Posted on 09/27/2009 9:16:38 AM PDT by Nachum
WASHINGTON – Big job losses and a spike in early retirement claims from laid-off seniors will force Social Security to pay out more in benefits than it collects in taxes the next two years, the first time that's happened since the 1980s.
The deficits — $10 billion in 2010 and $9 billion in 2011 — won't affect payments to retirees because Social Security has accumulated surpluses from previous years totaling $2.5 trillion. But they will add to the overall federal deficit.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Oh Wasting away in Barack Obamaville.
Searching for my lost shaker of salt
Some people say that George Bush is to blame.
But I know, It’s Obama’s fault.
If people aren't collecting yet, how can they be overpaid?
Do they mean, "We under-collected from you for years."?
SS is bankrupt because politicians cannot resist the temptation to get their hands on that much money. And, once they do, they squander it on things it was never meant for.
There's no social security system that can deal with "workers" who work for 4 years and collect for 60 years.
What started as a good and decent program has become the NEW WELFARE without the pesky social workers. If you have a doubt go down to your local social security office - half the people waiting to see someone will be gang bangers. Yep - being a drug addict qualifies you for a lifetime of social security benefits - and food stamps.
There's no social security system that can deal with "workers" who work for 4 years and collect for 60 years.
No, they take the money out of the pot and drop in an IOU... The crime is giving social security money to every gang banger, drug addict and criminal. If James and Hannah want to do more “good” they need to dress up and go down to Scial Secuity.
Right, there are massive accumulated surpluses, and yet it will add to the deficit. What a crock!
Yep.
Why should there be any strain? It is just people collecting money they have been depositing in the “lockbox” all their lives.. </ sarcasm>
Signed up for reduced benefits on my account in 2006 after my husband died. Last year they with held benefits from September until March of this year because they said I had earned too much and been overpaid in 2007.
This year I reached my official retirement age in May. Was able to switch to my husbands benefits which are double mine. They sent money in May and I called to see where it came from. Was told by SS that it was money I should have been paid but wasn’t. Said i was entitled to the money and to keep it. In July they sent a letter wanting it all back.
Said it was a mistake by the payment center. The local office couldn’t figure out what was going on and neither could the people at the national office.
So far they cannot show me how I was overpaid.
I would contact your congresscritter. Should be someone in the office specifically tasked with straightening this out.
in this day of instant, world wide, transactions... would someone PLEASE tell me why the social security administration isn’t doing direct deposits?
this would save on paper, man power, and time. it would save the post office all that work and reduce energy requirements to produce and ship the checks each month. it would also save granny the trip to the bank and reduce any possibility she might get mugged or that her checks could get stolen.
it would also radically cut the cost of the department by reducing the number of people required (this is most likely why it hasn’t been optimized)
and if someone doesn’t have a bank account, then give them one.
I curse FDR every time I think of it.
It’s called getting their money while they still can.
Boomers fault!
When my wife reached 65 she was supposed to go on medicaid as primary and my group policy as secondary, instead of the other way around. But the SS office was unable to figure it out. They refused to make the change. Neither SS nor our insurer would pay anything. Finally we put both senators and our representative onto it, and they got it fixed.
They have hundreds of thousands of people working on SS, with lifetime job security, but they can’t seem to figure out that 2 + 2 = 4.
Without a doubt... W.A.S.S.!!!
Hell, since wifey and I went on the tit, we've gotten my 63 year old sis-in-law to jump aboard, and now my bro - her husband, who'll turn 65 in November - is seriously thinking about doing it then, versus "Full Retirement Age" a year later.
Attention all Boomers: Start suckling NOW, before Zero removes your enablement!!! It's yours...go for it before it's too late.
(Thanks for the ping, Gray....I'd seen the thread earlier and damn near pinged you to it........)
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t trust the Fed with access to my bank account - if they can put in, they can take out.
they already have the ability.
but if it made you feel any better, the banks could easily make a sub account that only the fedgov could deposit into, and only you would be able to write checks from/transfer from. maybe they could remove money from it, but they could not touch your other accounts (as they wouldn’t know the numbers without further searching).
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.