Posted on 09/05/2015 11:24:08 AM PDT by Olog-hai
The Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program commonly known as Social Security, which celebrated its 80th birthday on August 14, is projected to run an $84 billion deficit this year, according to the 2015 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees. […]
During 2014, $646.2 billion in payroll taxes was collected from 166 million working Americans.
But that was not enough to cover the $859 billion in Social Security benefits that were collected by 59 million people, including 42 million retired workers and their dependents, six million survivors of deceased workers, and 11 million disabled workers and their dependents. …
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I think it was LBJ right after he Bankrupted the Treasury with WELFARE. Nixon Formally Declared the US Bankrupt on August 15, 1971, we have been operating in Receivership since that day.
The math has never worked, and it never will. Especially so, since there are so many fraud cases of disability claims being collected and the number of working Americans is shrinking. Classic Ponzi Scheme..................
Working people can barely make it now. Another 2% from them and 2% from their employer could spell more financial hardship or even the end of their employment
Now you’re starting to catch on. This is their goal, to make as many people dependent on government as possible, thereby guaranteeing their permanent seat at the table of power.
A good start would be to stop funding our enemies. That’ll free up a trillion or two right there.
Next we could stop cradle to grave support for the illegals as well. A couple of hundred billion per year in that alone.
Getting some decent paying jobs back in the lower 48 wouldn’t hurt either.
There, no more SS problems.
the first SS recipient paid $25 into the system and took out $25,000 in benefits. what could possibly go wrong?
and bammy’s giving $150,000,000,000 to our pals in iran so someone has to sacrifice.
Yup. Inflation is the most politically expedient option given the state of the electorate.
I think I'm at the perfect age where I will have payed in the most before collecting, when the system goes belly up.
I figure I'm going to work until I croak, which is fine with me. My work doesn't require heavy lifting.
I keep telling my kids (teens/20s) that we have to have the mindset of sticking together like a clan to survive what's coming.
People should be in prison for this.
Still ought not be a federal program. Like other federal “trust funds”, it’ll be a Ponzi scheme in perpetuity.
Too big to fail.
It gives the politicians the ability to steal from everybody. The problem for SS and everything else funded by government is that there will be no “COLA” that will keep up with the decrease in relative value of the checks. That’s how you kill socialism.
If they do it right they’ll be able to divert the blame to “the rich” or “greedy corporations” and anyone else who wants fair value for anything they make or sell.
It will also give ample opportunity to pit one government check receiver against another - since there are so many.
It’s hard to explain to folks that when you take other peoples hard-earned money because you think “you deserve it” or “they owe me” those folks whose money you take will not sit still and keep paying.
In the end, if you depend on a government check, you will be sadly disappointed.
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. …Goal #32 of the communist goals entered into the Congressional record of 1963. Social security, transport policy (FRA, FTA, FHWA, FAA), Medicare/Medicaid, and more than that fall under the “et cetera”.
In those days (mid 1980’s) the forecast day of reckoning for the system was around 2044. In the 1990’s I would see various forecasts placing it in the 2030’s. Then, during the recession of 2007-2009 you started to see forecasts in the mid 2020’s, and then the early 2020’s. Of late, some have seen it as the late teens. I hit 65 in 2022. Just my luck!
You could probably cut the foreign aid to a lot of countries, but I don't think you can cut the aid to Israel, Afghanistan or Egypt and this are the biggest.
Good luck. ;-)
Good news is beginning this year my wife is going to add to that deficit. After 62 years of us funding the thing I’m going to be a taker.
Something started by the federal government is never “completely separate” except on paper—and even more so when funded by payroll taxes, i.e. forcibly. And SS has been broke for years.
Ironic that Nixon grew government in parallel with said declaration. Amtrak and OSHA came to be in 1971 as well, earlier than that announcement.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html
In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a”unified budget.” This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed “on-budget.”
This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President’s Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission’s central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget—a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government’s fiscal position.
This change took effect for the first time in the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 1969, which President Johnson presented to Congress in January 1968. This change in accounting practices did not initially put the President’s budget proposal into surplus—it was still projecting an $8 billion deficit. However, it is clear that the budget deficit would have been somewhat larger without this change (it is difficult to say how much larger because this change was mixed-in with the other legislative, budgetary and fiscal policies the President was urging Congress to adopt). In early 1969—just five days before leaving office—President Johnson sent his 1970 budget message to Congress, also using the revised accounting procedures. At this point, a year later than his initial estimate, he was projecting the budget for 1969 to be in a net balance of $2.4 billion. (The fiscal year 1969 began on January 1, 1969, even though the President had released his FY 1969 budget almost a year earlier.)
Until it does, and it’s so big that it crushes everything.
Like the brief collapse of civilization I expect in the next 10 to 20 years.
As a side note to this discussion about Social Security, please consider the following info from a related thread which provides evidence that Social Security is unconstitutional.
Although I question the motives of FDR era justices, these justices had evidently made the same mistake in interpreting the Constitution’s General Welfare Clause (GWC; 1.8.1) in deciding the constitutionality of Social Security that the 14th Congress had made in trying to use the GWC to justify its federal public works bill.
More specifically, President James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had vetoed Congress’s bill to build roads and canals which Congress had used its “specific power” of the GWC to justify. But as Madison had put it, the problem with Congress using the GWC to justify building roads and canals is that it was not intended to be interpreted as a delegation of specific power to Congress.
”To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.” —President James Madison, Veto of federal public works bill, March 3, 1817.
So based on Madison’s words, the GWC is nothing more than an introductory clause for the clauses which follow it in Section 8 which do enumerate specific powers.
Also note that both the FDR era 74th Congress that passed the bill that established Social Security without the required constitutional justification, and the 111th Congress which likewise passed Obamacare without the necessary constitutional justification, had also wrongly ignored the Constitution’s Article V requirement to successfully propose appropriate amendments to Constitution to the states before establishing such spending programs. If the states had chosen to ratify such amendments then Congress would have the constitutional authority that it needs to establish these programs.
Finally, consider that the question of the constitutionality of the bills that established Social Security and Obamacare should never have made it all the way to the Supreme Court. The reason is that they were ultimately tested by the Supremes is because the post-17th Amendment ratification Senate didn’t do its job to protect the states as the Founding States had intended for it to do.
More specifically, the corrupt Senate failed to kill these vote-winning but unconstitutional appropriations bills since they not only steal unique, 10th Amendment-protected state powers to establish such programs, but they also steal state revenues associated with such powers.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators and activist justices that the Senate approved along with it.
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.