quote:

Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes the 2016 Annual Reports.

Both Social Security and Medicare face long-term financing shortfalls under currently scheduled benefits and financing. Lawmakers have a broad continuum of policy options that would close or reduce the long-term financing shortfall of both programs. The Trustees recommend that lawmakers take action sooner rather than later to address these shortfalls, so that a broader range of solutions can be considered and more time will be available to phase in changes while giving the public adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits...

The Trustees project that the combined trust funds will be depleted in 2034, the same year projected in last year's report.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

Social Security is funded by the payroll taxes of current workers to pay the benefits of current retirees. Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters. The Social Security Trustees project that the cash flow deficits that began in 2010 will continue permanently. That means that to pay full Social Security benefits, the government must cut spending, raise taxes, or borrow more money to finance pension payments.

A central factor in the looming financial crunch is the fact that our society is aging. The “Baby Boom” generation has already started to collect their Social Security retirement benefits. As a result, the number of retirees has grown more rapidly than the number of individuals whose taxes pay for future retirees’ benefits. There are currently two workers supporting each retiree compared to the 17 workers that supported each retiree at the time Social Security was created. Increasing life expectancy and the approaching retirement of more Baby Boomers continues to put increasing pressure on Social Security. According to a Congressional Budget Office report, the number of beneficiaries is expected to increase by nearly one-third from 59 million in 2014 to 78.2 million in 2025, an increase of 32.4 percent. Because of this, the number of workers supporting each Social Security recipient is projected to fall.

According to the most recent Social Security Trustees Report, beneficiaries will face a painful 21 percent benefit cut in 2034 when the Trust Funds are exhausted. At that time, even those who are currently on Social Security may experience indiscriminate cuts in benefits at a time when they are increasingly reliant on the program...

http://paulryan.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=12227

you know---math?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The question seems to be what is a government -- a group of warlords who rode in and took over, or our collective decision making for the common good.

I posted this before, several times, but as usual foreseens problems are not talked about until the shit hits the fan.



Collective government in the USA owns and controls more than any of us knew. Collective totals of investment, gross income, and standing wealth local and Federal government secures, holds, and generates each year is substantially greater than the same from the entire private sector in the USA. Or in other words as Mr. Burien puts it: Russia's (communism's) wet dream of the 1940s per control and ownership held by government with a capitalist / fascist twist. The big earth shaker was that two-thirds of government's gross income was from non-tax sources. Collective standing investment totals held "internationally" from all local and federal government entities in the USA as of 1999 of "liquid" investment assets conservatively as of 1999 exceeded 60 trillion dollars and as of 2010 within its continued growth over 100 trillion dollars has been reached. Did the public or most government employees know this? No, they did not. What about most in the financial arena? No also.. They were not intended to have a cognitive thought on this issue and great efforts were exerted by the control structure to maintain an intentional void and vacuum in the thought processes of the general population not to even think about the issue and specific data was spoon fed the viewers creating a limited view as was intended..

In November 2008, Mr. Burien launched another site designed to offer remedy whereby the collective ownership amassed by government would revert back to the direct benefit of the people through the phasing out of all taxation. The site is called - http://TaxRetirement.com or the TRFA having the registered US Trademark of (Tax Retirement Fund Association) designed to implement the TFR (Tax Retirement Fund) within local venues from across the country through the use of a Four Point Initiative designed to do the job after modification to fit any venue of not lowering but eliminating "all" taxation in this country. Government in its own zeal to take it all over by investment has created the structure necessary to make the TRFs happen tomorrow if the TRF is exerted to happen today. The crusade continues...

HERE

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

read the CBO report you %*#$&^ partisan hack.

quote:

Under current law, CBO projects, Social Security’s trust funds, considered together, will be exhausted in 2029. In that case, benefits in 2030 would need to be reduced by 29 percent from the scheduled amounts. [oh but its just a GOP lie right comrades? I didn't know the GOP ran the CBO.]

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51047

if you want to see the whole shebang, which is likely incomprehensible to most of us, you can look here:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51047-ssupdate-2.pdf

quote:

I am pretty sure the general welfare clause was not meant to include taking money by force and giving it to others. Look up "Not Yours To Give".

quote:

Hamilton’s broad reading met with opposition from many of the other Founders. James Madison repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Thomas Jefferson....

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

it doesn't mean its not there, but there is nothing I saw either in paul ryan, the trustees, or the cbo, that talks about "inflation."

unless you show me differently from THOSE SOURCES, i am going to take it, as it appears, that they are straight forward talking about funds.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Hamilton’s broad reading met with opposition from many of the other Founders. James Madison repeatedly argued that the power to tax and spend did not confer upon Congress the right to do whatever it thought to be in the best interest of the nation, but only to further the ends specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution, a position supported by Thomas Jefferson....

Yeah well, Madison and Jefferson have been over-ruled by several SCOTUS decisions, so fuck them guys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

read the CBO report you %*#$&^ partisan hack.

quote:

Under current law, CBO projects, Social Security’s trust funds, considered together, will be exhausted in 2029. In that case, benefits in 2030 would need to be reduced by 29 percent from the scheduled amounts. [oh but its just a GOP lie right comrades? I didn't know the GOP ran the CBO.]

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51047

if you want to see the whole shebang, which is likely incomprehensible to most of us, you can look here:

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51047-ssupdate-2.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

I'm sorry for quoting such a small chunk of your original text, Ms. Lastic, but I don't understand what's being said here. Is the assertion that workers who are earning around $50,000 per year will see their paycheques shrink? Or are people who earn $50,000 on the receiving end of some social security renumeration of some kind, and that is what will be shrunk by 11 to 35 percent?

pls just call me Lucy...:)
From what I understand they would see their ss checks decrease

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

I'm sorry for quoting such a small chunk of your original text, Ms. Lastic, but I don't understand what's being said here. Is the assertion that workers who are earning around $50,000 per year will see their paycheques shrink? Or are people who earn $50,000 on the receiving end of some social security renumeration of some kind, and that is what will be shrunk by 11 to 35 percent?

pls just call me Lucy...:)
From what I understand they would see their ss checks decrease

Thanks Lucy, for clarifying. My next question is a little more general: why are people who earn 50k collecting benefits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

I'm sorry for quoting such a small chunk of your original text, Ms. Lastic, but I don't understand what's being said here. Is the assertion that workers who are earning around $50,000 per year will see their paycheques shrink? Or are people who earn $50,000 on the receiving end of some social security renumeration of some kind, and that is what will be shrunk by 11 to 35 percent?

pls just call me Lucy...:)
From what I understand they would see their ss checks decrease

Thanks Lucy, for clarifying. My next question is a little more general: why are people who earn 50k collecting benefits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

I'm sorry for quoting such a small chunk of your original text, Ms. Lastic, but I don't understand what's being said here. Is the assertion that workers who are earning around $50,000 per year will see their paycheques shrink? Or are people who earn $50,000 on the receiving end of some social security renumeration of some kind, and that is what will be shrunk by 11 to 35 percent?

pls just call me Lucy...:)
From what I understand they would see their ss checks decrease

Thanks Lucy, for clarifying. My next question is a little more general: why are people who earn 50k collecting benefits?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
There's a video out there of Penn Jillette who used to be as tree-hugging and Pablum©-puking a liberal as there ever was who tells the story of how he decided the left was no longer for him ... basically how he became a Libertarian.
I can't do the story justice, here and Bounty, I know you can't see videos, but it is worth watching. I give you my word.
I will go see if I can find the youtube.
Here it is: The meat of my point starts at about 4:00.
I promise: it is worth the watch.
Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
Thanks Lucy, for clarifying. My next question is a little more general: why are people who earn 50k collecting benefits

Millionaires collect social security. Everyone who paid into it for 10 years collects it when they reach retirement age. That is part of what Trump talked about addressing. Billionaires can opt out of collecting their ss check, but they don't have to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

For most workers, the bill would cut Social Security benefits substantially. As Michael Linden, associate director for tax and budget policy at Center for American Progress, pointed out on Twitter, a letter from Social Security’s Office of the Actuary calculated workers making around $50,000 would see checks shrink by between 11% and 35%.

I'm sorry for quoting such a small chunk of your original text, Ms. Lastic, but I don't understand what's being said here. Is the assertion that workers who are earning around $50,000 per year will see their paycheques shrink? Or are people who earn $50,000 on the receiving end of some social security renumeration of some kind, and that is what will be shrunk by 11 to 35 percent?

pls just call me Lucy...:)
From what I understand they would see their ss checks decrease

Thanks Lucy, for clarifying. My next question is a little more general: why are people who earn 50k collecting benefits?

dunno the answer to that one ....apart from its apparent there is no means testing.