Social Security Trustees Report ~ The Facts V The Spin

[sabrina 1]

Every year when the Social Security Trustees release their annual report, Republicans pore through it looking for negative information about the program they hate so much. This year was no different.

But try as they will, the truth is that this program remains one of the most successful programs ever and even in these bad economic times, the program is still running a surplus.

The following analysis comes from the official blog of The Francis Perkins Center.

Francis Perkins was FDR’s Secretary of Labor for 12 years, the first woman cabinet secretary, principal author of the New Deal, and dedicated advocate for social justice.

Social Security Trustees Report — some background information

The most important take-home point from the Trustees Report is that Social Security works just as intended, even in the worst of economic times. Social Security Trust Funds are doing precisely what they are supposed to do – assuring full payment to all eligible persons, on time and in full.

Social Security is the nation’s most conservatively financed and carefully monitored public program. That’s why the Trustees Reports have been issued every year, since 1941. The annual Trustees Report projects income and outgo further than private pension programs and further than the Social Security programs of nearly every other nation. It is intended to provide Congress an extremely long lead time to make adjustments that are needed from time to time.

This year’s Trustees Report is doing exactly what these reports are designed to do – providing an early warning system. It projects that in 26 years, if Congress takes no action before then, Social Security’s projected revenue will cover only around 78 percent of the cost of projected benefits and expenses.

Given that Social Security is projected to be able to pay benefits in full and on time for another quarter of a century (2037) and given how important Social Security is, having proven its worth once again during this severe economic recession, proposals to restore Social Security to long-range solvency should be debated in the sunshine through the normal legislative process, as it always has been done, not through a fast-tracked commission where no commission members or even staff have as their primary expertise, Social Security and retirement income, as opposed to the budget.

What would FDR have thought of Obama's Republican stacked Commission operating in secret, planning to subvert the legislative process in order to keep their recommendations secret until after the November Election planning to put their proposals before a lame-duck Congress for an up-or-down vote? And what would he think of a Democratic controlled Congress and White House even considering cuts in benefits and/or raising the retirement age under the false pretext that Social Security is somehow the cause of the Deficit?

By now most people who have been paying attention know that Republicans and sadly, some Democrats have attempted to use the Social Security Trustees report to frighten the American People into accepting the lies about the program and the proposals to cut benefits which is being considered ONLY to try to help the wealthy avoid paying the debt they ran up.

But here are some of the facts about the Trustees' Report:

* Social Security is projected to pay all benefits in full and on time through 2037.

* Social Security’s assets (a.k.a., reserves, surplus) will continue to grow from $2.5 trillion at the beginning of 2010 through 2024, when they will reach $4.2 trillion.

* Because annual surpluses are expected to continue for the next 15 years, Social Security’s assets are projected to reach $4.2 trillion by the end of 2024.

* With no action whatsoever, Social Security will have sufficient income and assets to pay all monthly benefits in full and on time through 2037.

* Social Security is prohibited by law from contributing to the federal deficit.

* By law, Social Security cannot borrow.

* Social Security is prohibited from paying benefits if it has insufficient income and assets to cover the cost.

* Social Security can pay all benefits in full and on time after 2037 with a relatively modest increase in dedicated revenues.

* The 2010 trustees report projects that Social Security would be in complete actuarial balance for the full 75 year valuation period, if revenues were increased by the equivalent of increasing the deductions from workers’ wages by 0.92 percent, matched by employers.

* Social Security could be restored to balance more progressively, such as with a tax on sales and purchases of stock, a tax on the assets of very large estates, or by raising the payroll tax cap.*

* By increasing the revenue by a small amount more than is needed to pay scheduled benefits, those benefits could be increased either in a targeted way or across the board.

* The fact that 2010 benefit payments are projected to exceed one part of Social Security’s dedicated revenue, that from so-called payroll taxes, ignores the fact that 2010 benefit payouts are less than all of Social Security’s income combined.

* Social Security has three revenue sources: (1) mandatory contributions, deducted from the wages of workers, and matched by employers (commonly referred to as “payroll taxes); (2) interest earned on revenue not needed to pay benefits and expenses in prior years, and so invested in certificates of obligation and bonds issued by the U.S. Treasury, and (3) income taxes on the Social Security benefits of those with higher incomes.

* These three sources of revenue, taken together, are projected to exceed the cost of all benefits and associated administrative costs in 2010 by a projected $76.7 billion, according to the 2010 Trustees Report.

* There is nothing new or surprising about Social Security’s benefits exceeding the payroll tax contributions.

* Benefits exceeded payroll tax contributions in 1958, 1959, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982 and 1983. The sky did not fall. Indeed, the trust funds acted as intended, providing a margin of safety so that benefits could be fully paid, even in very difficult economic times. (see Table 4.A3—Combined OASI and DI, 1957–2008 in the Social Security Administration’s Annual Statistical Supplement, 2009; http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2009/4a.pdf).

* Since 1983, Congress has required all covered workers to have relatively large amounts withheld from wages, and invested in Treasury bonds whose interest could be used when needed. The recession has accelerated by a few years the date that some of the interest is needed.

* In the 1970’s and early 1980’s, the trustees redeemed bonds in order to pay scheduled benefits.

(Thanks to SocialSecurity-Works.org for the facts and figures above.)

One of the big scary talking points, now that all their other talking points have been debunked, is currently being circulated in the form of the following question:

But what if the Federal Government doesn't pay back the debt to the Trust Fund when the benefits exceed contributions?

Why is that even a question, other than to create a fear that the Federal Government is going to default on its debt to the American People, which, as you can see from the above excerpt, it has never done before?

Having run out of other scare tactics, this appears to be the latest attempt to scare people. And it is a silly question. If the Federal Government were to default on the American People, what kind of credibility would this country have ever again?

Not to mention that it doesn't have to, it has the means to repay its debt. This Commission should be focused only on matters related to the Federal Budget. As James Galbraith and others have pointed out, they have made themselves illegitimate by focusing on Social Security which did not cause the deficit and is a separate fund from the Federal Budget.

I wish they would explain how cutting SS benefits would help lower the deficit though! :eyes:

President Obama should disband this Commission, thank them for their time, and send them home.

Democrats should be very proud of the Social Security program.

If they want to win in November, this is a winning issue for them.

Republicans will remain silent about what their plans are for this most popular of programs. Democrats should force them to reveal those plans.

Assuming of course that Democrats intend to protect Social Security from yet another attempt to destroy it.

Note: Below is a link to the Francis Perkins site. It is a monument to Democratic principles and well worth visiting.

Francis Perkins Center

[DJ13]

1. President Obama should disband this Commission

Or simply limit their scope to only those items that Congress votes on in their yearly budgets, which would remove Social Security entirely.

[slipslidingaway]

6. Obama specifically mentioned "entitlement spending" in his executive order...

establishing this commission.

:(

[sandnsea]

7. Which is much more than social security to begin with

But there is also the issue of the shortfall AFTER 2037.

It's a FISCAL Commission - which the OP admits is necessary.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Surely they are looking at Medicare as well, which unfortunately...

may not be getting the attention that is needed.

The commission may be necessary, but Obama had choices on who to appoint :(

[sandnsea]

13. They're looking at everything

Part of the health care bill and Medicare was to reduce that cost because it's running over income as well. So is the disability insurance.

If you want to affect spending, you better start screaming for military cuts and tax increases because I don't see any other way to get this horse back in the barn.

People KNOW how social security works and they KNOW it was spent. You can't just say, don't worry be happy, there's a trust fund; when everybody knows they spent it and will have to borrow to pay it back.

[slipslidingaway]

58. If the goal was to reduce costs in an equitable fashion then a universal...

HC system funded by taxes would have been considered. Instead people who wanted to put forth this idea were mostly left out of the discussions and that includes the initial meeting at the WH. Even Obama's own personal physician of 20+ years was told not to come to the subsequent WH town hall, even though he was initially invited by the network.

The HC bill that passed leaves the government with the neediest customers and gives subsidies to the for profit insurance companies for the healthiest among us. Wait until the Medicare enrollees grow from 46 million to 79 million in the next two decades.

Medicare will be a much bigger problem. Now with the new HC bill we're going to save some money in the Medicare program and transfer it to the private insurance companies. That does not make any sense to me, especially as the boomers start to enroll in Medicare.

Someone needed to explain this to the American public, that was not done and the people who could have helped were deliberately left out. Why? And instead of having Medicare negotiate drug prices as the VA does (part of the Obama/Biden HC plan) a deal was cut with the Pharma lobby.

I know the SS money was spent, but the treasury notes are not worthless and the current shortfall is not due to SS. Again someone needs to tell the people, instead of pretending that the problem is SS and looking to SS for a solution.

There is a general budget spending problem and every person in Congress knew this when they voted for Bush's wars. They should have said so, instead of saying "Aye"

[sandnsea]

76. Yes, there is a general budget spending problem

A huge deficit and debt. Social Security isn't causing it and I think most people know that it isn't. People understand how social security works. The only ones saying social security is causing the deficit are the ones who lump the entire budget together, except when they say the poor don't pay taxes. They've been lying about that for years. It didn't just start this year.

[sabrina 1]

80. The only healthcare reform that would have saved money

was a single payer system. Saving the privated insurance Corps was the main purpose of HC reform.

Very good post, btw, I agree with everything you said. America has been taken over by Corporations and every decision made is made to keep their profits flowing. There is no one representing the American people.

[pattmarty]

105. Then that SHOULD be the priority. Pay it back, end of story.............

.........The fucking people have two basic programs now (and only for the elderly, with the excep of SS disability) to sustain them; Medicare & SS. If anyone even thinks of cutting SS, it will be the end of the program. This will be the first of the "cuts" that will bleed the program to death. You goddamn know that WHEN the Republicans get back in power they will kill what's left of the program.

[sabrina 1]

129. Yes, it will be the end of the program. I just talked to my MIL

who after watching the news told me that because 'people are living longer now than when the program was instituted, it means that the program will run out of money.' She is smart, but this is the news she is receiving. I explained to her what is really going on and she got it. But they are feeding lies to the American people and even smart, liberal people like my MIL, are believing them.

WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS? They should be out there every, single day countering these lies with the facts! I am about to give up on them to be honest and definitely will if this is allowed to happen.

[pattmarty]

136. The (the Dems) know. This would be the "quick fix" to the perceived.....

......."deficit problem". We are going to get royally fucked, I can feel it (no pun intended) and I truly hope I am wrong.

[defendandprotect]

127. Bush doubled MIC budget -- we can save 28% immediately by merging the services as other nations ...

have done!

[sabrina 1]

84. Actually no, I oppose the Commission and so did President Obama

I am for this being handled by the people who should be handling it, Congress. As Obama said in the campaign, all these Commissions are for is to find a stealth way to get around the Legislative process to push through laws without open and honest debate. He also called them a stunt. I agreed with that.

Then he changed his mind ... and now I disagree with him. We do not need a Commission for resolving the Federal Government's Fiscal problems. That is why we have Congress. That is THEIR job. I clearly said at the end of the OP that this Commission should be disbanded.

[druidity33]

101. did you read this at all?

The shortfall is miniscule. It can be corrected easily, RIGHT NOW, in may ways that do not include cutting benefits or raising the retirement age. SS is FULLY SOLVENT and can pay all its obligations for 27 more years without ANY fixes or changes... why is this such a tremendous deal right now?

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

126. Social Security isn't an "entitlement" program except in rw lies . . .

The government simply ADMINISTRATES Social Security -- it does NOT fund it!!

FICA is paid by the employee and the employer -- NOT the government --

It was intended to be a pay-as-you-go system and not to run suplusses --

however these huge surplusses $250 billion or more each year have been sued

as SLUSH FUNDS --

and to offset the huge MIC budget -- !! Bush DOUBLED MIC budget!!

And, we don't really even know what the intelligence budgets are -- much of that

money is hidden!! In the past, CIA money was hidden in education budget --

often as much as 50% of the education budget was for CIA!!

[sandnsea]

2. Paying benefits with the Trust Fund, thru 2037

Requires borrowing money in the federal budget.

That can drive up interest rates and reduce the ability to borrow for other things, like health care and education. YES they can reduce the military budget or raise taxes. It will require something.

It is just not true that there's a pile of money to pay out benefits between 2015 and 2037.

[customerserviceguy]

12. Thanks for pointing that out

The OP and I have been going around and around about this lately, and all I'm met with is, "It will all work out, it just HAS to, because it's the right thing for the government to do."

Anyone expecting the kind of political courage needed to come up with the money to redeem those Trust Fund IOU's is going to be sadly mistaken. Watching HCR turn into some monster that enables the insurance companies to rip off Americans even more than they have done has told me what kind of political courage they have when push comes to shove.

[druidity33]

103. false canard.

Who is that money "borrowed" from? Who said there's a "big pile of money" waiting to get paid out?

"It will require something."

What reasonable people are asking it to require is a very small transaction fee on stock sales, or raising the income limit for SS collection, or elimination of Bush era tax cuts, or a 2% reduction in Military spending... any of which would pay for any "shortfall" that may appear in 2037.


Why do you think SS needs to be "fixed"?

[girl gone mad]

107. The government doesn't have to borrow or tax to spend.

The reality is that they can create money out of thin air when necessary.

http://www.correntewire.com/fed_money_spreadsheet

[YankmeCrankme]

146. Not sure you understand

Social Security is basically a pay in/pay out system. Benefits are paid out from tax revenues that year. Trust is surplus taxes collected. No money is borrowed to pay SS payouts, it does not add to the yearly budget deficit. Excess money is collected and I realize you and a few other posters seem to think that US treasury bonds are indicative of "bad" money, but what would you have the excess money invested in? They aren't going to have stacks of cash stored in a warehouse and it is better than if they invested it in the stock market. Then it really would have disappeared.

Also, as the revenues are exceeded by the payouts, only the difference will be cashed in from the bonds to cover the shortfall. So, it really won't add to the budget deficit too much there. But, if they get the REAL deficit in order that small amount of borrowing to pay for the bonds won't matter much in the scope of things.

The budget deficit does need to be tackled, but SS isn't a factor. It will be years before they have to tap into the trust fund. So, making real headway would be to reduce the military outlays, tighten corporate tax loopholes and raise capital gains tax and the eliminate the Bush tax cuts.

Whether it actually gets done or this particular commission will address those issues remains to be seen. Certainly, SS doesn't need to be involved with deficit reduction.

[mikehiggins]

147. true enough--there isn't a pile of money

there is a whole bunch of federal notes, however, and if the US Government fails to eventually redeem them with the full faith and credit stuff, it is extremely unlikely we'll be able to sell bonds to anyone. Honoring those bonds is crucial to any continued economic viabilty.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. This OP needs 400 recs right now. nt

[sandnsea]

4. No, she needs 400, well I won't say it

Do you see that little ditty about paying social security with general revenue funds in the 70s and 80s?

And do you remember what happened to interest rates at the same time?

[sabrina 1]

15. Feel free to say whatever you want,

I have a very thick skin I assure you ... :hi:

[customerserviceguy]

48. Skin or skull?

OK, you said you could take it! :silly:

[sabrina 1]

82. Lol, good one! n/t

[pa28]

73. How did you infer the interest rate spike was a direct result of SS payments?

Some additional info on how you arrived at that conclusion might help.

[sabrina 1]

85. I would be interested in seeing a response to your question also.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

110. *cough*Vietnam*cough*

[abelenkpe]

141. It wasn't. nt

[Hannah Bell]

91. it had nothing to do with social security. try the oil crisis &

inflation + the volker "fix" to kill inflation -- which was -- raising interest rates.

christ on a cross, what nonsense.

[Enthusiast]

95. Just your regular RW talking point.

We get a lot of that around here.

[Hannah Bell]

96. i hadn't heard that one before. it seemed like she just made it up on the spot. :>)

not to mention that the 1970s trust fund withdrawls were relatively small. not even a percent of gdp. at the height, about 1% of the us budget. so unlikely to affect interest rates.

[slipslidingaway]

5. knr - thanks n/t

[sandnsea]

8. "This Commission should be focused only on matters related to the Federal Budget."

National Commission On Fiscal Responsibility And Reform.

FISCAL. Not Social Security.

Social Security enters into the picture primarily because of the shortfall AFTER 2037 - and because of money from the federal budget that will be used to pay the social security will have to come from somewhere.

[sabrina 1]

28. No it doesn't. The only way SS enters the picture is as

ONE of the U.S. government's debtors. Why, eg, is the Commission not bringing China into the picture?

If you owe someone money, when you sit down to try to figure out how you are going to pay them, do you drag the person 'into the picture' by telling THEM they are the ones who have to 'tighten their belts' especially if their finances are in good shape?

Do you see how ridiculous that is?

[sandnsea]

34. WE are the debtors too

Do you not see how ridiculous it is to pretend otherwise?

[sabrina 1]

35. Explain that please ~ because no, I do not see it at all.

[sandnsea]

43. Okay

Intergovernmental Debt includes the social security trust fund. About $6 trillion. That includes things like the railroad retirement, medicare, etc, too.

Public Debt, money the feds borrow from China and elsewhere to fund the government. Another $6 trillion, or so.

Whenever the trust fund is used to pay social security benefits, it's actually money from the federal budget as your OP shows. The money is borrowed and that transfers social security intergovernmental debt to the public debt.

Who pays the public debt?

[customerserviceguy]

46. OMG! You mean 'they' don't owe the money to 'us'???!!!

:sarcasm:

Seriously, keep it up, I think you're driving a bit of sense home here.

[sabrina 1]

50. I'm sorry, but you're not making sense.

Whenever the trust fund is used to pay social security benefits, it's actually money from the federal budget as your OP shows.

How is this the fault of the American Worker? It is money from the fund that the people paid into that has collected interest, as promised by the Federal Govt. This is not part of the budget of the Federal Government. They have BORROWED it, that doesn't make it theirs. Borrowing means just that. Taking someone else's money temporarily on the understanding that it will be paid back. This decision was not made by the American people so they are in no way responsible for any debt the Fed. Govt ran up.

[sandnsea]

51. The American people are "in no way responsible for any debt the Fed. Govt ran up"

Really?

[Hannah Bell]

64. The top 0.1% of taxpayers (141,000 returns, average income 7.4 million) gets 12% of all income &

pays 20% of all income taxes.

The top 1% gets 23% of all income (AGI of $410K or more) & pays 40% of income taxes.

The top 5% gets about 38% of all income and pays 60% of all income taxes.

The bottom 75% gets 30% of all income & pays 13% of all income taxes.


The bottom 75%, since they have no effective connections, money, insider information or lobbying power, is not responsible for the debt the government ran up.

Nor are they responsible for paying it back, as they pay very little income tax (the bottom 50% very little at all).

But every one of them that works gets 6.2% of their check taken right off the top, & another 6.2% of their compensation off the top as the "employers'" (tax-deductible) portion: 12.4% tax rate.

It's THEIR money that was "borrowed" for bush's tax cuts, more than half of which went to the top 5%.

It's the top that needs to pay the money back.

Rescind the bush tax cuts on the top.

It's not "WE".

CAPITAL borrowed from LABOR.

Get it straight: Labor pays social security, capital pays income taxes.

And that's not even considering CORPORATE returns; corporations are getting off cheaper than ever since the robber baron era.

[Enthusiast]

97. Nice post, Hannah Bell! nt

[ozone_man]

159. Yes, very nice post indeed!

I think you cut through all of the BS here in one slice.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. They raised FICA taxes explicitly to cover the boomer retirement.

some people are very upset that those obligations, put away in t-bills explicitly for this purpose for more than 30 years, now have to be paid back as intended, and that obligation, which is entirely debt neutral, might impinge on the ability of MegaCorpUsa to continue both its ruinous military spending orgy and its concurrent insane tax cuts for billionaires, because there will no longer be a fica tax surplus cash cow to feed off of. Oh my, somebody is going to have to have his taxes raised to keep the party going, or cut back on the party favors.

[sabrina 1]

74. Perfectly said. The only reason to cut benefits is to increase

the SS Fund. Iow, they will soon have to pay the piper, and they are desperately and very transparently attempting to keep that fund growing, to pay for future criminal wars etc.

And it's very, very sad to see even Democrats aiding and abetting them.

[sandnsea]

75. There you go

So why the hell is anybody trying to pretend that the obligation is paid in full with a happy trust fund all pile dup.

Yep, the tax cuts for billionaires, military spending, corporate welfare, THAT is what we should be railing about. Can we all get on the same page for a change?

[sabrina 1]

83. Who is trying to pretend that the obligation is paid in full?

Not one single person is making that claim. What they are claiming is that when the time comes for the Trust Fund to be needed, the Government will honor the debt, as they have in the past.

Iow, the system is working exactly as it was intended to work. There is no crisis, the boomers retirement is paid for, SS is not going broke, and the Government has no intention of defaulting on its debt to the American people.

What they are trying to do is to make the American people pay for the Government's debt. To make them again, which is ludicrous and should be slapped down as firmly as possible by every Democrat in Congress and by the WH.

[Hannah Bell]

86. .

[sendero]

102. All we are really talking about here..

... is whether one thinks that the government will "meet its commitments" or "do the right thing".

Why would you think that? The government is not doing the right thing about much of anything. They are not just going to pay this off because they cannot do so without spiking interest rates, and if they do that they cannot service the debt at all.

There is a reason Obama flip-flopped on this, he knows that a rogering of the American taxpayer is coming, and he's just trying to figure out the best position.

Does this mean that SS is dead? No, but it does mean that adjustments in the form of cuts, delays and increased contributions are coming. There really isn't a choice. The money was SPENT.

[girl gone mad]

108. Interest rates are not under any pressure.

Paying back the SS bonds will not make interest rates spike. Where would you even get that idea?

[sendero]

155. Of course it will..

.... if the Treasury has to borrow that raises rates. This is econ 101.

The "bonds" are useless, nothing but a promise to borrow in the future.

[YankmeCrankme]

153. SS benefits pay for themselves right now.

Like I said in earlier post (see 146). Benefits are paid IN FULL every year on the current tax revenues dedicated to SS. There is no borrowing of funds for SS. When outlays exceed income they will have to redeem a small portion of the bonds, it won't be a huge amount. They can get the deficit under control with ending Bush tax cuts, raising capital gains taxes, cutting the Pentagon and tightening up some corporate tax laws. Nothing to do with SS, no cuts, delays or reduction of benefits needed. Now, eventually the pool needs to be increased and that is easily done with raised cap.

Yes, they used the surplus SS funds to use in the general fund, but those are bonds backed by US government and if we default on those it will mean some serious crap with regard to the whole US not just SS. Even so, if all that surplus wasn't there, SS would still work and could be corrected with increase tax income dedicated to SS to replace that money, i.e. removing the cap.

There is no SS crisis. There is no deficit problem regarding SS.

This is just a ploy by Republicans to minimize and eliminate SS...like they have been trying since its inception.

[sendero]

156. It is possible for two seemingly..

.. contradictory idea to be be true. Yes, some Repugs would love to dismantle or privatize SS. It's not going to happen.

As for you claim re income vs outlays you are incorrect.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100805/ts_nm/us_usa_budget_entitlements

[YankmeCrankme]

160. Did not realize the recession has affected the SS this year. Thanks for that info

Doesn't change the fact that SS is not in crisis due to its cost. The crisis is the economy and that is another issue.

Still 41 billion dollars of trust funds redeemed would not be a problem if the other issues I mentioned were dealt with. What is it about reducing the Pentagon's budget, increasing capital gains tax, reducing corporate tax loopholes and eliminating Bush's tax cuts that is so anathema to people. No, you'd rather cut benefits and raise the retirement age.

We shall see what the recommendations of the committee are and what gets implemented, but all indications are that all or part of what you suggest will happen.

[pattmarty]

106. Bingo! AND, specifically legislate (again) SS's "stand alone".............

.....budget that is SEPARATE from the general budget. THEN, we won't be talking about this same shit in another 10 yrs. It is a "peoples" program, one of the very few left. DON'T FUCK WITH IT!!!

[sabrina 1]

131. That is what should be done. They should be told to

forget that fund as far borrowing from now on. In fact, if we did that now, even if they defaulted on the money they've borrowed so far, with SS slated to double its surplus to over $4 trillion by 2023, the program would be still be fine. But once you don't pay a debt, you don't get to borrow any more money. That is how it usually works.

[pattmarty]

137. Yep. And, it looks like "they" (all the Republicans & MOST Dems).......

.........are going to go right along with this bullshit.

[scarletwoman]

9. K&R (nt)

[customerserviceguy]

10. Do you consider this an unbiased source of information on this topic?

I'm sure that there will be websites dedicated to Bernie Madoff, and all the money he made for a few people who got out while the getting was good.

Frances Perkins' claim to fame is Social Security. If it goes down, so does her legacy. I would expect her admirers to do anything they can to say that things are all right.

They called the Titanic unsinkable back before it's maiden voyage. Clearly, things change.

[ipaint]

16. And some things never change.

"But this commentary is about ideology. It is to remind readers that the same attacks on Social Security have been going on — in different guises — for at least four decades. The stagflation of the 1970s, precipitated by the oil crisis of 1973-74, provided long-term, ideological critics of social insurance an opportunity to argue that such programs — retirement, survivors’ insurance, Medicare, disability coverage, unemployment — were unaffordable. Critics from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, and increasingly, in the 1980s, in publications financed by the Wall Street financier Peter Peterson, were not prepared to attack the desirability of social insurance programs directly. Instead, claims varied from how ungovernable such programs seemed during the 70s to the follow-up charge of affordability."

http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/06/15/a-brief-history-of-attacks-on-social-security-12412/

The elites attack the workers fund at regular intervals with the same scare tactics, exaggerations and outright lies. These are some of the same brilliant minds who thought the housing bubble was a good thing.

The only threats to social security come from the elites in finance and government who have brought this country to it's knees with their criminal fraud and financial ponzi schemes.

We have plenty of millionaires and billionaires with massive hoards of stolen wealth. Time to take it back. Either that or we become their slaves (those who aren't already).

[sandnsea]

19. In order to "take it back"

You have to admit you need it back and that they took it.

When you say social security is ladeda a-ok - then what's your basis for getting your FICA back from the rich fucks who took it?

[ipaint]

21. Tax the rich fuckers to pay for the cost of servicing the bonds.

end the wars for real and cut defense. They can sell all the bonds they want to china to finance ongoing wars but all of a sudden when it comes to honoring the bonds we own, they run out of money.

Bullshit.

[customerserviceguy]

23. We're going to have to tax the rich fuckers

to pay off the rest of the ten trillion dollars of national debt. It might take awhile to get it all, even if we separate them from the congresscritters that they've bought and paid for.

And good luck with doing the latter.

[ipaint]

30. And going along with the massive theft is just digging the hole deeper and deeper.

All the elite know is how to steal. It ends one of two ways we fight or we become slaves in larger and larger numbers.

Ending the bush tax breaks and defunding the wars will take care of a large chunk of the deficit.

[customerserviceguy]

36. My prediction is that the hole will be deep enough

to satisfy a Chilean miner.

Hasn't the HCR debacle convinced you that the elites are still in charge? The Who had it right, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

[ipaint]

39. Who said they weren't in power. I didn't, they own the government top to

bottom. Doesn't mean every time they say jump I'm going say how high sir.

[customerserviceguy]

44. But if you're an American worker

You will have to deal with the increased taxes they decree be levied, and the reduced benefits that they also require to keep kicking that can down the road.

I'm convinced of it's inevitability, the only thing I think there's still time for is to have them apply these things in the way that is the least hurtful for current workers and future retirees. Right now, I doubt they have a clearly defined blueprint for this, if progressive ideas are introduced, then there is a chance that they might be adopted, especially if we can get a few friendly congresscritters to back them.

I've set my solutions forth here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9021996&mesg_id=9029588

Perhaps you'd care to comment on them, all I get in response to them is either ladedah (as sandnsea puts it so succinctly) or the sound of crickets. I would welcome a spirited debate with someone who has at least a bit of thoughtfulness on this subject.

[ipaint]

59. I read your post.

Your suggestions are as pie in the sky as mine. They all lesson the disastrous effects of cuts/rise in taxes on regular workers in the program by taking the extra from the wealthy. Not going to happen.
You work within their framing of the "problem", I refuse to accept their framing. Doesn't matter, they will still steal all they can.


Any minor concessions will be steamrolled by the effects of cuts in benefits and/or raise in taxes on workers.
Just like health ins. reform. When 2014 hits all hell's going to break lose, sky high premiums, no money for subsidies, a mandate and high unemployment. Ouch, look out. If anything eventually puts a right wing nutjob in the white house it will be the result of that disastrous ins. giveaway.

[Hannah Bell]

87. no increased taxes are required except on the top 1%. who can afford it. in spades.

[pattmarty]

109. I just love all your attempts at humor with your little "diddies"...........

.........C'mon, customer guy, lay out some solutions instead of those idiotic jingles. You criticize everyones ideas, let's have some of yours. You're not Jon Stewart.

[customerserviceguy]

149. Ok, that ditty (diddy, in your spelling)

was as a result of posting with a beer at my side. I can't take this whole thing stone cold sober, can you?

Anyway, my solutions are in this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9021996&mesg_id=9029588

They're not everything that can and should be done, but I feel they're a start, and potentially way more effectual than simply saying that there either is no problem, or that Social Security is somehow exempt from consideration by a commission that has every intention of digging into it anyway, even though it may nominally have a mandate to look at other areas of government.

[sabrina 1]

71. Perfectly said. What is so hard to understand?

The propaganda is so ingrained in the minds of the American people that it makes me sad that even when they are presented with the facts, they simply refuse to accept them.

Thank you for your clear, concise, on-target posts. I cannot believe we have to argue this on a Democratic board.

[customerserviceguy]

150. We discuss things here

because we are not freepers. I've done some lurking over at that forum (although not since just after the election) and they are an echo chamber that seems to remove anyone who disagrees with the official party line.

I'm glad that the moderators over here encourage open discussion that is civil in nature. I learn more from the people who I disagree with than those who act as yes-men for what I have to say.

[Hannah Bell]

66. there's no need to "get rid of" the entire debt. in fact, doing so would be a disaster.

the us has run a debt nearly every year of its existence, & the only years it didn't were followed in short order by crashes & depressions.

[DJ13]

27. Agreed

Eliminate the cap and theres no SS solvency issue.

Of course, there are a few even here who would rather screw over the elderly or the disabled than to increase any tax.

Thankfully they are a minority (if vocal).

[customerserviceguy]

38. Why not slightly raise the cap on the employee share

and say that the sky is the limit on the employer share? That way, we don't increase the maximum benefit by too much, yet we make stupid corporations kick a little something into Social Security when they want to pay some fatcat ten million dollars a year to play golf.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. wow - just on employees - sure let the employers enjoy the ride.

SS has been paid enough in fica taxes to fully fund SS, using the most pessimistic forecast, until 2037. The problem is that we have been using that surplus to hide the revenue shortfall from other taxes: to subsidize income tax cuts for the very wealthy and for corporations. There is no reason to raise even more surplus FICA revenue.

How about we raise income taxes on everyone making over 250,000, again on everyone making over 350,000, again on everyone making over 500,000, again on everyone making over 750,000 and once more on everyone making over 1,000,000. How about returning the top tax rate for those making 1,000,000 or more to 70% while introducing enough steps on the way down to middle class salaries to not punish working people while getting the truly rich to pay more? On top of that, impose a small transaction tax on stock trades. How about them apples? How about our party actually support pro-working family economic policies instead of pandering to the corporate elites?

[customerserviceguy]

143. What ride?

I'm advocating that employers pay the FICA tax on whatever they pay employees, and since working and most middle class people are below the current cap (and they will certainly be below a significantly raised cap) it won't come out of them. I'm not sure what you mean by employers enjoying the ride, you clearly seem to have misunderstood me.

By the way, the "most pessimistic forecast" includes the sunny view that the Trust Fund IOU's will be used to pay for the baby boomer benefits. That's not pessimistic enough to match up with what I see as a likely reality.

As for your tax raising proposals, I'm all for them. There is a lot of debt that needs to be paid back, and it's not all in the Social Security Trust Fund.

[pattmarty]

111. What about "small" business? Plus, it's a backward way of doing it.........

.........Whay don't you just put a tax surcharge on the "fatcat" and end of story. Personally, I don't give a fuck about large corps, but you know (or should) that small business' will be really hurt by this. Why penalize JUST business? You know that this can be "fixed" relatively easy in any number or combination of fixes. Why penalize working people AND SMALL business? Plus, I don't think that would bring in that much $$ as opposed to other "fixes" that are out there already. You don't need to up the age or cut benefits. The main thing here is to make sure that SS is again a "stand alone" system then we won't be arguing about it in another 5 yrs.

[sabrina 1]

117. I already pointed that out to this commenter in a different thread.

Doing that would kill small businesses. Clearly anyone making that suggestion never ran a small business.

[pattmarty]

122. Well I never have, but anyone with thinking skills would know..............

........that what the poster is advocating is a "tax on business" with this. Not a very good idea and it would never get passed. I am in no way a cheerleader of business, but rather a supporter of working class people, but hey, get real that is a "suicide deal" any way you look at it.

[sabrina 1]

132. True, and I'm not sure if s/he intended it for very small businesses.

I am thinking of small Construction Contractors eg, who have only a few employees and don't make a lot of profit to begin with. Those are the people who would go out of business if that were to be implemented.

[pattmarty]

138. I would tend to agree.

[customerserviceguy]

144. I've always proposed

that adding something to the employer share of FICA should depend on size and profitability. Truly small businesses should not have to pay a FICA surtax, this might give them a bit of competitive advantage over the megacorporations I favor imposing it on.

[sabrina 1]

72. Sad, isn't it? n/t

[Hannah Bell]

88. Rescind the bush INCOME TAXES. Eliminating the cap is what they want.

To keep the party going, as one poster said.

Taxing labor more to continue building the slush fund for capital.

[sabrina 1]

33. Excellent post thank you!

And what was this administration thinking when it put Pete Peterson on this Commission? I really would like an answer to that question. A known enemy of SS for many, many years. It boggles the mind. That is the kind of appointment I would have expected from Bush and we would have been going wild over it, and rightly so.

[customerserviceguy]

40. I would tell you why they put Peterson on the commission

But since you think he has enough sense of his moral duty to do the right thing, you wouldn't believe me.

[sabrina 1]

47. Please tell me. I have been trying to figure it out since it happened

These are people, Grover Norquist who was invited to speak before the committee, Pete Peterson, Ryan, Alan Simpson that are best described as foxes when it comes to the henhouse that is the SS fund. So I would really love to know the thinking behind dragging them out of the political gutter to which the American people dispatched them, (because they did not like their ideas remember?) and giving them the power to once again attack SS.

[customerserviceguy]

55. This commission

was set up to do the dirty work. The Federal budget has myriad problems, not the least of which are entitlements. You think they've only got Social Security in their crosshairs? I'm more than willing to bet that Medicare is on the chopping block, as well.

If interest rates rise beyond the historically anemic levels they've been at recently, this nation's finances are screwed beyond belief. Maybe I should have said "when".

We're in a real pickle. We're stuck in two wars, that the President refuses to lose, mainly because he doesn't want to look like Jerry Ford the day that the helicopters were taking friendly South Vietnamese off of the roof of the American embassy. Even after we figure out how to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, we still have a radical Islamic enemy out there that will pursue us back to the US, the North Vietnamese didn't care to do that.

We've run out of the ability to do further stimulus, the tax breaks from the Bush era are coming to an end, and it's time to start figuring out how to pay off the Chinese, since they're starting to refuse to finance our deficits. In that case, you look to any place you can to cut costs and boost revenue, and even if Social Security is not the problem, it's still the fatted calf that you can kill to eat, while you still have the ability.

When you need to do some executions, you bring in the hatchet men. Your list is the rogue's gallery of those that will take the blame, Robert Bork-style, for what is coming down the pike. The President's savvy enough to know that HCR as currently constituted will piss off both the left and the right, and that he's going to take some heavy losses in November. May as well take advantage of that lame-duck Congress to get some dirty work accomplished.

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Social Security. I have perhaps thirty years left on the planet, at most, and I'd like the last half of that to be in a retirement where I don't have to live on Little Friskies. But I'm not going to depend on the tender mercies of politicians who have sold me out in the past, are selling me out in the present, and will gladly throw me overboard if it will help their re-election prospects, so I live as though I will not have Social Security.

[sabrina 1]

79. This is one of the best comments you've made on this topic so far.

I am afraid you are probably correct. In fact, I just said something very similar in another thread.

However, I am not ready to give up yet. You seem resigned to the inevitable outcome. I think we still have a chance to stop them. We'll see, but if they do this, it could well be then end of the Democratic Party ...

[customerserviceguy]

99. There are two possible inevitable outcomes

One is something that is designed purely by Repukes, which will be passed by them and lame-duck Democratic congresscritters, then signed by the President. That's the one we get if we take the tack that there is no problem, or the Jedi mind trick way of "These aren't the droids you're looking for."

The other is to find a way to communicate progressive ways of doing the dirty work, so ideas as of the type that I've set forth are part of the commission's report, which will get an up or down vote by Congress. If it's too progressive for the Repigs to swallow, then maybe they defeat it in Congress, and you get what you wanted in the first place.

[pattmarty]

114. Thx for a little better perspective of your views on SS. You should........

.......have put this out there with some of your other comments and a lot of us wouldn't have been so hard on you. The one thing I will agree wholeheartedly on with you is not trusting ANY politician nowadays to look out for the working or middle class people, much less for the poor. I believe a lot of us here can agree that after the elections when the commission gives their report the "lame duck" congress will pass legislation that will start the demise of SS as we all know it. I took my "early" SS at 62. Both my parents never collected a fucking dime and were 60 and 64 when they died. I have been saying for over 20 yrs now, that I really feel sorry for the younger people living in the US today. I have 7 kids ranging from a low age of 32 to a high of 44 and with the exception of one that has a college education all the rest are "fucked". My wife and I have recently been toying with becoming ex-pats maybe moving to Spain. It is a goddamn shame what has happened to this country especially in the last 40 yrs.

[customerserviceguy]

145. I've never opposed Social Security

I just favor a clear-eyed approach to what can practically be done with this commission, and with Congress, especially considering the lame-duck period that we will enter in just a couple of months.

[pattmarty]

112. He is not on the commission. Although, he is very, very closely...........

.........tied to the commission and I assume to most of the members.

[Hannah Bell]

65. This "Titanic" has been afloat for 70 years, & the only danger to the ship is the

wrecking crew that's assiduously trying to sink her.

[sabrina 1]

77. And this time with the help of a Democratic administration. And their

supporters. It really is a travesty but if they succeed, it will destroy the Democratic Party. SS is the most popular social program in the country. Which is why even Bush backed away from trying to do what this Commission is doing. People will feel so betrayed if Democrats allow this happen.

[BeFree]

14. heh

The government has spent the reserves which they borrowed via the bonds. The govt. sells bonds all the time, and each time that increased debt adds to the deficit.

The SS is not causing the deficit, the selling of bonds in general IS causing the deficit. And the selling of 2.5 trillion in bonds to the SS is a part of the deficit.

The "Reserves" are mainly in the form of IOUs from the govt. and when the SS needs extra money it redeems some bonds and so the govt. sells bonds to say, China, which increases the debt and adds to the deficit.

If for some reason SS needed a trillion, the govt. would have to sell an EXTRA trillion in bonds, to say, China, because the govt. is broke.

[sandnsea]

17. Between 2015 and 2037

Or thereabouts, social security is going to need that 2.5 trillion in bonds.

AFTER 2037, social security is going to need money straight-out because it will only be able to pay 75% of benefits due and there won't be any trust fund bonds.

[ipaint]

18. well then I guess they will have to cash them in. nt

[sandnsea]

20. Then SAY That

Hey rich fucks that stole our FICA - it's time to cash it in! We're going to be raising taxes on you that you were supposed to be paying the past 30 years.

[ipaint]

22. Good, say it a few more times and it starts to come out

quite naturally. Once we all do it together they just might hear us.

[sandnsea]

24. Well you have to admit there's money owed first

Right?

[sabrina 1]

31. And who is denying there is money owed?

And since when does the person to whom the money is owed, pay the debt that is owed to them? Explain that if you can.

[sandnsea]

32. There's trillions in the trust fund

Not to worry, ladeda. You say it over and over and over.

In the biggest scheme of things, the same people who paid the FICA pay the federal taxes. US taxpayers. Who the hell else is going to pay the federal debt except US taxpayers.

WHICH taxpayers is the question. And if you'd stop saying there's no problem with social security, we could get that money from the correct taxpayers and not the backs of the working people again.

[ipaint]

37. No you have that backwards.

Saying social security is the problem means the solution needs to be found within social security. Social security is not the problem, the problem is the deficit that is the result of the rich getting a free ride on our dime. That means we have a wealth hoarding problem and if the government needs money to meet it's obligations that's where they need to get it. And they can always sell more bonds to other countries. They do that for everything else.

[customerserviceguy]

41. If we had politicians that weren't bought and paid for

by the rich, we'd have balanced or surplus budgets, and would have no trouble dealing with the Social Security Trust Fund. The commission is just there for the purpose of doing the dirty work, making sure that a departing lame-duck Congress has a parting gift for the American worker.

It's like the magician, he wants you to look at his left hand, while his right hand is making the trick possible.

[sandnsea]

42. They spent the FICA

That's the problem. Keep pretending it isn't and they're going to win the spin war and then the money war and we will be fucked again.

[defendandprotect]

128. +1000% --

[sabrina 1]

52. Well, on that we agree. The people who have benefited from

not paying their fair share, should be taxed and the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire.

The trillions in the fund, 2.5 as of now, belongs to the American people. Any money spent from that fund, must be paid back. There are many ways to pay it back. But one of them is NOT, as this Commission is attempting to claim, to take it from the people who are owed the money.

Which is why they need to be stopped.

[sandnsea]

54. No, this Commission is not trying to take it from the people

Alan Simpson and the Republicans are, surprise!

The discussions about raising the tax cap or changing the retirement age formula, strenthening social security, is about the shortfall AFTER 2037.

Two different issues.

[ipaint]

61. Obama is responsible for both Bowles and Simpson.

Both right wing anti worker assholes. The buck stops with Obama on this, he got the ball rolling.

[sandnsea]

62. The ball got rolling in 2000

When blue dog democrats got together and gave away the surplus. You can't just pretend nothing has to be done about the deficit or need for federal funds to pay social security benefits, or that Obama created the problem because he is addressing it.

[ipaint]

69. The commission we face today is solidly Obama's.

Repubs and the DLC/new democrats have been actively conducting a war on workers and the poor for almost 3 generations.

[sabrina 1]

81. Changing the retirement age should not even be

up for discussion.

And why are Republicans like Alan Simpson, Pete Peterson amd Judd Gregg, among other Republicans on this Commission? Why are people like Grover Norquist invited to present their views before this Commission? We KNOW their views, that is why we threw them ouit of office, and it is that knowledge that should have excluded them from any Democratically appointed Commission in the first place.

Beter question, why did this president, who opposed these kinds of Commissions, calling them, correctly 'a stealth way of getting around the legislative process' and 'a stunt' in the campaign, appoint this Commission in the first place if he really meant what he said in the Campaign? What changed his mind so soon after after the election? It certainly doesn't inspire confidence.

Did we elect Democrats so that we could end up with Republicans making decisions again?

And whether you care to acknowledge it or not, Obama has repeated the lies of these Republicans in public, lies such as tying the deficit to SS. For me and many Americans these issues are far too important to ignore just because we have a Democrat in the WH or a majority in Congress.

I would like some answers as to why Obama appointed these Republicans, and why he seeks advice from Republicans like Lindsey Graham among others. Aren't there good Democrats whose advice he could seek?

[customerserviceguy]

151. You haven't commented on my proposal

for a five point rating scale for jobs, based on physical difficulty. Right now, the age for full benefits is 67 for those who were born in 1957 and later, I feel that's just too hard on people who are hotel maids, coal miners, and janitors, just to name a few occupations.

If we had a five point scale, there might be a possible slip of a job from where it should be, but it's not as bad as either an age of 67 or more for some really tough occupations. Folks like me who sit at a desk and answer phones all day can go to 70, I did some really tough physical stuff a few years ago, and I wouldn't sentence anyone to doing that until 67.

Not all jobs are equally draining, shouldn't the retirement age reflect that?

[sabrina 1]

152. I could agree with that. My problem is with tampering with SS

to try to fix the deficit when even if they cut benefits all that will happen is that money will be added to the surplus and will do nothing for the deficit. It's the lies they are telling that is the problem. They are not acting in good faith and Obama imo, needs to explain why he turned to people who we know do not care one bit about people. What was he thinking? What did he think we would hear from these rightwing lunatics that we haven't already heard before?

[customerserviceguy]

154. OK, I get that you don't want anything to happen to Social Security

But if this commission gets to trying something, wouldn't you rather that they be aimed at some progressive principles, perhaps making the commission's report (subject only to an up-or-down vote) so progressive that even Rethugs might not vote for it in the lame duck session?

[sabrina 1]

157. The Commission is not legitimate, As Galbraith and others

have stated, once they veered into discussing Social Security as part of the cause of the deficit, they made themselves completely illegitimate.

It's 'you don't want anything to happen to Social Security' that is the problem, it is the illegitimacy of the whole discussion, the lies once again to the American people, regardless of the issue, war, the economy etc.

When this gets to the lame Duck Congress, regardless of what is in it, because that act itself, condemned by Obama in the campaign for reasons he clearly stated, is nothing more than an attempt to get around our legislative process and is itself anti-democratic principles.

All that needs to happen then, now that the whole discussion has been debunked, illegitimized, is for every single Democrat to reject it and demand that such matters, the Fiscal Responsibility of the Federal Government, be left where they belong, in the hands of Congress for open discussion as was intended.

As Obama himself stated 'these commissions are nothing more than a stunt'. And he was absolutely right.

What I want is for Democrats to do what is right when these 'recommendations' arrive before Congress. And prevent them from using a 'stunt' to affect this country's economic issues.

Democrats should need nothing more than the obvious illegitimacy of the Commission to encourage them to vote according to their duty. Playing games like putting some progressive suggestions into the report, is just more the same tactics used to appease people. So long as they get to tamper with SS, they will be happy. That must be stopped or millions of people will desert this party by the 2012 election, not to mention how wrong it would be.

[customerserviceguy]

161. Sorry, you holding a sign up

saying "You're not legitimate!" is not going to stop them one little bit. The President created them to do the hatchet work, they just won't listen to any arguments that they're not supposed to be there. He's learned how to do a few stunts.

[sabrina 1]

163. True, if I were the one holding up the sign.

It is people with far more influence than I, who are the ones holding the sign.

[customerserviceguy]

164. You see anybody on the national scene so inclined?

I haven't seen any opposition to this commission yet from any elected officials, especially those in Congress. My theory is that they will probably go along with 75% of what that commission can hash out in its internal negotiations.

[Hannah Bell]

89. The top 1% pays 40% of income taxes. The top 5% pays 60%.

Say it over & over, ladeda.

Most workers pay more in fica than in income tax, ladeda.

Income taxes; paid by CAPITAL.

Fica taxes: paid by LABOR.

ladeda.

The top 5% can easily pay off the entire trust fund debt over the 30-year period of the boomers' retirement simply by rescinding their bush tax cuts.

We could jack up corporate rates to add a little to the kitty.

They used to pay a big chunk of taxes; it's now something like 7% of the total.

But corporations take most of the money in the economy.

[sabrina 1]

118. There is no problem with SS. The problem is with the Fed. Govt.

having created a deficit. If YOU keep saying there is a problem with SS you are doing exactly as they want you to do, and then they will tell you they have to 'fix SS' rather fixing 'the Fed. Govt.

[pattmarty]

115. Where is Al Capone when you need him? Seriously though, we............

...........(the little people) don't have a Capone to enforce on these rich fucks to pay "US" back.

[customerserviceguy]

26. Oh, they'll hear us

and they'll whistle, and their congresscritters will come running, ready to do their masters' bidding.

[lumberjack_jeff]

124. Bingo. Nice to see you've decided to get on the bus. n/t

[sabrina 1]

25. And that is the doomsday scenario. It will not happen

The same prediction has been made every decade since this fund was set, and will continue to be made as long as it exists. But despite all the gloomy predictions, it has never happened, has it?

[sandnsea]

29. Your post shows when it has happened

Those years in the 70s & early 80s, primarily, when social security didn't have enough and federal revenue funds had to be used. They're right there. How can you say it never happened when it's right there in your post.

[customerserviceguy]

45. It's also clear

that every time it got really severe, taxes rose and benefits were cut. What would lead anyone to believe that this time it would be different?

[sandnsea]

63. Maybe the people have gotten a little smarter?

And won't let them roll us again.

[customerserviceguy]

100. I might have believed that a year and a half ago

Then I saw HCR being cobbled together, and coming out as an unrecognizable monster that is doing nothing to control costs or insurance company megaprofits.

[Hannah Bell]

67. not true. benefits were increased until the reagan fix.

and ss taxes weren't necessarily increased in each of those 11 years, or because of a one-year deficit. That's what the Trust Fund is for:

"Since 1937, there have been 11 years in which benefits paid out exceeded income and so the assets of the Trust Funds had to be spent to make up the difference. This cashing-in of the Trust Fund bonds amounted to about $26 billion in those 11 years.

Note: In actual practice the Trust Funds are cashing-in bonds all the time, not just in periods of income shortfalls. The Trust Funds regularly purchase new bonds and redeem mature ones ("rolling over" much of the debt) and the benefits paid are from a combination of new tax revenues and redeemed bonds. It is difficult in any given year to say precisely what part of the benefits paid come from new tax revenues and what part form redeemed bonds. However, in the 11 years identified below, since payroll taxes could not cover the benefits paid out, we can say fairly precisely that at least this amount of the benefits paid came from redeemed government bonds.)"

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


what happened in the 70s, the only significant time of continuing shortfall (mainly because of inflation/recession) was that the trust fund got drawn down to well below the one-year benchmark -- which is what triggered the reagan "fix" that went 180 degrees in the opposite direction -- continually growing surpluses.

[sabrina 1]

119. I'll try to type this slowly. Did the Government default on SS

in the '70s or did they not? Try to read that question a few times before responding.

[lumberjack_jeff]

123. They're not broke. They just don't like collecting taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_revenue_as_percentage_of_GDP

[laughingliberal]

49. K & R, sabrina1. nt

[pa28]

53. Excellent information. Thank you.

The alarming part about the Simpson commission and his recent comments were the words "worthless IOU's" in reference to the treasuries that make up the SS trust fund.

I've paid into SS for 20 years and have another 30 to go before I can claim benefits. The part he referred to as "worthless" represents my contributions. I'm self employed so I effectively pay double. Believe me, it's not just some triviality I can easily ignore.

The public should really consider itself a creditor in the case of it's SS savings just as JP Morgan, Barclays bank, the government of China or any other holder of US treasuries does.

When you hear the words "worthless IOU's" any creditor will consider that to be default language. Myself, like any creditor will want to speed payment to bring the debt down when this occurs. Creditors worried about default will want the debtor to prove creditworthiness and intent to pay as a condition to providing further credit (more SS payments).

I look at the framing taking place now from the administration and the commission itself and they seem to be setting the stage for a permanent surplus through cuts or FICA increases so the money owed to the SS savers will never have to be "paid back". Once again, taking on the role of creditor I think a spend-down of the trust fund might be a healthy thing for the system while removing some of the temptation to default on that debt or have Wall Street run their fingers through it and strip it's equity through fees.

A little bit of a cushion for SS is a good thing but there is no reason to do this *today*. We have the luxury of waiting 10 years or 15 to address the problem (if there is one) and put this in the hands rational people with no ideological axe to grind.

Someone other than Alan Simpson in other words.

[sabrina 1]

70. Excellent post.

The public should really consider itself a creditor in the case of it's SS savings just as JP Morgan, Barclays bank, the government of China or any other holder of US treasuries does.

Exactly! But those other creditors do not have a multi-trillian doller account that Rightwingers have access to and have been salivating over for decades.

A little bit of a cushion for SS is a good thing but there is no reason to do this *today*. We have the luxury of waiting 10 years or 15 to address the problem (if there is one) and put this in the hands rational people with no ideological axe to grind.

Thank you for putting it so succicntly. Rational people would not include Pete Peterson, Alan Simpson or Grover Norquist.

[sandnsea]

78. Republicans will always call them "worthless IOUs"

That's what they called them back in 2006 when we fought them off before. That's what they'll call them in five or ten years, when we can't wait, and who knows who will be in office.

This is not Alan Simpson's commission unless the left keeps helping to frame it that way.

It's a Fiscal Commission that needs to cut federal spending and raise federal taxes so there is money to pay back the social security trust fund. Until it gets framed that way - WE are going to lose this fight.

[unkachuck]

56. K&R....n/t

[Kaleva]

68. "Social Security is prohibited by law from contributing to the federal deficit. "

As there is no money in the SS Trust Fund, the Federal Govt. will have to borrow the money to pay it back.

[Hannah Bell]

90. No, they don't have to borrow it. Rescinding the bush tax cuts on the top 1% alone yields

nearly a trillion over 10 years.

That keeps things chugging along just fine.

we can also create it as sovereign debt out of thin air. and since we're in a recession-cum-depression with nearly half of our productive capacity underutilized = no inflationary effect.

[sabrina 1]

92. Thank you for your posts. I cannot understand why

with all the information available to debunk the lies, anyone on this board doesn't see the picture at this point.

We are about to be screwed in much the same way as we were on HC. Unless we can find a way to let them know that unless they deal with this before the election, there will be repercussions. They clearly do not care what we think.

[Hannah Bell]

93. apparently a large percent of "democrats" are all for the catfood commission's work.

[Enthusiast]

94. Thank you, sabrina 1.

I really do appreciate your contributions.

[sabrina 1]

98. I appreciate that, thank you.

It is very sweet of you to say. I always appreciate your posts also. And I like your sigline :hi:

[dotymed]

104. Yes, the Democrats should

"shout from the rooftops" that SS is solvent.
They could use this as an example and model to create more "social programs" like medicaid for all.
If the Democrats would return to their FDR roots and campaign for peoples rights over corporate rights, and follow through, they would never have to worry about elections.
Look at Chavez (a bad example to many here), his "war on poverty" has garnered him a large majority even though he is constantly under (literal) siege by the wealthy in his country and other countries (like the USA).
It is a "no-brainer." The majority of Americans are suffering while the very few wealthy Americans are profiting obscenely.
Pass legislation to alleviate the suffering. Jobs and Universal Health care...etc...
Without Universal Health care, often people can not transition into jobs because they know that they will lose what ever health care they do have.

[sabrina 1]

121. SS is such a positive for Democrats. I do not understand why

they don't use it when campaigning. Republicans do not want to talk about SS. Dems should outright accuse them of trying to kill the program and force them into discussing it. But I rarely hear Dems talking about what really is a perfect example of why the Democratic Party used to be called the party of the people.

The fact that there is so much ignorance about the program and so many lies that have stuck in poeple's minds is because Dems do a terrible job of promoting themselves. Or maybe they no longer believe in representing the people, at least until they hear from their corporate bosses.

Universal Health Care should have been an easy sell to the American people. It is a tragedy that the opportunity to do it was completely blown.

[Romulox]

113. So...people after 2037 aren't important?

:shrug:

[sabrina 1]

120. Did someone say that?

No, to save time, they did not. What they said was that, contrary to the 'sky is falling' crowd on the right, SS without doing anything, is capable of meeting all of its obligations until at least 2037 even with a bad economy. Even now, it is running a surplus with so many people out of work. If the economy improves, it will likely last longer than that. That is the most conservative prediction.

Then it would still be capable of paying 78% of its obligations. That is when it will need to go into the trust fund. To make sure the money is there, all Congress has to do is to let the Bush tax cuts expire for now and that will take care of the problem for many more years to come. To make last even longer, all they need to do is to tax the rich.

What the are PLANNING to do on this Commission is, rather than make the rich pay their fair share, to make the American workers pay more, by cutting benefits and/or raising the retirement age. Neither of those two things will help the deficit. They will most likely increase it by putting even more money into the Trust Fund, which the Govt will again spend and owe, increasing rather than decreasing the deficit.

Not a single person said the people after 2037, especially since many of those people are right here, don't matter. I don't know where you got that.

[Romulox]

133. Your response is factually incorrect.

Then it would still be capable of paying 78% of its obligations. That is when it will need to go into the trust fund. To make sure the money is there, all Congress has to do is to let the Bush tax cuts expire for now and that will take care of the problem for many more years to come. To make last even longer, all they need to do is to tax the rich.

Um, no. The trust fund will be exhausted (that means all spent!) by 2037. You have got your facts all wrong.

[sabrina 1]

139. The trust fund will be exhausted if the economy doesn't

recover in 26 years. Those numbers are based on a bad economy and high unemployment. That won't last forever. Two or three years from now the projections could be entirely different if the Government focuses on creating jobs, raising taxes on the wealthy, letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, and when the economy improves.

[BrklynLiberal]

116. Marking for later perusal....

[Faryn Balyncd]

125. K&R

[defendandprotect]

130. Thanks for sticking with this subject ... right wing propaganda has been fierce on SS!!

[sabrina 1]

135. Yes, it has and the media does little to counter the lies. Just

this morning my MIL after watching the news told me that because people are living longer today, SS has problems. You can imagine how I felt. She isn't computer literate so she depends on the MSM and newspapers for information.

She is an intelligent woman and a liberal. So, I explained to her how the fund works etc. She got it fairly quickly but it showed me that there is a lot of work to do to erase the decades-long propaganda from the right on SS.

I think there should be a little booklet listing the lies and then the facts, updated each year after the Trustees release their report. Because the media is not helping that's for sure.

[defendandprotect]

158. Think the booklet is a good idea... but why wouldn't that have occurred to DEMS long ago???

Or to GAO -- whatever?

Obviously, there don't seem to be two sides working on this issue -- one for and one

against!

But, all along Social Security used to send people out to talk to employees -- usually

at their companies about how the program worked and what benefits it provided - how it

was paid for, etal. That was stopped sometime in early 60's I think.

So -- YES -- think your idea of a booklet is great.

I think it would also be great if seniors got united other than thru AARP!

In fact, great potential out there for unemployed, homeless, seniors to get united --

not to mention teachers whose union is under attack now and . . .

call me overly suspicious . . . but I think WOMEN should be paying a lot of attention

to what's going on.

Repugs, as I recall it, wanted to unhook women from their husbands SS benefits, for one.

And, abortions rights, IMO, are on a very slippery slope these days in DEMOCRATIC PARTY

hands???

And, yes, I get upset when people talk about Americans as being dumb -- elites and

corporate press have worked really hard to make them dumb, disinform them -- and they've

largely succeeded because the public has been overly trusting of government. Not to

mention overly trusting of what comes out of the boob tube!!

:)

What you're doing is very important for DU and everyone here!

[myrna minx]

134. K&R n/t

[abelenkpe]

140. The solution seems simple

* The 2010 trustees report projects that Social Security would be in complete actuarial balance for the full 75 year valuation period, if revenues were increased by the equivalent of increasing the deductions from workers’ wages by 0.92 percent, matched by employers.

* Social Security could be restored to balance more progressively, such as with a tax on sales and purchases of stock, a tax on the assets of very large estates, or by raising the payroll tax cap.*

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is there so much resistance by so many who will only benefit?

Of course my solution would be to simply cut off checks for those who say they want to end social security. You know, like my republican tea partying parents who have no problem cashing their social security checks and then going out to tea party events and writing and calling their representatives screaming about how we should end social security. You see for them, their retirement is about making sure their kids cannot. Nice, huh?

[sabrina 1]

148. You poor thing. I can't imagine what it must be like to have your

parents be a part of the teabagger movement. How did you turn out to be so rational?

I like the second option in the first paragraph.

And I fully support your idea of cutting off people who are collecting SS and railing against it as they do so. I had a similar idea about those who supported the Bush wars. Raise their taxes so they can pay for it. I think both ideas would result in a lot of people instantly changing their minds.

[lib2DaBone]

142. Mr. Obama.. get the country back to work... leave SS alone....

[Turborama]

162. Kick

Recommended earlier.

Everyone should have Sabrina on their Buddies list because her OPs are too good to miss.

:kick: