Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2023, 8:39 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 8:39 pm

Social security is actually quite sustainable. In fact, it's paid for. There's an enormous trust fund. 

The war in Ukraine, not so much. It's not paid for. It's not our war. And there's an enormous and justifiable lack of trust.

But the dimentedcrats and LBJ raided social security to pay for their Vietnam war.

​​​​​ It's your children who are paying for their parents social security. 
 

Warcok » 07 Feb 2023, 8:47 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 8:47 pm

But the dimentedcrats and LBJ raided social security to pay for their Vietnam war.

​​​​​ It's your children who are paying for their parents social security.

Reagan is the one who made the social security bonds non-fungible. Until Reagan, Social Security sold it's bonds on the FREE MARKET. Reagan made it where Social Security could only sell to the FEDERAL NANNY STATE.

To the degree that our ENTIRE debt is a ponzi scheme, SS is a ponzi scheme. But ONLY to that degree. Before we honor hedge fund bonds, we should honor retirees' bonds. 

Again, maybe skip a war here and there, and respect our word to our seniors. Just a thought. 
 

golfboy » 07 Feb 2023, 8:44 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 8:44 pm

Then why are we supplimenting from the general fund every year, and the trustees say it's going to be broke.

We aren't. That is a falsehood. Existing payouts are covered by existing bonds, and will be well into the future. 

There is talk of means testing, raising the retirement age, what have you. And this, because lifeexpectancies have soared since SS came on board. The average person DIED at 65 when SS started. 

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2023, 8:56 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 8:56 pm

Reagan is the one who made the social security bonds non-fungible. Until Reagan, Social Security sold it's bonds on the FREE MARKET. Reagan made it where Social Security could only sell to the FEDERAL NANNY STATE.

To the degree that our ENTIRE debt is a ponzi scheme, SS is a ponzi scheme. But ONLY to that degree. Before we honor hedge fund bonds, we should honor retirees' bonds. 

Again, maybe skip a war here and there, and respect our word to our seniors. Just a thought.

That's some good food for thought. What's your opinion on how social security should be handled? Some sort of IRA account or keep it as it is?
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2023, 8:58 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 8:58 pm

We aren't. That is a falsehood. Existing payouts are covered by existing bonds, and will be well into the future. 

There is talk of means testing, raising the retirement age, what have you. And this, because lifeexpectancies have soared since SS came on board. The average person DIED at 65 when SS started.

Social Security’s Funding Shortfall

Issue Before Congress
Over its 87-year history, Social Security has collected $25.2 trillion and paid out $22.3 trillion, leaving trust fund asset reserves of $2.9 trillion.
Projections show that Social Security will be unable to pay scheduled benefits in full and on time starting in 2035, primarily due to demographic factors.

Under the 2022 intermediate assumptions, the Social Security Board of Trustees project, with these asset reserves, the trust funds to remain “solvent” until 2035 (the 2022 intermediate assumptions reflect the trustees’ understanding of Social Security at the start of 2022). That is, until 2035, the trust funds are projected to be able to pay full benefits scheduled under current law on a timely basis. In 2035, however, the trust fund reserves are projected to be depleted. While the program would continue to operate with scheduled tax revenues, those revenues are projected to cover about three-fourths of scheduled benefits through the end of the projection period (2096). It is unclear how the U.S. Treasury would handle the payment of scheduled benefits under such a scenario.

Warcok » 07 Feb 2023, 9:05 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:05 pm

That's some good food for thought. What's your opinion on how social security should be handled? Some sort of IRA account or keep it as it is?

If the same money you "invested" in Socialist Security were put into an IRA account, you could have retired at 55 with an annual income of $60,000.
And when you died, your children could inherit the money instead of the money reverting to the government.
 

Warcok » 07 Feb 2023, 9:05 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:05 pm

That's some good food for thought. What's your opinion on how social security should be handled? Some sort of IRA account or keep it as it is?

Keep it like it is. It stops senior from starving.SS was never INTENDED to be a free market program. 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2023, 9:15 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:15 pm

Keep it like it is. It stops senior from starving.SS was never INTENDED to be a free market program.

Okay.   So we'll just let it keep running out of money, more and more every year. 
Sounds like a great solution.
 

golfboy » 07 Feb 2023, 9:06 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:06 pm

Social Security’s Funding Shortfall

Issue Before Congress
Over its 87-year history, Social Security has collected $25.2 trillion and paid out $22.3 trillion, leaving trust fund asset reserves of $2.9 trillion.
Projections show that Social Security will be unable to pay scheduled benefits in full and on time starting in 2035,

That's the opposite of your LAST POST.

So you are agreeing with me that your last post was incorrect.

There are dozens of diffrent ways to deal with the problem in the next dozen years. Pretending stuff isn't even on the list.

This is from YOUR link:

s. In 2021, the program had total income of $1.09 trillion (93.6% from dedicated tax revenues), total expenditures of $1.14 trillion (99.0% for benefit payments), and trust fund reserves of $2.9 trillion (U.S. Treasury securities) available for future program spending.

If you are literate and numerate, we should be done. 

golfboy » 07 Feb 2023, 9:17 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:17 pm

Okay.   So we'll just let it keep running out of money, more and more every year. 
Sounds like a great solution.

As you should know, keep it like it is means do not move it to wall street.

We have a dozen years and a dozen ways to make adjustments that will keep it viable.
 

Taipan » 05 Feb 2023, 11:27 am » wrote: ↑

05 Feb 2023, 11:27 am

A debt ceiling is not a ceiling if you can raise it anytime you wish.
Today, we are 31.5 Trillion in debt.     No end in sight.
What is the Dem solution ?
"Spend more money" !!!                          

It was raised 3 times under The Former Guy and not a whimper was heard from the Republicans.

As far as the deficit goes. Republicans increase it.
Dems lower it.


 
​​​​​
 
 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2023, 9:17 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:17 pm

That's the opposite of your LAST POST.

So you are agreeing with me that your last post was incorrect.

There are dozens of diffrent ways to deal with the problem in the next dozen years. Pretending stuff isn't even on the list.

No man, we ARE supplementing Social Security from the general fund.   We've been doing it for years because of the shortfall. 

 

golfboy » 07 Feb 2023, 9:28 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:28 pm

No man, we ARE supplementing Social Security from the general fund.   We've been doing it for years because of the shortfall.

Make up your mind. That is the exact opposite of your last post. 

If you want to run this patently false narrative, bring a link. You last post admitted that SS is self-sustaining into 2035 - and THAT ONE had a link. The two running this silly **** don't. 
 

Misty » 07 Feb 2023, 9:23 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:23 pm

It was raised 3 times under The Former Guy and not a whimper was heard from the Republicans.

As far as the deficit goes. Republicans increase it.
Dems lower it.


 
​​​​​

lol.  Clinton's 1995 budget called for $300 Billion deficits forever.  His spending only went down after Gingrich forced him to sign a balanced budget after 3 Clinton Vetoes. 

Likewise Obama's spending only went down after Republicans took over the House.

Now Biden is taking credit because pandemic spending ended?   He's done NOTHING to reduce spending/deficits. 
But your chart is actually quite amusing. 
 

golfboy » 07 Feb 2023, 9:28 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:28 pm

No man, we ARE supplementing Social Security from the general fund.   We've been doing it for years because of the shortfall.

Argue with your link.

In 2021, the program had total income of $1.09 trillion (93.6% from dedicated tax revenues), total expenditures of $1.14 trillion (99.0% for benefit payments), and trust fund reserves of $2.9 trillion (U.S. Treasury securities) available for future program spending.
 
The "dedicated tax revenues" are Social Security.

golfboy » 07 Feb 2023, 9:17 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:17 pm

Okay.   So we'll just let it keep running out of money, more and more every year. 
Sounds like a great solution.

Not to me. 

Is that GENUINELY the best solution you can think of - no other ideas at all?
 
 

Warcok » 07 Feb 2023, 9:05 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:05 pm

That's some good food for thought. What's your opinion on how social security should be handled? Some sort of IRA account or keep it as it is?

Here's another thing to consider. Welfare isn't OWED. People didn't PAY IN. They didn't WORK FOR IT.

So before ANYONE suggests we rob granny, how about robbng delanamore first, huh?

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2023, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:39 pm

Not to me. 

Is that GENUINELY the best solution you can think of - no other ideas at all?

It's a ponzi scheme.   It needs to be ended in a controlled manner, and the monies redirected to private investments which would ALWAYS provide better/higher ROI. 

It's absurd that we have to fund Socialist Security AND save MORE money so we can actually retire. 
 
 

golfboy » 07 Feb 2023, 9:47 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:47 pm

It's a ponzi scheme.   It needs to be ended in a controlled manner, and the monies redirected to private investments which would ALWAYS provide better/higher ROI.

So... you want government to force me to invest in wall street - not just cajole me, incentivise me, gaslight me - but FORCE me. 

Interesting. 
 

Cannonpointer » 07 Feb 2023, 9:49 pm » wrote: ↑

07 Feb 2023, 9:49 pm

So... you want government to force me to invest in wall street - not just cajole me, incentivise me, gaslight me - but FORCE me. 

Interesting.

No, I think they should provide the option.  
What do you think the market would be like, with a constant infusion of money like that?