Obama: All the money seniors have been paying into Social Security, is gone

[Little-Acorn]

Finally, the President of the United States has admitted what conservatives have known for years: All the stories about the money you paid into Social Security being put into an account with your name on it to wait for you, were lies. The money is gone.

Obama told a CBS News reporter today:

"I cannot guarantee that those checks go out on August 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it," Mr. Obama said in an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley, according to excerpts released by CBS News.

If there were any senior citizens (or younger citizens for that matter) who were still clinging to the fond belief that government could be trusted to take care of them in their old age, I hope they are listening.

The Federal govt had something they called a "Social Security Trust Fund". It supposedly held the money you paid in. Well, now we know it was misnamed: all the money is gone.

Even if government manages to duck the present bullet and somehow borrow even more money to pay these seniors with, the same problem is likely to come up next week. Or next month. And sooner or later, THE GOVERNMENT WILL EXHAUST ITS CREDIT, AND NOT BE ABLE TO BORROW ANY MORE.

And when that happens, seniors now know who the President will cut off first.

 

[ProudLefty]

You are kidding, right? You are trying to get a quick laugh, right?

You do realize that Republicans are trying to desstroy the credit standing of the USA, a credit standing that it has taken 230 years to build. And Republicans want to destroy it because... it gives them a power rush, I guess.

It really has nothing what so ever to do with anything else/.

 

[PLC1]

Congress has been spending SS money for decades. It should come as no surprise that there is no "slush fund" or "trust fund" now. SS has generated more in revenues than has been paid out since the SS fund was incorporated into the general fund back in the '60s. Now that the outgo is beginning to balance the income, we start to see hand wringing and partisan political games played with SS.

The fact of the matter is that Social Security is the third rail of politics that no one dares to touch. Senior citizens vote, and they don't always vote the party line. "Touch my SS, sonny, and I'll boot you out" is the message that comes from seniors.

Which, of course, doesn't stop the president from implying that if he doesn't get his way, seniors won't get their checks. Such an implication gets a lot of attention, after all. It doesn't stop the "right" from railing about how "entitlements" (SS and Medicare) have to end, how ending them will balance the budget, and other totally absurd statements that are also made purely to gain attention and score points.

What we're seeing in Washington right now is political gamesmanship, pure and simple. In other words, nothing has changed.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Congress has been spending SS money for decades. It should come as no surprise that there is no "slush fund" or "trust fund"

That's right - it should.

But it does, time and time again.

I'll bet if you walked down the street asking every adult you see, how Social Security works, most of the people who thought they knew the answer would tell you their money goes into an account or a trust fund with their name on it, waiting for them, and will be fully available on the day they retire.

I have given up trying to tell my acquaintances how it really works, because they think I'm lying. No way would the government ever spend all that money, and then pay me when I retire with the money other people contributed for their own accounts. That would be outrageous, so it's impossible.

.....tired smile, shaking head.....

If the American people knew how it was really run, do you think a majority of them would still approve?

 

[TruthSeeker]

The ignorance and complete lack of knowledge on most topics by the leftists in this forum is ASTOUNDING. Is it any wonder that the USA is going to hell?

 

[PLC1]

That's right - it should.

But it does, time and time again.

I'll bet if you walked down the street asking every adult you see, how Social Security works, most of the people who thought they knew the answer would tell you their money goes into an account or a trust fund with their name on it, waiting for them, and will be fully available on the day they retire.

I have given up trying to tell my acquaintances how it really works, because they think I'm lying. No way would the government ever spend all that money, and then pay me when I retire with the money other people contributed for their own accounts. That would be outrageous, so it's impossible.

.....tired smile, shaking head.....

If the American people knew how it was really run, do you think a majority of them would still approve?

I suspect they would want some basic reforms.

but, they have been told over and over not to expect anything when they retire, so many of them probably don't.

 

[Openmind]

Congress has been spending SS money for decades. It should come as no surprise that there is no "slush fund" or "trust fund" now. SS has generated more in revenues than has been paid out since the SS fund was incorporated into the general fund back in the '60s. Now that the outgo is beginning to balance the income, we start to see hand wringing and partisan political games played with SS.

The fact of the matter is that Social Security is the third rail of politics that no one dares to touch. Senior citizens vote, and they don't always vote the party line. "Touch my SS, sonny, and I'll boot you out" is the message that comes from seniors.

Which, of course, doesn't stop the president from implying that if he doesn't get his way, seniors won't get their checks. Such an implication gets a lot of attention, after all. It doesn't stop the "right" from railing about how "entitlements" (SS and Medicare) have to end, how ending them will balance the budget, and other totally absurd statements that are also made purely to gain attention and score points.

What we're seeing in Washington right now is political gamesmanship, pure and simple. In other words, nothing has changed.

Pretty much agree! Disgusting!

 

[Openmind]

The ignorance and complete lack of knowledge on most topics by the leftists in this forum is ASTOUNDING. Is it any wonder that the USA is going to hell?

Do we need to go back to insults?

Well, if we must:
The hypocrisy and greed of the GOP has no limit.

Why do you think the GOP wanted to "privatize" Social Security?
Because it would just have been a white wash of all the money that had been used in the last 30 years out of the Social Security trust and just assimilated to pay other debts.

And, Wall Street could have done another "killing" with all the money that went to "retirement investments," which, obviously, would have failed after a few years, and left the retirees with nothing at all.

I believe it is time for all the people who put any money in SS to ask for accounting. If one trusts a bank with their saving, they have the right to ask why their saving doesn't reflect what they put in.

The same should apply to this, and it should be a bi-partisan issue, since I very much suspect that both sides have benefited from that "creative accounting" over the last 30 years.

Still, I don't see why it is necessary for ANYONE to start blaming one side or the other. This dirty accounting hasn't happened in the last 2 years, not even in the last 10 years.

And the only way to resolve it is to have a clear, non-partisan inquiry.

 

[Gipper]

Do we need to go back to insults?

Well, if we must:
The hypocrisy and greed of the GOP has no limit.

Why do you think the GOP wanted to "privatize" Social Security?
Because it would just have been a white wash of all the money that had been used in the last 30 years out of the Social Security trust and just assimilated to pay other debts.

And, Wall Street could have done another "killing" with all the money that went to "retirement investments," which, obviously, would have failed after a few years, and left the retirees with nothing at all.

I believe it is time for all the people who put any money in SS to ask for accounting. If one trusts a bank with their saving, they have the right to ask why their saving doesn't reflect what they put in.

The same should apply to this, and it should be a bi-partisan issue, since I very much suspect that both sides have benefited from that "creative accounting" over the last 30 years.

Still, I don't see why it is necessary for ANYONE to start blaming one side or the other. This dirty accounting hasn't happened in the last 2 years, not even in the last 10 years.

And the only way to resolve it is to have a clear, non-partisan inquiry.

I believe there has been several non-partisan inquiries into SS over the years. And, most have been ignored.

The progressive W tried to reform the system, but was demonized for it by the Dems. The Dems have scared the elderly for decades by claiming the Rs want to abolish SS when not one R has ever suggested doing so. Scare tactics like this are despicable.

Americans and our politicans have known for about 30 years now that the system is unsound and heading toward insolvency. And, still they dither...

http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/history/index.cfm

 

[ProudLefty]

I believe there has been several non-partisan inquiries into SS over the years. And, most have been ignored.

The progressive W tried to reform the system, but was demonized for it by the Dems. The Dems have scared the elderly for decades by claiming the Rs want to abolish SS when not one R has ever suggested doing so. Scare tactics like this are despicable.

Americans and our politicans have known for about 30 years now that the system is unsound and heading toward insolvency. And, still they dither...

http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/history/index.cfm

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/popups/socsec_straight/content.1.html

Nah, Social Security isn't broke, isn't close to broke, and is in no way part of any of the current financial mess. Trying to blame Social Security is just a red herring to distract from the real culprit of the recklessness of two wars, the gift to pharma, and tax cuts passed without regards to matching spending cuts.

One thing that would help us all to find solutions would be to have people take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[ProudLefty]

I believe there has been several non-partisan inquiries into SS over the years. And, most have been ignored.

The progressive W tried to reform the system, but was demonized for it by the Dems. The Dems have scared the elderly for decades by claiming the Rs want to abolish SS when not one R has ever suggested doing so. Scare tactics like this are despicable.

Americans and our politicans have known for about 30 years now that the system is unsound and heading toward insolvency. And, still they dither...

http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/history/index.cfm

By the way, I notice your link just hangs out there. Who are the people who have put up this site? What skin do they have in the game? Why are their unsourced assertions to be believed?

In reading through a few of their pages, it is quite clear they are using half truths, distortions, and outright lies.

Its a real bad site to use for valid information. My seat of the pants guess is that this site was put up by Wall Street, to push us towards investing our Social Security monies in Wall Street so they can shear us there, too, not just in our savings and loans and home equity.

 

[TruthSeeker]

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/popups/socsec_straight/content.1.html

Nah, Social Security isn't broke, isn't close to broke, and is in no way part of any of the current financial mess. Trying to blame Social Security is just a red herring to distract from the real culprit of the recklessness of two wars, the gift to pharma, and tax cuts passed without regards to matching spending cuts.

One thing that would help us all to find solutions would be to have people take responsibility for their own actions.

This is from the same person who has stated repeatedly in this forum that there is no economic crisis in this country, everything is fine and dandy, and oh yeah............don't look behind the curtain.

 

[Openmind]

I believe there has been several non-partisan inquiries into SS over the years. And, most have been ignored.

The progressive W tried to reform the system, but was demonized for it by the Dems. The Dems have scared the elderly for decades by claiming the Rs want to abolish SS when not one R has ever suggested doing so. Scare tactics like this are despicable.

Americans and our politicans have known for about 30 years now that the system is unsound and heading toward insolvency. And, still they dither...

http://www.socialsecurityreform.org/history/index.cfm

Good link, thanks.

From what I read there, the system is pretty well established and should have worked. The BIG problem with it is that it is included in the Government budget! It shouldn't be. It should have been a side item, not influenced by government spending, other taxes, etc. . ..

Then it could have remained solvent by just adjusting the level of income that FICA was calculated on. Right now, it seems to be about $112,000, and I wonder why. Now, that income could remain as is, then enter into a "donut hole" where FICA is no longer witheld, until one reaches an income of. let's say $500,000, when FICA would be witheld again with no cap (that means, people making $20 millions, would still pay FICA on the income from $500,000 to $20 millions.

The main thing is, it should NEVER have been part of the budget. And since it was, there should be some form of legal recourse to MAKE this over reaching of power over the last 30 years or so embezzlement.

 

[ProudLefty]

This is from the same person who has stated repeatedly in this forum that there is no economic crisis in this country, everything is fine and dandy, and oh yeah............don't look behind the curtain.

There is no crisis in this country excepting the crisis created by Republican refusal to act responsibly in Congress and give us a realistic budget instead of these inane suggestions like the Ryan Plan.

Tell, me, in 6 months since the Republicans have been in charge, how many bills have they actually passed?

 

[ProudLefty]

Good link, thanks.

From what I read there, the system is pretty well established and should have worked. The BIG problem with it is that it is included in the Government budget! It shouldn't be. It should have been a side item, not influenced by government spending, other taxes, etc. . ..

Then it could have remained solvent by just adjusting the level of income that FICA was calculated on. Right now, it seems to be about $112,000, and I wonder why. Now, that income could remain as is, then enter into a "donut hole" where FICA is no longer witheld, until one reaches an income of. let's say $500,000, when FICA would be witheld again with no cap (that means, people making $20 millions, would still pay FICA on the income from $500,000 to $20 millions.

The main thing is, it should NEVER have been part of the budget. And since it was, there should be some form of legal recourse to MAKE this over reaching of power over the last 30 years or so embezzlement.

Social Security is in surplus, and has been in surplus for decades. Social Security continues to take in more than it pays out, and even with this anemic economy there is every expectation that that surplus will continue for several years. Even then, it will continue living off its surpluses for another 25+ years. There is no crisis in Social Security!

Should adjustments be made? Sure. That has been going on for decades. Adjustments are always needed. Fine. That is a problem to deal with, sure, but hardly anything to define as crisis.

(As to the cap on the payroll tax... I can see the reason for that. After all, there is a cap on how much a person can receive, so why not a cap on what they have to pay? Still, it is an area to look at.)