One of the big drivers of the deficit are fixed mandatory expenses such as Social Security. The OASDI trust fund starts running a deficit (which would require a cut in benefits) beginning in 2034. The DI trust funds starts running a deficit in 2057. The Medicare Trust Fund also has problems. See the latest trust fund report:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/

I am all for the Republicans taking some tough but reasonable positions to force some needed spending cuts. However, there is only one way to address problems with SSA funding. Any proposals made by Republicans will be met with a deluge of ads and commentary saying that the evil Republicans are once again try to shove granny off the cliff and cut benefits for hard working Americans. So the approach should be Republicans are not going to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the issue doesn't exist (like the Democrats.). The Republicans should say "we must address this issue. Shame on the Democrats if they don't address it. Lets hear what they want to propose." Then see what happens. Put the Democrats on defense for a change.

We still have all the IOU's in the trust fund right? Remember when the government stole (Borrowed) the Social Security funds starting with Lyndon Johnson.


https://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

"Money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund asset reserves as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government."

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, well in advance of the year the trust fund reserves are likely to be depleted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.


"What happens to taxes that go into the trust fund?"

"Tax income is deposited on a daily basis and is invested in "special-issue" securities. The cash exchanged for the securities goes into the general fund of the Treasury and is indistinguishable from other cash in the general fund."

We still have all the IOU's in the trust fund right? Remember when the government stole (Borrowed) the Social Security funds starting with Lyndon Johnson.

The trust fund has been invested the same way since 1937 (US Government Securities). No changes at all, including with Lyndon Johnson. The government has always been able to spend the money going into US government securities in any way at all. What you are referring to is this. The government prior to LBJ basically kept two sets of books - 1. The SSA trust fund and 2. everything else. Since SSA's receipts exceeded money going out, LBJ just published sort of a unified budget, combining both on paper. That made the deficit look much smaller. But as far as what was actually happening to the trust fund, there was no change at all. Nothing. If you want to consider trust fund money going into Treasury Securities as theft, it's been that way since 1937. It's kind of like Elon Musk. He owns Tesla and Twitter. Separate books are kept by both. Twitter is for now losing money (although with the layoffs and other changes I expect that to change.) As far as I know Tesla is profitable. If Musk published a a combined balance sheet for both, it would make it appear things were a lot better overall. That's essentially what Johnson did. But as far as what was actually happening, no real changes.

They will raise the debt limit.

They will pass another Continuing Resolution on the budget.

They will print more money.

Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

It is a ponzi scheme which must fail. Politicians are incapable of doing what is right or necessary, so rather than fix it 40 years ago (as Ross Perot advocated), they'll keep kicking it down the road now just like they did then.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
It is a ponzi scheme which must fail.

Ponzi scheme? Yes. Fail? No.

SS and Medicare aren't going anywhere. Eligibility may be pushed back a few years (as it should be) and means testing may be instituted (as it should be), but it will always be around.

To be put another way, it is a government program. They never go away.

I remember when W proposed allowing citizens to invest their SS in mutual funds. Boy did that get shot down! After learning more about W, I'm not a huge fan, but he did try to help.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
It is a ponzi scheme which must fail.

Ponzi scheme? Yes. Fail? No.

SS and Medicare aren't going anywhere. Eligibility may be pushed back a few years (as it should be) and means testing may be instituted (as it should be), but it will always be around.

To be put another way, it is a government program. They never go away.

Social Security is often referred to as the third rail of politics, and for a good reason. Touch it and you're dead as a politician for the rest of your life.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:
It is a ponzi scheme which must fail.

Ponzi scheme? Yes. Fail? No.

SS and Medicare aren't going anywhere. Eligibility may be pushed back a few years (as it should be) and means testing may be instituted (as it should be), but it will always be around.

To be put another way, it is a government program. They never go away.

Yes, fail. It cannot continue as constituted. Lots of people are going to get screwed. It may continue in a very diminished form using the same name, but it will not be as promised.

Increasing the age means that some people will die before getting anything. The rest will get that many years fewer checks.

Means testing or other reductions in payments will screw millions of people out of money.

The scheme can in no way pay out into perpetuity anywhere near to what people have been told. Those people's money is being taken from them under the promise of financial security. For them it will be a failure.

Any politician that would support cutting benefits would be commiting political suicide.

quote:

Originally posted by tankeryanker:
Any politician that would support cutting benefits would be commiting political suicide.

Correct. I would add cutting current benefits. As others have pointed out, SS is not going anywhere. As I said in my original post, Republicans for once need to play this smart. Instead of making proposals and allow the Ds to pound the shit out of them, get ahead of the issue. The message should be - "Democrats don't care about keeping your future secure. We do. Let's see what the Ds want to propose to address this issue." Stick with that message. At some point the Ds will have to come up with something.

To a certain extent, SS is already means tested. Lower income folks don't pay income taxes on SS benefits. Higher income folks do. And a clarification. Reduced benefits have always been available at age 62. There is no proposal to change that. It's the age for full retirement benefits that continues to be raised.

Medicare recipients (minimum age is 65) already pay a penalty if income reaches a certain level. A married couple with a MAGI of $194K or less will pay the standard monthly cost for Part B, this year it's $164.90. This chart in this link tells what you'll pay if you exceed the MAGI limit:

https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/m...remiums.html#anchor5

Reducing benefits to Americans while funding increasing amounts of illegal aliens should be popular

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
I remember when W proposed allowing citizens to invest their SS in mutual funds. Boy did that get shot down! After learning more about W, I'm not a huge fan, but he did try to help.

It got shot down because the social security fund is another cash stream for congresspeople and their lobbyists. If you allow people to put their SS outside of the mutual fund, that's money off their kids' mouths, not that they care about feeding their kids either.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
Any proposals made by Republicans will be met with a deluge of ads and commentary saying that the evil Republicans are once again try to shove granny off the cliff and cut benefits for hard working Americans. So the approach should be Republicans are not going to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that the issue doesn't exist (like the Democrats.). The Republicans should say "we must address this issue. Shame on the Democrats if they don't address it. Lets hear what they want to propose." Then see what happens. Put the Democrats on defense for a change.

But what's your actual proposal? Teaching politicians how to spin an issue ignores the fact they have people who get paid figuring out how to spin issues for them.

quote:

Originally posted by Fed161:
And a clarification. Reduced benefits have always been available at age 62. There is no proposal to change that. It's the age for full retirement benefits that continues to be raised.

Ok, we're parsing the word "reduce". I'll change to "diminish".

Proposals to increase the Full Retirement Age (FRA) diminish Social Security payments to citizens. That by itself is a partial failure of the system. Were this, for example, a private corporation having promised an annuity or pension style payment, it would be considered a breach of contract if they increased the qualification age midstream.

If the FRA is raised again, either the earliest age to take reduced benefits must be raised or the monthly checks starting at 62 will have to be reduced.

I hear from a lot of my age group that they either took SS at 62 or will be taking it at 62 in order to be grandfathered into the current payments, anticipating reductions to future recipients soon.

Nobody under 45 yrs old should expect to see any $$ from SS.

Life expectancy has increased 20 years since SS was instituted. Thus the eligibility age should be increased to match that. Expecting the government to essentially pay welfare for up to 30ish years to every swinging dick in the country is ridiculous, yet it sounds like that is what you are advocating. The vast majority of people "get back" FAR more than they ever put in.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

Nobody under 45 yrs old should expect to see any $$ from SS.

Why not? At the rate we’re importing illegal aliens, there’ll be a huge increase in the number of people working and paying into SS. I’d bet not very many of them will end up working “under the table” for cash, particularly if the elite are successful in creating a society that only uses electronic money.

Social Security and all the other programs will not fail because they can always print and create the money to cover them. What will fail is the currency used to fund them. Weimar republic, Argentina, Venuzela....

Kick the can down the road, for now. There are many, larger fish to fry.

Losing the small vestige of control now held for this would be pointless. Politically, this won't actually be fixable without self-destructing the 'fixing' party, until and unless 51% of the electorate gives a crap. Math majors and econ majors don't come close to 51%.