The Truth about the Trustees Report (Social Security) - and a great site for info...

[Triana]

IE: All this fearmongering and chicken-littling that "ohh nooo!, we gotta do something NOW!" is bullshit. The plutonomy/plutocracy (Wall Street et al) want their hands on that money. It wasn't enough for them to loot the treasury, they want MORE. They want it ALL. And YOU - DROP DEAD! And the sooner the better . . .

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here it is in a nutshell…the truth about the 2010 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report. Of course, the facts don’t fit the crisis calls from fiscal hawks and the main stream media so don’t be surprised when most of these details don’t make the headlines in your local papers tomorrow.

...

“The 2010 Social Security Trustees Report confirms that the Social Security program is weathering these difficult economic times, providing stability and security to millions of Americans rocked by the recession. In the face of this adversity, the Social Security program has stood its ground, and remains able to pay all benefits through 2037, the same date the Trustees projected last year. Americans should be encouraged by this good news from the Trustees’ Report. And contrary to the doom and gloom crowd’s crisis calls, the Medicare Trustees confirm recently enacted Medicare reforms will add years to that program’s solvency.”…Barbara B. Kennelly, President/CEO , The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare

http://www.ncpssm.org/entitledtoknow/?p=1229

[fasttense]

1. Even if the RepubliCONS got their way and Social Security was abolished,

it would not balance the budget or reduce the deficit.

[Triana]

2. Of course not. But that isn't their objective either

Not that they'd ever admit that. They've despised these programs ever since FDR implemented them and look for any excuse to abolish them. I just wish Obama didn't give them so much leeway with their BS.

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Remains solvent to 2037. And of course, even if it were to not meet

solvency in 2038 that does not mean nobody would get checks that year. That simply means that in 2038 it will begin to pay out more than it is bringing in - the difference can easily be made up from general revenue for a couple years until us boomers die off and expenses drop with the collapse of the bubble.

I, as a middle boomer, don't really expect to live to see 2038, and neither will most of us.

This is a made-up problem.

[Triana]

4. "This is a made-up problem." - Exactly. n/t

[NoNothing]

7. That's not correct

If you're talking about DOLLARS, it has already begun paying out more than it is bringing in this year. Drawing down the trust fund *also* comes out of the general revenue.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. OK.

I take home @1600/mo. Because of medical expenses added to my normal expenses, last month I paid out $1800, taking the difference from my savings account.

Does that mean I am insolvent and must declare bankruptcy?

What, then, is the definition of 'insolvency'?

The ONLY way you are not going to be able to collect your social security is if YOU abandon social security to the gentle ministrations of Wall Street.

[NoNothing]

9. The trust fund is not a savings account

That's what's tripping you up. A more accurate analogy would be:

You take home $1600/mo. Because of car trouble, two months ago you spent $200 on car repairs instead of putting it into your savings account, but you wrote out a note reminding yourself to put an extra $200 in your savings account at some later date. This month, due to medical expenses, you need to pay out $1800. You can't actually pay your bills with the $200 IOU you wrote to yourself. You need to get the cash from somewhere else, either by increasing your income, reducing your other expenses, or borrowing the cash from someone else.

[Gfulmore]

10. Not the problem of Social Security

We all know that argument. The problem is that it tries to blame an entity, Social Security, for the problem of not having enough income to pay the bills in the first place. Our federal budget for 2009/2010 is $3.8 trillion, I think, but only about $2.2 trillion of income is expected; thus, we have a projected deficit of about $1.6 trillion for the fiscal year. That is primarily the product of too many people taking advantage of tax loopholes, cheating or not paying what they have agreed to pay. We need more income at the federal level to pay our federal bills.
And, yes, the government steals the surplus brought in by Social Security each year, and, yes, it is not in a position to pay it back. But it MUST, over time. It MUST. There is no other way. We can't give up on our federal debts; we can't default on them. Social Security works like a charm. Wouldn't it be nice if all areas of the federal government did.
The military industrial complex, with no independent income stream is the major culprit causing the federal debt. It is out of control and has been for years. Don't mess with Social Security. IT IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

[Recursion]

11. Welcome to DU. You're mistakenly assuming Congress is not full of sociopathic children.

In the end it's going to be difficult to get Congress to actually allow Social Security to redeem those bonds -- it's going to be bad enough that the spigot of automatic debt purchase will have been turned off for a decade.

As I've said before, the problem with Social Security moving forward is that it involves those of us who work for a living getting back money from the rich. So I'm not optimistic.

[Greyhound]

5. Exactly. More corporate bullshit because they want to get their hands on that $2+T.

That's the beginning, middle, and end of this lie.
:kick: & R

[Uncle Joe]

6. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Triana.