Social Security: broke in 2040 or not?

I need some facts about Social Security being viable.Previous information and links published on DU (especially by Hannah Bell and others) had showed me this is a manufactured 'scare'. I need some irrefutable information with links so I can show a friend who may have absorbed some propaganda.

Thanks in advance. :D

The Social Security Foundation - it has very good information here....

But if they are not open to really looking at the facts, know that you could lay a Hertz truck of paper and facts on them, and it won't make a difference.

So, yes, the SS Trust Fund will be broke by 2040 - but SS itself will not be broke. So what does a reasonable entity do when a short fall is predicted some time in the future? They plan ahead.

A number of times in the history of SS, there have been projected shortfalls. Every time Congress made changes that kept SS healthy. We just need to be sure that the changes this time are rational and do not enforce the moves that are pushing this country towards third world status.

to prevent any such shortfall --

Originally Social Security was intended as a "pay-as-you-go" program --

NOT INTENDED TO HAVE A SURPLUS ....

These surplusses have been raised as a handy slush fund for politicians --

mainly Repugs --

Surplus is $250 Billion every year now? Think that might be right -- maybe more?

And that surplus is raised by overburdening the poor and middle class with

increased FICA rates to protect against the alleged threat of "baby boomer" retirements --

They've been raising these huge surplusses now for 20 years or more???

That is why although SS is not currently collecting enough to cover the outflow, it will not be a problem until around 2037 because the SS Trust Fund has the funds to cover the difference for that long.

But the Republicans have been raiding the SS Trust Fund without showing it as a debt obligation. Now that SS needs its trust fund, it shows up as a negative on the budget. If the SS Trust Fund had been left out of the federal budget, the Reagan and Bush tax cuts would have shown up as negatives on the budget far sooner.

Poppy Bush used the surplus for war in Gulf --

W Bush used SS surplus for war and tax cuts for rich --

Again -- Social Security is running HUGE SURPLUSSES . . .

And those surplusses have been borrowed and used for purposes other than Social Security!!

And -- yes -- they are also intended to hide the MIC budget -- which is where most of our

money goes --

Social Security was never intended to run a SURPLUS nor be in the General Budget --



AND . . . I clearly mentioned the "baby boomer" issue in my post . . ..

Surplus is $250 Billion every year now? Think that might be right -- maybe more?

And that surplus is raised by overburdening the poor and middle class with

increased FICA rates to protect against the alleged threat of "baby boomer" retirements --

They've been raising these huge surplusses now for 20 years or more???



Overall we seem to be in agreement -- but you have an odd way of stating things which

seem contradictory --

are based on the fact that NOBODY on SS would ever die?

Wall Street Journal was often running "ponzi scheme" articles on it -- !!

And, GOP barkers were it at it non-stop -- robotically!!

Social Security is a hugely successful program -- that's why they want to destroy it --

and move $$ to Wall Street!

And, btw, let's not forget that Obama is now trying to do what Bush couldn't do -- !!

claiming that social security is a ponzi scheme. Stealth Republicans.

to those who refer to it as "SocialIST Security" ...

:silly:

They've been trotting this horseshit out ever since it started back in the 1930s. It's idiotic because it's an insurance program and premiums are collected every year.

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/fdrs-grandson-debunks-mythology-fear-about

As he points out, what other government program can project SOLVENCY for the next 27 years?

So I have no worries at all.

that's where all the numbers being tossed around come from, that & the congressional budget office analyses.


Before you start collecting info for him, ask him what his concerns are. Otherwise you could throw a bunch of info at him & still not hit what his issue is.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Unfortunately, there is no "irrefutable information" out there because this is a matter of faith, not numbers. The right considers SocSec to be sort of the anti-Christ of government programs in that it is not military related BUT does work as designed, and has done so longer than most of its critics have been alive.

Tell your friend that the "powers that be" are looking to bail out the rich, once again, by disrupting and destroying the main source of income for those inconvenient folks who insist on living longer than Peterson, et al, would prefer. He may not be able to understand elaborate economic arguments but he should be able to understand being mugged.

IF WE HAD AN HONEST MEDIA, THE REPUBLICANS WOULD NOT EXIST

"IF WE HAD AN HONEST MEDIA, THE REPUBLICANS WOULD NOT EXIST"

They couldn't exist because an honest media would allow our voice to be heard outside of Ed, Keith and Rachel.

Currently there is more money coming in than paying out. Government borrows this money. Down the road, when payouts exceed money coming in, governments will have to pay back the money they borrowed. This means spending cuts/increased taxes which pols won't do... they like borrowing money they don't have to repay. If NOTHING is done to SS, the payouts will still be made equal to the payins, which will be at a level not worse than 75% of the promised benefits. Basically, the "need to fix" SS is really the "need to keep the SS surplus intact so we can continue to borrow it".

This is based on assumption that nothing changes:
* life expectancy projections are accurate
* wage increase projections (which determines amount paid into system) are accurate
* benefit projections remain the same (based on sliding scale % of wages and adjusted for inflation)
* contribution rate remains the same.

Obviously insolvency CAN be avoid. Paying less benefits would avoid insolvency. Collecting more revenue would avoid insolvency. Wages growing faster than inflation would avoid insolvency. People not living as long would avoid insolvency.

Obviously not all there changes are desirable but the projection is simply that a projection and if the assumptions change then the projection changes.

Still the point is valid. If we "do nothing"
* same contribution rate
* same benefit payout scale
* same cap
* same life expectency
* same wage growth

then SS will become insolvent. Period.

The changes required to keep SS solvent infinitely are rather minor.
Raising the cap, requiring all employees to participate, taxing SS benefits for high net worth individuals fully, and raising the contribution rate 0.5% would make SS solvent forever.

OMG! The worst thing in the world is if in 30 years, 20% of SS benefits might be paid for via income taxes!!1! Gnash your teeth! Rend your garments!