Breaking News: Sky really isn't falling; SS is really Good for a lot longer than 2030

[Cigar]

Day 4 SSD blogathon: SS is not going broke by 2033, stop saying it Dems

Each year the Social Security Trustees issue a report that contains 4 scenarios, Intermediate Cost, High Cost, Low Cost, and a Stochastic Model. In 1998 Economist Dean Baker wrote an article entitled Nine Misconceptions About Social Security. In the article Dean writes:


Social Security projections are based on extremely pessimistic economic assumptions: that growth will average just 1.8 percent over the next twenty years, a lower rate than in any comparable period in U.S. history; that growth will slow even further in later years, until the rate is less than half the 2.6 percent of the past twenty years; that there will be no increase in immigration even when the economy experiences a labor shortage because of the retirement of the Baby Boom generation; and that this labor shortage will not lead to a rapid growth in wages. Both possibilities excluded in these projections—increased immigration and rapid wage growth—would increase the fund's revenues. These projections are genuinely a worst-case scenario.

When discussing the projections of the SS Trustees one should understand that the Office of the Chief Actuary publishes the SS Trustees report, runs and directs "a program of actuarial estimates and analyses relating to SSA-administered retirement, survivors and disability insurance programs and to proposed changes in those programs".

Actuaries have a responsibility to provide "conservative statutory accounting reporting provides a reasonable level of assurance that an insurer’s resources are adequate to meet its policyholder obligations at all times", according to the US Insurance Financial Solvency Core Principle 4, of theNational Association of Insurance Commissioners.

6 Political Appointees are the SS Trustees: Executive Summary is a political document.

The Political appointees are the ones who issue the Executive Summary, they have little to do with the actual Actuaries and Economists who assemble the projections, charts and tables. The Executive Summary is a purely political document, and that's all the average person hears about. The Social Security Trust Fund will be depleted by 2030 and can only pay 76% of benefits.

OMG the sky will fall in 2033 ! ! !

Hey you with the sourpuss face, this party is just getting started ! !

More ... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/28/1197514/-Day-4-SSD-blogathon-SS-is-not-going-broke-by-2033-stop-saying-it-Dems


So Stop it with the Hair on Fire crap ... Create Jobs, Raise the Min Wage and watch the FICA flow in.

Don't Fuck with Social Security

[Peter1469]

Get Congress to put real money back into the "lock box."

[hanger4]

Who and what is Roger Fox ??

And he's an expert how ??

[Mainecoons]

The Daily Kos :rofl:

[Mainecoons]

Here's what a more credible, and liberal source, is writing.


For the first time in more than a quarter-century, Social Security ran a deficit in 2010: It spent $49 billion dollars more in benefits than it received in revenues, and drew from its trust funds to cover the shortfall. Those funds — a $2.7 trillion buffer built in anticipation of retiring baby boomers — will be exhausted by 2033, the government currently projects.Those facts are widely known. What’s not is that the Social Security Administration underestimates how long Americans will live and how much the trust funds will need to pay out — to the tune of $800 billion by 2031, more than the current annual defense budget — and that the trust funds will run out, if nothing is done, two years earlier than the government has predicted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/social-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html?_r=0

Basically, what the authors summarize is an underlying study (linked in the reference) that shows the government's future estimates of Social Security's actuarial basis, is seriously flawed. This makes sense when you realize that they have consistently been moving the "run out of the mythical trust fund" date forward. Don't be surprised to see this continue to happen as their estimates of retirements and disability draws continue to come up short.

What is assumed here, as well, is that the government will be able to continue to borrow to redeem the Treasury notes held by Social Security for another 20 years. Why anyone would believe this in the face of trillion dollar annual deficits is beyond me.

Let's say, for example, that everyone finally gets tired of lending the U.S. money in 2020. At that point, whatever is remaining in the mythical trust fund, if anything, is now worthless and there would be an immediate benefit cut to limit outgoes to current income. The biggest bag holders would be the younger folks who would continue to pay in the same, or even more, while knowing that if they ever make it to retirement, their checks would be a whole lot smaller.

Some of you liberal bagholders better start planning for a very lean retirement, if you even get one.

[nic34]

Kitty, Kitty, ever the sharp shiny tool always ready to give us the straight stuff. Well maybe a little crooked.

Debunking (Yet Another) Scaremongering New York Times Op Ed on Social Security

Some readers were decidedly unhappy about a New York Times op-ed over the weekend by Gary King and Samir Soneji that argued the need to reform Social Security was even more urgent than the catfood futures sellers thought because people are going to live longer than the budget mavens assume. Given the op-ed space limits, the authors couldn’t supply much in the way of backup for their views, but the argument was that improvements in longevity due to the decline in smoking and improved cardiovascular health were not adequately reflected in the data.

So, don’t even suggest that one way of responding to THIS CRISIS OF 2031 (instead of OMG 2033) by imagining that the Government might just, well, print fiat money, in 2033 — OOOPS WE MEAN 2031 — if needed. And, forget any COMMIE notions of reducing the retirement age and expanding benefits. Don’t let those pinkos fool you with their mumbo jumbo talk of ‘automatic stabilzers’ and so on. Because, after all, WE ALL KNOW THAT GOVERNMENT IS LIKE A HOUSEHOLD AND MUST TIGHTEN ITS BELT IN TIMES OF CRISIS. Therefore, all solutions must cut, cut, cut. Americans are proud individualists. Government is the problem, not the solution. If old people cannot find their own path to security, well, goddammit, the rest of us cannot afford to coddle them. This is NOT A NANNY STATE.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/01/new-york-times-scaremongering-op-ed-on-social-security.html#ldV4FU6ESJ7IOkyY.99

[Captain Obvious]

It's cool... nothing to see here.

Move along.

[simpsonofpg]

The neat thing about being a goverment employee is that you are not accountable for anything. It doesn't matter if your figures are accurate or not. You can be fired. A businesss accountant would be fired if he turned a bunch of number that were pure guess work. It is amazing where SS could have gone if the trust fund had been left intact and invested in the stock market. Way to go congress.

[Mainecoons]

Another dumbass source from dumbass Nic. The quote, Nic, is really representative of the skill level of your thought processes.

I give you the NYT and you give me. . . .a rant from "naked capitalism?"

Congratulations, Nic, you've become a fine disciple of the dumbest poster on this board, Cigar. Yep, you guys are definitely our Dumb and Dumber team.

:rofl:

[nic34]

Another dumbass source from dumbass Nic. The quote, Nic, is really representative of the skill level of your thought processes.

I give you the NYT and you give me. . . .a rant from "naked capitalism?"

Congratulations, Nic, you've become a fine disciple of the dumbest poster on this board, Cigar. Yep, you guys are definitely our Dumb and Dumber team.



You gave us a New York Times op-ed by whoever Gary King and Samir Soneji are.

Soft in the head, or are you just dishonest?

[Mainecoons]

And you gave us the "naked capitalist." My citation included back up references. Yours was just a brain dead rant like the rest of your posting here. The NYT editorial staff actually vets stuff. But what can we expect from a genius like yourself who thinks the Daily Kos or a government blog are credible sources?

Here are the actual references supporting the opinion of the authors of my citation.

http://gking.harvard.edu/publications/statistical-security-social-security

And you think this is equivalent to the rant you posted? And you wonder why I think you're an idiot. :grin:

Anyway, good morning, Dumb. Dumber is already here, you better get busy. :rofl:

[nic34]

So you're just dishonest. Got it.

[Mainecoons]

And you are so stupid you didn't bother to read the piece or go to the background references where all the supporting material is.

Dumbass.

[Mainecoons]

For the rest of you, this is what Dumbass didn't bother to look at:


We have made our methods, calculations and software available online at j.mp/SSecurity (http://gking.harvard.edu/gking/publications/statistical-security-social-security)so that others can replicate or improve our forecasts. The implications of our findings go beyond social science. As the wave of retirement by the baby boomers continues, doing nothing to shore up Social Security’s solvency is irresponsible. If the amount of money coming in through payroll taxes does not increase and if the amount of money going out as benefits remains the same, the trust funds will become insolvent less than 20 years from now.

And this is what he thinks is a credible statement:


So, don’t even suggest that one way of responding to THIS CRISIS OF 2031 (instead of OMG 2033) by imagining that the Government might just, well, print fiat money, in 2033 — OOOPS WE MEAN 2031 — if needed. And, forget any COMMIE notions of reducing the retirement age and expanding benefits. Don’t let those pinkos fool you with their mumbo jumbo talk of ‘automatic stabilzers’ and so on. Because, after all, WE ALL KNOW THAT GOVERNMENT IS LIKE A HOUSEHOLD AND MUST TIGHTEN ITS BELT IN TIMES OF CRISIS. Therefore, all solutions must cut, cut, cut. Americans are proud individualists. Government is the problem, not the solution. If old people cannot find their own path to security, well, goddammit, the rest of us cannot afford to coddle them. This is NOT A NANNY STATE.

[nic34]

Guess I'm doing my job since it really seems to bother you that someone pushes back on your BS.

[hanger4]

Guess I'm doing my job since it really seems to bother you that someone pushes back on your BS.

You haven't pushed back on BS.

You pushed back on documented evidence

with undocumented BS.

Get a grip nic.

[Cigar]

Guess I'm doing my job since it really seems to bother you that someone pushes back on your BS.

When all else fails ... he'll just resort to name calling.

It's his best argument.

[patrickt]

Some gullible folks will believe whatever they're told. Cigar is buying shares in a company making a perpetual motion machine because Barack Obama says it will work.

[Cigar]

Some gullible folks will believe whatever they're told. Cigar is buying shares in a company making a perpetual motion machine because Barack Obama says it will work.

I'll get back to you on advice when your boy is sitting in the Oval Office.

... until then, the service entrance in the back sport, now go bake me a pie bitch.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0133ecbd33c7970b-600wi

[hanger4]

When all else fails ... he'll just resort to name calling.

It's his best argument.



I'll get back to you on advice when your boy is sitting in the Oval Office.

... until then, the service entrance in the back sport, now go bake me a pie bitch.



Pot meet Kettle :smiley_ROFLMAO:

[nic34]

You haven't pushed back on BS.

You pushed back on documented evidence

with undocumented BS.

Get a grip nic.

Ummm, no... his was an OP. No more or less valid than what I posted.

Get off your high horses.

[hanger4]

Ummm, no... his was an OP. No more or less valid than what I posted.

Get off your high horses.

What part of this;


Here are the actual references supporting the opinion of the authors of my citation.

http://gking.harvard.edu/publication...ocial-security (http://gking.harvard.edu/publications/statistical-security-social-security)

Don't you understand nic ??

Harvard not a good enough reference for you ??

[nic34]

What part of this;



Don't you understand nic ??

Harvard not a good enough reference for you ??

Nope.

Have you even clicked on that link?

[hanger4]

Nope.

Have you even clicked on that link?

Sure I have nic and the other links contained there in.

I'd bet you haven't, if you had you wouldn't have shoved aside the

research of Gary King Professor at Harvard University or Samir Soneji Professor at Dartmouth Medical School.

And who were the bloggers you site as evidence ??

[nic34]

Sure I have nic and the other links contained there in.

I'd bet you haven't, if you had you wouldn't have shoved aside the

research of Gary King Professor at Harvard University or Samir Soneji Professor at Dartmouth Medical School.

And who were the bloggers you site as evidence ??

No you haven't, the link is broken.

[hanger4]

No you haven't, the link is broken.

No it's not nic.

http://gking.harvard.edu/publications/statistical-security-social-security

Besides it's kind of late complaining about a bad link

when you've been arguing about it this whole time.

[zelmo1234]

The biggest question is why are we trying to save a program that is desigend to put people in poverty for the reso of their life!

When we could have a program that would bring prosperity to even the poorest of the working poor in a few generations?

[nic34]

Still doesn't work using IE 8....

[nic34]

Social Security Lifts 14 Million Elderly Americans Out of Poverty

Almost 90 percent of people aged 65 and older receive some of their family income from Social Security.[2] Without Social Security benefits, 43.6 percent of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line, all else being equal; with Social Security benefits, only 8.7 percent do. These benefits lift some 14.5 million elderly Americans — including 8.7 million women — above the poverty line.
Social Security reduces elderly poverty dramatically in every state in the nation, as Figure 1 and Table 2 show. Without Social Security, the poverty rate for those aged 65 and over would meet or exceed 40 percent in 41 states; with Social Security, it is less than 10 percent in the large majority of states. Social Security lifts 1.2 million elderly people out of poverty in California and Florida, about 800,000 in New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and over half a million in Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan.

this link works:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3851

[hanger4]

Still doesn't work using IE 8....

Then google it nic !!

Geebus

https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=http:%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2013%2F01%2F06%2Fop inion%2Fsunday%2Fsocial-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html%3F_r%3D1%26&oq=http:%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2013%2F01%2F06%2Fo pinion%2Fsunday%2Fsocial-security-its-worse-than-you-think.html%3F_r%3D1%26&gs_l=hp.12...750986.750986.1.752719.1.1.0.0.0.0.41 9.419.4-1.1.0...0.0...1c.2.8.psy-ab.BuytHkJk6F8&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44770516,d.dmg&fp=1fa1ca819eb382cf&biw=1593&bih=766

[zelmo1234]

Social Security Lifts 14 Million Elderly Americans Out of Poverty

Almost 90 percent of people aged 65 and older receive some of their family income from Social Security.[2] Without Social Security benefits, 43.6 percent of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line, all else being equal; with Social Security benefits, only 8.7 percent do. These benefits lift some 14.5 million elderly Americans — including 8.7 million women — above the poverty line.
Social Security reduces elderly poverty dramatically in every state in the nation, as Figure 1 and Table 2 show. Without Social Security, the poverty rate for those aged 65 and over would meet or exceed 40 percent in 41 states; with Social Security, it is less than 10 percent in the large majority of states. Social Security lifts 1.2 million elderly people out of poverty in California and Florida, about 800,000 in New York, Texas, and Pennsylvania, and over half a million in Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan.

this link works:

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3851

Exactly we are still leaving 8.3% of the elderly in poverty and with not the greatest health coverage if the can't affor to buy medicare part D coverage!

Would it not be great if we had a program that would not only lift that 8.3% out of poverty but would then pass on additional income each and every year to their children and grand children!

Or is it better to keep with a system that lifts 14.7% of the elderly to just above the poverty line, and leaves another 8.3% behind.

When it could be a program that brought 100% of the people prospertiy in their golden years! Seems a shame to me!

[nic34]

No program is 100%. Especially Wall St.

... and you need to look to Bush and the gop for the problem with part D.

[zelmo1234]

No program is 100%. Especially Wall St.

... and you need to look to Bush and the gop for the problem with part D.

Yes actually there is a 100% chance that private investment will out preform the SS program. And when you die the private investment would remain with your family! By having a managed fund where investments are moven into bind programs as the person neared retirement. you would do 3 things. Add to the safty of the program moving away from volitile investments as the person aged. Take advantage of gains in the earlier years. And because most of these bond would be Munies. you would give states and local communities huge funds that could be used for infstructure, putting people to work and thus adding ot a stabil economy!

SS is a horrible investment, much like buying a new car!

[zelmo1234]

OH! and Bush part D Amen to that. what a terrible program, the only one that I can think of that will be worse is the affordable care act!

[nic34]

zel, what you advocate would be fraught with fees, penalities and risk. An elderly couple’s monthly income should not be susceptible to the ebb and flow of market forces. Social Security was, in part, created to prevent the private sector from capitalizing off the misfortune of the masses.

I appreciate that you are trying to find a better way, but I would not scrap the insurance portion, but I would encourage folks to make safe investments on their own as well.

[zelmo1234]

zel, what you advocate would be fraught with fees, penalities and risk because you use the market. SSI is insurance and not subject to any of that. I appreciate that you are trying to find a better way, but I would not scrap the insurance portion, but I would encourage folks to make safe investments on their own as well.

The problen is that if you are a poor person after the government takes 6.5% of your income you have nothing left to invest on your own!

As for the insurance part of it, that is why I leave the 6.5% that your employer paysin and 3.25% of what everyone over the age of 20 pays in, in place!

This profvides 3/4's of the funding for 45years and then half of the funding forever! So the insurnace portion is in place!

Now we know that with the poor and lower middle class that SS is the only retiremnt program that they can afford, so why are we punishing them and making them live in poverty the rest of their life!

There is no logical argument that you can make other than we need people dependent on government so they vote for the democratic party!

The incomes that could be generated from a private based program would lead to prosperity for all in a few short generations. And continue to build as the world becomes more and more automated. and their is need for less and less human employment!

It would also create the tax base that would pay off the national debt in a few years.