5 social security myths

[kahnzo]

"The Trust Fund will gradually be drawn upon to cover the difference between tax receipts and benefit payments. It will be completely depleted by 2042 (according to the Social Security Administration) or 2052 (according to the Congressional Budget Office). However, if the US economy performs better than the economic assumptions and projections used by the SSA and CBO, the trust funds may remain in surplus indefinitely."

From the wikipedia article on the Social Security Trust Fund.
The problem is that the Social Security cash flow is ALREADY negative (starting this year) which will have an impact on the government.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opini ... 23259.html

[Y2Karma]

I don't see the contradictions.

But lets have some fun

"Just in case some of you young whippersnappers (& some older ones) didn't know this."

This is a typical JR trick...."I'm older so I'm smarter" except in my experience most older people are not in fact smarter, unfortunately for them we have learned a lot of things AND some things have changed. If you are so much smarter, how come you can't set the time on your VCR.....and how come you don't have a DVD player?

"It's easy to check out, if you don't believe it."

So why not provide some links?

"Be sure and show it to your kids. They need a little history lesson on what's what and it doesn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts!!!"

Be sure to prepare the future generations to drink the kool aid.....it's never too early to start the brainwashing.....look at how good it's worked for Christianity.

"Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message was removed."

So what? I actually remember learning in school (public btw) that my SS card was not to be used as ID and in my 40+ have never done so. I was not aware that it was removed, I still have my original.

"Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary"

Things change....get over it. Why is this a bad thing? If people were smart enough or had the wherewithall to do it voluntarily we wouldn't need it. If given a choice a lot of people would just buy food now.....and starve later.

"2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
on the first $90,000"

Things change....get over it. 1% of $1400 used to buy you something.....7.65% of 90,000 doesn't buy you shit. Besides... if you make $90,000, $6000 isn't going to break you, and retirement is probably not going to be a problem.

"3.) That the money the participants elected to put
into the Program would be deductible from
their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible

Things change....get over it. Since you no longer "Elect" to put the money in, what do you need and incentive to put it in for? Since the only way to get "some" people to do anything is to bribe them they needed the tax incentive. This objection is covered in #1 don't be redundant....it's stupid.

"4) That the money the participants put into the
independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
general operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent"

This does seem to contradict what Jason says. Jason provided links because he is not a scardeypants republican. I'm calling bullshit.

"5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed"

Things change....get over it. "SOME people have to pay federal income taxes on their Social Security benefits. Lets repeat that for the bananna section....SOME people. This usually happens only if you have other substantial income (such as wages, self-employment, interest, dividends and other taxable income that must be reported on your tax return) in addition to your benefits."

"Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
away' -- you may be interested in the following:"

HOLD THE PHONE. Some people....not most. Nice little fox news change up there. Most of us do not make enough money to be affected. But lets go ahead and play along.

while researching this nonsense I found this.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialse ... hanges.asp

Scroll down to variations and it answers all these little Q& A's


"Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!"

Well I'm not sure the Democrats violated a contract....things change....get over it. But even if it's true....do 2 wrongs make a right? Aer you saying it's OK for the Republicans to want to do away with Social Security, or are you saying that is not what they want to do?

"And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!"

Well that is not the worst part, the worst part is that misinformed citizens spread the kind of disinformation ..........like you did. Not you Mo, the dipshit that sent it to you.

"If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
evolve."

You just spent however much bandwidth being irritated that the Democrats changed things up on you.....but it's OK if you do it?

"Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so."

Only some? I would say most intelligent informed people are sure of what isn't so regardless of party affiliation.

"But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers."

It isn't worth the bandwidth you wasted to make your little chain letter. You won't change a single mind, you will only re-enforce the minds of the dittoheads.

"AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!"

Politicians are scumbags.....who doesn't know that already? I'll bet you a nickle it was a republican idea tho.

Now forward this to everyone you know, let people check out the real truth.

again most of this nonsense is refuted here.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialse ... hanges.asp

Bet you another nickle your little republican friend will either not check it, or flat out deny it.


heh

Republicans are the funniest people!

[Y2Karma]

That's funny...in the time it took me to type my long winded response, two other people found the same info, which begs the question.......Are most republicans just stupid? Too busy to make 2 clicks?

Must be too busy stomping puppies and making money.


heh

[kahnzo]

Perhaps I'm just more knowledgeable because I work in the industry, but this paragraph is full of misinterpretation, misinformation, and I believe is purposefully misleading.

"There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.3 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits--and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers retirement decades ago. Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves."

Just a question. What are the assets in the Social Security trust fund? If we look at government cashflows, instead of assets of the "trust fund", I think that there are some realistic concerns that anyone should have.

Is privatizing social security the answer (investing in equities?) That would have been a disaster, had it happened when Bush proposed it.

In one breath the paragraph says, "Social Security isn't going broke" and "Social Security will only be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits (by the way that's after the "trust fund" has been completely depleted and we move to a pay as you go system.)"

I use "trust fund" in quotes because depleting the fund (which we are now doing, way ahead of schedule), represents a much more difficult thing than simply selling assets, as the "assets" are special Treasure bonds.

[pete]

Every republican I can think of that we've had here on the board has shown that they are highly resistant to doing any sort of research that is critical of their own preconceptions. That to me is the huge difference between left and right.

We are always trying to research to get to the bottom of things and form opinions from that. The right and especially the xtian right sticks more to the slogans, attacks the source rather than the substance, and resists researching and looking critically at their own positions.

We're all guilty of confirmation bias to some extent, but some of us make a concerted effort not to do it and others embrace it proudly and put the slogans of evil idiocy on signs at their tea party rallies. And there's every other shade in the middle.

[ganjatog]

Every republican I can think of that we've had here on the board has shown that they are highly resistant to doing any sort of research that is critical of their own preconceptions. That to me is the huge difference between left and right.

We are always trying to research to get to the bottom of things and form opinions from that. The right and especially the xtian right sticks more to the slogans, attacks the source rather than the substance, and resists researching and looking critically at their own positions.

I'd like to think that I'm willing to do my research and form my opinion on that. It's what leads to my non-party line voting. A recent example, one of which I may start a new thread for the topic, had to do with a 'lefty' throwing out 'slogans'. I don't remember which thread but it came up that Bush has torn through a 'surplus' that Clinton created. That bugged me because I get 'called out' for throwing around those 'slogans', but when I try to call a 'lefty' out, there's always some reason why it's OK (like Karma calling everything a joke afterwards and then blaming it on the rights biological humor depravation). I didn't think the whole 'surplus' deal was very accurate and at most a generalization. So I did some research and am continuing as well, while it's not a 100% false statement, it's not 100% true either. There was a 'surplus', but not in the way the statement leads most people to believe. Our national debt went up every year under Clinton, the deficit did go down but never to zero. It reached it's lowest in 2000 at nearly 18 billion (back up to 133 in 2001). Public debt was paid down during that time, Intra-gov holdings went up. SSN is required by law to buy US securities with all surplus money it has. It did run a surplus through a large portion of C's term. Why could be a fun discussion. This is my source http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16.
Can't knock it as being a 'conservative' site when many have already claimed the original source on this thread to be biased (and I didn't say shit heh). I'm digging into the links the site references, along with others. Maybe start a topic in a day or two.

[Y2Karma]

(like Karma calling everything a joke *afterwords and then blaming it on the rights biological humor *deprivation)

*= spelling edits
heh

That's not a fair representation of my MO. That stings a little because I just lectured my daughter for doing that exact thing.

heh

First of all almost everything I say is a joke or has a joke in it. At the very least is sarcastic. I don't say things to be mean or hurtful....I say things to be funny. If it's at a republicans expense.....so much the better!


Geez you don't really think that I think all republicans stomp on puppies for fun do you? Even if you don't think it's funny.....it's clearly a joke.

Second I'm still waiting for some examples from you of Republican or right wing Humorists. And not PJ O'rourke....who is just not funny.

But whatever.

"I'd like to think that I'm willing to do my research and form my opinion on that. It's what leads to my non-party line voting."

Which is not typical Republican behavior.....btw which are you this week, Republican or Independent?

"had to do with a 'lefty' throwing out 'slogans'."

We have slogans?....OK this is not a joke. I have to admit I don't know any Lefty slogans or talking points. See almost everything I type comes out of my own twisted skull.

"Our national debt went up every year under Clinton, the deficit did go down but never to zero."

Isn't that a good thing? Did our national debt go up every year under Bush, and did the deficit also go up? (I really don't know the answer just guessing) but if so you do see how that is different right?

Here is a nice chart too. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/fed ... chart.html

interesting...........

year GDP in Billions deficit % of GDP
1992 6342.3 4.58 a
1993 6667.4 3.83 a
1994 7085.2 2.87 a
1995 7414.7 2.21 a
1996 7838.5 1.37 a
1997 8332.4 0.26 a
1998 8793.5 -0.79 a
1999 9353.5 -1.34 a
2000 9951.5 -2.37 a
2001 10286.2 -1.25 a
2002 10642.3 1.48 a
2003 11142.1 3.39 a

a - actual reported



That would be a % of the GDP.....hmmm negative numbers are good right


At any rate I still don't think you are a republican Ganj. You might want to be, but you are just too rational and good hearted.

heh

[ganjatog]

Which is not typical Republican behavior.....btw which are you this week, Republican or Independent?

This week I'm with my buddy Tom Tornado and the American Constitution Party!

[ganjatog]

Isn't that a good thing? Did our national debt go up every year under Bush, and did the deficit also go up? (I really don't know the answer just guessing) but if so you do see how that is different right?

Sure it's a good thing, but largely out of the presidents control. The surplus to the SSN was due in large part by the .com bubble, then the bubble burst. Again, largely out of the presidents hands.

A surplus will always be used for paying down public debt, intra-gov debt or other budget items. The government doesn't really have a 'savings' account that we just stash money in if there is extra, because if there were, there'd ultimately be no national debt.

My point is two part, first saying Clinton created a surplus and Bush spent it all isn't a true statement and is simply political manipulation. I'm not saying Clinton did bad/good great or horrible. There were things I liked about him and things I didn't.


//from my previous link
Adjusting the National Debt for Inflation or as % of GDP

A common tactic used by those that cling to the myth of the Clinton surplus seems to be showing a bar graph of the total national debt adjusted for inflation, or depicted as a percentage of GDP. When you adjust for inflation or show the debt as a percentage of GDP, it looks like the national debt went down for a year or two under Clinton. However, that does not mean Clinton had a surplus, it simply means inflation was increasing faster than the national debt or the economy was expanding faster than the national debt. That does not change the fact that Clinton never had a surplus.

Explained another way, adjusting the national debt for inflation is valid for comparing the debt load of the federal government but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the federal government had a surplus a given year. If you spend more than you take in in a given year, you have a deficit even if your relative debt load went down because of inflation. Explained numerically, let's say you owe $50,000, earn $30,000, and spend $31,000 (debt load=50,000/30,000=167%)--that leaves you with a deficit of $1000 so that the following year you owe $51,000. The next year inflation is 5% so you now earn $31,500 and spend $32,550 with a deficit of $1,050. $31,500 in earnings with a $51,000 debt is a 162% debt load--so your relative debt load went down thanks entirely to inflation but you still had a deficit of $1,050 that year and your debt continued to grow.

It wouldn't be accurate to claim that you had a surplus because your debt load went down even though you spent more than you earned. That's what people are saying when they try to adjust the national debt for inflation to claim a surplus.

The bottom line is that the national debt going down as adjusted for inflation or as a percentage of GDP is a valid metric for evaluating the debt load of the government but it says nothing about whether or not there was a surplus. If the total national debt went up, there was a deficit. Those that think a decrease in the debt load of the federal government as a percentage of GDP or adjusted for inflation is equivalent to a same-year surplus don't understand the definitions and purposes of each of these terms.
////end

[Y2Karma]

"The bottom line is that the national debt going down as adjusted for inflation or as a percentage of GDP is a valid metric for evaluating the debt load of the government but it says nothing about whether or not there was a surplus. If the total national debt went up, there was a deficit. Those that think a decrease in the debt load of the federal government as a percentage of GDP or adjusted for inflation is equivalent to a same-year surplus don't understand the definitions and purposes of each of these terms."

I don't think that is the bottom line. So Clinton didn't have a surplus. I'm not sure anybody here is clinging to the idea that Clinton had a surplus. I don't think anybody is clinging to the idea that Clinton was solely responsible for the "good years" we had. None of that changes the fact that under Republican "rule" we got raped.

"My point is two part, first saying Clinton created a surplus and Bush spent it all isn't a true statement"

So the part that is not true is that Clinton had a surplus. Did Bush spend like a madman? And if he didn't spend Clintons imagined surplus he spent money that wasn't a surplus, which is like, way way worse than spending a surplus?

I don't know, I'm not much of an economist so a lot of this stuff is over my head, but it seems to me you are saying yes....he clubbed baby seals...but he didn't use a spiked club, that's inaccurate.....he used a baseball bat.

But wait a minute, I don't think Clinton's "Surplus" was mentioned in the 5 myths, or the Republican chain letter. Do you disagree with the 5 myths? Do you agree with the chain letter?