Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
41. From previous reports. Just because they're not online does not mean they do not exist.
Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:33 PM
Mar 2016

The 1992 "doomsday" was used to push through the Greenspan commission's recommendations.

Fundamentally, the misunderstanding here is your belief that the trust fund is supposed to be permanent. It is not. It is supposed to be spent during the Boomers retirement. Since the vast majority of Boomers will be dead by 2034, it will have served its purpose.

The ongoing funding problem is a combination of two things:
1) The SSA uses a very pessimistic economic forecast when calculating this date. That's why the "run out of money" date keeps moving into the future. The economy isn't as bad as they forecasted, resulting in higher Social Security tax receipts.

2) Economic inequality means far less income is subject to Social Security taxes. We no longer have nearly as many well-paying non-service jobs in the country which would be 100% subject to Social Security taxes. Instead, we have absurdly wealthy people making more money, which is beyond the Social Security cap.

We don't need to fill the trust fund NOW to solve the ongoing funding problem. We need to raise the Social Security tax cap to keep up with what has happened to incomes in the last 60 years. And we can do that at a much later time, because raising that cap still works with the "two-generations-fund-a-third" system Social Security is designed around - no (significant) trust fund required because it raises enough money to cover expenses.

If we rush into fixing this now, we will have to do something that Republicans and conservative Democrats will vote for. That will mean cuts to Social Security payments, or adding something like means-testing that will be used to destroy the program.

It's a problem, but it is a problem we can wait to solve. And we should wait to solve it, because there will be a future environment far better suited to solving it.

As for DI, that's a problem created by Republicans in order to drive through cuts by explicitly disallowing shifting of money between the programs. They're looking to create a "failure" so they can destroy the entire program. Don't fall for it. Instead, fix the problem by going back to allowing transfers between the funds, and again really address it when our politics is not dominated by an insane party, and a party desperately trying to find common ground with that insane party.

A start TrueDemVA Mar 2016 #1
they will pay it back eniwetok Mar 2016 #4
So double taxation for the same benefits. OnlinePoker Mar 2016 #6
some canadian money is invested OUTSIDE the country eniwetok Mar 2016 #11
regressive vs progressive eniwetok Mar 2016 #54
It's not just taxation to pay back the interest OnlinePoker Mar 2016 #57
That's still a dumb idea Recursion Mar 2016 #38
LBJ and the "unified budget" NT 1939 Mar 2016 #48
It isn't raising alarm bells because the trust fund is supposed to be spent. jeff47 Mar 2016 #2
no guarantee the GOP will implode eniwetok Mar 2016 #12
There's no guarantee the sun will rise tomorrow Major Nikon Mar 2016 #14
it's untenable if the only new revenue is from eniwetok Mar 2016 #23
I'm speaking about the GOP, and not SS Major Nikon Mar 2016 #25
There's only so long the Democratic party can keep the Republican party alive. jeff47 Mar 2016 #17
where did you get 30 years from? eniwetok Mar 2016 #24
The 2034 claim started in about 2004. jeff47 Mar 2016 #30
I don't know where you got those numbers eniwetok Mar 2016 #40
From previous reports. Just because they're not online does not mean they do not exist. jeff47 Mar 2016 #41
*Applause* Recursion Mar 2016 #39
Is that you Pete Peterson? Fuddnik Mar 2016 #3
hardly eniwetok Mar 2016 #8
There it is! -none Mar 2016 #35
The rate that the government lends to itself is inherently trivial Taitertots Mar 2016 #5
2.8 trillion is trivial? eniwetok Mar 2016 #9
You're missing the point FBaggins Mar 2016 #15
of course... eniwetok Mar 2016 #37
"Lent and spent". It's gone. Every penny comes from increased taxes Taitertots Mar 2016 #50
shifting the tax burden... eniwetok Mar 2016 #52
The obligations are independent of the income stream. Taitertots Mar 2016 #53
see post above eniwetok Mar 2016 #55
of course interest payments come from the same source... somewhat. eniwetok Mar 2016 #56
Sorry... untrue FBaggins Mar 2016 #7
what's "untrue"? eniwetok Mar 2016 #10
The entire premise of the article. FBaggins Mar 2016 #13
sorry... you're incorrect eniwetok Mar 2016 #19
Apologies... but you still don't get it. FBaggins Mar 2016 #34
missing the math? eniwetok Mar 2016 #42
interest rates are set by Congress eniwetok Mar 2016 #22
Well, yeah Congress can always amend the SS Act. But until they do that, it's pretty much a market Hoyt Mar 2016 #28
comparable interest paid eniwetok Mar 2016 #43
Nope. They're tied to market rates FBaggins Mar 2016 #33
so you want to cut benefits? eniwetok Mar 2016 #21
Lol... nope FBaggins Mar 2016 #32
when you eniwetok Mar 2016 #44
Ultra low interest rates are not healthy for the economy in general... Wounded Bear Mar 2016 #16
nope... I don't favor privatization eniwetok Mar 2016 #20
In general, I agree.... Wounded Bear Mar 2016 #27
I think they have driven rates down in the hopes of spurring job creating business. Hoyt Mar 2016 #29
Low interest rates also reduce unemployment and generally boost the economy. jeff47 Mar 2016 #31
low interest rates eniwetok Mar 2016 #45
And it hasn't worked well because of other issues that only Congress, not the Fed, can address. strategery blunder Mar 2016 #47
And NO privatization Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #18
Raise the cap. nt WhiteTara Mar 2016 #26
or stop exempting capital gains eniwetok Mar 2016 #36
and, not or... Wounded Bear Mar 2016 #46
Ultra low interest rates... sendero Mar 2016 #49
Agreed. Allowing giant banks to borrow money for free from the taxpayers without no requirement GoneFishin Mar 2016 #51
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Ultra Low Interest Rates ...»Reply #41