Social Security Expected to Dip Into Its Reserves This Year

Nobody can be on unemployment compensation their whole life. There is a time limit and it has changed at different times between 6 months and 2 years.

 

ONLY if that same Uncle spends the money received from the purchase of Trust Fund Treasuries. If alternate investments are so good as the right insists, why hasn't the right tried to get their Uncle to invest those proceeds in those great investments? Then, not only would the Trust Fund be safe, but the excess ROR would be available to pay down the national debt. . . . . -if such great investment alternatives exist?

 

Very interesting concept! I had not heard of this "Social Expenditure Database (SOCX)" before you brought it up.

A welfare program elimination-methodology based on this viewpoint may be the only thing that finally leads this country out of the welfare morass that liberal Democrats have been leading the country into ever since the 1930's during the regime(s) of their great demi-god, Frankie Roosevelt. We also had a huge, heaping helping of it during the days of Frankie's 'star-pupil', Lyndon Johnson....

 

It wasn't the social programs that were the problem. It was the republican policies since that have driven the USA into the ditch and made it more and more difficult to maintain the social programs.

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but if the government suddenly wanted to stop taking money out of people's paychecks for "FICA", then effective ON THAT DATE, nobody else would be 'enrolled' into Social Security. BUT, all people were part of SS, Medicare, etc. BEFORE that date would have already EARNED their benefits, based on the amounts contributed over x-number of years, and, they should be paid accordingly without interruption.

 

I'm not trying to be coy, Kode, but what Republican policies are you talking about? An economic black-hole is an economic black-hole ("it is what it is...."). So, what are the actual black-holes that the money is flowing into? UNEARNED welfare handouts are the black-holes, or am I wrong? Really, I'm not trying to be a snot -- I'm serious.

I understand the genuine, defensible need for welfare programs for people who CANNOT support themselves because of unfortunate things like horrible diseases, terrible injuries, birth defects, etc., but vast numbers of people who suck on the government welfare "straw" who actually CAN support themselves should be forced OFF the 'Welfare Smorgasbord'....

 

SS is not an earned benefit, like a pension or a 401K. You don't pay into a fund, and then get those funds back. If you are collecting SS, you are being paid by people who are still working. If they ended FICA tomorrow, you would no longer be receiving SS.

 

Why would we have social costs? What is wrong with choice? Isn't there any longer freedom to fail?

 

Here's another one who doesn't realize that he has his own, personal, private Social Security account. Here, rahl, create a log-in at "mysocialsecurity" and see what you've already been forced by the government to contribute: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/?gcli...SIwAuRTO1HtufSd_DAaqLaMyS2PDk_HsaArPaEALw_wcB

I'm assuming, of course, that you have ever legally worked anywhere in the United States during your lifetime, so far....

Notice how you can calculate what you -- personally -- will receive from your unique account at whatever age you select, based on your personal 'contributions'. Go ahead... it's not hard. And, yeah, rahl, it IS earned! You worked, you paid, and therefore, you've EARNED. That's the way that Social Security has worked for over 80 years!

 

I think you may have misunderstood me.....

We ought to reduce social spending, thus, ALL social related expenditures, both direct and indirect social related government assistance, as well as social related subsidies should be on the table.

Democrats are not the only ones who have inflated social spending, example; Betsy Devos' private school vouchers is also a social program.

Also, reducing social spending isn't necessarily reducing benefits, for example; The ridiculous SNAP administration expense (over $5 billion), but NOOOOOOO, can't do that, GOOOOOOOD for the economy.

We have over 80+ federally-sponsored social programs, from Social Security to Breast Feeding, and many countries' central governments have less than 10, main reason; highly decentralized.

What I'm trying to say; Focusing solely on reducing Welfare spending is fiscally irresponsible.

 

You never paid into anything. The money was spent as soon as it arrived. It's always been a e distributive system.

 

And you think the Social Security "Trust Fund" meets that criteria?

- A trust fund must have a settlor who puts his or her own property in the trust. Congress doesn't put its property into the trust. Even if you could twist the idea that the bonds are the property of the Congress, they aren't real property - they are just promises to pay in the future by the Congress. Trusts have real property. You wouldn't find a real trust where you can deposit a check and tell them that it's going to be funded on the date of the check and not until then. Those bonds are non-marketable, so they are even less like real property.

- the beneficiaries do not have a property right in the fund as they would in a real trust. There are no individual accounts or individual properties in the fund as would be the case in a real trust fund.

- in a trust, the board of trustees would hold title in the property. The SS Board of Trustees has no title to anything.

- Far from being an asset, what the SS Trust Fund holds is debt. It's a liability to the government which owns the fund. Any attempt to convert those securities to marketable securities would mean less debt that could be sold to fund current expenditures on other things. China doesn't buy endless amounts of debt. No one does.

The whole "Trust Fund" propaganda was intended to create better public relations with the masses.

 

There's no account, just an accounting entry, and no funds being held for you. You have no property right in the fund. SS says this and SCOTUS says this. The only thing that keeps it functional is your holy faith in your politicians to not shut it down. When the millennial get tired of supporting entitled old cranks, they'll vote out politicians who don't shut it down. You and the rest of your generation wanted to have their cake (social security) and eat it too (spend the money as it comes in, kick the can down the road.) When it collapses, it'll be your fault; not that of the modern workers who are forced to pay off the debt you incurred so you could have more government benefits.

 

Well, Ken, we "entitled old cranks" were forced by the government (FORCED) to pay into Social Security and Medicare our entire working lives. We (and your Millennial generation?) have been provided with individual, personal accounts showing EXACTLY what you're going to get, after you have EARNED it by a certain age. Check yours: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/

You don't have to believe that if you don't want to... but believe THIS -- any politician who thinks he's going to get away with screwing people out of a retirement benefit they've been FORCED BY LAW to pay into all their lives is committing political SUICIDE. Besides, even if anyone were stupid and corrupt enough to try something like that, it would be tied up in the courts for many years....

Sure, it would have been much better if Frankie Roosevelt and the rest of those socialist-minded, dumb bastards had never set these things up in the 1930's, and then ADDED to them in the 1960's, as 'Lyin' Lyndon' Johnson did. Now, it's all been thoroughly baked into every working American's legal retirement plans, and anybody who tries to "change the deal" now is going to be found face-down in a ditch somewhere... 'politically', of course.... .

 

Well, to put it simply (as I have in other posts in this thread), the government can, and SHOULD cut as many UNEARNED welfare programs as it is feasible and fair to eliminate or drastically reduce. But there is is a BIG difference between handout welfare goodies and EARNED benefits. If any politicians are unclear about this, they'd better focus on it tightly before even thinking about doing anything stupid.

Besides... what's the big heartburn? The unemployment rate is the lowest it's been since 1969. Many more people are working now, and the unemployment rate is 3.8%: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm . Money is pouring into the FICA programs now, because every worker is forced to 'contribute', just like always! And, as an added bonus -- the 76,000,000 million Baby Boomers in this country are slowly but surely dying like flies! And once a person dies, the government cuts off all Social Security payment to that person!

It's funny. So many Millennials, who have made themselves conspicuous with little but their propensity to lavish stupid amounts of time playing with their 'smart' phones, and continuing to live at home with Mommy and Daddy even though they are adults, would now be so worried about anybody being able to collect benefits that were EARNED by people paying into these government systems for decades. But, after all, this is a generation that hasn't had much collective experience in EARNING much of anything!

 

No, lets just raise the retirement age to 72 for people under 40 right now and means test it for people with private and government pensions. That will fix it for a long time to come.

 

That is a reasonable idea, but it may not be necessary. The economy's in surprisingly good shape now, and there are many more workers contributing to SS and Medicare.

Again, Boomers are dying like flies! They are still, by far, the biggest 'bubble' in the population. And, be careful with 'means testing'... double-dippers who are drawing government pensions should not (NOT) be drawing Social Security, too, but 'means testing', per se, can be a very slippery-slope.

 

Your social security money was spent a long time ago paying for your parents. Some punk kid is paying for yours.
If they stopped paying SS would be broke in about three years.
I don't know if it makes you feel any better knowing you spent it rather than investing it but.....

 

Quote: "There's no account, no funds, just an accounting entry....."

I read hundreds of interpretations, last one; YOURS!

Let's look at it from a different angle;

Uncle Sam's marketable and non-marketable securities are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government, but IMO, they are CONDITIONALLY backed , for example;

If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling limit, there are several measures to prevent the United States from defaulting on its obligations, and in chronological order;

1. Treasury may resort to "extraordinary measures, i.e. dip into other retirement accounts. Once said measures are exhausted, government can;
2. Cut spending
3. Raise taxes
4. Sell government assets, buildings/lands, etc.

Last resort;

5. the Federal Reserve can also generate cash, and even redeem non-marketable securities held in Trust Funds through a sophisticated rebalancing act.

Thus, both marketable/non-marketable securities, principle, interest, rollovers and redemptions are conditionally "Backed" by several measures and assets.

 

One big one was Reagan's reduction of the top tax brackets followed by Bush getting brackets eliminated and reduced. Fifty-six brackets in 1918 with the top one at 77%, 24 brackets in 1944 with the top one at 94%, down to Reagan inheriting 16 tax brackets and reducing them to TWO at 15 and 28 percent. In 1993 Bush I had 5 brackets with the top one at 39.6%. Clinton kept them as they were. Bush II ended with 6 brackets but the top was at 35%. This was the start of the push to funnel more and more income to the rich. And it was accompanied by an increasing harm to programs needed by the public, like Reagan's defunding of mental health clinics that led very quickly to an increasing presence of homeless people begging on highway entrance and exit ramps. At the same time such programs were being cut, increases to the defense budget continued until it represented about 1/3 of all annual spending.

But "unearned welfare handouts"? By definition, welfare is "unearned" isn't it?

 

NOTE: If we keep kicking the can down the road, SS benefits will PARTIALLY become UNEARNED, 75% funded from FICA, 25% funded from General Revenue.

 

Quote: and there are many more workers contributing to SS and Medicare

Fiscally irrelevant if the gap between SS outlays and SS receipts keeps growing.

 

Yes, I get the significance of "if".... And "if" an asteroid the size of Guatemala hits the Earth, we're all going to die!

Nevertheless, the economy is robust (even if it was "rescued" by little more than the Federal Reserve's 'magic tricks'). We have a large population bubble -- the Millennials -- second only to the Boomer generation -- and many of them are getting employed now. SOMEBODY is getting employed; otherwise, how could the official unemployment rate be down to 3.8%...?

But in this matter, the dynamic is what's really important! The dynamic shows clearly that although many Boomers are beginning to collect their Social Security and Medicare benefits, the SS payout is often the minimum -- because they're taking it immediately after turning 62, and that pays FAR less than if they waited five more years. The smart thing to do is to wait until they turn 70, truly maxing-out the benefit, but most Boomers won't do that. Huge numbers of them were booted out of their jobs ten or eleven years ago, and they've had crap-jobs, part-time crap-jobs, or no jobs ever since. Turning 62 for these unfortunate people is a lifeline!

Add to that the fact (often overlooked entirely) that Boomers are experiencing a significant die-off! A LOT of people die in their sixties, and once they're dead, the SS money stops cold, no matter how much that person paid into the system all their working lives.

Look at this if nothing else --
Millennials projected to overtake Baby Boomers as America’s largest generation
Link: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/01/millennials-overtake-baby-boomers/

 

yea, it's not an earned benefit, like I just said. There isn't some fund where your contributions are sitting, accruing interest etc. Your SS payments are coming from people still in the workforce. If they ended SS tomorrow, you are not entitled to a penny.

 

Social Security is a TRUST FUND, rahl....
Here... you may enjoy reading this, and it's not some Right-wing blog... it's straight from the Social Security Administration:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/describeoasi.html

Did you log into mysocialsecurity yet? Link: https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/ . Did you check to see what your personal, individual 'contributions' have been through the years, for each and every year, for your accout? Did you use the SS calculator to estimate your benefits when you choose to retire, at 62 or later? Do you think that the government has just been pulling this out of the air since the 1930's...? For something that you think is purely imaginary, it's worked consistently, and without interruption for at least EIGHTY YEARS....