Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt.

Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

farglebargle -> Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/9/2011 8:04:01 AM)
So, aside from helping people what's the issue again? (aside from Republicans hate America and only care about Corporations )

erieangel -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/9/2011 9:59:45 AM)
Shhh. The Republicans will say that's a lie.

DomKen -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/9/2011 10:55:53 AM)
Actually since SS taxes are used to buy treasury notes they actually make the debt smaller by keeping interest rates down.

lockedaway -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/9/2011 10:57:55 AM)
Who says they have? BUT....social security is a huge, unfounded liability. Had it been managed correctly, there never would have been a problem. Malfeasance and corruption is what has threatened social security.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/9/2011 10:59:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Shhh. The Republicans will say that's a lie. Why would they? Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched TV news knows there is a surplus in the Trust Fund that isnt depleted for 10+ years. That doesnt mean that future shortfalls shouldnt be addressed now.

erieangel -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/9/2011 11:38:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Shhh. The Republicans will say that's a lie. Why would they? Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched TV news knows there is a surplus in the Trust Fund that isnt depleted for 10+ years. That doesnt mean that future shortfalls shouldnt be addressed now. I've heard Boehner, Canter and others say that social security needs to be addressed in order to bring down the deficit. The two aren't connected. As for adjusting social security, it needs only a minor adjustment. The trust fund has enough money to pay 100% of its obligations until at least the year 2045 and then 80% of obligations in perpetuity. That's pretty darned good for a program many people are claiming is not only broke, but is contributing to our debt.

Musicmystery -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/9/2011 8:30:04 PM)
quote: social security is a huge, unfounded liability. Had it been managed correctly, there never would have been a problem. I think you mean "unfunded," and you'd be wrong. Your contributions, adjusted for inflation and a moderate return, easily finance your retirement checks. And more people pay in...baby boomers have kids and grand-kids and great grand-kids, ya know. But your slip was correct--that it's a liability is unfounded. What IS a problem is that the surplus was used for years to disguise the size of the deficit. THAT'S what was unfunded, and had tax cuts been handled responsibly, there never would have been a problem.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 3:03:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Shhh. The Republicans will say that's a lie. Why would they? Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched TV news knows there is a surplus in the Trust Fund that isnt depleted for 10+ years. That doesnt mean that future shortfalls shouldnt be addressed now. I've heard Boehner, Canter and others say that social security needs to be addressed in order to bring down the deficit. The two aren't connected. As for adjusting social security, it needs only a minor adjustment. The trust fund has enough money to pay 100% of its obligations until at least the year 2045 and then 80% of obligations in perpetuity. That's pretty darned good for a program many people are claiming is not only broke, but is contributing to our debt. You're off a bit on your numbers, but starting at the beginning: It DOES have to be addressed to avoid FUTURE deficits, and needs to be addressed NOW, because the more and more people that get closer to drawing benefits the harder it will be to fix. So they are most definitely connected. "Minor" is eye of the beholder. A legitimate long term fix is going to mean raising the full benefit retirement age to 70 over a period of about 20 years, and something on the order of a .5% payroll tax increase. To me thats minor, and consistent with demographics that dictate people will be working several years longer anyway. Others may not think so. Your 100% to 2045 and 80% in perpetuity is off a bit. Under the intermediate assumptions the Trust Fund is exhaused in 2036 and from that point on only 77% of benefits are payable, declining to 74% over the following 50 years. The most important number though is, based on the current benefit structure, the increase in tax rates needed to keep assets and liabilities in balance for 75 years, and that is a whopping 2.2% of taxable payroll...nearly a 16% increase on employers/employees and nearly a 33% increase on the self-employed. That is simply unaffordable. BENEFITS MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW.

erieangel -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 3:58:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Shhh. The Republicans will say that's a lie. Why would they? Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched TV news knows there is a surplus in the Trust Fund that isnt depleted for 10+ years. That doesnt mean that future shortfalls shouldnt be addressed now. I've heard Boehner, Canter and others say that social security needs to be addressed in order to bring down the deficit. The two aren't connected. As for adjusting social security, it needs only a minor adjustment. The trust fund has enough money to pay 100% of its obligations until at least the year 2045 and then 80% of obligations in perpetuity. That's pretty darned good for a program many people are claiming is not only broke, but is contributing to our debt. You're off a bit on your numbers, but starting at the beginning: It DOES have to be addressed to avoid FUTURE deficits, and needs to be addressed NOW, because the more and more people that get closer to drawing benefits the harder it will be to fix. So they are most definitely connected. "Minor" is eye of the beholder. A legitimate long term fix is going to mean raising the full benefit retirement age to 70 over a period of about 20 years, and something on the order of a .5% payroll tax increase. To me thats minor, and consistent with demographics that dictate people will be working several years longer anyway. Others may not think so. Your 100% to 2045 and 80% in perpetuity is off a bit. Under the intermediate assumptions the Trust Fund is exhaused in 2036 and from that point on only 77% of benefits are payable, declining to 74% over the following 50 years. The most important number though is, based on the current benefit structure, the increase in tax rates needed to keep assets and liabilities in balance for 75 years, and that is a whopping 2.2% of taxable payroll...nearly a 16% increase on employers/employees and nearly a 33% increase on the self-employed. That is simply unaffordable. BENEFITS MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW. Ok, so my numbers, according to you, are off. You still did not address why many leaders in the Republican party are arguing and furthering the misinformation that social security needs to be addressed in order to bring down the deficit. As for raising the retirement age. Umm. No. You think a miner, factory worker (what few of them are left), waitress, nurse, is going to be able to work in their career until the age of 70?? Get real. Yes, many professionals--CEOs and others work far into their 70s and 80s but the average salaried employee is unable to for a variety of reasons. There is a better way to address the coming short falls to social security. 1.) eliminate the earnings cap. 2.)means test benefits. Does a millionaire really need that social security check?

BamaD -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 5:10:49 PM)
SSN is not broke however it soon will be. with the ratio of people paying in to people taking out steadily reducing it is headed for deep trouble. The only ways to fix it before the bottom falls out are restructuring or massive tax increases. SSN is not the problem today but it will be in the near future.

slvemike4u -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 6:18:00 PM)
So you are advocating massive tax increases ? Personally I would think some combination of tax increases and tweaking of the program would stave off disaster....of course since any idiot knows that tax funds don't actually fund SS......and I am not an idiot...I would suggest tweaking the SS withholding rates,as raising taxes has fuck all to do with SS. Though it was pleasant to see a rabid partisan tea bag type admit the necessity of raising taxes [:)]

CoyoteMan -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 6:32:37 PM)
This whole debt thing is smoke and mirrors to get 1 party elected over the other. SS is not bankrupt and SS is the money you and your employers paid over the years. FDR couldn't get that passed unless it was that way because the country was in a Depression. Social Security is solid at least until 2037. A few good tweaks like raising the SS taxes on those making more than $90,000 this year can fix that up fast. And now the country is in it's first Depression of the 21st Century. But we now have the smoke and mirrors of debt so that is the bullshit the phony news media and certain candidates use to scare the simple minded into electing them. Here is my prediction for you. If this debt baloney started on Wall Street after they busted the Treasury continues and becomes an obcession this country will look like 1 of those sci fi movies where the aliens attack and destroy all the cities. Oh and forget jobs they will all disappear. My predictions are usually correct (about 85%) If you doubt that I'll attach my Jan 1, 2011 Predictions in one of these emails.

Musicmystery -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 7:27:34 PM)
quote: Social Security is solid at least until 2037 And even then, it's just that the surplus it generated in the past got loaned to the rest of government and never got paid back. Even that situation is temporary...baby boomers had kids and grandkids and greatgrandkids, and they contribute.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 8:34:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel Shhh. The Republicans will say that's a lie. Why would they? Anyone who has read a newspaper or watched TV news knows there is a surplus in the Trust Fund that isnt depleted for 10+ years. That doesnt mean that future shortfalls shouldnt be addressed now. I've heard Boehner, Canter and others say that social security needs to be addressed in order to bring down the deficit. The two aren't connected. As for adjusting social security, it needs only a minor adjustment. The trust fund has enough money to pay 100% of its obligations until at least the year 2045 and then 80% of obligations in perpetuity. That's pretty darned good for a program many people are claiming is not only broke, but is contributing to our debt. You're off a bit on your numbers, but starting at the beginning: It DOES have to be addressed to avoid FUTURE deficits, and needs to be addressed NOW, because the more and more people that get closer to drawing benefits the harder it will be to fix. So they are most definitely connected. "Minor" is eye of the beholder. A legitimate long term fix is going to mean raising the full benefit retirement age to 70 over a period of about 20 years, and something on the order of a .5% payroll tax increase. To me thats minor, and consistent with demographics that dictate people will be working several years longer anyway. Others may not think so. Your 100% to 2045 and 80% in perpetuity is off a bit. Under the intermediate assumptions the Trust Fund is exhaused in 2036 and from that point on only 77% of benefits are payable, declining to 74% over the following 50 years. The most important number though is, based on the current benefit structure, the increase in tax rates needed to keep assets and liabilities in balance for 75 years, and that is a whopping 2.2% of taxable payroll...nearly a 16% increase on employers/employees and nearly a 33% increase on the self-employed. That is simply unaffordable. BENEFITS MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW. Ok, so my numbers, according to you, are off. You still did not address why many leaders in the Republican party are arguing and furthering the misinformation that social security needs to be addressed in order to bring down the deficit. As for raising the retirement age. Umm. No. You think a miner, factory worker (what few of them are left), waitress, nurse, is going to be able to work in their career until the age of 70?? Get real. Yes, many professionals--CEOs and others work far into their 70s and 80s but the average salaried employee is unable to for a variety of reasons. There is a better way to address the coming short falls to social security. 1.) eliminate the earnings cap. 2.)means test benefits. Does a millionaire really need that social security check? First of all, I did tell you why it has to be addressed now. Second, yes, even the occupations you name will be able to work 5 years longer than they do now in 20 years, and will want to. Eliminate the earnings cap? So you want MORE redistribution of wealth than is already inherent in Social Security. Im not surprised that is what a liberal wants, but at least recognize it for what it is. Means testing? Does a millionaire need it? Irrelevant. He paid for it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 8:39:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CoyoteMan Social Security is solid at least until 2037. A few good tweaks like raising the SS taxes on those making more than $90,000 this year can fix that up fast. On the intermediate assumptions yes, but they are starting to look optimistic already. Expect in next years report that on the intermediate assumptions the trust fund will be exhausted before 2030. Your a few years behind on the maximum earnings, and eliminating the cap further erodes the fundamental basis of SS, making it even more of a weatlh transfer vehicle. I doubt the GOP will go for it any time soon.

MasterG2kTR -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 9:01:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy You're off a bit on your numbers, but starting at the beginning: It DOES have to be addressed to avoid FUTURE deficits, and needs to be addressed NOW, because the more and more people that get closer to drawing benefits the harder it will be to fix. So they are most definitely connected. "Minor" is eye of the beholder. A legitimate long term fix is going to mean raising the full benefit retirement age to 70 over a period of about 20 years, and something on the order of a .5% payroll tax increase. To me thats minor, and consistent with demographics that dictate people will be working several years longer anyway. Others may not think so. Your 100% to 2045 and 80% in perpetuity is off a bit. Under the intermediate assumptions the Trust Fund is exhaused in 2036 and from that point on only 77% of benefits are payable, declining to 74% over the following 50 years. The most important number though is, based on the current benefit structure, the increase in tax rates needed to keep assets and liabilities in balance for 75 years, and that is a whopping 2.2% of taxable payroll...nearly a 16% increase on employers/employees and nearly a 33% increase on the self-employed. That is simply unaffordable. BENEFITS MUST BE ADDRESSED NOW. You need to check some facts first. Full retirement benefits for those that are currently somewhere between age 40-45 is already at age 70. I will soon be 55 and for me to get full benefits I have to work until 66 and 4 months. They started graduating full retirement age about 10 years ago.

erieangel -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 9:08:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: CoyoteMan Social Security is solid at least until 2037. A few good tweaks like raising the SS taxes on those making more than $90,000 this year can fix that up fast. On the intermediate assumptions yes, but they are starting to look optimistic already. Expect in next years report that on the intermediate assumptions the trust fund will be exhausted before 2030. Your a few years behind on the maximum earnings, and eliminating the cap further erodes the fundamental basis of SS, making it even more of a weatlh transfer vehicle. I doubt the GOP will go for it any time soon. And I remember during Reagan's first term, he and his cronies claiming SSN would be broke by now. Geez, this fear mongering over social security will never end.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 10:25:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR You need to check some facts first. Full retirement benefits for those that are currently somewhere between age 40-45 is already at age 70. I will soon be 55 and for me to get full benefits I have to work until 66 and 4 months. They started graduating full retirement age about 10 years ago. Siggghhh. Not to age 70 my friend, only to age 67.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 10:28:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erieangel quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: CoyoteMan Social Security is solid at least until 2037. A few good tweaks like raising the SS taxes on those making more than $90,000 this year can fix that up fast. On the intermediate assumptions yes, but they are starting to look optimistic already. Expect in next years report that on the intermediate assumptions the trust fund will be exhausted before 2030. Your a few years behind on the maximum earnings, and eliminating the cap further erodes the fundamental basis of SS, making it even more of a weatlh transfer vehicle. I doubt the GOP will go for it any time soon. And I remember during Reagan's first term, he and his cronies claiming SSN would be broke by now. Geez, this fear mongering over social security will never end. ROFL. Without the 1983 amendments due to that "fear mongering" SS would have been broke years ago.

defiantbadgirl -> RE: Social Security has not contributed one nickel to our deficit or our national debt. (7/10/2011 11:14:00 PM)
Some occupations like CNA and pipe fitting are very physically demanding and require heavy lifting. Do you think you would be physically capable of performing a job like that until age 70? Alzheimers can make a person incapable of even performing an office job. Can republicans see into the future? Are they 100% sure there will be a cure for alzheimers in 20 years? Also, Republicans need to stop suggesting cuts in areas that are impossible to cut. A good example of this is putting spending caps on medicaid. What happens when nursing home patients reach their cap? Impossible.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125