Math doesn’t work on privatizing Social Security
Over the years, most if not all of the current Republican presidential field have advocated reforming Social Security by guaranteeing the benefits of those in or approaching retirement while giving younger Americans the option of putting at least some of their contributions in personal or private accounts.
Rick Perry, for example, has called Social Security “a monstrous lie” for young people, although he has backed off that recently. Michele Bachmann last year also talked of wanting to wean younger Americans off the program, although she too has softened that rhetoric. In the 2008 primaries, Mitt Romney repeatedly endorsed the privatization approach suggested by President Bush, repeating that support in his 2010 book. (Yes, he too has now changed his tune to a degree.) And Herman Cain has consistently advocated using the example of Chile as a model for how to privatize the program here in the United States.
Like President Bush in 2005, however, none of the candidates addresses the enormous financial challenges of such a transition. It’s just an idea that they throw out there, with no evidence of serious thought.
Here’s the problem: To finance benefits at promised levels for those 55 or older, we would need to continue to collect payroll taxes from today’s working-age population. However, we would also propose to divert a significant share of those payroll tax into personal accounts. In effect, we would be trying to spend the same dollar twice, and we would do it trillions of times.
When Chile made that transition in 1981, it was being ruled by the brutally repressive Pinochet military dictatorship, which took the need for political compromise right out of the picture. The country also enjoyed a budget surplus at the time of more than 5 percent of its GDP, which is not exactly the financial situation we enjoy today.
Chile’s plan requires that workers deposit 13.3 percent of their monthly pay into private accounts, including 3.3 percent to cover mandatory purchase of private disability and life insurance. That’s right: I doubt he realizes it, because I doubt he’s actually looked at it seriously, but the Chilean plan cited by Cain as his model includes — gulp — a government mandate for the purchase of insurance.
To offset that additional cost to workers, private employers in Chile were ordered by the military junta to increase wages across the board by 18 percent. The Chilean government also went deeply into debt to finance the transition to the new system while trying to honor commitments under the previous system.
In a study exploring the possibility of copying the Chilean example here in the United States, the Congressional Research Service outlined some of the major obstacles:
Absent other measures, keeping Social Security’ s commitments would require the government to raise taxes, cut spending on other programs, or borrow more from private financial markets. Put another way, a generation or two would have to pay twice, bearing both the cost of pre-funding the new system and the costs of benefits under the old system.
The United States already is faced with chronic budget deficit problems, leaving little or no room for the massive tax hikes or public borrowing that would be necessary (the Social Security Administration estimates if all workers currently under age 40 were to stop paying into Social Security, the system would need an infusion of $6.9 trillion in order to pay promised benefits to those remaining in the system).
That was written in 1998, at a time when — to put it mildly — our nation’s finances were in considerably better shape than they are today. That $6.9 trillion figure would also be considerably higher today, considering inflation and the fact that the Baby Boomers are now 13 years closer to retirement than they were in 1998.
All in all, a reasonable ballpark estimate of $10 trillion in additional resources would probably be needed to finance such a transition. So until you identify a source for that kind of money, talk of personal or private accounts is mere wishful thinking.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
518 comments Add your comment
josef
September 26th, 2011
8:50 pm
Imam
I thought you didn’t like posting under different tags and then praising your wisdom. Oh,well, what should we expect given, well, you know…
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:54 pm
Thulsa,
China flew by Japan (now 3) to take the number 2 spot behind the USA this year. But the USA still enjoys a considerable lead over China. So, at the current pace (China is growing at a 5% rate per year), it will still take some time to catch the US. But there are some signs now that the China express may be slowing down.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
8:56 pm
soothsayer,
I’ll counter that with info directly from the CBO saying the system is broke. Does it get any more authoritative than the CBO? Included is an explanation as to why your source is wrong. The article is from national review but the info is straight from the CBO.
By Kevin D. Williamson
Tags: Despair, Entitlements
Today’s CBO report has some bad news about the deficit. But CBO has some really, really bad news about Social Security: It’s officially broke.
The CBO’s revenue/expenditure estimates now place the program in permanent deficit. There had been some hope that payroll taxes would recover sufficiently post-recession to put the program back into the black (the theoretical black) for at least a few more years, putting off the day of reckoning for an election cycle or more. No more: The new CBO estimates put Social Security in the red for as far as the eye can see.
But there’s a bit of camouflage attached: If you include the “interest” that the federal government “owes” the fictitious Social Security “trust fund,” then the program is in the black. *Which is to say, if you think that borrowing another $1 trillion from the bond market to shift money from one government account to another government account makes the nation $1 trillion richer, then everything’s hunky-dory.* But if you compare the program’s tax income to its benefit outlays, without the “interest” owed, as CBO does, what you get is deficits from this year forward to 2021 of $45 billion, $30 billion, $28 billion, $30 billion, $31 billion, $33 billion, $44 billion, $59 billion, $77 billion, $98 billion, and $118 billion — by my always-suspect English-major math, about six-tenths of a trillion dollars in the hole.
http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/258075/cbo-social-security-now-officially-broke
AmVet
September 26th, 2011
8:57 pm
Open questions to the forum:
Do we now live in an American plutocracy?
Do we now live in an American corporatocracy?
If so, why? If not, why not?
theyeshaveit
September 26th, 2011
8:59 pm
josef,
hmmm. People here are using a doppelganger? What is the blogosphere coming to?
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
9:01 pm
theeyeshaveit,
I would like to think we have a significant lead over China. We do not. And the IMF is not the only source that has China passes us very shortly. Now there are other reports that have the date that China passes us as far into the future as 2035. But most have them passing us before 2020.
Also I believe you simply mistakenly read the report you mentioned incorrectly. That report has China *doubling us up* by 2050. That is what it looks like you may have read.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2008/07/08/china-will-surpass-u.s.-economically-by-2035-double-by-midcentury/adw
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:02 pm
Sly should have concentrated more on the Family, and less on the Stoned.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:02 pm
Thulsa: really! National Review! My post is from the Social Security Administration itself. Yours is conjecture from the Nation Review of all people! Get real!
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
9:02 pm
I’m out for a little while. Yall have fun fretting over the red juggernaut on the horizon to the west.
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
9:05 pm
Doom
Haven’t had ox tail before. I’ve heard differing opinions on it, but it wasn’t something that was regularly on the menu back home.
On the financial thing, I don’t think it’s the fault of the educational system or a lack of education. I see it as simple as some people get it and others don’t. One person can strip a small block V8 and rebuild it while the man next to him can’t change a tire. All the education in the world won’t help you set your timing if you don’t know what you’re doing.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
9:05 pm
Sooth,
Please read the article. It quotes the CBO directly. Also if you believe that switching monies from one gubment account to another to make it look like SS isn’t really broke then you would likely believe in the tooth fairy as well.
There is no conjecture and if you can’t understand that they are CBO numbers and that transferring money between accounts doesn’t make the overall govt finances any more sound then I don’t know how I can help you. I can’t make it any simpler.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:07 pm
Conservatives …………….. 2+2=4
Liberals ………………………. 2+2= However much you need to say it is.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
9:08 pm
Brocephus,
If you’ve got any Jamaican buddies have one take you to get some- a couple good places downtown/midtown. I like it myself but when I had it it was in Miami with a jamaican friend so I like to think we were eating at a pretty authentic Jamaican cuisine restaurant. Haven’t had it up here. I can only say that if josef doesn’t like it then it must be good. I’m out for a little while.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:10 pm
Thulsa: I read the article. It’s by a self-professed “English major.” It proves nothing. It is simply conjecture.
Again, I challenge you to post something authoritative that proves your point. So far I have seen nothing that even comes close.
RB from Gwinnett
September 26th, 2011
9:12 pm
The problem we have isn’t just social security. It has it’s own issues, but the turd in the punchbowl nobody wants to address is the growing “less fortunate” class in this country that refuses to work an honest day’s work while demanding “living wage” and living conditions. We’re taking care of our seniors through social security and MILLIONS of these leeches who are dragging us into oblivion. And nobody wants to talk about it. The left are pandering to them for votes under the false pretense they’ll help them excape from their predicament and the right is afraid of being called mean. All the while the “less fortunate” are playing everybody for fools while they collect free stuff from hundreds of different angles.
I wonder if Chile has the same problem.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:12 pm
I understand what you’re saying about the sleight of hand but its not that much sleight of hand.
There’s your sign.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What are you going to do if we have a crash like the March 2009 or the 1929 crash?
[...]
Remember that after the crash of 1929 stocks did not recover the previous values until 1954.
Do you really want to bet on that?
Just what I’m waiting for.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:14 pm
BADA:
“OBAMACARE HEADED FOR SUPREMES”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltIhcbwYUHc&feature=related
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:16 pm
Oxtails?
Any Jamaican restaurant will have it on the menu.
With black beans and rice, fried plantains and plenty of Red Stripe beer.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:16 pm
Scout: Conservatives – 2+2=WHY ARE WE ADDING OMG WE SHOULD BE CUTTING CUTTING CUTTING. CUT IT OR SHUT IT, CUT IT OR SHUT IT!
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:17 pm
kayaker: Once again, only you and some other conservatives are calling the rich “evil.” The rest of us do not use such terms.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:17 pm
Bro and josef @ ox tail……..I once worked in a grocery store. We had a butcher that would say anything. A woman pointed to a package of cow tongue and said that she would never eat anything from a cow’s mouth. The butcher replied ” Do you eat eggs’?
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:18 pm
Economic policy failed for three reasons: (1) policymakers focused on enabling offshoring corporations to move middle class jobs, and the consumer demand, tax base, GDP, and careers associated with the jobs, to foreign countries, such as China and India, where labor is inexpensive; (2) policymakers permitted financial deregulation that unleashed fraud and debt leverage on a scale previously unimaginable; (3) policymakers responded to the resulting financial crisis by imposing austerity on the population and running the printing press in order to bail out banks and prevent any losses to the banks regardless of the cost to national economies and innocent parties.
[I]n the last 10 years, the US lost 54,621 factories, and manufacturing employment fell by 5 million employees.
Most emphasis is on the lost manufacturing jobs. However, the high speed Internet has made it possible to offshore many professional service jobs, such as software engineering, Information Technology, research and design. Jobs that comprised ladders of upward mobility for US college graduates have been moved offshore, thus reducing the value to Americans of many university degrees. Unlike former times, today an increasing number of graduates return home to live with their parents as there are insufficient jobs to support their independent existence.
All the while, the US government allows in each year one million legal immigrants, an unknown number of illegal immigrants, and a large number of foreign workers on H-1B and L-1 work visas. In other words, the policies of the US government maximize the unemployment rate of American citizens.
Republican economists and politicians pretend that this is not the case and that unemployed Americans consist of people too lazy to work who game the welfare system. Republicans pretend that cutting unemployment benefits and social assistance will force “lazy people who are living off the taxpayers” to go to work.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:18 pm
0311……Is Diana Ross still with them?
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:19 pm
Adam:
“Scout: Conservatives – 2+2=WHY ARE WE ADDING OMG WE SHOULD BE CUTTING CUTTING CUTTING. CUT IT OR SHUT IT, CUT IT OR SHUT IT!”
I agree …………… as long as 2-1=1
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:20 pm
Scout: Also,
Liberals……. 1.4 + 0.7 = more money to fund things.
Conservatives …… 1.4 is too much. We need to cut more of that and 0.7 doesn’t really do enough so we shouldn’t bother with that. But we can get 0.00004 from the poor to prove that you’re not full of class warfare.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:21 pm
BADA:
Who cares ……………. all I know is my Marine Corps black buddies played that stuff in Nam until I thought I would go out of my Jarhead mind !!!!
I couldn’t get thirty seconds of Little Jimmie Dickens in !
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:22 pm
Adam:
Sounds good ………… everyone pays a little something.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:22 pm
0311……I keep hearing about the ‘Arab Spring’. I want to know about the ‘Arab Spring Break’. Will it be in Panama City? Will they get tattoos and get ‘Arab Spring Break 2012′ t shirts?
Brosephus™ - Browning America Since 1973
September 26th, 2011
9:23 pm
Doom
I’ll keep that in mind. I have a few good friends from the islands.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:26 pm
New for 2012 Arab Spring Breakers
“I Raised Hell in Panama City, 2012″ Prayer Mats
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:27 pm
High inequality can diminish economic growth if it means that the country is not fully using the skills and capabilities of all its citizens or if it undermines social cohesion, leading to increased social tensions.
A mounting body of research shows that, left unchecked, a growing income gap affects the rich, the poor and everyone in between.
No matter your political leanings, most people understand that endless concentration of income, wealth and power is bad for the economy. After all, businesses rely on rising purchasing power of the many, not the few, to deliver growth and profits.
No one knows the tipping point, but lock enough people out of the promise of gains and at some point, instead of stability and growth, you get social unrest.
History has shown us, time and again: When too much is controlled by too few, something has to give. Continuously rising inequality is unsustainable.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:28 pm
“Where the Hell is Mecca” Shot Glasses
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:29 pm
I see BADA is still chasing tail….
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:30 pm
“I Got Bombed in Panama City” bumper stickers.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:30 pm
Well, it seems we are digressing into frivolity.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:31 pm
BADA:
WASHINGTON (AP) — “Rep. Maxine Waters says she’s not sure who President Barack Obama was talking to when he told black Americans to quit complaining and follow him into the battle for jobs and opportunity.”
Uh oh, Barry …………. you got Maxine on your case …………. you are asking for it !!!
Kinda like Aunt Esther after Fred !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TiiG0KNgDi0&feature=related
RB from Gwinnett
September 26th, 2011
9:32 pm
“We had a blast in Panama City” Jihad turbans!!
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:32 pm
For the ladies
Arab Spring Break T Shirts
” Does This Burka Make Me Look Drunk?”
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:33 pm
BADA:
I just hope “Islamafreaknic” doesn’t show up here in Atlanta !
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:34 pm
“Well, it seems we are digressing into frivolity.”
Just like the current administration.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:35 pm
0311…….Did you hear obama’s speech where he told the poor and unemployed to “Get over it”? He basically told everyone to “Walk it off”.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:38 pm
“Well, it seems we are digressing into frivolity.”
Just like the gooey Drudgey goodness.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:38 pm
“I was partying my ass off in Panama City, and Allah got was this lousy T shirt”
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:39 pm
“I was partying my ass off in Panama City…
STILL chasing tail.
poison pen
September 26th, 2011
9:39 pm
” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner didn’t dispute a Harvard economist’s estimate that each job in the White House’s jobs plan would cost $200,000, but said the pricetag is the wrong way to measure the bill’s worth.”
And he also pointed out, in an interview today with ABC News’ David Muir, that there is no other option on the table for getting the economy moving and putting more people back to work.
“You’ve got to think about the costs of the alternatives,” Geithner said when asked about Harvard economist Martin Feldstein’s calculation that each job created by President Obama’s American Jobs Act would cost taxpayers about $200,000.
Maybe this dyck head should just give 4 people $50,000 and then it would create 4 times as many jobs.
This coming from a tax cheat.
RB from Gwinnett
September 26th, 2011
9:41 pm
“Palestine Jack” t-shirts and sunscreen.
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:44 pm
RB….glad to see you join in. These bores on here can be depressing. They wouldn’t know frivolity if it gave them a head start.
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:44 pm
Scout: It’s not good. But thank you for your opinion.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:44 pm
Kammie:
Take it up with CBS, MSNBC, ABC, The Washington Post and The New York Times …………. or Drudge for posting their articles.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:44 pm
You know, when you think about it, it all makes perfect sense!
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:46 pm
BADA:
“0311…….Did you hear obama’s speech where he told the poor and unemployed to “Get over it”? He basically told everyone to “Walk it off”.”
I read it ………… I can’t stand to listen to or watch him. The arrogance from him is just too overwhelming.
Translation of what he said: “Let Them Eat Cake (Twinkies)”
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:47 pm
Adam:
Thank you sir for your civility.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:49 pm
Well, let’s try this one more time.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
9:49 pm
Drudge to le petit caporal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bwW07sCwoY
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:53 pm
MORE “UNFETTERED LIBERALISM” !!!
(Kammie: USA Today)
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. – “This proudly liberal city has been out front on gay rights, protection of animals and limits on handguns, and even declared an upcoming “Go-Go Dancer Appreciation Day.”
But its latest move has the fur flying in a catfight between animal-rights activists and fashionistas.
A unanimous City Council vote last week to ban the sale of fur apparel has outraged the fashion industry, one of the primary businesses this tiny city, wedged between Los Angeles and Beverly Hills, has worked hard to attract.”
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:53 pm
Most popular Tramp Stamp
Arab Spring Break 2012
“Slam, Bam, Thank You Imam”
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
9:54 pm
You’re what!? Oh! Lord! say it ain’t so!
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:55 pm
New York Times to Kammie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkcYKC8ANt8
Jm
September 26th, 2011
9:55 pm
Jay, you seem to have recently been pointing out the supposed contradiction between the polls and some conservative policy ideas.
If your intention is to defend the status quo, under the premise that reform isn’t possible because something isn’t popular, I would submit to you that is not acceptable. The status quo is not sustainable.
But rather, if your intention is to point out that republicans have not engaged in the requisite conversation to help the public understand the scale of our challenges, then you might have a bit of a point.
Though with talk of ponzi schemes and entitlements, match Daniels new book, you can’t say they haven’t started trying.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:56 pm
BADA:
“Keep Your Camel Nose Out of My Tent”
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
9:56 pm
0311……What is the difference between US girls and Arab girls at Spring Break? US girls get stoned before having sex.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
9:57 pm
Sorry ………… can’t help it 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLB15kBvn_c
Adam
September 26th, 2011
9:57 pm
BADA, Scout: You should probably watch the speech instead of reading it. Your interpretation is way off.
Kamchak
September 26th, 2011
10:04 pm
Ponzi — SQUIRREL!
BADA BING
September 26th, 2011
10:06 pm
2nd Most Popular Tramp Stamp
“If You Can Read This, I Want To Vote”
out of the blue
September 26th, 2011
10:10 pm
“We’re taking care of our seniors through social security and MILLIONS of these leeches!”
Charming comment. So people who are collecting social security are leeches…..if you say so AssHat!
Jm
September 26th, 2011
10:12 pm
I see budget shenanigans continue, oh well.
At least one day, maybe, maybe, we’ll get to the big kahunas
Aaaand it looks like obamacare is headed to the scotus
Fun times, interesting indeed
Jm
September 26th, 2011
10:15 pm
Bada
Jm
September 26th, 2011
10:17 pm
Kam. Fun movie. Now pay attention. Shhhhhh
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:17 pm
Jay,
Got a NEWS FLASH for you.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, the federal government overall: it’s all going broke together.
The status quo isn’t anymore sustainable, than your idea that privatizing isn’t, but I’m glad to see you taking a serious stab at it, even if all your serious stabs at conservative issues amount to nothing more than a rhetorical sneer. Reform is necessary, and your singular solution: naysaying is as witless as it is brainless. If the country is going to move forward, there is little point in saying “NO” to those who are actually debating issues , like “should we cut benefits, increase age or offer means testing?” to save things.
I think that as much as Warren Buffett is supposedly begging Obama to raise his taxes (Why doesn’t he just start giving his damn billions to the government, anyway?) I’m sure there are lots of people out there willing (as I’ll bet WB ought to be willing) to gladly accept cuts in benefits to save the nation?
Nah, this is demagoge-Bookman-supporting-a-loser-President central, isn’t it, Jay?
Jimmy Carter part deux, anyone? Talk about someone who’s worth sneering at!
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:20 pm
Sooth @ 9:49,
If I had one word to describe you it’d be “crazy,” but “delusional” is a close second and may in fact, cover all that there is to see. Too bad I don’t know you any better.
Well, that’s not too bad, I guess, for me.
buck@gon
September 26th, 2011
10:23 pm
Kamchak @ 1004,
giggle giggle
This forum for you really IS a chatroom.
Please take the ubiquitous advice of someone else here: getalife.
cmac22
September 26th, 2011
10:24 pm
Dishonesty from the ajc. Look at the city of Galveston, TX when they opted out of SS system in early 80’s!
yuzeyurbrane
September 26th, 2011
10:25 pm
Jay, you are so much on point. They also don’t mention that when Chile hit an economic down period for awhile that the value of their investments dropped so dramatically that people were clamoring to get back onto their old system. Some still had that option. Flaws also show up in the so-called risk free experiment for Gavleston, Texas city employees. Studies done on it show that higher paid employees have done better than they would on SS but lower paid employees do worse. And it is always the lowest paid who need the SS safety net the most. The basic flaw is both conceptual and ideological. SS was meant to simply be a safety net that folks could rely on. It was not structured as an investment acct. If they wanted to play the market and take risks they were free to do so but on their own. So critics are comparing apples and oranges. In fact, as a safety net it has worked admirably for 75 years. It is not just a question of leaving today’s seniors alone and transitioning younger folks to investment accounts. With minor adjustments SS can remain a fiscally sound safety net for today’s children and grandchildren for another 75 years or more. The only losers would be the Wall St. stockbrokers who salivate at the commissions they would earn off of trillions of dollars shifted from SS and those who see a socialist behind every bush.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
10:26 pm
Adam:
Your country is being had.
Time to wake up !
BG
September 26th, 2011
10:33 pm
Obama will figure this out. LOL
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
10:36 pm
BG:
I hear you but it’s actually not funny because he has figured it out …………… long ago.
Marxist/Socialist upbringing, education, friends mindset and now implementation.
1811/0311
September 26th, 2011
10:36 pm
Excuse me: “friends, mindset”
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:43 pm
“Marxist/Socialist upbringing, education, friends mindset and now implementation.”
Scout, please post one link that supports this statement. Just one link.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:45 pm
1811,
Well done. That song directed at kammie was wayyyyy too funny. Kammy the poo aint too happy with ya.
Atlas Shrugging
September 26th, 2011
10:46 pm
This house of cards is falling. Europe then the US. Wake up DEM-wits and REP-ugnants!
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:47 pm
In fact, I’ll make it easy for you. Just post one link that supports your claim that Obama was raised as a Marxist/Socialist. Just one link.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:47 pm
Sooth,
Why would scout provide a link to you. It could be from the CBO and you would then say it doesnt count. So what’s the point. And before you complain again let me remind you yet again that it was a national review article that simply quotes what the CBO itself put out there. Figured I would get that outta the way early.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:50 pm
Because your post wasn’t from the CBO, it was from an English professor who was “interpreting” the CBO data. Why would I believe something from an English professor over the actual Social Security Administration data that I furnished?
If you want to debate this issue until tomorrow morning, I’m ready!
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:51 pm
sooth,
Its widely known that Obama’s father had Marxist beliefs and also that his childhood mentor was a member of the American communist party.
http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obamas-communist-mentor/
In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a
“secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But
what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood
mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
In
his books, Obama admits attending “socialist conferences” and coming into
contact with Marxist literature
However,
through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone
who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The
record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where,
at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son,
with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting
advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”
The
reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist
who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951
report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a
CPUSA member.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:52 pm
The fact is, you Righties post outlandish claims that you heard on Lush but have nothing but a bunch of conjecture to back it up. Which, unfortunately, is typical of your entire belief system.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:55 pm
Why would I believe something from an English professor over the actual Social Security Administration data that I furnished?
Sooth,
Nice deflection Sooth. But it matters not what kind of professor the man is. What matters is that the info he cites comes straight from the CBO. Do you have a problem with CBO data? Why you have such a difficult time understanding this defies explanation. I can’t make it any simpler for you.
Soothsayerc
September 26th, 2011
10:57 pm
Thulsa: that’s the biggest pile of steaming pile of horse excrement I’ve ever seen!
You really expect me to believe that a graduate of Columbia and Harvard Law School is a communist?
Give me a break!
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
10:58 pm
“Do you have a problem with CBO data?”
Why don’t you post the CBO data? That would be authoritative data.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
10:59 pm
Tell ya what Sooth. If you can explain to me how transferring monies from one govt account to another govt account makes the overall financial picture of SS better than please go ahead and try. You’ll have a hard time making logic of the illogical.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
11:01 pm
Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.
Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable wages will grow rapidly from 11-1/2 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17 percent in 2035, and will then dip slightly before commencing a slow upward march after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled roughly 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and are projected to increase gradually to 6.2 percent of GDP in 2035 and then decline to about 6.0 percent of GDP by 2050 and remain at about that level.
The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.22 percent of taxable payroll, up from 1.92 percent projected in last year’s report. This deficit amounts to 17 percent of tax receipts, and 14 percent of program outlays.
I’ll do ya one better, Thulsa. I’ll post the actual Social Security Administration data for the 3rd time tonight.
Please post your CBO data.
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
11:03 pm
Sooth,
Please point out to me where I myself stated that Obama was a communist. My contention is that he is not a communist but rather has socialist leanings and beliefs such as income redistribution. And I base this upon the fact that his father had marxist beliefs as did his mentor Frank who Obama regarded in his own book as a father figure. And the fact that Obama himself readily admits to having attended socialist conferences, meetings, etc.
Soothsayer
September 26th, 2011
11:06 pm
Thulsa: this is becoming an exercise in futility. Do you really believe that Obama has Socialist leanings? Get real!
I’m outta here!
Thulsa Doom
September 26th, 2011
11:11 pm
Sooth,
This is getting tiresome sir. What is it that your mind cannot seem to fathom. Read the sentence in the middle that states that in 2022 that SS will begin redeeming trust fund assets( in effect IOUs) from the general fund of a federal govt that is running deficits as far as the eye can see and is BROKE BROKE BROKE. Hell I’m using your own link to destroy your specious argument.
Secondly even if we do accept your faulty premise that these IOUs are as good as gold the trust fund still goes broke in 2036. After that taxes would be needed because only 3/4 of scheduled benefits would be able to be met according to your own link. Perhaps you need to r -read your own link.
just sayin'
September 26th, 2011
11:13 pm
Jay says “Math doesn’t work on privatizing Social Security”
Math doesn’t work on Obamacare either.
luangtom
September 26th, 2011
11:13 pm
I love to read all of the bickering and finger-pointing. It’s Bush’s fault…..Gore would not have gotten us into an ill-conceived war…….Well, I do remember a certain President Clinton and VP Gore telling us that the troops from Kosovo and Bosnia would be home by Christmas of 1996……my neighbor’s son just returned from serving in Kosovo and I believe it is 2011……………..let’s all finger-point some more and blame the other guy.
WAW
September 26th, 2011
11:14 pm
“It was nearly 50 years ago when, under the leadership of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American people reached a great turning point, setting up the social security system. F.D.R. spoke then of an era of startling industrial changes that tended more and more to make life insecure. It was his belief that the system can furnish only a base upon which each one of our citizens may build his individual security through his own individual efforts. Today we reaffirm Franklin Roosevelt’s commitment that social security must always provide a secure and stable base so that older Americans may live in dignity.” Ronald Reagan March 22, 1983
You know, this guy was a real Reagan Republican. But the compromise that led to the “fix” did not include the Lock Box. The bulk of the current debt is owed to Social Security, so pay for the money borrowed over the last 28 years. Social Security is not the problem.
Dave R.
September 26th, 2011
11:25 pm
Since Jay’s math skills can’t make the FairTax work without making numbers up, why do we think he could make privatizing SS work in his mind?
woo woo woo woo
September 26th, 2011
11:45 pm
What makes the red man red?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_at9dOElQk
PJ
September 26th, 2011
11:46 pm
Buck – seriously, knock off the Buffet-bashing. He could give all $50B to the gov and it wouldn’t make a difference, and it would all be gone in 1 year. Better he give it away with Gates and eliminate diseases around the world. That is making a real difference.
His point about raising taxes on higher earners like him is that it will increase revenue each year (like eliminating the Bush cuts will add $80B+ each year). And since revenue has been under 15% for the last 3 years, we really do have a revenue problem.
BTW- spending has been over 19% every year in the last 30 (except for the 5 years of the tech bubble when GDP was high). Even then, it was over 18%, but so was revenue so we had a surplus.
As for the point of Jay’s post, he’s right. SS is not driving the budget mess, especially for the next 2 decades. Guess what, Medicare Part D (passed by R’s without any funding mechanism) costs the general fund more than SS ($65B vs $45B in 2010). And SS has $2.5T owed to it, with interest over $100B/year, so it really isn’t adding to the debt.
Small changes like upping the tax limit and means testing would make SS solvent for even the boomers. Reagan created the SS surplus by upping the tax rate and the retirement age. Why can’t Republicans do that now? To quote: “This bill demonstrates for all time our nation’s ironclad commitment to Social Security,” Reagan announced when he signed the bill.
An example: If you make less than $110K, you pay SS taxes all year. That’s about 90% of us. Someone that makes $1M pays them for only 5 weeks. Why? You really think they’d notice the difference in their $20K weekly paycheck. Wonder how that would change the math for SS long-term.