Some reality about Social Security: What you are hearing is political bullshit!!!

[old mark]

The Social Security fund AS IS STANDS THIS MINUTE will be able to pay FULL BENEFITS to EVERYONE who is entitled to them for 33 more years with no changes at all.

All that is needed is to life or remove entirely the cap on payments into the system for higher incomes...NOT a drastic solution, not even a real problem,we just need politicians with the WILLto do it.

There is NO NEED to cut benefits or to raise the age of eligibility for anyone, no matter what age, if that step alone is taken.

The republicans want to dismantle Social Security, and failing that, to minimize it and add "private" investment into the mix, benefiting their friends in the investment business and insuring themselves more bribes...from the stock brokers lobby.

The story that Social Security is "going broke" or is "in danger" is a fucking lie, no matter who tells you that old story. The GOP HATES Social Security - They always have, they always will...They will lie, cheat and steal to discredit "big government" and tyo make ineffectiva any and every government program that actually works to benefit the American people.

ANYONE who tells you Social Security is broken is a fucking liar!

mark

[closeupready]

1. Not only that, but if they eliminated the cap, they could probably lower the retirement age

back to 65, maybe even 62.

[jgraz]

11. We shouldn't be eliminating the cap. We should be eliminating FICA altogether.

We could fund it the way most civilized countries do: raise taxes on the rich and cut war spending.

[Old and In the Way]

17. Agreed...the tax is regressive in that the max contribution is capped.

A combination of lifting the cap and reducing retirement age ought to the Democrat's focus. Lowering the retirement age will help with the unemployment that's affecting lots of young Americans who can't find jobs. The employer benefits because starting salaries are always lower than salaries paid for 20-30 years of experience.

[mopinko]

22. lift the cap one income, then lift the cap on outgo.

there is a limit on contributions because there is a maximum payout. it is an insurance program. fica payments are premiums. lift the cap, it becomes welfare. people are proud. they don't want to be on welfare.
unless you trash what the program is, you don't solve the (alleged) problem by lifting the cap. you saddle yourself with higher payouts.

[eridani]

24. Fine--so raise the maximum payout too n/t

[mopinko]

78. they do, every year.

ending up with no net gain to the system.

[fasttense]

31. There never use to be a cap on payments into Social Security until Ronnie Raygun

and Greenspan came along. When there was No cap on paying into Social Security, only the uber wealthy begrudged the pay in. It was never considered welfare when there was no cap, except by the uber wealthy. The uber rich will still consider it welfare as long as they have to pay any money into it.

So lifting the cap will Not magically make it a welfare program. There is really no pay out limit. If you pay in, you get Social Security. The rich will pay in more and get less out, that is how Social Security use to work. But lifting the cap should not mean lifting the maximum pay out.

Ronnie Raygun put the cap in to appease his uber wealthy friends. That's why they think he is a saint. He managed to mess up Social Security and the Repukes still got re-elected.

[hfojvt]

48. there was always a cap

as shown here http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/cbb.html

[NoNothing]

52. Wrong, there has always been maximum taxable earnings for FICA

I don't know where you picked up this talking point, but it is definitely incorrect.

See http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/t2a3.pdf. Note the column "Annual maximum taxable earnings (dollars)."

[pattmarty]

36. You can't lower it to 62, that's where the French want to "up" theirs too from 60.

:sarcasm:

[The Wizard]

90. Lowering the retirement age

creates job openings, and thus more contributors.

[nadinbrzezinski]

2. This is part of the global right wing tilt and dominance

and chickens coming home to roost.

[rlegro]

91. Privatize profits, socialize costs

What really grinds me about the Cat Food Commission is this: When Social Security was last declared in trouble, under Greenspan and Reagan in the 1980s, the fix was to raise FICA taxes slightly, but not on those rich folks. No, the average worker's FICA would go up and the tacit bargain was that when this rise was no longer sufficient to cover outlays, then we'd raise FICA limits on the wealthy. Only:

1. The elites are going to engineer things to whack the average folks again, apparently, even while they're telling these folks their taxes are too high, and that more progressive and thoughtful policymakers are their enemies.

2. The money will, as in the Reagan era, go to pay for debt already incurred to cover the costs of senseless wars, tax cuts for the wealthy, and other boondoggles. In other words, it's a wealth redistribution plan, only upward. In other-other words, it's socialism for the rich.

Smarmy, self-aggrandizing jerks like Alan Simpson deserve to be shunned and marked down in the history books as thieves not only of middle class earnings but also of democracy. On the other hand, Simpson would probably put on his best Mr. Burns face and enjoy the thought.

[Donnachaidh]

3. Simpson, appointed by this adminstration says it's going broke

I'm not willing to let the repubs take the total rap on this latest SS attack. Dems are aiding and abetting this monstrosity as well.

[JDPriestly]

33. Simpson knows very well that the Social Security money was "borrowed"

meaning stolen to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the rich and Bush's wars.

Simpson is trying to protect the interests of his constituents: the very, very rich. Everyone else needs and relies on Social Security and Medicare. Even the somewhat rich need those programs when they are elderly.

[koski]

42. to be fair,

It was stolen to pay for the Reagan tax cuts.

[vssmith]

44. It probably has been stolen from day 1.

[laughingliberal]

47. Yes, it was. They raised the payroll taxes to pay for the tax cuts for the wealthy. nt

[NoNothing]

53. It was never "stolen"

The SSA "trust fund" invests in U.S. Government Bonds. The Treasury gets the revenue from those bonds, which then goes into general revenues on the balance sheet. It has always been this way.

[laughingliberal]

58. It hasn't been stolen yet. That's what the commission is for. nt

[JDPriestly]

95. It's paying back the government bonds that the commission is worried about.

If they just sold the bonds to American savers instead of to the Chinese, we would be fine.

In WWII, Americans bought US bonds as a show of patriotism. We need to make the purchase of bonds a patriotic act in the minds of people. Then Americans would own them, not the Chinese.

When my elderly aunt, a WWII veteran, died, she left me government bonds. It was a wonderful reminder of one of the most meaningful experiences in her life -- serving in the US military in WWII.

[mopinko]

80. day one there was no money. it started in the hole.

it started with payouts to seniors during the depression.

[sabrina 1]

71. Thank you. Can someone tell Obama this before he starts

believing the lies the way he believed whoever told him offshore drilling was safe and oil rigs do not blow up anymore?

[Birthmark]

4. Goddamn right!

I'm about sick of hearing the bullshit, too.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, old mark.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Oh now, we don't use the L word at this site anymore, remember?

Accusing people of deliberately telling L words leads to controversy and strained emotions. We must maintain comity no matter how our fellow Democrats adopt the values and priorities of our opponents, and no matter how often they resort to L words in order to move a Reaganite agenda.

[OHdem10]

7. When they say it is going broke----reality, they would be able

pay 75% of what a person is receiving for years forward

Going Broke ---leaves impression there is no money in the pot.

[socialist_n_TN]

9. Even that is with NO changes.............

As the OP said, raise the cap and pay BACK what they've "borrowed" ever since Reagan to fund their fucking tax cuts for the wealthy and the system is solvent probably forever.

The rest of the deficit? No problem. Cut the fucking DoD, and raise the top income tax rates back to where they were before Reagan (notice a pattern here? Reagan) and you've got money to run the government for the PEOPLE rather than the corps.

[NoNothing]

14. A couple of points for you and the OP

Point 1: It doesn't really matter how much is in the "trust fund." The bonds in that fund are assets to the SSA, but liabilities to the Treasury. Therefore, taking the government as a whole, the total value of the fund is zero.

Point 2: Removing the cap is "simple" but it certainly would not be easy. You are talking about a massive income tax hike, one of the largest ever. And let's remember that even if this is politically possible, that then means you can't count on raising income taxes to fund other parts of the government. Once total rates start exceeding two thirds or so, serious avoidance measures will kick in and revenues will stall.

My point is that while there are simple solutions, they are not necessarily the best ones.

[old mark]

18. Social Security contributions are separate from "Income Tax" - while the SS

IS income related, there is NO reason why every dollar earned should not be taxed just because the earner is rich...the poor pay into SS on every dollar they earn, and the rich can better afford it...

This is what I meant by politicans who lack the will to do the job- they do not want to be portrayed as a villian for spreading the burden equally.

mark

[notadmblnd]

27. So you're saying the rich will stop working?

Other than that, how will revenue stall? What is the cap, 85,000? I don't know anymore.but I can tell you the rich should have to pay on every dollar they earn just like I do.

[laughingliberal]

45. It's $109,000 now and I agree. eom

[tweeternik]

50. Cap is $106,800 in 2010 .....

we stopped hearing any discussions on "raising the cap" during the 2008 primaries. interesting .... yes, it would be an increase in taxes, but for who?? not for most taxpayers. I'm always amused by how few voters even are aware of this cap! you know why ?? because most don't reach the cap!!! raise the damn cap!!

[quakerboy]

97. No, of course not

They will always work hard. Its in their nature to produce and work and innovate. Instead, this tax would cause them to refuse to be paid, out of sheer patriotic need to starve the government and deny the proles unearned money.

You wouldn't want the rich to have to refuse to be paid, would you?

[mikehiggins]

29. The government as a whole

Do you suggest the Fed bonds held by China are worth nothing? How about other nations?

If SS holds trillions of dollars in Fed securities how does that translate as zero? Because somebody has to pay them back? That "reserve" is already the result of massive increases in taxation on the working class. Do you think that should be ignored because of ... what?

As to "serious avoidance measures" in opposition to tax increases, how do you think things operate now? Are all those tax attorneys, etc., participating in "un-serious" avoidance measures? How much more serious can things get when super-major corporations already pay zero in taxes?

Of all the possible solutions, what would be preferable to raising the cap? Raising the retirement age so we could count on more workers dying off (the essential GOPuke position) and removing themselves from the eligibility pool? How about death panels to decide which workers should be allowed to die in order to protect the fiscal reliability of the fund?

I worked as a construction electrician from 1967. I am nowhere near physically able to continue that kind of work, as well as it pays in my Union, because if you are a regular worker it is physically wearing and I ain't 21 anymore. In all those years I never made enough money per annum to hit the "cap" unless I worked a good deal of overtime, not always available but always even more wearing on my body.

Does that mean I should calmly accept the Cat Food Commission and the right-wing desire that I and those like me should calmly allow ourselves to be crucified on their cross of gold? Not willingly my friend.

And, quite frankly, I do not believe your apparently calm and reasoned approach is appropriate in this regard, to say the least. Try a little passion. Screwing with SocSec is unjust at the very least. Looking at the mass of workers as nothing more than economic units easily sacrified to benefit their Wall Street overlords is evil and must be opposed.

Extremism, as someone said who'd be considered a liberal by today's standards once said, in defense of liberty is no vice.

[NoNothing]

46. Do you suggest the Fed bonds held by China are worth nothing? How about other nations?

Of course they are worth something - to *that* nation. Because they own an asset and *somebody else* - the U.S. Treasury - owns the corresponding liability. But when the same entity holds both the assets *and* the liabilities, then they cancel each other out and the net value is zero. Get it?

Likewise, I can write an IOU from my left pocket to my right pocket for $100, and it would be absolutely correct to say that my right pocket has $100 in assets. But, my left pocket has -$100. Considering myself in total, $100 + $-100 = $0. I have nothing. Only if *somebody else's* pocket has that $-100 do I have something of value.

You ask what measures would be preferable to raising the cap. I would rather see estate taxes earmarked for Social Security, myself, and I do think the retirement age should probably be raised a little bit, but I also think that the welfare purpose of Social Security - providing for people who are retired and have no money - should be separated from the investment aspect of Social Security, where what you get out depends on what you put in. The investment portion should be run more like a 401K, with real individual accounts, and the welfare portion should be means-tested and paid for by uncapped income taxes.

But you should realize that no proposals affect anybody near retirement. This is about the future.

[Recursion]

74. I have a piggy bank

When I want to go get a pack of smokes, I take some money out of the piggy bank and replace it with an IOU for the amount. So, sure, I have that bond in my piggy bank, but I have to pay for it from somewhere else, so its net value to me is 0.

I give a friend an IOU. That has value to him, because I have to pay it.

[laughingliberal]

85. Yes, it needs to be paid back by those who benefited from using our money all these years.

That would be the wealthy whose taxes were cut while our payroll taxes went up to cover the things the income tax once paid for.

[fasttense]

34. Your 1st and 2nd points are not logical.

The first point - The Social Security Trust fund established by Raygun is invested in federal securities. If those federal securities are considered of NO value and the federal government can not pay us Baby Boomers back, then those same securities held by China and Japan should also be defaulted upon. Why is Social Security a debt owed to us Baby Boomers considered a default-able debt but China and Japan are not? That sounds like RepubliCON lying logic to me. Default on one debt but ignore the other debt because it is owed to people in the country. Well, let's default on US savings bonds owned by US citizens too. It makes as much sense.

The second point - Social Security is not normally considered an income tax. So you are mixing apples and oranges. When Repukes decry that the poor don't pay any income tax, they don't count Social Security. Yet, here you are claiming Social Security is an income tax. Funny how you manage to argue RepubliCON talking points.

But your whole premise that raising the cap is a huge, giant massive tax that will cause the US to explode is way overboard. When Ronnie Raygun doubled every single person's Social Security tax in 1983, he managed to pretend he never raised taxes. If Raygun can double the Baby Boomers taxes why can't we double the uber wealthy's taxes? Are the uber wealth such magical mysterious people they will explode upon having to carry their fair share?

And tax avoidance is one of the dumbest arguments I've heard on right wing news stations. As if the uber wealthy were not avoiding taxes right NOW. As if President Obama didn't just give out amnesty to all the lying cheating uber wealthy who were avoiding taxes.

The solution is Very, Very simple but the uber wealthy, and the Repukes who love them, don't want to part with their ill gotten gains.

[uponit7771]

37. Your first point is where conservative get into most trouble with SS, RayGun borrowed and had NO...

...intent on paying it back.

[NoNothing]

59. So make yourself rich and loan yourself $1,000,000

First point - Federal securities are of no value *to the federal government* because they own both the asset and the liability. They are of value to other entities because then the other entity owns the asset but NOT the liability. They could conceivably sell those bonds to other entities for cash, but then they'd have to pay them back with interest, really no different than just borrowing the money to pay back the bonds. Remember that bonds have no *intrinsic* value - their entire value is premised on the Treasury buying them back, for the full value plus interest.

Second point - a tax on income is an income tax. It's classified differently for administrative purposes, but I'm just talking about what it actually is, because ultimately these taxes are limited by what people earn. Now it may very well be that a 34% income tax hike is the best way to solve the problem, or it may not be. I'm just trying to push back against this idea that it's easy and painless and only stupidity prevents it from happening.

We're not talking about the "uber" wealthy as you are implying, we're talking about lots of upper-middle-class families and small business owners.

[laughingliberal]

87. The people who benefited from the use of our payroll taxes should be the ones to pay it back

Those at the top have benefited from the low income tax rates all these years and concentrated all the wealth at the top as the result. Time to raise the income tax AND lift the SS cap. The reverse Robin Hood shit is old and immoral.

It's not stupidity preventing the solution. It's greed.

[quakerboy]

98. In actuality, we are talking about the well to do

and very wealthy. And the amount that it will cost the "upper-middle-class families and small business owners" affected will be relatively minimal. at 250k, it is about 10 grand a year. 1/25th of your income.

Its not until you start getting into the uber wealthy that it becomes big money. But it remains only 6.2%. Not that much, and not going to cause any major upheaval, only annoyance from a relatively small number of people who are gaining disproportionate benefit from being here, but do not want to return a proportionate amount to the artificial structure that allows them these benefits.



You also make the unwarranted assumption that the government is one monolithic structure, in your "asset/liability" argument. It is not. You might as well argue that a bond issued by Walmart and owned by Shaq also equals out, as they are both part of the US, so the asset and liability are both owned by the US.

[JDPriestly]

35. Social Security benefits are one of the best economic stimulus programs ever.

Social Security money gets put right back into the economy.

What is more, the alternatives to Social Security are worse than Social Security.

Most people on Social Security, even those who have saved and "invested" money during their working years, would end up on government assistance in a very short time if there were no Social Security.

Social Security benefits average about $1000-1200 per month. The very elderly are probably getting payments on the low end. That is not much money. The government would end up paying that much just to keep the vastly larger number of indigent seniors alive if it were to end Social Security. The cost of keeping a senior citizen in a nursing home can be maybe $5000 per month. Without Medicare and Social Security, many more seniors would be staying in nursing homes -- at government expense.

Trust me, Americans, and not just Americans but the whole world, would be horrified and angry at the thought of millions of American seniors living in poverty, hungry and homeless. It isn't going to happen. It's just a matter of time until Americans become very upset about the number of formerly employed, middle-class working people who have lost their jobs and homes.

A lot of seniors (like me) would be working longer and taking even lower Social Security benefits or no Social Security benefits if jobs were available. They aren't. And the existence of Social Security is not the reason for unemployment. To the contrary, Social Security creates demand for services and products and therefore jobs.

There really is no alternative to Social Security. So, forget about your academic arguments. Your economic theories are pie in the sky. They don't work in real life.

We need to raise the taxes made from gambling, especially Wall Street gambling, derivatives and the money insurance companies make on gambling as opposed to actual insurance. That would create an incentive for Wall Street and for insurance companies to invest in companies that create jobs, that provide services and products. That is what is needed.

Social Security and FICA are ways through which the government raises the funds so that it can fulfill its inevitable obligation to take care of the elderly, infirmed and disabled. That obligation is eternal. It doesn't go away.

Remember, the Fifth Commandment Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

http://www.the-ten-commandments.org/the-ten-commandments.html

Even in the ancient days of the Old Testament, it was understood that the well being of a nation depended on how it treated its older people. Still does.

Seniors are the source of wisdom, experience, culture, knowledge of history, legend, all the things that hold a society together. That is why we have to have Social Security, and funding it is a priority equal to national security.

[laughingliberal]

43. They took the money out of the treasury and the owe it back.

Point 1: Perhaps I can just tell my creditors that paying my debts is a liability to my treasury and see what they say.

Point 2: Those who would wind up having the cap lifted have been getting income tax breaks for years. When Reagan came into office, the top rate was 74%. Now, it's 36%. I think they can afford it.

Yeah, it's always easier to dump on the poor but it's not right to do it just because it's easy.

[GOTV]

54. I don't think I totally agree with your points

Point 1 - I understand what you are saying but they are bonds, just like the bonds held by millions of others and the government should be planning on covering the value of those bonds. Yes, it's like the government paying back the government but that doesn't mean it's not of value.

Point 2 - Maybe we don't remove the cap, maybe we just increase it. Maybe we remove the cap but we lower it from 15% to 6%. There are ways to control how big of a tax increase it is but we should not fear a big tax increase. This is one of the biggest problems we've faced, and we need money to face it. To not be willing to contribute to solving the problem is to turn your back on your obligations to your country.

What do you think is the best solution?

[NoNothing]

61. I think we should split Social Security

The biggest problem is we can't agree what Social Security should be.

Is it a retirement plan to provide a nice income boost even to people who would otherwise not need it?

Or is it a welfare program to keep elderly people from living on the streets?

Because if it is the first, then it is a hard argument to make to raise taxes on some people to give to other people who don't even need it.

But if it is the second, then that means cutting off anybody who happens to have a good pension plan or was prudent enough to save for the future.

So I say split the program in two. The first half would be a welfare program ONLY, funded by a smaller income tax that is uncapped. But this would be means tested and not indexed to lifetime earnings.

The second half would be an investment program ONLY, with actual personal accounts and tax incentives for contributing, and a mandatory contribution amount that *is* indexed to earnings.

[GOTV]

64. That does not seem like a bad idea - I don't think it would be enough.

It seems like you're talking a small income tax increase and saving money by removing people that don't need it. Then having a second system which sounds like it's already covered by IRA's and 401k's.

I suspect that there are not enough people receiving SS that don't depend on it to make a big enough difference. I could be wrong, I've never seen numbers on that.

A small tax increase is still a tax increase and is very difficult politically.

But together I have no problem with taking Bill Gates and Warren Buffet off the SS roles while still requiring them to contribute. I also am not against a tax increase to cover the costs as long as it's not levied against our poor.

Some say, and I don't know if I agree or not, that the fact that SS is not means tested is what protects it. If you start means testing, they say, it becomes welfare and subject to all the arguments and attacks against welfare.

[NoNothing]

66. Well IRA's and 401K are not mandatory

I think a *mandatory* savings program is important, because otherwise people will tend not to save and rely on the welfare program. Since we aren't willing to let people suffer greatly for failing to plan, we must make it mandatory to plan. Just like with health insurance. This will help greatly reduce the number of people who need retirement welfare - part of the reason so many people depend on SS now is that they didn't save anything, because they knew they didn't have to. The health insurance mandate - even with universal coverage - is expected to decrease the deficit by making people plan ahead, and I think a retirement savings mandate would have the same effect.

[GOTV]

92. I see, you want mandatory savings

So, we should require that everyone contribute a certain amount to the future. Some of that will go into SS, like we do now, which will now be means tested but if you qualify it's guaranteed for the rest of your life.

Another portion would go into a IRA-like retirement account for which there would be some default investment plan or, I assume, you could take charge of it if you felt capable of it.

At retirement age, if your mandatory IRA-like account did well, or you have a generous pension, or some other substantial source of post-retirement income, you will not get anything from SS. I assume the mandatory IRA will have some kind of maximum monthly withdrawal limit so a new retiree cannot remove it all and bet it all on black in Vegas.

I'm just seeing if I have the correct interpretation.

I still suspect that this will not prevent substantial tax increases. Splitting payments between the SS and the IRA means an immediate 50% cut to the amount that's coming into SS. That's got to be made up somehow. I see that you hope the mandatory IRA's will greatly reduce the need for SS in the future, but that's decades into the future.

It all depends on how the numbers, which I don't have, balance. But the system sounds like it may be extra fragile in that tough economic times could force millions of people suddenly into SS due to sudden and unexpected collapse of the value of their mandatory IRA's

[NoNothing]

94. Yes, that's roughly what I envision

You point out correctly that most of the major cost savings will be in the future, but that is where most of the projected deficits occur too. I do agree though that the window for reform is closing quickly.

[laughingliberal]

82. As soon as it becomes a 'welfare' program, it's dead.

Right now it's an insurance program and we're having a hard enough time saving it. With the push from the right (in both parties) to destroy 'welfare' programs this would insure its demise.

Before you decide 'personal accounts' are the cat's meow, you might want to take another look at what has happened to the 401k's of the middle aged people in this recession.

[GOTV]

93. That's what I hear, but I don't really see it.

I don't think what keeps SS alive is that Bill Gates will get it too. What keeps it alive is that, unlike welfare, almost every American has a relative that would be hurt if it were reduced or eliminated.

[laughingliberal]

96. I'm just basing this on the fate of welfare programs, in general, here.

Right now, in Nevada, Harry Reid is gaining great ground against our bat shit candidate by running ads showing her calling SS "welfare." The ad explains SS is an insurance plan that all workers paid into. As soon as it becomes welfare, look for the demonization of those who receive it.

It's also the reason the right keeps calling it an 'entitlement.' Most people think 'welfare' when they hear 'entitlement' and they know this is effective.

[GOTV]

99. I don't think that demonization will ever really work though ...

... because unlike welfare a large majority of Americans have a loved one who depends on SS and will for the rest of their life.

Also, even if means tested, it can still be portrayed as an insurance program. Look at other insurance programs. You have home insurance from which you expect a payment only if you need it. If your house burns down you get paid. If your house is never damaged, I guess you paid into it for nothing.

Likewise SS "insurance" is there in case you get to retirement and your savings, or your pension, is not enough to sustain you. If you're Bill Gates and life was good to you, well, you didn't need it. If you never made much money, or your pension fund disappeared, or your IRA took a nosedive in the last recession, you get paid.

It's insurance, not welfare.

[Samantha]

89. Social Security is an insurance policy against poverty

It was enacted to prevent millions of elderly people from starving to death in these United States. That period of time when that happened was called "America's Shame," and rightfully so.

Once again we see people in this Country having to chose between buying their medicines and buying food. That is a choice no person, regardless of age, should have to make.

The United States Government owes the Social Security Trust Fund approximately 2.5 trillion Dollars. That figure can be checked at the Office of Management and Budget. I have previously posted that information here, and it is part of the 11.5 trillion dollars of debt that President Obama inherited. The biggest part of that 11.5 Trillion came from the debt of fighting the Iraq war, the extent of which was kept off-budget by George W. Bush.* When Obama came into office, he made a public announcement that other debts kept off-budget would be moved into the general ledger so that all Americans could see exactly where we stood. It was at that point Republicans started crying about how much debt Obama was amassing. Not surprising, is it?

Bernake, when interviewed recently in the Senate, made the outrageous comment that Social Security could be repealed. He meant the Act itself. I happened to be watching and could not believe anyone would make such an outrageous remark live. But he was serious. Following that to its logical conclusion, should Social Security be abolished, the Federal Budget would instantaneously be freed from its 2.5 Trillion owed that fund. How convenient.

I for one am unwilling to return to the period known as "America's Shame." But it is impossible to see how we can stop them. The programs now in place that the Republicans have wanted to get rid of for a long time faced the assault of "starve the beast," meaning if we don't give the program money, it will starve into oblivion. Then no one can blame us for its demise. Read that as there will be no political price to pay. We see that now as millions remain unemployed, and their former employers are relieved of paying the dreaded payroll tax on their behalf.

There's a huge difference between "lifting" the cap and "raising" the cap. Al Gore said some time ago when the cap was at about 98,000, raising that cap to $109,000 in about 2015 would further insure the program's stability. Obama made similar remarks while on the campaign trail. I think that is correct.

Just a few random thoughts I wanted to share.

[mediaman007]

10. I'm going broke too! Until the July 15 payday.

[Hannah Bell]

28. and that 75% is 75% of scheduled future benefits, which have real increases (not just

inflation adjustments)factored in -- such that in actual buying power, 75% = around 100% of today's buying power.

Not to mention that it's thirty years out & SS is in no danger of going broke anytime in the near future.

Giving them more money now = giving them more money to steal.

[fascisthunter]

8. danke

[damntexdem]

12. This is well known, and widely ignored by politicos who have their knives out for SS.

We need to get the message out to the elderly and to we boomers -- in fact, boomers are those who will likely be first-affected by any successful attacks on SS (e.g., raising the retirement age even further).

Yes, the higher the income, the lower the proportional return from SS. That's why raising the income cap would work so well. Meanwhile, there are GOPers who bloviate about means testing SS -- which would mean no return from payments for those above the cap. That is, unless FICA payments were also means tested, with only lower-income people paying in -- which, among other things, would destroy SS. Of course, the destruction of Social Security is what the rightwing really wants.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

13. "The republicans want to dismantle Social Security,...."

And there are some Dems who are happy to oblige them. :(

This is a bipartisan issue, sadly.

[TheKentuckian]

15. Amen brother. This whole thing is a massive lie.

Raise the cap and tax all income not just wages and we can look at lowering the age rather than increasing it.

Worse comes to worse, a half percent increase on top will completely square it away for the projectable future.

Meanwhile, adding millions of workers to the pool will depress wages and ultimately add to the general fund deficit due to killing the tax base.

This is completely anti-worker and eventually pro-deficit and pro-erosion of standard of living from cradle to grave.

It is also callous and stony-hearted. Telling fishermen, miners, factory workers, truck drivers, orderlies, construction workers, nurses, janitors, sanitation workers, and general laborers to work till seventy is seemingly pretty wicked and is certainly utterly devoid of empathy and connectedness to regular people whose bodies get used up making a living.

[Cleita]

16. Any body who bothers to look into it knows that . So why

do we now have a commission headed by a person, whose whole political career was dedicated to dismantling Social Security, appointed by a government that is supposedly a Democratic one?

[laughingliberal]

49. Good question. Maybe someone should ask him how he arrived at that choice. nt

[gratuitous]

19. Any other government programs that can boast SS's success rate

Yeah, there aren't any. Social Security has kept generations of older Americans from abject poverty in their sunset years, and worked as intended for decades. But only Social Security seems to be subjected to this "solvency" nonsense. How are we going to afford a billion dollars or more a day for "defense" into infinity? What's the solvency of that budget, and how is it going to be funded? Do we have a blue ribbon commission of hippies, peaceniks, and other anti-war types reviewing the military budget and the prospects for its continued funding, as well as means testing of ongoing defense commitments and proposed weapons systems? What sort of proposals would anyone expect out of such a commission?

The Constitution obliges our government to provide not only for the common defense, but also the general welfare. We seem to be smidgen lop-sided in our priorities.

[Hissyspit]

23. +1

[Enthusiast]

30. Lop-sided is right!

This is what happens when you have corporate rule.

[laughingliberal]

60. Perfect response. nt

[TBF]

20. We know that - and we also know where that money will go

if it becomes "privatized". Remember the 401K's you used to have - before they were looted by Wall Street? Same place.

[laughingliberal]

57. +1000 nt

[senseandsensibility]

21. k and r

:kick:

[eridani]

25. What you can do about it

FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE CATFOOD COMMISSION!
Join the following organizations

Social Security Works
http://socialsecurity-works.org/

Social Security Matters
http://www.socialsecuritymatters.org/Home.html

National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare
http://www.ncpssm.org/

Fight the "deficit hawks" noise machine with facts

The Century Foundation reports on Social Security
http://www.tcf.org/list.asp?type=TP&topic=2

Behind the Myths of Social Security
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1381

Center for Economic and Policy Research reports on Social Security
http://www.cepr.net/

[Hannah Bell]

26. agreed. & there are a lot of liars out there. any concession that SS is currently

in need of "fixing" allows them to get their thieving hands on it.

and here in this thread i still see people buying into that storyline & proposing their pet fixes.

any benefit cuts or fica increases now = more money for the rulers to fund the war or their other pet projects with, & more certainty that the money stolen over the last 30 years will never be repaid by them who got it as income tax cuts -- & more certainty they'll keep those tax cuts, which in fact are one of the primary causes of the deficit.

but you'll never hear the catfood commission talk about that.

[JDPriestly]

32. Social Security is not broke.

But, the federal government borrowed some of the money in the Social Security trust fund and doesn't have the money to pay it back. So, the federal government has to find the money. The money that the Bush administration spent on its wars, its tax cuts for the rich and its stimulation of the housing boom and Wall Street gambles was supposed to be set aside for Social Security. That is what is called the national debt.

When people talk about the national debt, to a great extent they are talking about the money that was paid into the Social Security trust fund and wasted by the Bush administration.

That is my understanding from having googled this issue.

[NoNothing]

65. It's not that the government borrowed money from the fund

It's that the fund itself doesn't have money in it, it has government bonds. It has nothing at all to do with Bush (other than the inability to buy those bonds back out of general revenue surplus.)

Most people understand that there isn't literally a vault full of cash that belongs to social security, and there are very good reasons for not doing so (physical security, inflation, etc.) But FICA is collected in cash, so they have to convert it into something. They could have bought foreign government bonds or corporate bonds, and then they'd have something they could literally cash in - but that would be a little risky. Instead they bought government bonds, which have no value to the government but allowed the surplus to hold taxes down in the mean time.

Which means this was a great deal for baby boomers! My generation, not so much. We get the double-whammy: high taxes *and* social security deficits.

[laughingliberal]

70. A great deal for baby boomers? We paid higher and higher payroll taxes to support our parents &

cover the increases that would be needed when we retired. The only ones who got a great deal are the wealthy whose tax cuts were funded with our payroll taxes.

[NoNothing]

72. Yes, I stand by that

Boomers had a huge pool of workers to a small pool of retirees to pay for. Any overpayment in payroll taxes were spent on government services and tax cuts. My generation faces a huge pool of retirees to a much smaller pool of workers. And either cutting spending or raising other taxes to finance the spending formerly covered by surpluses.

[laughingliberal]

79. You're standing by your opinion? Stop the presses!

Yes, the surplus we created was spent on wars and tax cuts for the rich. Being as how most of us weren't the beneficiaries of that, they need to pay it back as they promised (wink, wink) they would. This is a fraud that has been perpetrated on us. And it is those who benefited from the tax cuts for the wealthy who need to pay it back. Lift the cap and restore the progressivity to the income tax code.

[unhappycamper]

38. Yes, and the law should be changed to prevent politicians from stealing from the SS lockbox. n/t

[laughingliberal]

51. One of the reasons, IMO, Gore was taken down-to prevent him from passing the lockbox...

and thwarting the plan to steal the funds.

[NoNothing]

67. So when Social Security has surplus cash, what should it buy?

Gold? Mortgages? Shares of GM? Remember if they hold on to cash, it will inflate away.

[laughingliberal]

68. Not my job. But I can say buying tax cuts for the rich with it hasn't worked out well. nt

[NoNothing]

73. Well, it sure is easy to be critical

When solutions are somebody else's problem. Al Gore's "lockbox" would not have changed anything because the surpluses still would not have bought assets with intrinsic value.

[laughingliberal]

83. Easy to go along with a screwing when you're not the one being bent over. nt

[WinkyDink]

39. After stealing a presidency, S.S. is petty larceny to them.

[customerserviceguy]

40. I disagree

The 'money' in the surpluses has already been taken and spent by the Federal government. Any balances in them are as illusory as the statements put out by Bernie Madoff before he admitted the jig was up.

The only possible ways to pay off the IOUs is to either raise taxes (which won't be done during a recession, by either party), cut spending (ditto), or inflating the currency by electronically creating fiat money. My bet's on the latter choice, it's the default option when you have no political will to do the other two things.

The whole thing has been a hand-to-mouth operation, and only by raising FICA taxes at the point when the baby boomers entered the workforce has it been able to have gone on for this long. When we started raiding the fund to pay for survivors benefits, disability benefits, etc., without actuarially sound financing, it was the beginning of the end. The first baby boomers born in 1946 will turn 65 in less than half a year, and there will be a steady rise in retirees until we hit the peak of the boom born in 1957.

Regardless of what the Repukes are saying, this scheme has finally run out of people to fuel its continuance. Wishing that weren't the case isn't going to make it so.

[laughingliberal]

55. I heard President Obama talk about this a few months ago & he said raising the cap on payroll taxes.

would solve SS's problems. It would only affect those who make over $109,000 per year. Not the same economy busting effect of taking money out of the hands of the poor, at all. If they want, then create a donut hole. Exempt income between $109,000 and $200,000. That way, Obama's campaign promise is fulfilled and the SS funds are paid back.

Yeah, I'm in a recession, too and it would be a lot easier to just not pay my bills, either. But I don't have any debt commissions working on that for me.

[NorthCarolina]

41. Why do these posts about Social Security only talk about the

GOP? Wasn't the Debt Commission created by a DLC New Dem? Isn't it this Debt Commission the likely impetus for cuts to Social Security? Bottom line, it isn't just the GOP attacking SS, it is the DLC New Dems and an eagerly amenable GOP that have their eyes on bring down that prize. I'm certainly no GOP'er, but it seems a bit disingenuous to talk about this issue as if the GOP were the only party with a desire to curtail entitlements, when we all know that the DLC New Dem chunk of the Democratic Party holds the same desire, and is in fact the driving force behind the Debt Commission.

[laughingliberal]

56. Yes. Kent Conrad was one of the loudest voices for creating the commission & Obama appointed Simpson

:(

[totodeinhere]

62. Agreed. Witness Hoyer's recent comments. n/t

[florida08]

63. absolutley Mark

From the Center for Economic and Policy Research in April 2010
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/beat-the-press/wsj-is-wrong-ss-is-not-in-the-red/

The Wall Street Journal told readers that: "the Congressional Budget Office said recently the social security trust fund will record a deficit in 2010, returning to the black briefly, before permanently going back into the red 2016." This is not true. The Social Security trust fund is projected to show a surplus of close to $100 billion in 2010 and will remain in the black until after 2020.

The Journal likely forgot to include the interest on the bonds held by the trust fund. If the WSJ is talking about the trust fund, then this money must included. It is remarkable that the paper's editors somehow missed this error.

But you know Boehner has always said we should give this up to fund the war. There's not a chance in hell anyone will give up their SS. Not even the ones who don't need it.

[bhikkhu]

69. Your narrative is flawed; words are important

"the social security fund ...will be able to pay...with no changes ...remove entirely the cap on payments for higher incomes".

If we don't do that, we're screwed, which describes a system that is in trouble, or "broken". If someone tells you social security is broken they are telling you the truth; the critical part is how easy it is to fix. Where the other side is as prone to just make crap up, its important to retain some basis in accurate statements.

[BEZERKO]

75. Social Security is under attack

that is the truth. If that's what you mean by broken, then fine.

[bhikkhu]

77. That's very clear

the critical lie you hear on the other side is that it can't be fixed; the easy answer to that is that you can just remove the pay-in cap for the wealthy.

[Citizen Worker]

76. It's not just the republicans...

The DLC New Democrats have as a central plank of their platform the privatization of Social Security and have since its inception in 1986.

An excellent book on the subject was written by Dean Baker. Easily read on 1-2 days.

[newtothegame]

81. So it can pay full benefits for 33 years without changes, or with changes (eliminating the cap)?

Your post is a bit confusing.

[laughingliberal]

84. With NO changes. eom

[BlueIdaho]

86. An estimated two million French citizens took to the streets in June

To protest changing retirement age from 60 to 62. What do you suppose would happen if two million American citizens took to the streets to demand everyone contribute their fair share into Social Security?

[Soylent Brice]

88. K&R

:applause:

politicians with the will to do it is the tricky part, indeed.
and unlikely.