Posted on 02/16/2005 11:04:27 AM PST by RKV
"Social Security not in crisis"
Whew! That's a load off my mind. From what the Democrats were saying in the 90's I thought it was.
"Social Security not in crisis"
Even if that were true, that's not a reason to block personal accounts.
Excellent point.
Amen! How exactly does 4% going to private accounts RUIN Social Security as we know it? Anyone 55 and older, not to mention the 37 million current senior citizens, disabled persons, and surviving spouses and children, will still receive their checks. It's after that we want to try to fix the system.
Exactly! I wish Bush or the Republicans in Congress would just once point that out. It doesn't have to be in crisis to change it or adjust it. You know, 100 people randomly selected from Free Republic could do a better job of governing than the dolts we currently have in the Senate.
There's no "surplus" because all receipts into Social Security goes right into the general fund. There is a big "surplus" on paper though because we are all paying MORE than required, and even then, 2018 is when those surpluses run out. We need to fix Social Secuirty AND get the general fund deficit under control too.
The system of private accounts would be fine if the Bush budgets had left any money to fund the transition costs. We don't need Bush to "fix" a system that has never missed a payment in 65 years and that is currently running surpluses in the $77-$99 billion per year range. If the surpluses ever drop below $5 billion per year, then it will be time to "fix" the SS system.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/socialsecurity/
The reason that Social Security should be privatized is because it would help create jobs, and thus contribute/reinvigorate/expand an economic boom. Those funds go into the Gov't coffers, the funds are wasted--they shrink, they disappear, 2 billion missing from the Education department a couple of years ago, 500 dollar hammers, ect.
Funds put into safe private sector investments, banks and mutual funds, the funds grow, not only for the benefit of the investor, but the funds are used to finance new economic initiatives--new small busineses, new homes, new college educations, or on the corporate level re: stocks, new expansion of established businesses. More jobs, more social security taxes, more income tax revenue, so in the long run not only does the privatization pay for itself via the economic growth, but you have said economic growth to make society better and stronger.
I wish the President/GOP would emphasis this, instead of investing too much political capital in whether or not Social Security is in "crisis". Talk about the overall economic benefits of improving the savings rate of this country.
This is a typical Democrat tactic:
"Finally, the president's Social Security privatization plan shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the current program."
The proper protocol in any argument is to place the conclusion at the end and not the beginning of the presentation -- thereby prejudicing all that follows. Often in the leftist/liberal/Democrat rants, there is nothing more but these conclusions without any subastance leading up to them. They're just slogans and cliches somebody has told them to repeat -- with assurances that everybody will reflexively know what they are saying. If not, go to Tactic B, which are the insults for anybody that doesn't agree to what they're saying.
It used to be tiresome and now they're just unreadable.
How do you know that the surpluses (now in the $77 to $99 billion per year range) will run out in 2018? In 1978, Bush predicted the SS system would run out of money by 1988 at the latest. In 1995, the SS trustees predicted insolvency by 2032, but that date has been extended to 2042 because of higher than expected employment caused by the 1993 Clinton tax increases.
So long as Bush keeps his hands off of our SS money, the SS system can reasonably be expected to run surpluses into the foreseeable future, far beyond the 2018 date pretended by Republicans.
MurryMom thank God your back, it's seem such a long time since I've read one of your "insightful" posts. How are things going in DU land these days?
That's exactly what they are. Social Security is a pay as you go system. How does Capps expect the USG to come up with the money to honor those bonds in the SSTF when the time comes to redeem them to pay annual benefits? Borrow it from Japan or China?
Starting in 2008, less than three years from now, the surplus from SS collections will start declining meaning that the USG will have to find other funds to make up the revenue shortfall. In 2018, the USG will be paying out more money than it collects in SS contributions, which means that the USG will start redeeming or honoring the IOU's in the SSTF. which will require additional revenue in the form of increased taxes or spending cuts on other discretionary government programs. In 2042, the IOUs in the SSTF will be exhausted with the USG having to come up with 25% of the shortfall annually. The amount of money is enormous and will viturally consume over 70% of the Federal budget in entitlement programs.
Anytime you hear someone discussing SS and the solvency of the SSTF, you know they are full of it. As one of the SS Trustee's, Tom Saving, mentioned to me, if all it takes to make SS solvent is to increaes the SSTF, then just raise the interest rates on the Treasury bonds held by the SSTF. The money has to come from somewhere to make actual payments to the recipients. These scraps of paper are worthless without the money to back them up.
Yes, and that surplus exists in the form of Treasury securities. If the Government fails to honor those Treasuries and insteads pays debts owed to foreign banks in China and the Middle East, can you imagine the political outcry resulting from seniors failing to receive their SS checks?
Yes, the general fund budget deficit resulting from Bush's tax cuts and his war in Iraq should be fixed. When those more serious problems are fixed, the SS system will be safe.
The "Hon." Capps is disingenuous. Although the "funds" are invested in US Treasury bonds, she fails to note the other side of the equation. The government also owes the money promised by the SS System. If there is a $1 trillion "surplus" in the trust fund, there is a $1 trillion debt to the future taxpayer. A treasury bond is a promise to repay in the future. Today's seniors are borrowing money from their grandchildren.
I know this is not a popular point to make, and that is why the dems always ignore the fact that the citizenry will have to repay those promises, again, in the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.