You don't have to research to far, read the front of you SS statement. They say right on the statement that it is going to run out.

Reply

The writer of this story sounds angry and defensive but I'm not sure why. She starts out the article saying that fears of SS not paying out are "untrue" and just a "myth" but then at the end of the article she says that indeed benefits are going to be cut but that we shouldn't have to worry about a "total loss of benefits." WTF? Make up your mind? Are we going to get what we were promised or are we not? The answer is, no one knows. Here's what I predict: people who barely paid anything into the system will get full benefits but people who forked over huge amounts of their income over the course of their working lifetime will get "means tested" out of their benefits. After all, you've got to spread the wealth around according to Barack Obama. Go ahead, vote for him. You'll see. Socialism is an ugly word and it makes people uncomfortable. The way it creeps into society is quietly, not by revolution or bloody coup. It just happens without people noticing, and before you know it, we have 50% income tax rates and zero GDP growth. No one is crazy about McCain/Palin, least of all me, but I will vote for him because at least with him there will be some sort of a backstop against a supermajority in the house/senate with that lunatic Nancy Pelosi and her pal Harry Reid running the show. Keep your hand on your wallets, folks.

Reply

OliveMarie:
The article above does not fully address all the unfunded liabilities, including the big one... Bush's "prescription drug benefit". By 2040 we will be 55 Trillion in the red effectively. The current wars are themselves funded using IOUs from the Social Security fund. Many of these are optimistic projections based on the theory that "we can grow our way out of it etc."
I have analyzed the comptroller general's numbers and we are in trouble no matter who is elected going forward. The past decade of Republican spending (House Senate and Prez) tells me that they are the socialists. The 700+Billion bailout by Bush has to be the biggest act of radical socialism ever. And you will pay for that and the wars for ever. With the Dems the taxes are up front but the Repubs hide it by giving in one hand and taking from the other by hidden taxes to schmucks. You see the plutocrats get all the socialism when they lose money, they get tax write offs which you get to pay. When all is said and done the "means test" will work in your favor because the purchasing power of the dollar would be a fraction of what it is now. The trouble is, you wont be able to buy much with it. Millionaires and Billionaires have set themselves up for generations and will be the new royalty. A grim picture but we are almost there already. The system is gamed and it is sad to see that you buy the Republican bull. Having said that, I don’t think the Dems can really solve this as they are too divided and don’t have a coherent plan. Ultimately, parties, elections etc. wont matter......

Reply

To Obama Supporters--Spread the wealth. Do not want to live under communism. Tony Resco, William Ayers, Acorn, and Saul Alinsky.Nice Bunch?? Google Saul Alinsky who wrote Rules for Radicas. This is Obama's bible and he plays it to a tee. Promise the middle class
everything and promote class warfare. How many of you hate big business , big oil , wallstreet, the rich? What would some of you UAW workers have if you did not work for a big car company, and how would you travel and ship goods without oil from big oil. But the middle class will get nothing and everything will be taken away. Remember the Constitution is only a paper contract. Any contract is only as good as the people involved. A Socialist-Marixt-Communist will not honor individual rights. Remember the saying: they came for the ----and I stood by because I was not a ----. Then they cames for ---. I stood by again. Then they came for me. There was no one to help. Argentina President Cristina Fernandez proposed a government takeover of nearly US$30 billion in private pension funds. The Democrats are floating the same idea of basically ELIMINATING our 401(k) system and replacing it with a new Social Security program: Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee. So not only will continue to pay into Social Security, the Democrats would TAKE ANOTHER 5% of your pay!! And you don't have ANY control over it, it would go into US Government Bonds -- which are just promissory notes for the future. Government will take control of your 401K. plan would amount to a tax increase on workers making more than $75,000--considerably less than the $250,000 Barack Obama has said would be his tax-hike cutoff. In addition, workers would be able to pass on only half of their account balances to their heirs; presumably the government would seize the remaining half. (Under current law, 401(k) balances are fully heritable, although they are subject to the income tax.) You can be assured that this will fly through the corrupt and dishonest Congress if they have an unbreakable majority AND a Dem President. This is just one of many such little zingers the socialis...umm, Democrats have been concocting to spring on an unsuspecting America. Make your voice heard and vote for America in November, not for Socialism

Reply

This article is full of half truths. The term "trust fund" is misleading. This surplus of 15% (about $100B a year) goes into the general coffers and is spent (there is a annual deficit folks), it does not get parked in a bank account. After 2017, SS will have to start to withdraw this "surplus" - from the federal coffers. Where, pray tell, will this money come from. Simple, raise taxes, or borrow more money.

Reply

Let's start in the year 1935. Social Security was voted on and approved. In 1937, it passed the Supreme Court constitutionality test; allowing the program. Now here is the question, "was it a retirement plan"? Answer, no nothing of the kind. (forced obsolescents of the human machine) Social Security was just another way to get unemployed people working by exchanging a non-employed person for an employed person. So then you ask, "did we not just exchange one for the other"? Yes, but statistically we created a new job; because the one that was eliminated was not counted as unemployed, but rather RETIRED. For those who are unaware, people turning age 65 in 1940, were no longer permitted to work, therefore, not counted as unemployed! This phenomenon continued until the 1970's age discrimination rulings, allowing 65's to continuing working. ( Part of the 1937 ruling was that tax dollars were to be collected by the Treasury department but not earmarked for any purpose; the other part of the ruling was that Social Security was not insurance; however all S.S. pamphlets refer to insurance.
Now let's move ahead to 1960. In that year the Supreme's ruled that "we the people" do not have a legal right to the funds we and our employers pay in.
Someone previously referred to Government Bonds as the Trust funds funding source, and that is affirmative. Now that we have established that as fact, "what is the definition of a bond"? Is it a safe vehicle or a ruse? When we purchase a bond we are expecting to have a protected investment, and a US back bond has alway been that. However, our investment is a debt of our goverment, that will need to be paid off when it matures. So here is the question, "how is the bond paid off; where does the money come from to pay the principle and the interest earned"? Current taxes, our current taxes! Since bond money is used to help run the Government, how is it that current recipients' are able to continue getting raises in their benefits?
What is going to happen in 2015-2017 when there is not enough revenue coming in to pay all of the benefits? According to the SS Administration, there is enough money in the trust fund to keep benefits at 100% until 2040.
So what is the solution? Actually not as hard as one might suspect, however, Congress must do its part first and stop spending as if there is no tomorrow. Stayed tuned for the rest of the story...it only gets better!

Reply

Don't you think Washington is hypocritical ?
Senators need a raise ? No debate there.
Billlions more for Iraq ? No problem. (I am still stewing about GW wanting US to pay for them to have zip codes when the war started)
$700 bailout ? An emergency as in must be approved before Bush leaves office.
For years they have been telling us Social Security will not be there for us. Yet, they talk about giving Social Security to immigrants. Some years back they talked about taking SS from people in Miami because they never became citizens (or worked here). The outrage was terrible and it didn't happen.
"There is something wrong in America. We the People of These United States have no representation in Washington"
Re-elect no one. Lord help us that Elmer Fudd and Daffy Duck are the two main choices in 2008. Either way, We won't win and it will be four more long years.

Reply

Excellent comment

Reply

Lita says that the SS surpluses are invested in US Treasuries - this is not true. They are invested in "Special Issue" bonds that are not marketable - they are bonds issued by the Treasury, purchased exclusively by the SS Administration and no one else. One branch of the US Government is purchasing from another branch of the US Government.

The US Government could default on these bonds and it would have no effect on the debt markets.

Taxes will have to be raised or benefits cut to pay off on promises made. The trust fund is a ruse.

Reply

Lita,

You state:

"The Social Security Trust Fund is made up of U.S. Treasury Bonds. In order to believe that this fund will not exist you have to believe the U.S. will default on its bonds. If that happens the financial crisis we have today will look small compared to the havoc that would create in the financial markets."

But the study you cite talks only about the undesirable redistributive effects of such a default - it says nothing about havoc (or lack thereof) in the financial markets. So, you've failed to prove me wrong.

What you have done is elect to change the argument in your last post to something that you can actually "prove", if what the CEPR claims is correct (their bias is pretty obvious).

You obviously would like to see the IOUs paid back through higher income and investment taxes. That's fine. But let's not pretend that the SS Trust Fund is anything more than it is - a stack of IOUs issued from one Government agency to another that do not directly impact on the debt markets. To imply otherwise is truly garbage.

Reply