Social Security will be drained by 2037
- Thread starter ageecee
- Start date
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Simple solution. You raise the cap.
I wouldn't worry about it. The money will be there unless our entire government folds. :facepalm:
I wouldn't worry about it. The money will be there unless our entire government folds. :facepalm:
They might raise the retirement age though :scared
I wonder how that would work? Would some get grandfathered in or would they set the date like 2-10 years in the future.
We could protest in the streets like they did in France. Did that ever get overturned?
I wonder how that would work? Would some get grandfathered in or would they set the date like 2-10 years in the future.
We could protest in the streets like they did in France. Did that ever get overturned?
Soc Sec is 45 billion behind with the payments coming in.
But here is what they dont ever mention.
Soc Sec was used as a spending account and the money was taken on IOU's to pay for other chit.
Our goverment at work.
fawkers took billions of our money that was reserved for Soc Sec. If any of us did that chit we would be jailed.
Supposedly if legislation is enacted to reduce benifits or lenghten age requirements many in their 50's now will not be affected.
This will give younger ppl time to save for their retirement in other ways.
But here is what they dont ever mention.
Soc Sec was used as a spending account and the money was taken on IOU's to pay for other chit.
Our goverment at work.
fawkers took billions of our money that was reserved for Soc Sec. If any of us did that chit we would be jailed.
Supposedly if legislation is enacted to reduce benifits or lenghten age requirements many in their 50's now will not be affected.
This will give younger ppl time to save for their retirement in other ways.
F. HOLLINGS (D-SC): Yeah, making sure that surplus is there. I'm telling you, Dr. Greenspan, that's music to my ears.
GREENSPAN: Well, I remember you taking this song a long way over recent years, and I must say, Senator, a number of us were skeptical that was even discussable, figuring we would never get to unified surplus that we said which you were preaching was very interesting, scientifically sound, but unrealistic. I apologize.
HOLLINGS: Well that's all right, because your Greenspan Commission report in section 21 says just exactly what you're saying here. That was in 1983; here now, in 1999, on page two, "simply put, enough resources must be set aside over a lifetime of work to fund retirement consumption." Now that section 21 said set it aside. President Bush, in section 13 3 01 on November the 5th, 1990 signed that into law. And we making headway. Let's understand, though, that we're still running deficits. 'Cause I'm not going along with this monkeyshine about unified. 'Cause unified is not net, the debt still goes up, is that correct?
GREENSPAN: If you're...it depends on whether or not you wish to create the savings...
HOLLINGS: I'm not asking what you're trying to create. The simple fact is the debt has been going up at least $100 billion for the last several years.
GREENSPAN: Outside, on budget, that is correct.
HOLLINGS: That's right, on budget, you're spending a hundred billion more than you're taking in.
GREENSPAN: Correct.
HOLLINGS: And this president's budget spends another hundred billion more than we take in.
GREENSPAN: I haven't seen it yet.
HOLLINGS: You haven't seen it? You're testifying about it now.
GREENSPAN: I haven't seen the budget. You haven't seen it either.
HOLLINGS: Well, you know his plan. Look you think he's going to spend less than a hundred billion more?
GREENSPAN: I will wait to see what the numbers look like.
HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.
That's the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody's attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It's projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I've got the schedule, I'll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby boomers. But we foresaw that baby boomer problem, we planned against that baby boomer problem. Our problem is we've been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That's what I'm trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that.
We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn't that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
END EXCERPT
It should be obvious from the above that the government has for decades been taking the money intended to pay Social Security benefits and spending it as general revenue. The Social Security trust fund is filled with Government IOUs, and those people who insists Social Security is solvent are operating in the faith that T-bills are always good, because the taxpayer can always be forced to redeem them.
But there is a problem. There are so many T-bills in the Social Security fund that when the baby-boomers start applying for benefits, the sudden surge of T-bills being presented for payment would collapse the Federal System, because there are not enough young taxpayers to carry the extra load
..............................................................
we minds well have had Karzai in office when all this corruption was taking place.
They never had any intention of paying this money back.
GREENSPAN: Well, I remember you taking this song a long way over recent years, and I must say, Senator, a number of us were skeptical that was even discussable, figuring we would never get to unified surplus that we said which you were preaching was very interesting, scientifically sound, but unrealistic. I apologize.
HOLLINGS: Well that's all right, because your Greenspan Commission report in section 21 says just exactly what you're saying here. That was in 1983; here now, in 1999, on page two, "simply put, enough resources must be set aside over a lifetime of work to fund retirement consumption." Now that section 21 said set it aside. President Bush, in section 13 3 01 on November the 5th, 1990 signed that into law. And we making headway. Let's understand, though, that we're still running deficits. 'Cause I'm not going along with this monkeyshine about unified. 'Cause unified is not net, the debt still goes up, is that correct?
GREENSPAN: If you're...it depends on whether or not you wish to create the savings...
HOLLINGS: I'm not asking what you're trying to create. The simple fact is the debt has been going up at least $100 billion for the last several years.
GREENSPAN: Outside, on budget, that is correct.
HOLLINGS: That's right, on budget, you're spending a hundred billion more than you're taking in.
GREENSPAN: Correct.
HOLLINGS: And this president's budget spends another hundred billion more than we take in.
GREENSPAN: I haven't seen it yet.
HOLLINGS: You haven't seen it? You're testifying about it now.
GREENSPAN: I haven't seen the budget. You haven't seen it either.
HOLLINGS: Well, you know his plan. Look you think he's going to spend less than a hundred billion more?
GREENSPAN: I will wait to see what the numbers look like.
HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there's Washington's math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week's Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we've been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.
That's the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody's attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It's projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I've got the schedule, I'll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby boomers. But we foresaw that baby boomer problem, we planned against that baby boomer problem. Our problem is we've been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That's what I'm trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that.
We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn't that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
END EXCERPT
It should be obvious from the above that the government has for decades been taking the money intended to pay Social Security benefits and spending it as general revenue. The Social Security trust fund is filled with Government IOUs, and those people who insists Social Security is solvent are operating in the faith that T-bills are always good, because the taxpayer can always be forced to redeem them.
But there is a problem. There are so many T-bills in the Social Security fund that when the baby-boomers start applying for benefits, the sudden surge of T-bills being presented for payment would collapse the Federal System, because there are not enough young taxpayers to carry the extra load
..............................................................
we minds well have had Karzai in office when all this corruption was taking place.
They never had any intention of paying this money back.
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
By raise the cap, I mean remove the cap on SS taxes. They limit the amount of your income that should be taxed for SS. That should be removed.
yup, i imagine the republicans would have a shit fit over THAT!
my whole life i''ve had to pay double because i've always been self employed. they better have my money when the time comes :0003
- Feb 26, 2001
- 13,593
- 164
- 63
Yeah I heard that we have about 40,000 in Germany & 10,000 in Great Britain....WW 2 has been over for about 65 years, get them out of there....
And some still wonder why we are not popular globally:facepalm:
Imagine how much more well-received we will be on a global level if we ever get our freakin' troops out of these places we clearly do not belong......
Last edited:
