first ten years that the plan actually was in effect (2009-18), it would add more than $1 trillion to the debt. Over the next ten years (2019- 28), it would add over $3.5 trillion more to the debt. All told, the plan would add more than $4.5 trillion to the debt over its first 20 years."

Bush Failed to Address Social Security's Long-Term Solvency: Tonight Bush said, "By the year 2042, the entire system would be exhausted and bankrupt. If steps are not taken to avert that outcome, the only solutions would be drastically higher taxes, massive new borrowing, or sudden and sever cuts in Social Security benefits or other government programs."

:toast:

[Sugarcoated]

14. Thanks my DU brothers and sisters

I got some reading to do tomorrow.

[LynnTheDem]

16. No.

To keep SS paying full benefits until the 22nd century is LESS than we're spending now in Iraq; is LESS by FIVE TIMES what making bush's tax cuts permanent will cost.

Links:

bush was LYING in 1978 when he said SS would be bankrupt by 1988 if it wasn't privatized.

http://www.bushfiles.com/bushfiles/midland.html

And in 2001:

Commission Impossible:
Why Bush is abandoning Social Security reform

So when Bush became the latest Republican to back away from the commission, its critics were ecstatic. For months they had warned that conservative-style reform would require either unpopular tax increases or equally unpopular cuts in benefits.

Now it looked like the White House had come to the same conclusion.

http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/22/confessore-n.html

Then in 2002:

Social Security In The 2002 Elections:
Candidates Won By Renouncing Privatization

A special Republican Campaign Committee task force instructed candidates there was no way to win votes with the Bush Social Security plan.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/6717

Report Predicts Deep Benefit Cuts Under Bush Social Security Plan

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/19/politics/19SOCI.html?ex=1105765200&en=9d7a169317235b0e&ei=5070&oref=login&ex=1104987600&en=d93ab4effc7725c1&ei=5070&ex=1103086800&en=02fd1e95887df5be&ei=5070&oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=top

And now, with no voters to woo in 2004:

Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits.

The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P.

That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70E11F73F550C748CDDAB0994DC404482

bush's TAX CUTS, if made permanent, will cost THREE TO FIVE TIMES GREATER than the amount of Social Security over the next 75 years.

http://www.thedubyareport.com/socsec1.html



Cost of the 2001/2003 tax cuts, if made permanent; $11.6 trillion

Cost of the new Rx Drug Benefit; $8.1 trillion

Combined cost of Rx drugs and permanent tax cuts; $19.7 trillion

Shortfall, Social Security Trust Fund; $3.7 trillion

http://www.cbpp.org/1-4-05socsec.htm

And WHO BENEFITS? Why, Wall Street! By BILLIONS!

Investment Pros See Bonanza in Bush Social Security Plan

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-0501090320jan09,1,6035889.story

Conservatives rarely point to Britain's partial state pension privatization program, because it's been a total disaster.

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8997

BOTTOM LINE:

And if we DO NOTHING whatsoever then retirees will still get 81% from 2052 onwards.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/120804X.shtml

With bush's "plan", you'll only get 75% or less from 2042 onwards.

So, as always, doing bush's plan IS WORSE than doing nothing at all.

Gee, what a surprise.

[henrik larssonisking]

18. personally

i would rather be able to take the money i put in SS and invest it myself. Its the choice thing, if you want you should be allowed to take your money and put it were you want. donning asbestos knickers.

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. So how much do you put in your IRA every year?

If you even have one?

I have a hard time believing that people who don't even have an IRA are going to suddenly become good investors.

[henrik larssonisking]

20. investments

none of your business mate, but shouldnt i have the choice. Whether you think i am a good investor or not, shouldnt i have a choice.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. What happens to all the people who make bad choices?

Most people I know can't even survive on their income and live check to check. How are they going to save anything? If they don't put the money away, then who is going to pay to take care of them? People like me who are good at saving money? I don't think so.

[henrik larssonisking]

26. bad choices

people make bad choices every day, am i gonna be responsible for everybody nope, my whole point is that under the present system i pay in for years, i die at 60 and my money is gone, i would rather have that money even sitting in a bank account so it can go to whoever or whatever i want.

[DoYouEverWonder]

27. You will have no choice but to pay for the people

who didn't save. Somehow society will be forced to take care of those who can't take care of themselves. Either through welfare, food stamps, and increased health care costs to make up for the people who can't pay.

Besides who cares if you have any money left over when you die, last time I checked you still can't take it with you.

[eridani]

31. So, are you planning to set your house on fire to get your money's worth

from your property taxes and fire insurance? Insurance can't work unless you spread risk, and if nobody wants to be in the system, the risk spreading won't work.

[eridani]

30. No, you shouldn't. You have no choice but to pay property tax

to support your fire department. Most states require liability insurance to drive legally. The plan of just letting people save money to meet possible liabilities has never worked. I never think of my insurance premiums as an investment.

[salin]

21. Of course that isn't what they are proposing, at all.

The devil is in the details - and the details just revealed include that people won't control the accounts (too much risk, people make bad choices - so the govt will control this); and you DON'T get back your initial investment (put in 1,000 a year for 40 years... the govt keeps that $40,000 investment); and the govt keeps the first 3% of earnings on that investment... you only get earnings ABOVE that; oh- and contrary to bush's rhetoric, the plan being forwarded does NOT allow you to pass on the accounts "benefits".

Sounds like a lose-lose plan on oh so many levels.

[henrik larssonisking]

23. yup

thats why i would rather have the freedom not to pay any social security taxes, i keep the money and if i want to invest in marmoset futures thats my choice. :)

[Bridget Burke]

29. Well, tell your President what you want...

The new plan isn't it.

Social Security is not YOUR investment, it's an investment in society. For all the old people, orphans & disabled. Even the fools who made bad investments; we'd rather keep you off the streets & out of the dumpsters.

[shadowknows69]

22. I'm just going to start robbing banks when I'm 70.

I figure it's a better gamble than relying on whatever shrub and the boys will take from me.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

25. $11 Billion in tax cuts to top 1% just $3 B of that will secure SS into...

the next century and beyond!...FACT roll back just $3 B of that 11B and SS is saved!...very simple

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Heck, get out of Iraq

and no one in the US would have to work past 55.