DOES SOCIAL SECURITY REALLY FACE A $10 TRILLION DEFICIT?

[Kevin Spidel]

find out the fact here:

http://blog.progressivevote.org/index.php?p=207

[david_vincent]

1. Nonsense. Catch the latest ish of Dollars and Sense

[Zynx]

2. The fact of the matter is that the 2042 date was 2029 back in 1995.

The date keeps getting pushed back because our economy grows much faster than estimated.

[stevebreeze]

8. there is a real "magic bullet" to fix SS...econmic growth for ALL

this is why the date was pushed back the economy grew faster then the SS trustees predicted. This is most true when we grow from the bottom up not and far less so if we grow only at the top. Of course we now have to face the fact that we will have little or no economic growth for an additional 4 years.

[Haymare22]

3. Another thing is......

...As the US population continues to GROW--breeding like rabbits--all these new residents work and pay INTO the system.
This guy makes it sound like this country is running out of humans....Which is far from true.

[DCDemo]

4. by the new official calculation, YES

from now to infinity. Show me any other estimate of cost to infinity and the federal government.

[Carolab]

5. All the figures I have heard are $3 trillion by 2042 or 2052, if any

$10 trillion "to infinity"...

Social security is the ONLY Federal government with a SURPLUS. AND, it is HEALTHIER than at any other time in its history.

But, the supposed shortfall (if any) is an easy shortfall to fix with simple reforms, LIKE rescinding the tax cuts for the upper 1% of wage earners (who don't need the cuts anyhow), LIKE 3% surcharge on wageearners over $200K, LIKE matching 401K plans, etc.

The truth is the "reform"--i.e., privatization scheme--would pile on additional federal debt equal to or more than the supposed "shortfall" in the form of "transition costs". The only people this is designed to help are investment fund managers.

Personally, I think there should be a needs assessment and a sliding scale based on necessity. I have an 85-year-old aunt whose husband died in 1986 and left her a ton of money. On top of this, she rakes in his pension and social security survivors benefits. She never worked a day in her life. Why should she receive social security? So it can be saved up for her children/grandchildren?

The truth is that there are lots of elderly citizens who don't really need it. People are "qualified" for other forms of assistance based on need; why can't social security recipients be, too?

[fryguy]

6. not unless we start taking all the money out of it...

...and putting it in private equity markets...

[Igel]

7. The "average" projection put out by the Social Security Administration

(and the average project has been a bit off, consistently) says that from 2018 to 2042, when the "trust fund" runs dry, it'll draw something like 10.8 trillion dollars from the general fund. That's principle and interest.

In other words, from 2018 to 2042, there's >$10 trillion that'll have to be chucked into SSN. The last year the draw is $1.1 trillion. You think this year's deficit is bad, you ain't seen nuthin'.

If the trust fund were intact, the "lock box", assuming it earned 4.5% interest, wouldn't last much beyond 2030.

Like I said, the "average" projection has usually understated income.