Skip to comments.Jackson Lee: “Who Wants to Make a Fuss About Social Security When It’s Solvent?”
Posted on 12/03/2012 5:08:25 PM PST by Olog-hai
Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D.-Texas) said last week that Republicans are being frivolous when they talking about reforming Social Security as a means toward fixing the federal governments fiscal problems because Social Security is solvent.
According to Social Securitys trustees, the program has operated in the red each of the last two years.
Who wants to make a fuss about Social Security when it's solvent? she asked on Friday. And then who wants to make a fuss about Medicare when it's solvent until 2024?
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Pay no attention to this silly person.
I want pictures of her constituents.
I also want to see her G.E.D and some proof that this bimbo can read and write.
You know. There really should be a test that a politician must take and pass before they allowed anywhere near Washington. It should also include a “wiz quiz” to check for drugs.
The Crack Caucus says this solvent thing every time the issue is discussed.
In fact, they are moron enough to believe that there is more than enough money for everything. Delusional. We’ve been broke for quite some time.
I think they really swallow their verbal diarrhea, too.
Just raise the age to 75 years of age and there will be fewer people to pay off!
“Forgive me for being puckish, but everyone here who disclaims the label of “entitlement” for Social Security always say they paid more into the system than they got out. Were that universally true, Social Security would be solvent. In fact, it would be more than solvent - how much more, I leave to the spreadsheet wizards. “
Quite true, but I was not “allowed” to “opt out” of “Social Insecurity” when I started working or I would have more money today in retirement than I could spend. The other fact is that the Congress has, year after year, piled on “additional” but unfunded benefits to be paid to people who haven’t contributed a dime. The Congress is full of “Monty Halls” who are all just saying “come on down” to everyone with no real thought as to how the whole mess will be paid for. Face it, nearly all the governments of the world are broke or soon will be. Then, there will be no place to run. Then what?
I want pictures of her constituents.
Why? You already know what they look like.
Obamacare will solve the problems of Social Security.
Get sick after 70 and you are on your own.
Rationing and the Blue Pill will soon lower the average age of death in the United States.
Dang, just go away already!
Sheila is MARS struck ... still looking for the American flag she wondered about being on Mars...her brain is in a fog
They will tell you with a straight face that SS is "fully funded" and the IOUs sitting in the imaginary lock box in the sky have the "full faith and credit of the United States" behind them.
Stupid is as stupid does
Who wants to make a fuss about the sanity of this congressional joke?
It’s no joke. The stupid bitch is still in congress and continually gets re-elected. That’s a crime against America and sanity.
Let’s send her to Guam so her weight will tilt the island over. And she can take Rep. Johnson with her.
You are assuming SJL has a brain - silly you. Periodically one of her braids gets wound a little tight causing her mouth to remain open resulting in relentless spilling of idiotic prattle.
Actually she is one of the brightest people in the Congressional Black Caucus.
This lee moron is insufferable. If only her ilk had been aborted...
She has to be one of the most stupid people in Congress. And she represents the people who elected her perfectly.
Same mentality as those who say ‘Change the oil? Why it still runs.’ Geesh
If 0 bummer had a bunch of kids....... her IQ may equal their total.
Dimwit “progressive” looter BUMP!
DEPOPULATE socialists from the body politic. They are useless eaters in a free republic.
Overview of their socialist/collectivist schemes here...
More like "I can't be overdrawn. I still have checks left."
That is like buying insurance on a car while it still runs, or paying the rent when they can’t evict you anyways
Julia Carson here in Indiana was not only illiterate but senile. The only thing that got her out of office was dying. She basically went from the House floor to the funeral home.
I'm not disputing what you said in your first sentence. In fact, it makes sense. Social Security was designed to be collectively self-funding, but with a uniform payout. Logically, since financial circumstances vary with the individual, that means there had to be some people who paid more than they got in - just as there have to be some people who get more out than they paid in. Anyways, realization of that fact makes it very clear as to why Social Security has been compulsory. If the poker game can't stay solvent without the patsies, and is run by the government, it's inevitable that the patsies will be bound by law to stay in the game. What made it tolerable was the patsy earned more than the non-patsy, so the net beneficiaries benefited from sympathy for the fellow who has less and (to a degree) resentment of the fellow who has more.
But your second sentence is a quantitative statement. According to this link, the unfunded liabilities of Social Security alone (i.e., excl. Medicare) are $8.6 trillion over the next seventy-five years. If it were true that the shortfall was caused by piling on unpaid-for benefits, then the net present value of those unpaid-for benefits over the next seventy-five years would be equal to the $8.6 trillion shortfall. I don't have the exact numbers on me, but this 2010 report does distinguish between SSDI and regular Social Security. It says that SSDI "trust fund" is expected to run dry in 2018, which does add to your case, but it also says that the allocation reserved from regular Social Security will run out in 2041.
In other words, SSDI is only part of the reason behind the unfunded liability. Even if it were eliminated tomorrow, Social Security would still be heading towards the shoals albeit more slowly.
As I said earlier, I believe you when you say you paid more than you'll ever get out. But the way the numbers work, that isn't true of every Social Security recipient excluding SSDIers. It looks to me like good ol' human nature is kicking in, if you get my drift.
As a sidebar, you're experiencing life as part of a government-mandated collective. It's not all that coincidental that there's so much collective guilt floating around, given the number of purveyors of collective 'solutions' and collective 'justice'. Back in the day, rock-ribbed Protestants decried collective-guilt mongering as an excrescence of "Papism."
The death panels are a double win for the fedgov.
SocSec AND Medicare.
Cut 5 yrs off the lifespan and things look pretty good.
Don’t laugh, half of the old people on this site agree with her - at least until they GET THEIR MONEY BACK. LOL. As if any is left.
Who elects these dolts who have never seen a cash flow calculation?
Quite a trick 0bambi is pulling; nobody has caught on to his proposal to make the last two year’s payroll deduction freeze permanent. Effectively, it will phase out SS without telling anybody. Then when all of his little toadies go to retire, it’ll be “Sorry, you don’t get any because you didn’t pay into the system.”
She’s got a hyphenated last name and a “D” following the office she holds ... sorta screams “stupid” at you.
The death panels are a double win for the fedgov.
SocSec AND Medicare.
Cut 5 yrs off the lifespan and things look pretty good
And they’re betting on it! Just like the Food Stamp President and his administration of losers are counting on tackling the national debt through “inflation” (aka ObamaBucks).
Congress then wastes that money on GSA staff parties at resorts in Nevada and Arizona.
However, the funds coming in are accounted for in the fictional device called the Social Security Trust Fund.
Still, as fictional as it might be it accounts for a $2.7 trillion surplus ~ and is considered a debt of the US Government.
Social Security didn't go broke ~ but the US Government did, and the only issue is whether or not the US Government is going to pay its debt to the Social Security system so that payments to pensioners may be continued.
We have a President who imagines he can prevent the sale of government assets for the purpose of raising funds to pay government bills and debts. He imagines a lot of other things.
In the end the US Government has sufficient resources to monetize, or sell, and can pay all it's bills ~ including paying off the entire national debt.
Social Security is among the minor problems. The President's hallucinations are, however, serious business.
Oh, yes. In the cold world of actuarial number-crunching, that's already been factored in. The numbers remain the same.
The reason why I was going down the actuarial road was to spell out a hunch I had about Rep. Jackson-Lee's comment.
"Everyone done told me that they pay more then they get in. So what's the problem?"
The basic idea was that, actuarily speaking, Social Security appeared to be a device for transferring income from black men (who have the shortest lifespan in our society) to elderly white women (who have the greatest lifespan in our society).
Turned out to be pretty nearly the case until you looked at AFDC (aid to famiies with dependent children, or welfare). Then, the federal payment to black families from AFDC, actuarily speaking, pretty much matched the loss in Social Security payments by black men who died young!
Proving, I guess, that some popular understandings of these systems are spot on.
Even the 'death panels' exist ~ and they will guide care such that the elderly infirm die sooner. We all know that, even the Democrats ~ problem is the Democrats look forward to it. They've always been the party of death and slavery.
There's a funny irony about labeling Social Security and Medicare "thinly-disguised welfare." Were it, the system would be in a lot less trouble than it is. Up here in Canada, the old social democrats who first put together government-run healthcare saw it as something like a homeless shelter or food bank: a last-ditch alternative for people who had nowhere else to turn. In other words, people would be reluctant to tap the government unless something was really wrong. Had we Canadians really had that attitude, there wouldn't be any Medicare crisis. People would be too reluctant to draw down the system for the spending numbers to be what they are.
[And yet...there was already adequate private charity for the indigent. My grandfather on my mother's side, a surgeon, had months in the Great Depression where 40% of his billings went unpaid. Needless to say, he didn't press because he was charitable. The main reason why the soc-dems were pushing government heath care was because they were offended by the fact that private charities required a means test!]
To get back to my point: once Social Security, Medicare and the Canadian equivalents are seen as services for taxes, a different dynamic comes into play. Instead of tapping the government, it becomes "I'm getting what I paid for in taxes." That bumps up demand a lot because people - naturally enough - are far more assertive when they're sure they're owed. If they think they're charity cases, they're typically hesitant and reluctant. Not so if they see their taxes as prepayments.
Add to that good old human nature, that ole debbil that always says "I paid more than I paid and got less than I got." Again, natural.
The so-called entitlement crisis really unearths a weak point in democracy. When there's bad and widely unpalatable news, the only way politicians can do something about it is to become followers. They have to follow the people, and wait for the bad news to become too intrusive to ignore. Anyone who tries to put his foot down beforehand is sticking his neck out. Showing real leadership might as well be the equivalent of putting on the kamikaze headband and driving a plane into a warship. That's why the crisis, in the political class, is the most-known problem that nothing's done about.
In a way, it's unsurprising that the father of social welfare was Count von Bismarck and the first system was implemented in the German Empire. The Kaiser had the royal right to put his foot down in case the system got out of hand. He could not only use the bully pulpit, but he also could make life hard for the legislature until he saw something done about the issue.
But not in a democratic republic. Therein, you have to depend upon the rule of the people. In fact, this is one case where the people have to rule instead of the politicians.
Unfortunately, as you well know, the political class' "solution" is rationing. Hell-lo death panels.
Sure, at the peak of these confrontations Bohner will say briefly that ‘we spent the trust fund’ as he did on this weeks FNS show, but that is not enough to convince anyone.
It’s really worse than just some folks getting more than they paid in. For example, under SSDI, if you die young and have minor children, it’s my understanding that those children have benefits at least until they reach majority, and I don’t think that was a benefit at inception. Then there's the matter of illegals claiming SSDI when they haven't paid in much if anything. I would have been willing to take my chances with the equities market over my lifetime had I been able to opt out of SSDI and made my own way to retirement with my own money.
And just today, I read a piece about the next “move” the RATS are going to make is to “expropriate” our 401k’s (and the other “400 series” self-funding retirement gimmicks) that have been set up with the knowledge that SSI will fail at some point. There is reportedly $3 trillion in these accounts that the RATs can’t wait to get their hands on. The plan is to confiscate this money and give the “former owners” an annuity. Then what will happen is that they will immediately piss all this money away and ergo, a second SSI program goes bust! I am 72! I retired at 66. My 401k paid us 15% until 2007. We actually did not spend as much as we were making. SSDI didn’t matter. Then when the crooks on Wall St. stole the citizens assets in 2008, we took a 30% dump in my 401k’s value, and now what’s left is only earning 6%. So our retirement picture has been fundamentally changed at a time when we are not in a position to work our way out of what’s happened. It is therefore, my fervent hope, that the morons who voted for these Marxists start feeling some real financial pain.
Social Security is solvent? Sheila Jackass-Lee (Dimwit-Texas) is snorting solvents.
What that meant was that folks were setting aside $1.00 in Social Security to get back $0.10.
This also meant that folks were 'investing' in Social Security with hard currency at the time of their lives when they were earning the least, and then retiring to receive soft currency at the time of their lives when they were moving out of the productive sector.
Of course they imagine they paid more in than they get out ~ because it's true ~ inflation makes it true.
Today, without inflation ~ in fact, with massive deflation, we get an opposite effect. People paid in soft dollars over the last 30 years, and now they're getting back hard dollars.
Any normal society would have re-issued it's currency somewhere in the middle of all that ~ with new values, and some sense that over time currency probably ought to reflect essentially the same value ~ that is, a dollar today should be able to buy much the same as a dollar then, or a dollar tomorrow.
Alas, we do not have normal societies these days, and the Democrats were in charge so long nobody really knows what Social Security has cost them.
When it's 'solvent' we'll stop fussing.
Eesh! What a clueless twit!
Exactly. and Obamacare will do that and more.
” GOPs failure or fear of making the fact that SS and medicare are both being paid for with borrowed money is the reason why Dems get away with this.”
The GOP operates on 100% fear.
And the answer is a resounding "NO"; the negative answer is contained in the obama "tax-cut" which he and touted (and the press allowed him to tout) throughout his term and the recent campaign: "everyone got a tax cut". What he meant was, there was a holiday, by executive decree, on a percentage of the FICA, Social Security contribution, so that people's paychecks contained a little more.
By that exact amount, the Social Security trust fund was diminished over that four year period.
He wasn't cutting taxes at all (you and I both already knew this). He was defunding Social Security. Hey -- that would've been a very effective campaign tool for Romney, had he been willing to use it.
The only difference between your 401k and a retired person SS account is that the federal government has not taken over your 401k, yet. But the clock is ticking and there is a lot of noise.
daniel—There are a lot of people who make no claim that they paid more in than they go out. Spouses and children who get benefits often paid nothing in. Those who get disability payments are more likely not to have paid as much in.
That said, considering payments from workers of 6+% and a like amount on their behalf from the employer, with a reasonable interest component over an average working life, I imagine most people DO pay more in than they receive in benefits. If the funds had in fact been set aside and conservatively invested (even in money market accounts) solvency would not be an issue.
I find it interesting, as well as a bit cynical, to note that the amount of the cut was roughly equal to the amount Republicans were proposing for privatization back under W.
If Social Security mere merely provided the taxes levied on amounts paid to annuitants (yup, it gets taxed eh, for folks with income above a certain amount) ~ it would last an awful long time.
SJ-L couldn't win an election, so Whitmire finally appointed her to a position in Houston. It wasn't long until SJ-L was in WDC sharing her 'truths' with us, such as the 2010 statement about how North and South Vietnam were living alongside each other in peace, as separate countries.