No. of Recommendations: 2
<<No. of Recommendations: 0
The Social Security and Medicare trust-fund deficits are growing at a combined rate in the vicinity of $1T per year.

If we have Trillion$ to fight useless wars around the world then we have more than enough money to keep Social Security and Medicare running for eternity.>>



Changing the subject, aren't we?


What you are finally understanding is that Social Securities promises vastly exceed the assets it has to pay them. Benefits are paid out of current revenues.

That's the nature of Ponzi schemes. They fail unless new suckers can be found to pour money into them. And Social Security taxes have been raised many times to avoid that failure.

The initial Social security payroll tax was 1%


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Just another vote gathering scam. Make wild proposals you can't deliver, and blame the failure on the opponents, because it will never fly. I can already see the outrage at CNN: "The Republicans are against old people having three squares a day." That should arouse the ire of the villagers, and bring the torches and pitchforks out.

RayB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The Liberal gullibles actually believe these absurd promises. Anything for power and election
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 16
Once again, the key assumption is that the ones you are going to tax even more will not alter their behavior at all. The entire plan is based on everybody who is directly affected by the new huge tax increases doing exactly what they were doing before the tax increases.

When you combine this with her desire to ban fracking on day one of her presidency, you have an AOC level of intelligence being displayed. Her statement yesterday of how she welcomed the markets despising her potential presidency is also lacking in smarts. A large drop in the markets would impact the tens of millions who have IRA's and 401k's as well as all the pension funds that are already short of meeting their obligations. It is all lunacy.

The dems may pack their debate halls with far left people who share these off the wall beliefs, but those who vote in November do not share these same values.

They should have learned from their congressional losses during Obama's time and Hillary's monster loss in 2016. Learning means coming to the table with viable, responsible plans, not the tripe that they are serving up.


BG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Warren Proposes SS Benefit Increase... Immediately increase benefit payments by $200 a month.

This should not be a political issue... If the "honest" cost of living index justifies an increase then the benefit increase should be immediate and automatic.

Currently the cost of living index for such an increase is downright dishonest and a fraud because we need the money to fight useless wars.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
This should not be a political issue... If the "honest" cost of living index justifies an increase then the benefit increase should be immediate and automatic.

Currently the cost of living index for such an increase is downright dishonest and a fraud because we need the money to fight useless wars.


It's a political issue because there should be no such thing as a social security system. There is no basis in the Constitution for the Federal government to run a retirement plan other than for it's employees that is, accurate cost of living calculation or not. There is ample basis for the Federal government to provide for the national defense. Even if you disagree with the methods and expenditures, the answer is not to fund something unconstitutional in its place. I would think balancing the budget and retiring some of the national debt would be a better use.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's a political issue because there should be no such thing as a social security system.

Why not?

The US social security system is working, it is working very well and currently we have about $3 Trillion dollar surplus... (Yes! Trillion with a T).

In fact, the interest alone on the $3 Trillion surplus pays for the current obligations and there is a surplus interest that goes back into the fund. Social Security appears very viable for at least another 30 years - perhaps a lot more...

And then we have the Globalists who want to steal our social security surplus so we can go fight another useless war.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<<The US social security system is working, it is working very well and currently we have about $3 Trillion dollar surplus... (Yes! Trillion with a T).>>



That's the surplus accumulated to pay for SS benefits for the boomer generation.


It's what Democrats don't want to use for it's intended purpose, since they prefer new and higher taxes to spending the scant savings SS actually has.

That $3 trillion dollars is part of the government "trust fund" to pay SS benefits for the 'boomer generation without increasing taxes.

So it's hugely amusing example of fraud that Democrats don;t want to spend that trust fund for it's intended purpose.

Furthermore, now that the higher taxes needed to accumulate that surplus are nio longer needed, it's time to CUT Social Security taxes back to their earlier level.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
The US social security system is working, it is working very well

Any private pension fund operating equally well would see its managers hauled off to prison.

Social Security has HUGE unfunded liabilities.

The same people also manage Medicare, which is in even worse shape.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Social Security has HUGE unfunded liabilities.

Fake News.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Social Security has HUGE unfunded liabilities.

Is that why social security has about a $3 Trillion dollar surplus?

We already mentioned that the interest on this almost $3 Trillion surplus pays not only for the current obligations, there is a surplus interest that goes back into the fund. Again, Social Security appears very viable for at least another 30 plus years.

Then we have the Globalists, the geniuses who having sent our factories and jobs to China, are now claiming that somehow social security is in trouble! It is not. The US economy is improving and the jobs are coming back!


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
<<No. of Recommendations: 0
Social Security has HUGE unfunded liabilities.

Is that why social security has about a $3 Trillion dollar surplus?>>


There's a $3 trillion dollar surplus because the decision was made to actually FUND the extra demand the boomer generation would make on Social Security with temporary higher taxes that would go into a trust fund to pay those extra benefits.

Now, of course, is the time to liquidate that $3 trillion trust fund and cut SS taxes back to their normal amount.

But is that what Democrats want to do?


NOOOOOO! They Don't want to liquidate the Trust fund at all. They want to ignore it anraise taxes yet again to pay a second time for the boomer SS benefits and a cornucopia of NEW, HIGHER benefits that will only be partially paid for by NEW, HIGHER taxes, rather than the tax cuts we should be getting.


But that's the way rackets and Ponzi schemes work. You always need new suckers to keep paying into the fake system to keep- it from failing.

Social Security BEGAN with a 1% payroll tax, you should know. How did it get so big do you suppose? The answer is that it kept running short of money to pay benefits and taxes kept being raised to avoid failure. That's the way a Poni scheme works.


At a minimum, those $3 trillion in the "Trust Fund should be liquidated and used to pay benefits as was planned. That would provide a few more years of benefit payments before SS is once again on the edge of failure.


\
Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
There's a $3 trillion dollar surplus because the decision was made to actually FUND the extra demand the boomer generation would make on Social Security...

It is the American people through their paychecks who funded social security. Not the government.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Now, of course, is the time to liquidate that $3 trillion trust fund and cut SS taxes back to their normal amount.

Your claim is nonsense, and you know it. If you had any proof the claim was valid, you would have posted it. No proof = fake claim.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Here's an interesting article discussing the financing of Social Security:


https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2018/05/05/the-social-se...


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
This is a flagrant and rather clumsy attempt at vote-buying.

According to Gallup, 44+% of those born between 1946 and 1964 identify themselves as conservatives. Only 21% identify themselves as Liberal. The big lump of cheese attracting the Warren-rat are the 33% of boomers who identify themselves as independents.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/181325/baby-boomers-likely-iden...

Interestingly, the low-life lib-labs like Warren cannot attract boomers through the usual stuff she's been spewing, like free education, student loan forgiveness, open borders and free benefits to illegals, free day care, reparations, the GND or Medicare for all. Aside from family health and well being of their children/grandchildren, the three most important issues to retirees is access to Medical services and the cost, their IRA balances and household fixed income, mostly from Social Security. Warren cannot do anything about Medicare/Medigap/MAs and she can't really say anything about the markets, which would almost certainly sharply decline under her administration. Only thing she can do is dangle SS monthly benefit increases out there like dog treats in front of my lab Rufus. Lets hope the baby boom electorate is smarter and better understands the motivations here than Rufus. And something tells me this group, unlike the Gen Z she is used to talking to, can see right through her dog treats.

BruceM
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why not?<\i>

So you have no concern about the Federal Government engaging in unconstitutional activity as long as you perceive that it's working? Sad
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Social Security & Medicare take up an increasing amount of the US budget:https://www.concordcoalition.org/fiscal-indicators

Unfunded liabilities:$55 Trillion
http://fiscalsolvency.com/

Concord Coalition:"The Concord Coalition is a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy. The Concord Coalition was founded in 1992 by the late former Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), former Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), and former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson."
https://www.concordcoalition.org/about-us

Fiscal Solvency:"The Fiscal Solvency Project is a cooperative effort spearheaded by the Campaigns for Liberty of Shawnee and Douglas County, Kansas. Nationally, The Campaign for Liberty (CFL) is a 501(c)4 non-profit entity organized exclusively for the promotion of the social welfare of the United States. We do not endorse specific candidates but rather emphasize issues of vital interest to the voting taxpayers of all parties. The Campaign for Liberty was established by Representative Ron Paul, MD (Texas) and supporters following the conclusion of his campaign for President in 2008. The CFLs of Shawnee and Douglas County are county organizations within the CFL of Kansas."
http://fiscalsolvency.com/about_us_fiscal_solvency_project.h...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Am I the only one who sees these proposals from senators or house representatives running for president who wonders "If this idea is so exceptionally great, why didn't you ever introduce a bill doing this wonderful thing?"

I think Bernie Sanders may have done so, and then been shot down, but even a former VP could have made the world so much more fabulous earlier instead of waiting for a presidential run to hold out some phantom carrot.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
A different view by a wise man!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/UYToz2ePoyY
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Am I the only one who sees these proposals from senators or house representatives running for president who wonders "If this idea is so exceptionally great, why didn't you ever introduce a bill doing this wonderful thing?"

No, you're not! I've been wondering about that since well before the debates.
Anyone else? Anyone? Buehler?

RayB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Interestingly, the low-life lib-labs like Warren

Wow. Senator Warren is anything but that... but when you support pedophiles, thieves, honest people can seem like low-life. Pathetic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
This is a flagrant and rather clumsy attempt at vote-buying.

The year is hardly over and deficit is already over $1 trillion. The administration is talking about tax cut 2.0. I am sure there is no vote-buying going on here. The party of fiscal responsibility is cutting taxes in a responsible way. The party that demanded we need to pay even to pass aid to hurricane victims, is totally being responsible here....

Smart people acting absolutely stupid, and saying nonsensical things happen when their judgement are clouded by politics.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The US social security system is working, it is working very well and currently we have about $3 Trillion dollar surplus... (Yes! Trillion with a T).


Whether it has a surplus or not does not change the fact that has no basis in the US Constitution.

Kathleen
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
The US social security system is working, it is working very well and currently we have about $3 Trillion dollar surplus... (Yes! Trillion with a T).

And, oddly enough, the US social security system's administrators don't think they have a $3T surplus. They think they have assets with a present value of $3T, and already-incurred liabilities with a present value of over $16T. That's a deficit, not a surplus, of over $13T.

The same administrators also run Medicare's finances. Medicare has a deficit of over $37T.

These two deficits together are currently increasing at a pace of about a trillion dollars a year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" assets with a present value of $3T, and already-incurred liabilities with a present value of over $16T. That's a deficit, not a surplus, of over $13T."

To clarify (if that's possible): If (big if) assets' present value were to equal incurred liabilities... would mean we are currently paying every penny of liabilities as they arise; so why have social security as a middle man? And considering that the liabilities are due to be paid to the depositors/contributors, completing the circle, or equalizing assets with liabilities is a pipe dream at best...

...or so my mind figures it after a night of not so restful sleep.

RayB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
<<To clarify (if that's possible): If (big if) assets' present value were to equal incurred liabilities... would mean we are currently paying every penny of liabilities as they arise; so why have social security as a middle man?>>


You obviously don't have a clue as to how insurance works.

When you buy insurance, you buy a promise to pay benefits out of assets already owned by the insurance company.

If the insurance company goes bankrupt, it's assets can be liquidated to pay any promises owed.


By contrast, if Social Security is liquidated, what it has is an enormous amount of promised benefits and no money to pay them.


And Social Security has repeatedly been on the edge of failure, requiring that tax rates for working people be increased many times. When Social security, began, payroll taxes were set at 1%.


And some economists are predicting a crash in jobs as artificial intelligence replaces a huge number of professional and non professional employees. If that's correct, it also means a crash in payroll taxes collected by Social Security, but promises of benefits will continue.

So you see, Social Security's famous "pay as you go" financing is just a description of a Ponzi scheme that pays benefits out of current income, with enormous unfunded liabilities.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Whether it has a surplus or not does not change the fact that has no basis in the US Constitution. Kathleen

On the contrary. Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution provides:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives...

Social Security is the result "of a Senate and House of Representatives" doing their job.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The US social security system is working, it is working very well and currently we have about $3 Trillion dollar surplus... (Yes! Trillion with a T).
---
And, oddly enough, the US social security system's administrators don't think they have a $3T surplus.

We The People - the Deplorables - who paid out of our paychecks the $3 Trillion Social Security surplus say that it is there and we already decided not to fight a couple of useless Globalist wars and as a result Social Security is very viable for at least the next 30 plus years.


The same administrators also run Medicare's finances. Medicare has a deficit of over $37T.

Actually no. Medicare has a problem because the entire healthcare system in the USA is a fraud. If you compare European healthcare with US healthcare you see that premiums in the US are four to five times greater for the same service and in addition, the Europeans have a longer life expectancy!

That is going to be changed...


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
<<Whether it has a surplus or not does not change the fact that has no basis in the US Constitution. Kathleen

On the contrary. Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution provides:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives...

Social Security is the result "of a Senate and House of Representatives" doing their job.


-=Ajax=->>




Below are the enumerated powers of the Congress. Perhaps you can point out where the Congress has the power to establish a welfare scheme for Americans?



That said, the idea of limited government is one of the numerous failures of the constitution.


Seattle Pioneer




Thirty Enumerated Powers
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is widely cited as being an exhaustive list of Congressional power. But, in reality, there are a total of thirty (up to 35, depending on how they’re counted) Congressional powers that are listed throughout the document. Find them here:


To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws:and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records, and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment…
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
On the contrary. Article I, Section 1 of the US Constitution provides:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives...

Social Security is the result "of a Senate and House of Representatives" doing their job.


Social security is not within the scope of the "legislative powers herein granted".
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Below are the enumerated powers of the Congress. Perhaps you can point out where the Congress has the power to establish a welfare scheme for Americans?... Seattle Pioneer

Social Security is not a welfare scheme.

Social Security is a retirement system that has proven itself to be very effective and viable.

Currently, Social Security has about $3 Trillion surplus, the interest alone pays for current obligations and the surplus interest goes back to the fund. Social Security is expected to be viable for at least another 30 years - perhaps a lot more.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
<<Seattle Pioneer

Social Security is not a welfare scheme.

Social Security is a retirement system that has proven itself to be very effective and viable.>>




You were the one who proposed consulting the enumerated powers to support authority for Social Security.


I've given you a lengthy list of enumerated powers, but I don't see anything about retirement systems listed there.


Please be specific in identifying the enumerated power authorizing Social Security and Medicare.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Below are the enumerated powers of the Congress. Perhaps you can point out where the Congress has the power to establish a welfare scheme for Americans?... Seattle Pioneer

Social Security is not a welfare scheme.

Social Security is a retirement system that has proven itself to be very effective and viable.


For a definition of "viable" that would be labeled "fraudulent" if the government weren't running it...

... and still not provided for anywhere in the enumerated powers of the Congress.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You were the one who proposed consulting the enumerated powers to support authority for Social Security.

No, other posters made that argument, so you are making a strawman argument. Personally I don't see anything unconstitutional about Social Security - The notion that Social Security is unconstitutional is laughable.

And you are making this laughable argument because Social Security has proven itself to be extremely successful in covering the retirement years of all Americans.

The roughly $3 Trillion (with a T) Social Security surplus speaks for itself. This alone gives Social Security at least 30 plus years of viability and probably a lot more. And... it is unconstitutional?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
For a definition of "viable" that would be labeled "fraudulent" if the government weren't running it...

How can it be fraudulent if it is funded through the paychecks of American taxpayers?

How can it be fraudulent if it has roughly a $3 Trillion surplus?

How can it be fraudulent if the interest alone on the surplus pays for all current obligations?

How can it be fraudulent if the remaining interest is adding to the surplus?

No answer.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<You were the one who proposed consulting the enumerated powers to support authority for Social Security.

No, other posters made that argument, so you are making a strawman argument. Personally I don't see anything unconstitutional about Social Security - The notion that Social Security is unconstitutional is laughable.>>


I agree with you that the constitution's list of enumerated powers is a joke. The idea of limited government by the Federal government is one of the major failures of the constitution.

So we can agree that Social Security is constitutional, and I hope we can agree that it is not among the enumerated powers listed in Article I of the constitution. The constitution has been effective in many ways, but not in limiting the power of the Federal government, which has expanded dramatically over the centuries, whether you happen to like it or not.

My objection was only that Social Security was not among the enumerated powers of Article I.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<No. of Recommendations: 0
For a definition of "viable" that would be labeled "fraudulent" if the government weren't running it...

How can it be fraudulent if it is funded through the paychecks of American taxpayers?

How can it be fraudulent if it has roughly a $3 Trillion surplus>>



If you have $50 trillion in promised benefits and $3 trillion in assets, you have a Ponzi scheme.



<<How can it be fraudulent if the interest alone on the surplus pays for all current obligations?

How can it be fraudulent if the remaining interest is adding to the surplus?>>



Yes, there is a surplus at present. But it is on the edge of eroding rapidly as the boomer generation continues to expect benefits. Either taxes will be raised or benefits will be cut in a few years ----and this has happened repeatedly in the past.


The initial payroll tax rate for Social Security was 1%.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
For a definition of "viable" that would be labeled "fraudulent" if the government weren't running it...

How can it be fraudulent if it is funded through the paychecks of American taxpayers?


It isn't fraudulent because the government is running it and the government decrees that it isn't fraudulent.

It is fraudulent by any other standard because under existing law there is no possibility that it will live up to the promises it has already made and there is no party, or collection of parties, that is both plausibly able and legally obligated to make good on the shortfall.

Why do I say there's no possibility? Because the program's own administrators say there's no possibility. They currently envision - absent changes in the law giving them access to money they can't have under existing law, and/or reducing benefits - a cut in old-age and survivors' benefits equivalent to an across-the-board 23% cut, effective 2034. The disability fund is in rather better shape, with a 9% cut in benefits effective 2052. https://blog.ssa.gov/social-security-2019-trustees-report/

By the standards applied to other pension systems not run by the federal government, a pension fund should strive to have assets with present value at least equal to the present value of its liabilities. (Note: the promise of future contributions to the fund from its sponsors or members is NOT an asset.) Social Security has already made commitments to the large majority of 30-year-old workers in the US, let alone those older than that, so it has obligations running decades into the future... but its assets are about equal to a mere three years of benefit payments. If it doesn't experience an annual return on investments in excess of 30%, that doesn't work... its investments are strictly US Treasury bonds, which have rarely if ever paid above 20%.

And it's continuing to make and increase promises at faster rate than it's acquiring income.

How can it be fraudulent if it has roughly a $3 Trillion surplus?

If it had a surplus it would not be fraudulent. It does not. The old-age and survivors' fund has a deficit of around $13T - that's the difference between the present value of assets and the present value of liabilities.

The same administrators run another collection of programs with a deficit of over $30T. The trust fund for Medicare Part A is currently expected to run dry in 2026, cutting payouts to not exceed current income - which will be an immediate 14% reduction and grow to a 22% reduction in 2043, before things turn up slightly; the current annual report stops at 75 years in the future with payouts being 20% down.

This Medicare Part A trust fund is there to guarantee payments for decades... it contains enough cash to pay benefits for not quite eight months. https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/04/25/2019-medicare-tru...

The Social Security and Medicare trust-fund deficits are growing at a combined rate in the vicinity of $1T per year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you have $50 trillion in promised benefits and $3 trillion in assets, you have a Ponzi scheme.

The numbers contradict you because:

1. You are not taking into account the fact that people with future claims on Social Security are currently contributing to the fund.

2. You are focusing on future liabilities without taking into account future additions to the fund.

3. That is why Social Security has roughly a $3 Trillion surplus.

4. The interest alone on this surplus pays for all current obligations.

5. And we also have a surplus interest that is adding to the surplus.

Therefore, the claim that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme is bunk.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The Social Security and Medicare trust-fund deficits are growing at a combined rate in the vicinity of $1T per year.

If we have Trillion$ to fight useless wars around the world then we have more than enough money to keep Social Security and Medicare running for eternity.

Besides,

1. The jobs are coming back to the USA. That is having a major impact on Social Security.

2. Healthcare in the US is a massive fraud and that affects medicare. I have no doubt this fraud will be eradicated.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<
The numbers contradict you because:

1. You are not taking into account the fact that people with future claims on Social Security are currently contributing to the fund.

2. You are focusing on future liabilities without taking into account future additions to the fund.>>



How many times are you going to count the same dollar of revenue?


* once when it's being paid and sent out the door to current claimants

* a second time when you count the same dollar as funding future beneficiaries.


Social Security famously, and correctly, claims to be a "pay as you go" system. Which is to say, it doesn't accumulate more than trivial amounts of assets ----the $3 trillion you refer to.


And Democrats are already proposing further tax increases so that $3 trillion will never be paid out in benefits, although it was only accumulated with the idea of funding payments to the baby boomer generation. After that, taxes were supposed to be CUT.

But since our innumerate "creative class" can't understand the idea of not making promises you can't fulfill, consider this:

The creative class is currently in a tizzy over a crash in employment they expect to have happen because of the impact of artificial intelligence. Many millions of working class and creative class jobs would go away. Millions of jobs going away means many billions of dollars of payroll taxes that wont be paid, but there will be huge numbers of people still expecting a check for decades to come.

If the revenue you expect isn't coming in from payroll taxes, where will the money to pay benefits come from?



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<<No. of Recommendations: 0
The Social Security and Medicare trust-fund deficits are growing at a combined rate in the vicinity of $1T per year.

If we have Trillion$ to fight useless wars around the world then we have more than enough money to keep Social Security and Medicare running for eternity.>>



Changing the subject, aren't we?


What you are finally understanding is that Social Securities promises vastly exceed the assets it has to pay them. Benefits are paid out of current revenues.

That's the nature of Ponzi schemes. They fail unless new suckers can be found to pour money into them. And Social Security taxes have been raised many times to avoid that failure.

The initial Social security payroll tax was 1%


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
How many times are you going to count the same dollar of revenue?

For as long as it takes Seattle because facts are stubborn things. And facts do not change just because you are trying to shoot down Social Security using strawman arguments.

As an aside, the latest Social Security surplus today is at $3.1 Trillion.


The creative class is currently in a tizzy over a crash in employment they expect to have happen because of the impact of artificial intelligence.

Nonsense. They said the same thing during industrialization. Back then over 95% of the population were farmers. We are no longer farmers and we are still employed and doing fine. Imagine that.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
If you have $50 trillion in promised benefits and $3 trillion in assets, you have a Ponzi scheme.

The numbers contradict you because:

1. You are not taking into account the fact that people with future claims on Social Security are currently contributing to the fund.


A pension fund is not allowed to assume future contributions to pay currently-committed benefits - that's pretty much the definition of a ponzi scheme.

2. You are focusing on future liabilities without taking into account future additions to the fund.

Future liabilities already committed to should be met with current assets. Future additions will incur additional committed liabilities.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<The creative class is currently in a tizzy over a crash in employment they expect to have happen because of the impact of artificial intelligence.

Nonsense. They said the same thing during industrialization. Back then over 95% of the population were farmers. We are no longer farmers and we are still employed and doing fine. Imagine that.


-=Ajax=->>




I agree with you.


But let's suppose for a moment they are correct and, say, 80% of employees are out of work.

With Social Security having the $3.1 trillion in assets that they have, and enormously greater obligations they have to pay out with grossly reduced incoming revenue. what do you suppose would happen?


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
By the time the Social Security funds are exhausted, the government will have
forbidden purchase of anything you might want to buy anyway.

All for your own good, of course.

Howie52
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
A pension fund is not allowed to assume future contributions to pay currently-committed benefits - that's pretty much the definition of a ponzi scheme.

That is not happening, so why do you call it a Ponzi scheme? For example:

1. The Baby Boomers have been collecting Social Security for at least 12 -13 years now (including those who start collecting early) and the fund is still running a surplus with surplus interest adding to the fund.

2. What makes you think that in the next 9 years (the end of the Boomer generation) Social Security will not be able to meet its obligations?

Your arguments that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme don't add up.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What you are finally understanding is that Social Securities promises vastly exceed the assets it has to pay them. Benefits are paid out of current revenues. That's the nature of Ponzi schemes.

The facts invalidate your definition of a Ponzi scheme because Social Security has a surplus of $3.1 Trillion and current obligations are covered by the interest alone, with surplus interest adding to the surplus.

Surplus means that benefits are paid out of past revenues and past contributions. This is not a Ponzi scheme as you are trying to define it.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1. The Baby Boomers have been collecting Social Security for at least 12 -13 years now (including those who start collecting early) and the fund is still running a surplus with surplus interest adding to the fund.

2. What makes you think that in the next 9 years (the end of the Boomer generation) Social Security will not be able to meet its obligations?


Why the 9-year cutoff, when Social Security today has commitments extending 75 years into the future? Perhaps you don't think you'll live longer than that? Après moi le déluge?

I've already cited the Social Security Trustees' 2019 Annual Report. This is the most definitive statement of the program's financial situation that exists. It says that the trust fund runs out in 2034. But let's look a bit closer...

In 2018, the two Social Security Trust Funds received a total of $1,003B income, and paid out $997B in benefits and operating expenses. That means it ran an operating surplus of $6B. This surplus, you are assuming, is going to fund the new commitments corresponding to $885B of contributions.

Some of those new commitments come due this year. How much? Well, comparing the above against the 2018 annual report https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/releases/2018/?utm_content%20... I see that total expenditures went up by $45B from 2017 to 2018. I'll take that as a good preliminary estimate of how much they'll go up in 2019. Even with interest, that $6B operating surplus from 2018 will fund that increase in payouts for... about 7 weeks.

The Social Security Trustees don't think it's going to work, and it's their job to know, and they have all sorts of high-power accountants to make sure they know.

Quick question: do you know the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The facts invalidate your definition of a Ponzi scheme because Social Security has a surplus of $3.1 Trillion and current obligations are covered by the interest alone, with surplus interest adding to the surplus.

2019 annual report (covering the 2018 fiscal year):
benefits paid      $989 billion
operating expenses $ 6.7 billion
----------------
total $995.7 billion

interest income... $ 83 billion

I observe that the interest income paid less than 9% of current obligations.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1. The Baby Boomers have been collecting Social Security for at least 12 -13 years now (including those who start collecting early) and the fund is still running a surplus with surplus interest adding to the fund.

2. What makes you think that in the next 9 years (the end of the Boomer generation) Social Security will not be able to meet its obligations?


Why the 9-year cutoff, when Social Security today has commitments extending 75 years into the future? Perhaps you don't think you'll live longer than that? Après moi le déluge?
---

Because the baby boomers were mentioned by a number of posters in this thread as an insurmountable obstacle for Social Security and it is not happening!

Social Security is surviving the boomers without a problem paying its obligations from past contributions - from the interest of the surplus alone and with a surplus interest going back into the fund.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1. The Baby Boomers have been collecting Social Security for at least 12 -13 years now (including those who start collecting early) and the fund is still running a surplus with surplus interest adding to the fund.

2. What makes you think that in the next 9 years (the end of the Boomer generation) Social Security will not be able to meet its obligations?

Why the 9-year cutoff, when Social Security today has commitments extending 75 years into the future? Perhaps you don't think you'll live longer than that? Après moi le déluge?
---

Because the baby boomers were mentioned by a number of posters in this thread as an insurmountable obstacle for Social Security and it is not happening!


The "baby boomers", according to wikipeda, were born between 1946 and 1964. The oldest ones reached early-retirement age in 2008 and could have been collecting Social Security* for 11 years, and will be 82 in 9 years.

I know quite a few people older than 82.

The youngest will reach early-retirement age in 2026 so CAN'T even begin collecting Social Security until there are only two years left on your arbitrary 9-years-from-today cutoff. Most of them probably WON'T start taking Social Security benefits until at least the year after your deadline, and the government pushes them to wait another two years after that**. Lifespans are getting longer - the estimated average lifespan of a person who reaches age 65 is another 20 years. These folks can expect - on the average - to live until 2050. That's 21 years in the future.

So tell me again why the 9-year cutoff, given that this reason is nonsense.



* I'm ignoring disability pensions. About 1/8 of Social Security recipients are getting disability pensions. But the separate trust fund for disability pensions, while smaller than it needs to be, is in significantly better shape than the trust fund for old-age and survivors benefits.

** I won't say just when I can start taking early benefits, but I currently don't plan to wait.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I observe that the interest income paid less than 9% of current obligations.

No. You need to compare the interest income after you adjust for the contributions made by taxpayers in 2019. Then you are dealing with the surplus alone.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So tell me again why the 9-year cutoff, given that this reason is nonsense.

They did not retire yet... They are still working and paying into social security.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<Your arguments that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme don't add up.
>>



Social Security is a Ponzi scheme because it's obligations to pay benefits are wildly beyond it's assets.


The test is whether the program could be discontinued and its assets liquidated to pay off promised benefits.


I understand that this is beyond your understanding as a concept.


You are among the many innumerate among the college class who can't or refuse to understand those facts.


Seattle Pioneer




Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<The facts invalidate your definition of a Ponzi scheme because Social Security has a surplus of $3.1 Trillion and current obligations are covered by the interest alone, with surplus interest adding to the surplus.

Surplus means that benefits are paid out of past revenues and past contributions. This is not a Ponzi scheme as you are trying to define it.


-=Ajax=->>



No. The test is whether the program can be discontinued, with no more revenues paid into it and still pay off the promised benefits out of the assets owed by the program.


Social Security has promised to pay twenty times the $3 trillion in assets it has.



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<Quick question: do you know the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting?>>


What we have in any discussion of Social security with the College Class is being confronted with the innumerate college class members who either can't understand, or refuse to understand, the essentials of how a retirement fund is financed.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I observe that the interest income paid less than 9% of current obligations.

No. You need to compare the interest income after you adjust for the contributions made by taxpayers in 2019. Then you are dealing with the surplus alone.


Sorry, I have to respond to what you say, not to what you think you said. And my math, which was done in reply to what you said, is correct: interest income paid less than 9% of current obligations in 2018. Current social-security tax income is not interest income.

It's true that Social Security has for the last several years had an annual surplus in cash accounting. For 2018 it was about $6 billion. That's a LOUSY return on investment of a bond portfolio worth $3 trillion. It's also less than a sixth of the annual increase in Social Security payouts from one year to the next, and more than $30 trillion less than the surplus in 2017. And that surplus is expected to be a negative number for the 73-74 years beginning 2020.

You haven't answered my question: do you know the difference between cash accounting and accrual accounting?

Because a lot of what you're saying is true under cash accounting... and if a pension fund used cash accounting, that in itself would be sufficient to put some of its top people in prison.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So tell me again why the 9-year cutoff, given that this reason is nonsense.

They did not retire yet... They are still working and paying into social security.


Ah yes. Cash accounting. That's what I thought.

In cash accounting there are no liabilities, and no future-income streams. If your restaurant buys $10K of meat on credit and sells it as meals for $40K, your books show that you're $40K ahead - the $10K doesn't matter because you haven't paid it yet. If you decide to not pay the butcher, you'll probably have to find a different butcher but your books are clear. (Then when he sues you and the court orders you to pay up... it still doesn't show up on your books until you actually pay.)

Cash accounting is therefore entirely unsuited for any organization where such matters are a major concern. And in fact it isn't accepted in the formal financial statements of government organizations or publicly-traded companies, or many other sorts of enterprise.

The Social Security Trustees' Annual Reports use accrual accounting because it's the right way to do things.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
After 60 posts, this thread is...

https://ibb.co/qnJBmZ3

RayB
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Social Security is a Ponzi scheme because it's obligations to pay benefits are wildly beyond it's assets.

This is not happening Seattle despite the fact the Globalists sent all our manufacturing jobs to China - including the factories and the factory floor!

And the jobs are coming back.


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<This is not happening Seattle despite the fact the Globalists sent all our manufacturing jobs to China - including the factories and the factory floor!>>



Don't tell me they took the factory floor!



Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
How can it be fraudulent if it is funded through the paychecks of American taxpayers?



The proper terminology when not government-run is "Ponzi scheme", and it is quite illegal. The only reason it is not illegal is that the government is running it and the government decides what is legal and what is not.

Kathleen
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The proper terminology when not government-run is "Ponzi scheme", and it is quite illegal.

Let us accept that as correct. Who cares then and why is it an issue?

What is next? That the US Navy, if "not government-run" are the Pirates of the Caribbean?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
<<No. of Recommendations: 2
How can it be fraudulent if it is funded through the paychecks of American taxpayers?



The proper terminology when not government-run is "Ponzi scheme", and it is quite illegal. The only reason it is not illegal is that the government is running it and the government decides what is legal and what is not.

Kathleen>>


That's right. It's a LEGAL Ponzi scheme.

The trouble with Ponzi schemes is that they run out of new people willing to buy into the scheme and they then go bust.


Social Security would have gone bust many times had not the Congress kept increasing payroll taxes to prevent failure.

The initial payroll tax for Social Security was 1%



Sea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<<What is next? That the US Navy, if "not government-run" are the Pirates of the Caribbean?


-=Ajax=->>



Privately owned and operated war ships are authorized by the constitution, provided the owner has a "Letter of Marque."


Perhaps Trump will find an adventuress billionaire to finance such a warship to operate for the United States.


Seattle Pioneer
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That's right. It's a LEGAL Ponzi scheme.

Yes, and the US Navy are LEGAL Pirates of the Caribbean. Got it.

And the government department printing US dollars are what, LEGAL counterfeiters?

The police fighting crime are LEGAL gangsters?

The IRS collecting taxes are LEGAL thieves?

Anything else?


-=Ajax=-
Print the post Back To Top