Is SS in trouble like the conservatives say?

[rhett o rick]

Let’s start with a little history. Ronnie Raygun said that the baby boomers were going to break the SS system and that therefore the baby boomers were going to have to pay about twice the tax as previously required to build up a trust fund balance. So for 30 years the workers paid into SS more than was paid out thus building up a few trillion dollars positive balance. In the meantime Bush went on a spending spree like a drunken (fill in your pejorative name). He spent money on wars, Medicare Part D, and reduced the revenue coming in via tax cuts to his rich friends. To cover these expenses, he withheld money for infrastructure maintenance, borrowed from China, Japan and Saudi Arabia, and borrowed money from the SS trust fund. Now it’s time to pay the piper and the conservatives among us, both Republicans and Conserva-Dems want to cut SS benefits instead of raising taxes for pay for the Bush spending.

Dear President Obama, leave SS alone unless you are going to raise the cap. Find another way to pay for the Bush excessive spending.
Here is a great article that does a better job than me explaining the problem.

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10073

[Warpy]

1. Only because they've been robbing our overpayments for 30 years

to disguise what their ill thought out tax cuts for the rich and the corporate have done to the treasury.

SS is self supporting, an insurance plan that depends on premiums to pay out benefits. The best way to maintain its solvency is to first raise that laughably low cap on earnings subject to premiums and second, tax the plutocracy to redeem the t-bills the Boomers got in exchange for all their overpayments.

The GOP is talking openly of reneging on those t-bills. They should be tarred and feathered for even entertaining the thought since it would cause the whole world to dump US debt and cause our economy to be utterly destroyed.

[JDPriestly]

2. Watch the Real News video featuring a debate with, on one side, Richard

Wolff. The general fund borrowed money from Social Security's Trust Fund. That, Wolff and the other person in the discussion agree.

Wolff says that the money should be paid back by taxing income that is not now taxed but that was previously taxed like capital gains.

The other debater said that could not be done, that the general fund cannot repay Social Security recipients -- seniors.

I think they should reinstate the tax on capital gains and place that in a fund that repays the borrowed money to Social Security. Why should seniors pay for the waste of the Bush and other administrations, especially the military spending that isn't needed or wanted anyway?

There is no excuse for the chained CPI, no excuse for stealing from seniors.

[madokie]

5. There won't be any chained cpi

by putting it in his budget Obama guaranteed that would never happen.
I agree with the rest of what you're saying though

[JDPriestly]

6. Here is an article by Michael Hudson who disagrees and thinks that

Obama very much wanted the chained CPI.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/

I can't read Obama's mind, but Michael Hudson makes sense to me.

[madokie]

7. Maybe to you but not to me

I'm not reading anyones mind. I'm just seeing facts as facts, no innuendo, nor preconceived notions.
Just because someone makes a lot of sense does not the truth make.

[JDPriestly]

10. Time will tell.

[madokie]

12. That horse has already left the gate

its history. Theres no time to tell left

[rhett o rick]

13. None of us can read minds, but Pres Obama proposed cuts.

That's an action. The Republicans can accept it. But some rationalize that the Republicans would never accept it. And we are back to mind reading.

As progressives we need to pressure the president to fight for the 99%.

[JDPriestly]

8. Did you watch the video.

I also recommend this article by Michael Hudson.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/

I'd like to know what people think about it. So if you read it, please let me know. And no. I am not Michael Hudson. Don't know him and I'm not sure that I agree entirely with the article.

[madokie]

11. it only makes sense if you want to believe what they're saying

I see this whole issue in a different light from them. I have nothing to peddle, no books to sell nor tenure to protect. Thats what this article is about, nothing more. Its definitely not something I'd throw out everything I've learned for the sake of.
In my view its a fail.

[randome]

14. Nicely put!

[rhett o rick]

19. So what's your counter argument? Are there economists that agree that

we should cut SS benefits?

[madokie]

21. As I under stand it the improvements to medicare/prescription drug cost implemented under Obama

will more than offsets any cuts to SS even if it was to happen. After Obama's move on this I don't see it ever happening in the rest of my lifetime. Everyone is so solidly against it that it will be political suicide for anyone to even try. You have to remember this is only a proposal that I see was a way for the O man to ensure it won't ever happen and that it is not the budget that we'll get. All this chicken little shit I'm reading here is wearing me out. If you want to know the truth of the matter.
I don't have to have someone telling me how to think, I pay attention to what is going on, whats being said and done and make my decision based on that and my own personal good sense. The good sense that has guided me for most of my 65 years.
This place goes nuts sometimes and this is one of those times. IMO

There will be no cuts to SS, that you can bet on. At least for the foreseeable future.
Others have very little influence on what I believe or the decision I make so I don't pay much attention to economists, talking heads and such. Especially someone like politicians etc. who has something to gain by what their spiel is.

[Kalidurga]

3. General rule of thumb...

If Republicans say it, the opposite is most likely true. It really saves a lot of time looking up stuff if you keep that in mind.

[Recursion]

4. No, it's in great shape, which is why it's a tempting program to take money from

There's no sense moving Medicare money to the rest of the budget, because Medicare is in some trouble. But SS is flush, which is why it makes some actuarial sense* to take money from it to spread out to the rest of the budget.

* NB: that doesn't mean it's a good idea. I'm not saying it's a good idea. I'm saying the accounting works.

[JDPriestly]

9. Check out this article by Michael Hudson too.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/12/obamas-cat-food-social-security-reform/

[rhett o rick]

16. Excellent article.

From the article:

"When the government printed $13 trillion to give to the banks after the 2008 breakdown, nobody complained at all about the fact that the government can simply print the money and pour it into the economy. Nobody is complaining about the increased war spending that we’re doing, the waste that the Pentagon itself is complaining to congress about.

Why is it that these complaints focus on one particular small part of the budget, Social Security and medical care and health care? And the reason is this is pure, naked class war. "

[JDPriestly]

23. Pro Sense pointed out, however, that capital gains income is now

taxed at about 15-20%.

Other than that, I think the article is pretty good.

[randome]

15. If Republicans say it, our default guess should be that it's wrong.

They whine and pontificate but give them what they say they want and they scurry.

[rhett o rick]

17. I dont disagree. However, looks like the Democrats some times use the Republicans in a

good cop bad cop exchange. The bad cops want to privatize SS, so go with the good cop that only wants to cut benefits.

[DanTex]

18. Is _____________________ like the conservatives say?

No.

[dmosh42]

20. Just another 'snowjob' directed by the billionaires!

[rhett o rick]

22. You got that right. nm