So he can’t talk about $12 billion a month spent in Iraq and Afghanistan? He should ride that puppy til it wears out.

I defer to one of my favorite SciFi authors, Robert Heinlein-
What are the facts? Again and again and again — what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars foretell,” avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” — what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!

Why did Al Gore delve into SS issues? Has the govt looted America’s pension as corporate thugs have? Will the boomers retirement stress the SS system to an unmanageable kludge? The numbers don’t look good to me.

I am surprised that Obama doesn’t find Social Security one more letover from the past that could be bad because it will keep us baby boomers alive and able to agitate. We are the ones that are lost in the past and need to move on to the present. Barach and his pontification on every topic leave me cold. He is the product of the Chicago Democratic machine and thuis is suspect. In Chicago politics, power trumps substance and compassion.

“Let me tell you something,…In Washington, the truth is an unidentified flying object. And it’s time that someone stood for the truth. The American people demand nothing less.”

- Congressman Dennis Kucinich, November 07

As long as there is a Republican in the White House there will be a Social Security crisis.

It’s not in a crisis if you’re retiring within the next 20 years. However, if you’re younger than that, the SS trust will go bankrupt at some point because of the Baby Boomers retiring and we will only be able to pay out what we put in per year. I don’t remember absolute numbers at all (trying to go back 7 year or so to my college fiscal policy courses), but SS benefits for those after that point will be about 70% of what benefits currently are, which isn’t much. The issue should be raised. The problem is that people identify this with Bush’s privatization ploy which is not an honest fix and seriously harms certain individuals (women who take off years of work to take care of their children, for example). There are solutions that can help solve this that aren’t privatization.
SS is in a solvable crisis. None of the solutions look good politically (raise taxes or cut benefits, you choose) so it never gets solved. If you’re under 30 or so (like myself), this is a crisis and should be tackled as soon as we can.
Gore was trying to address the issue that the rest of the govt can “borrow” funds from the SS trust every year to fund themselves. This makes that trust go bankrupt sooner. His “lockbox” idea was that the SS trust is for SS alone.
Feel free to add stats that prove me right or wrong. I’m going from old memories.

Maybe those Beltway insiders know something they ain’t tellin’?
Maybe W has looted SSI to an unsustainable level?

Noun, Verb, 9/11! 9/11!

In Ron Susskind’s book “The Price of Loyalty” Ron writes that the former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O”neil and Alan Greenspan had plans to take a large chunk of the surplus from the Clinton and 41’s years and roll it over into the upcoming shortfalls for the boomers. And give the Bush fat cats their tax cuts.

The fat cats got their tax cuts but the Social Security shortfalls well….we know where that $$$ went.

The problems are rooted in the mis-management and administration AND the policies of the administration and elected official that WE have entrusted our tax dollars.

WHERE are the MONEY going?

The No4 Kucinch quote rocks…thank you….Paul ONeils book also revealed that there many problems that Bush had no desire to fix….or work on- really…..thanks for posting on this..

nsr @ 1:

So he can’t talk about $12 billion a month spent in Iraq and Afghanistan? He should ride that puppy til it wears out.

I don’t think the electorate is ready for a puppy-rider, although maybe the far-right would be interested.

5 Ruthless People Says: As long as there is a Republican in the White House there will be a Social Security crisis.

So true, their crisis being that they can’t get their filthy fingers on it yet.

I think the crisis in Social Security is because too many hands are in the Social Security pot taking millions out on a regular basis to fund needless wars, and distribute tax breaks to the wealthy elite.

The longer we wait to make the few adjustments that will keep SS solvent for the next century, the bigger the adjustments will be. All it needs is raising the retirement age a little, and raising the maximum income on which SS taxes are paid a little.

John Kerry lost my respect in the 2004 campaign when, addressing seniors, he said he’d never raise the retirement age. Pure pandering, when that’s one of the things we really need to do. And the sooner the better.

(But I did have to vote for Kerry anyway. Defensive voting, given the awful alternative that we’re still saddled with.)

Social Security is in trouble regardless what Krugman says and I respect Krugman. It’s a huge problem. To keep it going we are cutting other things and paying for things we shouldn’t and giving tax breaks to who we shouldn’t. The annual benefit raises are smaller each year while the cost of living increase is at a higher rate. That being said, regardless how big of a problem(or small as Krugman seems to think it is) there’s an easy fix. The Social Security Wage Base. Why should you and I who make between $15,000 and $97,500 be taxed on 100% of of our wages when it comes to taxation of social security. Once you make $97,500 you no longer pay SS tax. An elementary kid could figure out that if we raise the SS wage base to $500,000 SS would be fixed for the next 100 years. People making $220,000 or more bitch and moan because they pay a higher percentage in Federal taxes but are quiet about SS. It’s not that hard to figure out.

It’s not a secret but it’s something people just don’t know or understand…as an example, if you make $50,000 100% of that is taxed by Social Security. If you make $500,000 only 20% of your wages are taxed. If you make a million, 10% percent, you make 2 million 5% etc…etc… etc…

But the Republican solution is to keep the rich rich by not increasing the wage base and putting this money in the marking and taking a risk with our retirement. We already do that with 401’s, 403’s 457’s Profit Sharing, Money Purchase and Pension Plans. If the market bust, we need stability and that’s where Social Security comes in. Raise the wage base, problem fixed. But who has the ear of our politicians? The rich.

Al Gore talked about a Social Security lockbox and was laughed at, but he understood the funds were being drained for other programs and tax breaks for those who need it the least.

John Q. @ 14:

The longer we wait to make the few adjustments that will keep SS solvent for the next century, the bigger the adjustments will be. All it needs is raising the retirement age a little, and raising the maximum income on which SS taxes are paid a little.

John Kerry lost my respect in the 2004 campaign when, addressing seniors, he said he’d never raise the retirement age. Pure pandering, when that’s one of the things we really need to do. And the sooner the better.

(But I did have to vote for Kerry anyway. Defensive voting, given the awful alternative that we’re still saddled with.)

Not the answer. Who wants to work until they are 70? Yes we are living longer but not by much. If you do physical labor, how many employers are going to keep a 65 to 70 year old on to build a house or be a bricklayer? Walmart needs greeters and baggers and that’s what uneducated 65-70 year olds are good for and collect minimum wage with minimum benefits. You cannot keep raising the retirement age like Santorum wanted to do. That may work when it comes to people who sit at a desk for a living like myself but not for some like my father who had a high school education and worked in a mill his entire life.

I respect your opinion but I think it’s wrong. Life expectancy is 78 years. Force someone to work until they are 70, they work 50 to 52 years and enjoy the nursing home for 8 to 10. Is my math right?

Obama repeating GOP talking points?

Who’da. Thunk. It?

1. Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting “preachy” may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

2. For progressives, I think we should recognize the role that values and culture play in addressing some of our most urgent social problems.

3. “I think it’s important particularly for those of us in the Democratic party to not cede values and faith to any one party.”

I guess since Republicans are the only ones with morals and values, it makes good sense to try to be just like them. But when will those nasty progressives learn?

I might not know things in too much detial, but isnt the gov’t subsidy of social security in trouble? Healthcare is jsut costing way to much compared to LBJ’s days. I think there is indeed a problem here.

Social Security is under attack, and will continue to be, for two reasons.
1) It is the most visible remaining artifact of the “New Deal,” which the Right has been endeavoring–and succeeding–to undo since Roosevelt died in ‘45.
2) It is the biggest, intact pile of cash left for the CorpoRat Carpetbaggers to abscond with as they make their getaway.
To keep ‘em busy, they’ve already started dismantling the vestiges of Johnson’s Great Society, too.
These guys seem to yearn for Hobbes’ ‘war of all against all.’ I guess they think they can win it. But they could not, ever, if it came to that. Because they’re outnumbered.

RasslinGod @ 19:

I might not know things in too much detial, but isnt the gov’t subsidy of social security in trouble? Healthcare is jsut costing way to much compared to LBJ’s days. I think there is indeed a problem here.

hey Rasslin…howzit goin…..yeah I think there is a problem too.For a number of reasons….1….Boosh keeps stealing from the fund….2…ins companies are charging WAY too much. Kinda like the 300 dollar hammers the Pentagon buys…only it’s an ins company billing the govt for med care.Allan Greenspan said..”If the Clinton policies were left in place….SS would be solvent into the middle of the century”.I’m sure their are other reasons…stick around.Someone will add to the list I’m sure….Nice seeing you again Rasslin.

The neocons will not rest until the Social Security fund is completely eliminated, and the elderly are left to fend for themselves.

Ron Paul would like to do away with all of the social programs.

mudshark @ 23:

Ron Paul would like to do away with all of the social programs.

He might would like to but he’d have the Dems, American people, and the huge voting block of seniors on his side to end the war, not to end Social Security so it would never happen.

woody @ 20:

Social Security is under attack, and will continue to be, for two reasons.
1) It is the most visible remaining artifact of the “New Deal,” which the Right has been endeavoring–and succeeding–to undo since Roosevelt died in ‘45.
2) It is the biggest, intact pile of cash left for the CorpoRat Carpetbaggers to abscond with as they make their getaway.
To keep ‘em busy, they’ve already started dismantling the vestiges of Johnson’s Great Society, too.
These guys seem to yearn for Hobbes’ ‘war of all against all.’ I guess they think they can win it. But they could not, ever, if it came to that. Because they’re outnumbered.

I agree, it’s the biggest viable pile of public money that is still in play. Obama and Clinton have been in bed with the banks and financial institutions (look at the contributions recieved and the way they caved on the Repubs bankruptcy bill), so I do not trust them on SS.

Yes it is in “crisis” I suppose, although I’d choose a different word.

When you are carrying the kind of debt load we are, Social Security could be reduced so as to effectively disappear with the stroke of a pen in the next few years. Perhaps even from a Democrat. The 20 year projections to NOT rely on CURRENT facts (as the RAH fan above points out).

Believe it. Or, just take a look at the numbers yourself. You really trust Bush not to steal from one hand to pay the other?

Hey, at least we might get medical care out of the deal. YAY! Now we can grow old and starve to death gracefully with great teeth…

Wait a minute. Pt 1 In this year’s Treasury report Paulsen reports everything’s rosy and hunky-dory, with one proviso noted by OMB Director Jim Nussle (published 9/2007):

Our short-term budget outlook is improving, but beyond the horizon is a huge budgetary challenge – the unsustainable growth in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. The President has proposed reasonable changes that begin to fix this serious problem. For the sake of our children and grandchildren, Congress should begin to take action to prevent this fiscal train wreck.”

Wait a minute. Pt. 2 Then . . . The Century Foundation in 2005 reporting on Social Security noted this (interestingly enough!)

The surprising message of Figure 2 is that every Democratic president (Kennedy-Johnson, Carter, and Clinton) left office with the ratio of national debt to income below where it was at the beginning of his administration, while the last three Republican administrations (Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush) have presided over explosive growth of the national debt relative to national income. Since 1960, Republican administrations have added 38 percentage points to the national debt/GDP ratio, while Democratic administrations have subtracted 23 percentage points from that ratio. This record stands on its head all the clichés about who is fiscally responsible.

Source: Economic Report of the President 2005 Table B-78, available online at http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7.....5/B78.xls.

From what I understand, Social Security is nothing more than a big fat I.O.U. at this point… there is no actual money there, it’s all been borrowed. So I’d say, it’s in trouble, especially considering that the USA is currently in hock up to its eyeballs, thanks to this administration.

Wait a minute. Pt. 3 But waaay back in the 2002, Under Secretary of the Treasury Peter R. Fisher made these sobering remarks to the Columbus Council on World Affairs:

The most recent Financial Report of the United States Government, published last March, provided an accrual-based assessment of the government’s net liability for Social Security, for Medicare, and for government worker and military retirement benefits. The government has assumed these obligations, and designated taxes and revenues to pay for them. The Report projects that Social Security and Medicare will begin falling short around the year 2016. On a 75-year horizon, these programs collectively have a negative net present value of $26 trillion. The figure is even higher if one wants to ensure a fully sustainable system beyond that point.

That figure does not account for the other, general revenues that the government collects. Treasury staff estimate that if we tap general government receipts, projected at the recent average of 19 percent of GDP, the figure falls to negative $23 trillion. Again, that’s using a 75-year NPV calculation.

The Congressional Budget Office is Krugman’s source. Continue . . .

A Congressional Budget Office study from this July took another tack. It projected the government’s finances out to 2075, holding discretionary spending constant as a share of GDP. The result? The federal government would double its share of the economy, from 19 percent of GDP today to 40 percent in 2075. Reverse engineering these CBO projections gives you a negative NPV of “only” $18 trillion.

Both these estimates are fairly crude. Making 75-year projections about anything is an inherently imprecise and risky business. But making promises of future government payments without keeping track of the costs is even riskier.

On the backward-looking basis, our debt to GDP ratio is 30 percent. On the forward-looking basis, our liabilities to GDP ratio is 200 percent or more.

Think of the federal government as a gigantic insurance company (with a side line business in national defense and homeland security) which only does its accounting on a cash basis – only counting premiums and payouts as they go in and out the door. An insurance company with cash accounting is not really an insurance company at all. It is an accident waiting to happen.

This particular insurance company, it turns out, has made promises to its policy holders that have a current value $20 trillion or so (give or take a few trillion) in excess of the current value of the revenues that it expects to receive. A real insurance company could try to grow its way out by raising its premiums and its earnings on investments faster than its liabilities. The federal government, however, would have to raise taxes or borrow faster than it increases outlays.”

We’ve been spending money like a drunken soldier for five years, and borrowing. How did the picture all of sudden get so rosy according to Paulsen?

There are a lot of mistakes made when thinking about Social Security. Sure, the *average* life expectancy is 77 years, but that average includes everybody who dies young. Someone who has made it to 65 can expect to live considerably longer then 12 years — they are unlikely to go to war, be shot in gang violence or die of a heridetary disease. Hate to break it to you kids, but I know a lot of people in their mid 70’s who are hale and hearty. One 70-year-old friend of mine has a mother who is still alive and doing pretty well. My own grandfather lived to 97. It is not unusual. To figure the drain on Social Security, you have to estimate how long the boomers will live given that they have already reached (say) 50.

The maximum Social Security payout now is about $2,000 per month. That $24,000 per year is rapidly becoming meaningless. (Remember that $97,000 is now “middle class” according to Hillary.) That is about how much it costs to check into a hospital these days. The large and expanding group of elders are a powerful voting bloc and will not stand by while their benefit whittles away to nothing.

Another “fact” I saw in the website decrying the concern over social security is that the trustees used a low estimate of the economy for their figures. This is precisely what they are supposed to do — ensure that the fund works even if the economy turns bad (which will put a lot of seniors out of work.) We can’t just pretend that the boom stock market days will remain forever. It is a bit ironc to see the Pollyana side of the progressives come out when we talk about Social Security; we all agree that Bush and NAFTA have ruined our economy but hey look — don’t worry about SS because we can grow our way out of trouble!

The solution depends on which voting bloc the politicians are willing to piss off. If they continue raising the retirement age, eventually the younger crowd might put down their cellphones long enough to organize. I don’t see that happening anytime soon though.

the only problem with ss is that you will get paid in dollars

Totally agree with George,

It seems everyone is ducking this issue but Obama and Fred Thompson. I am by no means a fan of Fred, but at least I give him and Obama credit for talking about an unpopular subject. The first boomer has already applied for benefits - after 70 million of their cohorts retire, it will put an incredible stress on the system. If we do nothing now, we have a choice of raising taxes an astronomical amount and/or drastically slashing benefits.

If the cost of living allowance (COLA) was indexed to inflation instead of wage increases, that would be a huge help. The only problem is that Democrats will complain that you’re ‘cutting benefits’ even when you’re just providing as generous as an increase.

But right now, we’ve got a monetary policy that’s hit us with a regressive tax of 10% due to the falling value of a dollar. Couple that with double digit inflation (the Consumer Price Index used by the FED EXCLUDES fuel and food so it’s pretty much a worthless indicator of inflation).

At this point, everyone should plan for their own retirement without factoring Social Security - we’ll all be better off.

The problem with Social Security is Bush and the Republicans sticking there nasty ass hands in the pot. Just as Senator Obama said and if they take some of that tax money they have been giving to this greedy Bush loving gang of thugs, we will be alright for years to come.

Obama says he will do what many of them are scared as hell to do and that is RAISE THE TAXES on the gang that needs to have them raised to repay what they stole and set the pot right for the American people that really need it and that is scareing the hell out of these cheap two bit thugs.

f anyone trying to get street cred with the Stephen Moore types by pretending there’s a crisis

C’mon, Krugman “explains” jack shit. If any one is the “fool”, it’s someone who parrots something about a presidential candidate that’s unfounded. Specifically, Orszags’ analysis is highly tentative and speculative, and all over the map with regard to what he thinks “could” be the problem. Whereas it’s a fairly straightforward conservative estimate that by 2042 we’ll be receiving 73% of our benefits. So yes, there are other problems, but it’s not at all “foolish” to say let’s think about how to fix this relatively concrete one.

I challenge you to do a better job on your posts.

Obama hasn’t been impressing me and now, with this whole Social Security nonsense, he is really pissing me off. Talk about taking right wing talking points from people who despise the very existence of Social Security and running with them.

7 dvbetty Says: Maybe those Beltway insiders know something they ain’t tellin’?
Maybe W has looted SSI to an unsustainable level?

Noun, Verb, 9/11! 9/11!

I think you are on to something.

Wait a minute. Pt. 2 Then . . . The Century Foundation in 2005 reporting on Social Security noted this (interestingly enough!)

The surprising message of Figure 2 is that every Democratic president (Kennedy-Johnson, Carter, and Clinton) left office with the ratio of national debt to income below where it was at the beginning of his administration, while the last three Republican administrations (Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush) have presided over explosive growth of the national debt relative to national income. Since 1960, Republican administrations have added 38 percentage points to the national debt/GDP ratio, while Democratic administrations have subtracted 23 percentage points from that ratio. This record stands on its head all the clichés about who is .

fiscally responsible = conservative ¿ ¿ ¿ :(

So I guess most of us agree that Obama is right?

Larry @ 13:

I think the crisis in Social Security is because too many hands are in the Social Security pot taking millions out on a regular basis to fund needless wars, and distribute tax breaks to the wealthy elite.

—————–

The Social Security Trust fund has always been a federal debt to Social Security. The money has gone to pay all manner of federal government expenditures by both republicans and democrats.

lordkoos @ 29:

From what I understand, Social Security is nothing more than a big fat I.O.U. at this point… th