Social Security deficits now ‘permanent’

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

Social Security deficits now ‘permanent’

Written By : TrogloPundit

Just thought you’d like to know:

Social Security will run a permanent yearly deficit when looking at the program’s tax revenues compared to what it must pay out in benefits, the program’s trustees said Friday…

But never fear!

The trustees stressed that exhaustion of the trust funds doesn’t mean the programs will stop paying all benefits. Social Security could fund about three-fourths of benefits past 2036…

…when I’ll turn 66…

…and Medicare could pay 90 percent of benefits past 2024…

…when I’ll turn 54…

…under current trends.

That “under current trends” is an important phrase. Congress could enact changes to these programs that would in turn change these estimates. But the only “change” Democrats seem willing to pursue are tax increases. Short term (and maybe long term), tax increases would shore up these programs.

But only until the next time the bennies get better.

Republicans want to make other, more structural changes to the programs. Resistance to that will include some form of: “you’re taking away our Social Security!” Which will, in a way, be kinda-sorta true. Had I my druthers, Social Security and Medicare would look quite different than they do today.

But the real question I have for reform opponents is: why do you want to depend on a program that the government can take away? Wouldn’t you rather have something that you own?*

Via Memeorandum. Posted by The TrogloPundit.

*Note: yes, I know, the government can take that away, too. But come on, let’s have a little optimism.

Pingback: Social Security deficits now ‘permanent’ « The TrogloPundit
Anonymous

Social Security has been in surplus since its inception. If there is ever a default on a single percentage of benefits due to the people who paid into the system all of their lives, it is due to the use of those contributions to balance or reduce deficits in the federal budget.If you don’t like it, you should have warned your parents not to vote fo Reagan. Then again I think you probably voted for Bush, who went around during his second term trying to convince people to invest their contributions in Wall Street.That was less than a year before the crash of 2007. Tough luck. Wrong party.

Anonymous

wrong. Flagged for lying

Anonymous

Only grumps can’t handle the truth.
Anonymous

Only grumps can’t handle the truth.
Anonymous

Only grumps can’t handle the truth.

Anonymous

Your mother can handle the Dick though
Anonymous

Your mother can handle the Dick though

Anonymous

Pretty sick guy, and a lonely one at that. Dick, try to find yourself a companion. You’ll be less frustrated and grumpy.
Anonymous

Nixon is married Joe. Has a family, unlike you. Your mom is good for the really disgusting stuff though. Only charges a small user fee.
Anonymous

Nixon is married Joe. Has a family, unlike you. Your mom is good for the really disgusting stuff though. Only charges a small user fee.
Anonymous

Nixon is married Joe. Has a family, unlike you. Your mom is good for the really disgusting stuff though. Only charges a small user fee.
Anonymous

Nixon is married Joe. Has a family, unlike you. Your mom is good for the really disgusting stuff though. Only charges a small user fee.

Anonymous

Your mother can handle the Dick though
Anonymous

Your mother can handle the Dick though
Anonymous

Your mother can handle the Dick though
Anonymous

Your mother can handle the Dick though

Anonymous

Only grumps can’t handle the truth.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

I got a new job……

Then I lost our best client….

I cost the company millions…..

But the guy that I replaced…..

The one that left the company 25 years ago……

WELL IT HIS FAULT !!!!

How can you blame ME…..

I know he has been gone 25 years….

IT’S HIS FAULT NOT MINE !!

Ya’know commie, you just are far to stupid to EVER comprehend how trully idiotic you are.

Regan & Bush are NO LONGER in office retard.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

I got a new job……

Then I lost our best client….

I cost the company millions…..

But the guy that I replaced…..

The one that left the company 25 years ago……

WELL IT HIS FAULT !!!!

How can you blame ME…..

I know he has been gone 25 years….

IT’S HIS FAULT NOT MINE !!

Ya’know commie, you just are far to stupid to EVER comprehend how trully idiotic you are.

Regan & Bush are NO LONGER in office retard.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

I got a new job……

Then I lost our best client….

I cost the company millions…..

But the guy that I replaced…..

The one that left the company 25 years ago……

WELL IT HIS FAULT !!!!

How can you blame ME…..

I know he has been gone 25 years….

IT’S HIS FAULT NOT MINE !!

Ya’know commie, you just are far to stupid to EVER comprehend how trully idiotic you are.

Regan & Bush are NO LONGER in office retard.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

I got a new job……

Then I lost our best client….

I cost the company millions…..

But the guy that I replaced…..

The one that left the company 25 years ago……

WELL IT HIS FAULT !!!!

How can you blame ME…..

I know he has been gone 25 years….

IT’S HIS FAULT NOT MINE !!

Ya’know commie, you just are far to stupid to EVER comprehend how trully idiotic you are.

Regan & Bush are NO LONGER in office retard.

Anonymous

If it’s to be maintained SS should be fundamentally altered so that it is impossible to run a deficit.

The tax rate should be automatically adjusted every year so that it always breaks even after payouts.

The retirement age should be pegged to the average lifespan in some way and the amount paid out should be fixed at some percentage of the median income.

Yeah it screws over some people but it won’t be able to add to the debt or be tinkered with by politicians up for reelection.

Anonymous

The problem of future deficits is easily resolved by taking the salary or income cap off of Social Security. Whatever you earn, the same deduction is made without limit.

But noooooooooo. That would be unfair to the wealthy or people with very high incomes, most GOP supporters say. Let’s not penalize the wealthy. Afterall, if we do that, it will cost us jobs. How? Well, we don’t know but it is as good an excuse as any.

Bill Dalasio

That would only make sense if there were no cap on benefits.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JYR4WLKJZYFC4LAMKERJ6NLNHQ DrEvil

Exactly, the high earners/contributors already get a much smaller return in comparison to their contributions. Increasing the base on which taxes are paid is an option but it should still be limited and benefits as a percentage of contribution for the high earners would be reduced even more. Lefties like Joe see no problem with successful people subsidizing the life choices of the less successful.

Have an evil day
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JYR4WLKJZYFC4LAMKERJ6NLNHQ DrEvil

Exactly, the high earners/contributors already get a much smaller return in comparison to their contributions. Increasing the base on which taxes are paid is an option but it should still be limited and benefits as a percentage of contribution for the high earners would be reduced even more. Lefties like Joe see no problem with successful people subsidizing the life choices of the less successful.

Have an evil day

Anonymous

Well, that’s what I said. The GOP would defend the wealthy by claiming unfairness. Sorry, folks, but if you want to argue fairness than everyone should pay the same income tax, and I’m not talking flat tax, I’m talking the same dollars no matter what one makes. But a progressive tax system like ours was once fair. The wealthy got to use our economic system and paid in proportion to their income. No more, at least not since Reagan.
Anonymous

Well, that’s what I said. The GOP would defend the wealthy by claiming unfairness. Sorry, folks, but if you want to argue fairness than everyone should pay the same income tax, and I’m not talking flat tax, I’m talking the same dollars no matter what one makes. But a progressive tax system like ours was once fair. The wealthy got to use our economic system and paid in proportion to their income. No more, at least not since Reagan.

Bill Dalasio

That would only make sense if there were no cap on benefits.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

How about we make it OPTIONAL but nooooo

You stupid commies would NEVER go for something that involves CHOICE in any way shape or form. You morons cant stand letting the citizen decide anything on their own.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

How about we make it OPTIONAL but nooooo

You stupid commies would NEVER go for something that involves CHOICE in any way shape or form. You morons cant stand letting the citizen decide anything on their own.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Michelle-Hart/100001365605444 Michelle Hart

How about we make it OPTIONAL but nooooo

You stupid commies would NEVER go for something that involves CHOICE in any way shape or form. You morons cant stand letting the citizen decide anything on their own.

Anonymous

All that is not compulsory is forbidden.

Choice is for free a people.

We have Progressed beyond the need for freedom with the help of slowjoe and voters like him.

You will be taken care of, maybe, and all that is asked for in return is everything Americans have fought for over the past 240 years or so.
Anonymous

All that is not compulsory is forbidden.

Choice is for free a people.

We have Progressed beyond the need for freedom with the help of slowjoe and voters like him.

You will be taken care of, maybe, and all that is asked for in return is everything Americans have fought for over the past 240 years or so.
Anonymous

All that is not compulsory is forbidden.

Choice is for free a people.

We have Progressed beyond the need for freedom with the help of slowjoe and voters like him.

You will be taken care of, maybe, and all that is asked for in return is everything Americans have fought for over the past 240 years or so.

http://norunnyeggs.com steveegg

Not exactly. Even if you didn’t increase the benefits to match (which, believe it or not, are already progressive), lifting the income cap would only push the fund exhaustion date 2 years into the future.

Anonymous

If it’s to be maintained SS should be fundamentally altered so that it is impossible to run a deficit.

The tax rate should be automatically adjusted every year so that it always breaks even after payouts.

The retirement age should be pegged to the average lifespan in some way and the amount paid out should be fixed at some percentage of the median income.

Yeah it screws over some people but it won’t be able to add to the debt or be tinkered with by politicians up for reelection.
Pingback: Latest Kung Fu Panda 2 News | GTrends
Pingback: Latest Ledge News | GTrends
Pingback: FreePictureHosting.com - How much does your local news broadcaster make?
Pingback: Latest Hangover Part II News | GTrends
Pingback: Latest Josh Turner News | GTrends
Pingback: Latest Affiliate auctions | Affiliate Online Marketing Tools
Pingback: Latest Mcc News | GTrends
Pingback: Home-Based Multimedia Certification Training Courses In Web Design – Updated - The Insanity Workout » The Insanity Workout
Pingback: Bildschallplatten » Blog Archive » Swimming: Wilson’s Smith, D’Sa Set Records
Pingback: Black Friday – The Day to Get Your Gift Products at Rock Bottom Rates - The Insanity Workout » The Insanity Workout
President Friedman

What’s really interesting to me is when we’re talking about Social Security’s pending insolvency, nobody ever mentions the one really substantial tax cut Obama has implemented since coming to office, that went into effect this year: an across the board 2% reduction in the employee’s portion of Social Security withholding tax. To my knowledge, that has never been done before, and I’m honestly shocked it came from a Democratic administration, becaue a) it diverts funds from social security b) it’s a pretty regressive tax break (effects everyone the same up to the Soc Security contribution limit of $106,800 income), and c) it will be very hard to ever end (letting this tax break expire in 2012 will mean a tax increase for people who make minimum wage).

I don’t know why this tax break never gets any attention but I suspect it is because a) Republicans don’t want to admit it exists and b) Democrats are fine with Republicans feeling that way because they have no idea how to exploit it politically.

http://norunnyeggs.com steveegg

That’s actually addressed in the report. The “good” news is the revenue that isn’t being collected and deposited into the “trust funds” via the FICA/SECA reduction (to 4.2% of the employee portion, which is closer to a 16% tax cut than a 2%) is being put in by general revenue funds instead. The bad news is that, because we are essentially borrowing from general funds in order to borrow from the “trust funds”, it’s more expensive to do it that way rather than reducing the value of the “trust funds”.

Pingback: Security men killed in Baghdad, 2 Norwegians hurt (AP) | FEED NEWS
Pingback: Pakistan questions teenager U.S. linked to militants (Reuters) | FEED NEWS
Pingback: Baghdad road bomb kills Iraqi, wounds 2 Norwegians (AFP) | FEED NEWS
Pingback: ‘Old cluster bomb’ kills three Iraqi children (AFP) | FEED NEWS
Pingback: Anyone know a proxy server that isn’t blocked by the “Bess”security system?
Pingback: Cholesterol Diet Plan | News Search | fitness-care

The History of Ernesto Che Guevara – A Short Story

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

The Best Quotes From “Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To”

Hey Lady Gaga, Kids Have a Time-Tested Answer for Bullies: Punch Them in the Mouth

Seven Differences Between Winners And Losers

The Problem With The Occupy Wall Street Generation

The 20 Most Influential Black Republicans

Talking With Chuck D. From Public Enemy About Farrakhan, Air America’s Failure, And Open Borders

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN