PearlHowardman Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/business...rity&st=cse Social Security to See Payout Exceed Pay-In This Year By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH Published: March 24, 2010 The bursting of the real estate bubble and the ensuing recession have hurt jobs, home prices and now Social Security. This year, the system will pay out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes, an important threshold it was not expected to cross until at least 2016, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Stephen C. Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said that while the Congressional projection would probably be borne out, the change would have no effect on benefits in 2010 and retirees would keep receiving their checks as usual. The problem, he said, is that payments have risen more than expected during the downturn, because jobs disappeared and people applied for benefits sooner than they had planned. At the same time, the program’s revenue has fallen sharply, because there are fewer paychecks to tax. Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances. “When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday. ...more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 You mean the government estimates were optimistic and wrong? Let's hope that never happens again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Bottom Line: If congress knew of these horrible numbers would they have voted for Obama's health care? Remember, the plan only won by 4 votes. So, if you present today's CBO findings to the 220 Democrats who voted for Obama's plan, do you think you could get 4 or more representatives to admit that if they knew this information they would have voted 'No'? Pretty strange how it's released just a few days after the health care plan passed. The article generated 416 comments when the NY Times put it up. Then they pulled it down pretty quick. "Change The Gullible Can Believe In" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Bottom Line: If congress knew of these horrible numbers would they have voted for Obama's health care? Remember, the plan only won by 4 votes. They did know. I read about this last week. They don't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 We are so !@#$ed. I am so close to taking all our retirement pulling a 72t early distribution and living a simple life on an island. Unfortunately I have too much unfinished work here to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 We are so !@#$ed. Sooner or later Fed Gov will collapse under the weight of its own greed. Can't happen soon enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Obama = Hope! We can all live on hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 They did know. I read about this last week. They don't care. Exactly. Anyone who looked at the bill realized it had all sorts of deception and chicanery to make it "deficit reducing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 25, 2010 Share Posted March 25, 2010 Nothing to see here folks move along Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted March 25, 2010 Author Share Posted March 25, 2010 Exactly. Anyone who looked at the bill realized it had all sorts of deception and chicanery to make it "deficit reducing." The Congressional Budget Office, the agency that the Obama administration used to review the Obama health plan, was off by six whole years! I wonder how bad they screwed up the Obama health care bill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 This has been predicted for decades, the baby boomers are starting retire and collect and young families are shrinking to one or two kids. More people drawing out than people paying into it. I undertand the money sits in a non-interest bearing account, shouldn't they have invested that money somehow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 This has been predicted for decades, the baby boomers are starting retire and collect and young families are shrinking to one or two kids. More people drawing out than people paying into it. I undertand the money sits in a non-interest bearing account, shouldn't they have invested that money somehow? You mean, like the previous administration suggested, and was shot down because it was irresponsible? Actually, they use the money to buy treasury bonds. The government basically funds the budget deficit by borrowing money out of Social Security, and promising to pay it back with interest. I think it was Gore who bitched (inaccurately) about that being "stealing" from Social Security - though once the government defaults on those bonds, it'll be a moot point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 You mean, like the previous administration suggested, and was shot down because it was irresponsible? Actually, they use the money to buy treasury bonds. The government basically funds the budget deficit by borrowing money out of Social Security, and promising to pay it back with interest. I think it was Gore who bitched (inaccurately) about that being "stealing" from Social Security - though once the government defaults on those bonds, it'll be a moot point. The spreads are so low on T-Bills it is stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 This has been predicted for decades, the baby boomers are starting retire and collect and young families are shrinking to one or two kids. More people drawing out than people paying into it. I undertand the money sits in a non-interest bearing account, shouldn't they have invested that money somehow? Yes, that's right. All the money people have been paying into SS is in a non-interest bearing account somewhere. Just sitting there. Doing nothing. Sleeeep. Sleeeep. Poppies will make him sleep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Yes, that's right. All the money people have been paying into SS is in a non-interest bearing account somewhere. Just sitting there. Doing nothing. Sleeeep. Sleeeep. Poppies will make him sleep. Actually that would be better than reality. The government has been taking and spending that money for ions and issuing IOU's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Actually that would be better than reality. The government has been taking and spending that money for ions and issuing IOU's. You make no sense. You wrote this: I undertand the money sits in a non-interest bearing account, shouldn't they have invested that money somehow? What the hell were you referring to if you weren't referring to the SS money the government has been collecting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 Actually that would be better than reality. The government has been taking and spending that money for ions and issuing IOU's. We need a whole lot more ions, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted March 26, 2010 Author Share Posted March 26, 2010 This has been predicted for decades... But the CBO predicted this wouldn't happen until 2016. So not only are we six years ahead of schedule but the Democrats just passed another HUGE entitlement program. Shouldn't Obama have got the US government financial house in order BEFORE adding new entitlement programs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 But the CBO predicted this wouldn't happen until 2016. So not only are we six years ahead of schedule but the Democrats just passed another HUGE entitlement program. Shouldn't Obama have got the US government financial house in order BEFORE adding new entitlement programs? IIRC. The CBO projected in 1967 that Medicare would cost 12 Billion by 1990. In 1990 medicare was about 180 billion. Three cheers for the CBO, they're so smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 26, 2010 Share Posted March 26, 2010 IIRC. The CBO projected in 1967 that Medicare would cost 12 Billion by 1990. In 1990 medicare was about 180 billion. Three cheers for the CBO, they're so smart. Yeah, Damm them for getting that inflation factor wrong. How could that possibly happen with inflation being such a huge problem from 1950 to 1970? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts