Baby boomers are what’s wrong with America’s economy

Washington Post ^ | 11/05/2015 | Jim Tankersley

[MadIsh32]

If anyone deserves to pay more to shore up the federal safety net, either through higher taxes or lower benefits, it’s boomers — the generation that was born into some of the strongest job growth in the history of America, gobbled up the best parts, and left its children and grandchildren with some bones to pick through and a big bill to pay. Politicians shouldn’t be talking about holding that generation harmless. They should be asking how future workers can claw back some of the spoils that the “Me Generation” hoarded for itself.

[combat_boots]

Clinton took Social Security $$$$$$ to bomb Bosnia.

That fund has been robbed since I was a child.

[skeeter]

Well, if true thats rather hard to take, but par for the course these days.

I guess we Americans are just expected to suck the insults up.

[Kenton]

[flaglady47]

Go back to just lurking. Bull, there is no money in the lockbox.

[Pelham]

SS was designed as a pass-through system. The amount paid out was supposed to equal the amount taken in. In the early years the SS tax rate was adjusted every year to keep the two in balance.

I believe it was LBJ who came up with the policy of lending excess SS funds to the general fund in exchange for bonds.

There really can’t be a “lockbox” where people’s SS contributions are stored, that would have a highly deflationary impact on the economy by draining money out of the economy. The biggest problem with SS is the ratio of people paying in to people getting taking out. I sure wouldn’t want to rely on it surviving.

[Pelham]

You’re in California like I am. You should be used to it by now. One habit of our third world imports is to come here, trash American natives, and demand that we apologize to them.

[notdownwidems]

The idea of ‘collective responsibility’ goes against every conservative principle; are we going to have to sacrifice to fix it? Of course. But, and listen closely: I WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL MESS THESE PROGRAMS ARE IN! That was the fault of the left.

[justlurking]

Go back to just lurking.

Look, I'm trying to help you learn. I even pointed you to where you can learn about it. If you aren't willing to put aside your pre-conceived notions and listen, then you can just go on believing in fiction.

Bull, there is no money in the lockbox.

The "lock box" was nothing but a meme that Gore tried to use as a "wedge" issue in his campaign.

But unlike you, he wasn't just misinformed. He was lying to you, and you fell for it. Hopefully, you didn't vote for him as a result.

The accounting of the Social Security Trust funds (there are actually at least two) is well-documented. If you don't want to take the time to learn about it, that's your loss -- not mine.

Have a nice day.

[KittenClaws]

Having open multiple tabs during a quiet Friday and still being productive isn’t difficult.

---

Unless you own the business, you are still doing personal “multi-tasking” on your employers dime.

[cherry]

its also BS.....my husband of 63 started collecting his little SS this year after working for 45 plus years...

and I'm 62...not collecting...still need to keep working...

I have 0 exemptions on my paycheck and also "donate" an additional $200 a paycheck just so we can pay our tax bill...

we got no breaks in paying for our kids college....we gave big weddings and nice weddings presents...we support our adult kids with a little kick-in money now and then...we've bought cars for them and paid their insurance thru college...

we have gotten NOTHING from anybody....

we are the most conservative voting people in the world but we can't out vote the govt class or the gimmedat class...

the people who have benefitted from SS the most?....the elderly who btw hold much of the wealth of this country...their benefits are outrageous compared to the average citizen, because they paid relatively very little in....

me though...I've paid and paid and paid...

now we're the bad guys because we followed all the rules...

right....

[justlurking]

I believe it was LBJ who came up with the policy of lending excess SS funds to the general fund in exchange for bonds.

Actually, the investing of excess into US Treasury Bonds (or the equivalent special-obligation bonds) was written into the original law.

It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Treasury to invest such portion of the amounts credited to the Account as is not, in his judgment, required to meet current withdrawals. Such investment may be made only in interest-bearing obligations of the United States or in obligations guaranteed as to both principal and interest by the United States.

There's more information here: The Social Security Trust Funds and the Federal Budget

The biggest problem with SS is the ratio of people paying in to people getting taking out.

In a nutshell, this is it. However, I will point out that ratio can even be 1:1 -- it all depends on how much you are willing to tax the taxpayer, and how much you pay the beneficiary.

But, as I noted: the benefits have been exceeding what the taxes will support in the long run, for decades. Yes, there was a surplus for the past 30 years or so, but that was intended to compensate for the baby-boomer "bubble".

The problem: the demographic and economic assumptions were too optimistic back in the 80's, and we have been losing ground ever since.

[Bob434]

[[I agree, however, if the SS Trust Fund would have actually existed, in other words, money really in the lockbox, rather than having been squandered in the General Funds, then it would have been accruing interest from having been properly invested. But instead it was squandered. Therefore, if it had been properly saved and invested, there would have been plenty to fund our retirement savings.]]

Exactly- it’s estimated I believe that had the money been left In there, instead of spent on other things, that it would have funded SS for a number of decades more

[cherry]

personally, I've never voted without thinking what's best for my children or grandchildren...

I've voted in every election and donated a wad of money to conservative candidates....

Bush Sr was a pile of crap IMO but Bush the younger was a good hearted man, wrong headed at times...

I just love the way some people throw a good decent man under the bus for various reasons why the bulk of his resume was pretty dang good...

I felt safe when Dubya was president....I felt patriotic..

[cherry]

the original SS tax was like 0.5%...and now, its nearly 7% on the worker alone, besides what the employer pays...

in essence, there are many elderly people now receiving big SS who never worked a day...or paid practically nothing...

I know that I've paid in thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars...

[justlurking]

The idea of ‘collective responsibility’ goes against every conservative principle; are we going to have to sacrifice to fix it?

Yes, if you don't want to pass that increasing burden onto your children.

But, and listen closely: I WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINANCIAL MESS THESE PROGRAMS ARE IN! That was the fault of the left.

At this point, it doesn't matter who was at fault for creating this financial mess. What does matter: who is going to be the responsible ones to fix the mess.

You can't cash those checks and wash your hands of it.

[flaglady47]

“Look, I’m trying to help you learn. I even pointed you to where you can learn about it. If you aren’t willing to put aside your pre-conceived notions and listen, then you can just go on believing in fiction.”

Read # 132.

[justlurking]

Read # 132.

I told Bob he was wrong, yesterday. I explained why.

Just like you, he didn't listen. And now he is deliberately lying to you.

You have to decide if you want to continue to believe a lie, or educate yourself and learn the truth.

But, you'll have to start by not listening to people like Bob.

[skeeter]

And, as it turns out, take advantage of American charity, then bitch when it comes their turn to pay.

[Bob434]

just a heads up- you’re not going to convince him the government misused SS because the government told him they didn’t misuse it, and by golly that’s good enough for him- despite practically everyone else knowing the governed did infact misuse the money for general fund projects- Congressperson after congressperson has stated that the funds were misused, but the government tells lurkin they didn’t misuse it and so anyone who questions it in lurkin’s mind is an ‘ignorant liar’- I lost count of how many times he called me that in a ‘discussion’ with him in another thread on this issue

Fro m the other thread:

FEDERAL “BORROWING” OF SOCIAL SECURITY FUNDS

The following excerpt is from the 1998 Senate Budget Committee session. Note the underlined portions.

BEGIN EXCERPT

U.S. FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD CHAIRMAN ALAN GREENSPAN: .....making sure that surplus is there.

U.S. SENATOR ERNEST F. HOLLINGS (D-SC): Yeah, making sure that surplus is there. I’m telling you, Dr. Greenspan, that’s music to my ears.

GREENSPAN: Well, I remember you taking this song a long way over recent years, and I must say, Senator, a number of us were skeptical that was even discussable, figuring we would never get to unified surplus that we said which you were preaching was very interesting, scientifically sound, but unrealistic. I apologize.

HOLLINGS: Well that’s all right, because your Greenspan Commission report in section 21 says just exactly what you’re saying here. That was in 1983; here now, in 1999, on page two, “simply put, enough resources must be set aside over a lifetime of work to fund retirement consumption.” Now that section 21 said set it aside. President Bush, in section 13 3 01 on November the 5th, 1990 signed that into law. And we making headway. Let’s understand, though, that we’re still running deficits. ‘Cause I’m not going along with this monkeyshine about unified. ‘Cause unified is not net, the debt still goes up, is that correct?

GREENSPAN: If you’re...it depends on whether or not you wish to create the savings...

HOLLINGS: I’m not asking what you’re trying to create. The simple fact is the debt has been going up at least $100 billion for the last several years.

GREENSPAN: Outside, on budget, that is correct.

HOLLINGS: That’s right, on budget, you’re spending a hundred billion more than you’re taking in.

GREENSPAN: Correct.

HOLLINGS: And this president’s budget spends another hundred billion more than we take in.

GREENSPAN: I haven’t seen it yet.

HOLLINGS: You haven’t seen it? You’re testifying about it now.

GREENSPAN: I haven’t seen the budget. You haven’t seen it either.

HOLLINGS: Well, you know his plan. Look you think he’s going to spend less than a hundred billion more?

GREENSPAN: I will wait to see what the numbers look like.

HOLLINGS: Well, the truth is...ah, shoot, well, we all know there’s Washington’s math problem. Alan Sloan in this past week’s Newsweek says he spends 150%. What we’ve been doing, Mr. Chairman, in all reality, is taken a hundred billion out of the Social Security Trust Fund, transferring it over to the spending column, and spending it. Our friends to the left here are getting their tax cuts, we getting our spending increases, and hollering surplus, surplus, and balanced budget, and balanced budget plans when we continue to spend a hundred billion more than we take in.

That’s the reality, and I think that you and I, working the same side of the street now, can have a little bit of success by bringing to everybody’s attention this is all intended surplus. In other words, when we passed the Greenspan Commission Report, the Greenspan Commission Report only had Social Security in 1983 a two hundred million surplus. It’s projected to have this year a 117 million surplus. I’ve got the schedule, I’ll ask to put in the record the CBO report: 117, 126, 130, 100, going right through to 2008 over the ten year period of 186 billion surplus. That was intended; this is dramatic about all these retirees, the baby boomers. But we foresaw that baby boomer problem, we planned against that baby boomer problem. Our problem is we’ve been spending that particular reserve, that set-aside that you testify to that is so necessary. That’s what I’m trying to get this government back to reality, if we can do that.

We owe Social Security 736 billion right this minute. If we saved 117 billion, we could pay that debt down, and have the wonderful effect on the capital markets and savings rate. Isn’t that correct? Thank you very much, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

END EXCERPT

On October 13, 1989, Senator Ernest Hollings:

““Of course, the most reprehensible fraud in this great jambalaya of frauds is the systematic and total ransacking of the Social Security trust fund in order to mask the true size of the deficit…The Treasury is siphoning off every dollar of the Social Security surplus to meet current operating expenses of the Government…The hard fact is that, in the next century, the Social Security system will find itself paying out vastly more in benefits than it is taking in through payroll taxes. And the American people will wake up to the reality that those IOU’s in the trust fund vault are a 21st century version of Confederate banknotes.’ “

“We have stolen $2.6 trillion from it. We put paper money in there. The problem is, we spent the money – we didn’t just take it, we took it and spent it,” Congressmen Coburn said Thursday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “Social Security ran about a $53 billion deficit last year – it’s projected to run a continuous deficit.”

Quote: “It has been clear for quite some time that the trust fund contained no real assets”. David Walker, Comptroller General of the GAO, stated on January 21, 2005, “There are no stocks or bonds or real estate in the trust fund. It has nothing of real value to draw down.”

“The myth of the Social Security trust fund,” which included the following statement:

A lot of people speak of those IOUs as if they can be pulled out and exchanged for money to pay benefit checks. They can’t. As the Clinton administration budget of 2000 explained, the securities in the Trust Fund ‘do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Those special-issue bonds can only be redeemed by raising taxes, cutting spending elsewhere, or borrowing — exactly what the government would have to do if the Trust Fund didn’t exist. The Trust Fund, said the Clinton budget message, ‘does not, by itself, have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits.”

[[Social Security financing is completely independent of the federal budget.]]

you have no proof of that statement=- none- and infact the facts of the case, and confession of those in government and of the social security committee itself, indicate just the opposite- but by golly you now better than them all because a government website tells you so

[[Social Security financing is completely independent of the federal budget.]]

Really? Hmm:

http://www.nber.org/feldstein/wj020199.html

“To keep Social Security on track through 2055, the president arbitrarily transfers another $2.8 trillion—the remainder of the $4.5 trillion surplus—from the Treasury to the trust fund over the next 15 years. The president described this as equal to 62% of the projected budget surplus but it is not part of the surplus at all. The entire surplus is already spoken for by the new spending, the savings accounts and the automatic additions of Social Security surpluses to the trust fund. This $2.8 trillion is a completely new additional grant of money from the Treasury to the trust fund. The Treasury credits the Social Security account with $2.8 trillion and debits the governments general revenue account $2.8 trillion. This permits the trust fund to acquire $2.8 trillion in additional government bonds. Cashing in these bonds between 2032 and 2055 will pay for the projected benefits in those years. Magic!

The issue isnt just transferring money from general revenue to the trust fund. Its double-counting. The trust fund accumulates the $2.7 trillion of regular Social Security surpluses. The same $2.7 trillion is then counted again in the $4.5 trillion the president uses to finance his $2.8 trillion to Social Security. Thus the president raises the Social Security trust fund by $5.5 trillion while spending nearly $2 trillion on other things, all out of a total surplus of $4.5 trillion.

This amounts to the biggest and most creative budget sham Ive ever seen. If the government gave $2.8 trillion to private individuals, it would create $2.8 trillion of budget deficits, and the national debt would rise by $2.8 trillion. But since the Social Security trust fund is part of the government, this transfer of money (and the bonds that are bought with it) does not count as deficit or add to the national debt.”

[Bob434]

Yeah that’s right lurkin- you certainly did ignore any evidence that was contrary to your naive points- Keep insisting everyone lese is wrong- Again I’ll ask- where’s the proof the government only spent the money on what they were supposed to? You keep making that claim with absolutely NO proof they did-

[[You have to decide if you want to continue to believe a lie, or educate yourself and learn the truth.]]

And by educate yourself, you of course mean to blindly believe what SS.gov tells you- Swell- what an education lurkin!