Impossible to even comprehend these numbers....

[Obvious Li]

n their November Wall Street Journal article, writers Chris Cox and Bill Archer explain the lack of knowledge about the unfunded liabilities as:



The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.



Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet.



To be sure, the nation's fiscal problems are a bi-partisan issue, caused by years of buying votes among specific constituencies. As a result, those constituencies are now entitled to the benefits which have yet to be paid for.



Today, while those politicians wrestle with Obama's self-induced sequestration deal, (which slashes defense spending while barely nibbling at the fat that has become the national budget), no one wants to deal with the real issue at hand: Politicians in Washington have enslaved future generations with the costs of various entitlement programs.



Perhaps it's time we raise it to their attention–seriously.

[Romero]

They're impossible to comprehend because they don't exist. Just a bunch of numbers made up and added together.



Social Security pays for itself and in fact runs a surplus every year. Medicare is paid for through taxes. Future retirement benefits are paid into.



The authors are adding up imaginary "unfunded liabilities" without taking any actual revenue paying for them into account.

[Odinson]

They're impossible to comprehend because they don't exist. Just a bunch of numbers made up and added together.



Social Security pays for itself and in fact runs a surplus every year. Medicare is paid for through taxes. Future retirement benefits are paid into.



The authors are adding up imaginary "unfunded liabilities" without taking any actual revenue paying for them into account.

How does social security pay for itself? You do know that "minus" means that there´s no money.



Social security is in gross debt in every country...



Pull your head out of your ass already!



Stop your commie bullshit!

[Romero]

In the US, Social Security is funded by payroll taxes. "Minus"? "No money"? US Social Security currently has a $2.7 trillion surplus.



Social security in other countries is funded by deductions and taxes. I don't know of any country where it's grossly in debt.

[Anonymous]

n their November Wall Street Journal article, writers Chris Cox and Bill Archer explain the lack of knowledge about the unfunded liabilities as:



The actual liabilities of the federal government—including Social Security, Medicare, and federal employees' future retirement benefits—already exceed $86.8 trillion, or 550% of GDP. For the year ending Dec. 31, 2011, the annual accrued expense of Medicare and Social Security was $7 trillion. Nothing like that figure is used in calculating the deficit. In reality, the reported budget deficit is less than one-fifth of the more accurate figure.



Why haven't Americans heard about the titanic $86.8 trillion liability from these programs? One reason: The actual figures do not appear in black and white on any balance sheet.



To be sure, the nation's fiscal problems are a bi-partisan issue, caused by years of buying votes among specific constituencies. As a result, those constituencies are now entitled to the benefits which have yet to be paid for.



Today, while those politicians wrestle with Obama's self-induced sequestration deal, (which slashes defense spending while barely nibbling at the fat that has become the national budget), no one wants to deal with the real issue at hand: Politicians in Washington have enslaved future generations with the costs of various entitlement programs.



Perhaps it's time we raise it to their attention–seriously.

During the 2008 recession a deacon in our church who is also works in banking told us we must save as much as we can for our retirement if we do not want to be destitute..



I have girlfriends that need to follow that advice before it is too late

[Obvious Li]

They're impossible to comprehend because they don't exist. Just a bunch of numbers made up and added together.



Social Security pays for itself and in fact runs a surplus every year. Medicare is paid for through taxes. Future retirement benefits are paid into.



The authors are adding up imaginary "unfunded liabilities" without taking any actual revenue paying for them into account.

Homy...when you hear the term "unfunded liabilities" do you think it means that those future liabilities are funded or not funded....if they are not funded then i am pretty sure it means there wil not be enough funds to cover the shortfall by what ever amount it amounts too.....i think most people understand that "unfunded liabilities" means that currently there are no mechanisms in place to cover those future debts that will occur automatically .....please think more carefully before engaging if financial debates...i expect more from you.

[Renee]

In the US, Social Security is funded by payroll taxes. "Minus"? "No money"? US Social Security currently has a $2.7 trillion surplus.



Social security in other countries is funded by deductions and taxes. I don't know of any country where it's grossly in debt.

Wrong! The payroll taxes taken into the S.S. trust fund do NOT meet all of S.S. obligations. S.S. currently has NO surplus and has run deficits since 2010.



"In the past, when inflows exceed outflows, the surplus was used to fund other government programs. However, beginning in 2010, deficits have been the rule. The deficits in the past few years were as follows: $49 billion in 2010; $45 billion in 2011; and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees expect the deficit to average $75 billion each fiscal year from 2013 to 2018 before rising sharply."



"In 1983, Congress amended the program to allow for the accumulation of money to pay for the soon-to-be-retiring baby boomers. Payroll taxes were also increased at that time. Due to higher tax withholding, surpluses quickly emerged and, as some would say, Congress proceeded to "raid" the trust fund.

Since there is no actual money in the trust fund, only special bonds with a promise to repay, some describe it as a pile of worthless IOU's."



http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/06/12/is-the-social-security-trust-fund-solvent/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/ ... d-solvent/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2013/06/12/is-the-social-security-trust-fund-solvent/



"People tend to think of their Social Security benefits as an actual account, in their name, which contains cash or investments. In reality, the Social Security trust fund contains nothing more than IOUs that have no value beyond a promise to impose higher taxes on future workers."



http://www.uschamber.com/issues/retirementpension/socialsecurity/trust-fund-myth">http://www.uschamber.com/issues/retirem ... -fund-myth">http://www.uschamber.com/issues/retirementpension/socialsecurity/trust-fund-myth

[Romero]

Just more fear mongering in an attempt to take away or privatize people's Social Security. You're talking about one of Social Security's trust funds, not Social Security overall.

I keep hearing that Social Security is about to go broke. What do the numbers show?



The Trustees' Report presents these data:



- Social Security has $2.73 Trillion in trust fund reserves.



- Social Security reserves are still growing and will continue to grow through 2020.



That can't be right. I've heard that Social Security has been losing money since 2010.



Read the fine print. Starting in 2010, Social Security expenses exceeded "non-interest" income — primarily payroll taxes. But that ignores the interest Social Security earns on invested funds. If you take all income into account, Social Security had a surplus of $54 Billion in 2012 operations.



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exposing-the-social-security-solvency-hype-2013-06-12">//http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exposing-the-social-security-solvency-hype-2013-06-12

With an ageing population, there will have to be some minor changes. But Social Security is fiscally sound for the next couple of decades and has been generating surpluses every year since 1983.



We need only look at the basic numbers. In 2012, Social Security had projected revenues of $846 billion and outlays of $789 billion. The overall surplus is indeed $2.7 trillion.

[Renee]

Just more fear mongering in an attempt to take away or privatize people's Social Security. You're talking about one of Social Security's trust funds, not Social Security overall.

I keep hearing that Social Security is about to go broke. What do the numbers show?



The Trustees' Report presents these data:



- Social Security has $2.73 Trillion in trust fund reserves.



- Social Security reserves are still growing and will continue to grow through 2020.



That can't be right. I've heard that Social Security has been losing money since 2010.



Read the fine print. Starting in 2010, Social Security expenses exceeded "non-interest" income — primarily payroll taxes. But that ignores the interest Social Security earns on invested funds. If you take all income into account, Social Security had a surplus of $54 Billion in 2012 operations.



http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exposing-the-social-security-solvency-hype-2013-06-12">//http://www.marketwatch.com/story/exposing-the-social-security-solvency-hype-2013-06-12

With an ageing population, there will have to be some minor changes. But Social Security is fiscally sound for the next couple of decades and has been generating surpluses every year since 1983.



We need only look at the basic numbers. In 2012, Social Security had projected revenues of $846 billion and outlays of $789 billion. The overall surplus is indeed $2.7 trillion.

Once again you go out of your way to show how little you actually understand how the US government works. But that's okay because you are a far left Canadian and you are entitled to all the false opinions and mythologies you can conjure up regarding the US.  It's just what you folks do.



The most ironic part of this is the fact that NONE of what you speak even concerns you.



"From 1985 through 2009, Social Security's dedicated taxes exceeded its expenses. In 2010, this situation reversed, and expenses exceeded dedicated taxes. This state of affairs continued in 2011 and is projected to continue every year into the foreseeable future."

"This $2.7 trillion debt that the Treasury owes to Social Security amounts to $8,734 for every person living in the U.S. or $23,046 for every household in the U.S.[96] (Facts about the ability of the Treasury to service this debt are detailed below in the section entitled Impact on National Debt.)"



http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp">http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp



For the past 3 years S.S. has NOT had a surplus. The money it takes in in yearly payroll taxes does not cover its expenditures and must be augmented by the trust fund. Since the trust fund is funded by treasury bonds that not for sale to the general public and are not backed by the market they are nothing more than treasury IOUs.

 

The surplus that you are referring to is an existing surplus that has built up over the past decades. 2010 makes the first year that payroll taxes did not cover the outgoing benefits and will not cover the outgoing benefits for the foreseeable future without cuts in government spending, increased taxes or benefit reduction. S.S. IS NOT operating at a surplus. Get that thru your head.

[Romero]

Once again you go out of your way to show how little you actually understand how the US government works. But that's okay because you are a far left Canadian and you are entitled to all the false opinions and mythologies you can conjure up regarding the US. It's just what you folks do.



The most ironic part of this is the fact that NONE of what you speak even concerns you.

Does it concern Obvious Li? I shall be concerned with whatever I wish. I want you and your family to enjoy the Social Security benefits you deserve. I don't want them taken away from you or any other American.



You're still cherry picking dedicated taxes and one of Social Security's trust funds. You're correct about those, but we're supposed to be talking about Social Security overall. Not pieces of it. All revenue. All expenditure.



From your link:

After 2033, Social Security is projected to run deficits every year

Again, that can be fixed with minor changes.



I'm not wrong about Social Security as a whole. It's a fact that it has generated surpluses every year since 1983 and will continue to do so for a couple of decades. It's a fact that it currently has a surplus of $2.7 trillion.

[Anonymous]

They're impossible to comprehend because they don't exist. Just a bunch of numbers made up and added together.



Social Security pays for itself and in fact runs a surplus every year. Medicare is paid for through taxes. Future retirement benefits are paid into.



The authors are adding up imaginary "unfunded liabilities" without taking any actual revenue paying for them into account.

Homy...when you hear the term "unfunded liabilities" do you think it means that those future liabilities are funded or not funded....if they are not funded then i am pretty sure it means there wil not be enough funds to cover the shortfall by what ever amount it amounts too.....i think most people understand that "unfunded liabilities" means that currently there are no mechanisms in place to cover those future debts that will occur automatically .....please think more carefully before engaging if financial debates...i expect more from you.

We are having municipal election here in Alberta in less than two weeks. I live in what SHOULD be the most prosperous city on the continent yet we have a $3 billion dollar debt. We have never had a fiscally conservative mayor, but I am still hoping it is Diotte or Detroit.

[Anonymous]

They're impossible to comprehend because they don't exist. Just a bunch of numbers made up and added together.



Social Security pays for itself and in fact runs a surplus every year. Medicare is paid for through taxes. Future retirement benefits are paid into.



The authors are adding up imaginary "unfunded liabilities" without taking any actual revenue paying for them into account.

Homy...when you hear the term "unfunded liabilities" do you think it means that those future liabilities are funded or not funded....if they are not funded then i am pretty sure it means there wil not be enough funds to cover the shortfall by what ever amount it amounts too.....i think most people understand that "unfunded liabilities" means that currently there are no mechanisms in place to cover those future debts that will occur automatically .....please think more carefully before engaging if financial debates...i expect more from you.

We are having municipal election here in Alberta in less than two weeks. I live in what SHOULD be the most prosperous city on the continent yet we have a $3 billion dollar debt. Continuous leftist administrations ensure my son will have to pay for past irresponsible NDP city councils.  We have never had a fiscally conservative mayor/city council, but I am still hoping it is Diotte or Detroit.

[Renee]

Once again you go out of your way to show how little you actually understand how the US government works. But that's okay because you are a far left Canadian and you are entitled to all the false opinions and mythologies you can conjure up regarding the US. It's just what you folks do.



The most ironic part of this is the fact that NONE of what you speak even concerns you.

Does it concern Obvious Li? I shall be concerned with whatever I wish. I want you and your family to enjoy the Social Security benefits you deserve. I don't want them taken away from you or any other American.



You're still cherry picking dedicated taxes and one of Social Security's trust funds. You're correct about those, but we're supposed to be talking about Social Security overall. Not pieces of it. All revenue. All expenditure.



From your link:

After 2033, Social Security is projected to run deficits every year

Again, that can be fixed with minor changes.



I'm not wrong about Social Security as a whole. It's a fact that it has generated surpluses every year since 1983 and will continue to do so for a couple of decades. It's a fact that it currently has a surplus of $2.7 trillion.

It has a current surplus but it does not OPERATE at a surplus; each year it takes in less than it pays out; do you understand the difference? Effectively it is operating at a deficit and has no surplus. This year the social security increase paid out to recipients will be the smallest increase in several decades because it is running out of money. It is not okay overall. That is one of the lies that the left uses so that they can continue to spend and spend without ever addressing real government budgetary issues. You see this in how they lie and demonize anyone who dares try to make an issue out of curbing government spending.

 

BTW, I think it might concern Obvious because I believe he once lived and worked in the US and thus paid payroll taxes. Have YOU ever paid US payroll taxes?

 

I appreciate your concern for me and my family Romero but you are doing exactly what liberal politicians do. You are claiming that S.S. is perfectly okay and that only some minor adjustments will be needed to preserve it. That is patently not true. In order for S.S. to remain solvent over the long haul the government will need to significantly cut government spending and considering how Washington works, that will not happen in my lifetime. With more and more people sucking the government teat each year in the form of food stamps, welfare, disability, social security and now Obamacare the taxpayer base will be squeezed until there is nothing left. So what are the alternatives? For one we will be seeing higher taxes on business and employees just to keep S.S. alive. Strangling government taxes may be okay with you Canadians but traditionally they don't sit well with the middleclass in the US. The other alternative is to cut S.S. and disability benefits but either way "We the People" will get fucked over and over again. Liberals like you are always so open handed with the money and you especially like to open your hand when the money isn't yours.

 

So much for your "minor changes", please get a clue.

[Anonymous]

Once again you go out of your way to show how little you actually understand how the US government works. But that's okay because you are a far left Canadian and you are entitled to all the false opinions and mythologies you can conjure up regarding the US. It's just what you folks do.



The most ironic part of this is the fact that NONE of what you speak even concerns you.

Does it concern Obvious Li? I shall be concerned with whatever I wish. I want you and your family to enjoy the Social Security benefits you deserve. I don't want them taken away from you or any other American.



You're still cherry picking dedicated taxes and one of Social Security's trust funds. You're correct about those, but we're supposed to be talking about Social Security overall. Not pieces of it. All revenue. All expenditure.



From your link:

After 2033, Social Security is projected to run deficits every year

Again, that can be fixed with minor changes.



I'm not wrong about Social Security as a whole. It's a fact that it has generated surpluses every year since 1983 and will continue to do so for a couple of decades. It's a fact that it currently has a surplus of $2.7 trillion.

It has a current surplus but it does not OPERATE at a surplus; each year it takes in less than it pays out; do you understand the difference? Effectively it is operating at a deficit and has no surplus. This year the social security increase paid out to recipients will be the smallest increase in several decades because it is running out of money. It is not okay overall. That is one of the lies that the left uses so that they can continue to spend and spend without ever addressing real government budgetary issues. You see this in how they lie and demonize anyone who dares try to make an issue out of curbing government spending.

 

BTW, I think it might concern Obvious because I believe he once lived and worked in the US and thus paid payroll taxes. Have YOU ever paid US payroll taxes?

 

I appreciate your concern for me and my family Romero but you are doing exactly what liberal politicians do. You are claiming that S.S. is perfectly okay and that only some minor adjustments will be needed to preserve it. That is patently not true. In order for S.S. to remain solvent over the long haul the government will need to significantly cut government spending and considering how Washington works, that will not happen in my lifetime. With more and more people sucking the government teat each year in the form of food stamps, welfare, disability, social security and now Obamacare the taxpayer base will be squeezed until there is nothing left. So what are the alternatives? For one we will be seeing higher taxes on business and employees just to keep S.S. alive. Strangling government taxes may be okay with you Canadians but traditionally they don't sit well with the middleclass in the US. The other alternative is to cut S.S. and disability benefits but either way "We the People" will get fucked over and over again. Liberals like you are always so open handed with the money and you especially like to open your hand when the money isn't yours.

 

So much for your "minor changes", please get a clue.

I wish I could find the article, but I read too that SS can NOT last as it stands right now. This is happening throughout the Western world as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries gets smaller. Social programs worked well for about a generation, but they are no longer sustainable. Lower people's taxes and use that money to save for your own retirement. Counting on crumbs from the table of brokeass government is suicide.

[Renee]

Does it concern Obvious Li? I shall be concerned with whatever I wish. I want you and your family to enjoy the Social Security benefits you deserve. I don't want them taken away from you or any other American.



You're still cherry picking dedicated taxes and one of Social Security's trust funds. You're correct about those, but we're supposed to be talking about Social Security overall. Not pieces of it. All revenue. All expenditure.



From your link:







Again, that can be fixed with minor changes.



I'm not wrong about Social Security as a whole. It's a fact that it has generated surpluses every year since 1983 and will continue to do so for a couple of decades. It's a fact that it currently has a surplus of $2.7 trillion.

It has a current surplus but it does not OPERATE at a surplus; each year it takes in less than it pays out; do you understand the difference? Effectively it is operating at a deficit and has no surplus. This year the social security increase paid out to recipients will be the smallest increase in several decades because it is running out of money. It is not okay overall. That is one of the lies that the left uses so that they can continue to spend and spend without ever addressing real government budgetary issues. You see this in how they lie and demonize anyone who dares try to make an issue out of curbing government spending.

 

BTW, I think it might concern Obvious because I believe he once lived and worked in the US and thus paid payroll taxes. Have YOU ever paid US payroll taxes?

 

I appreciate your concern for me and my family Romero but you are doing exactly what liberal politicians do. You are claiming that S.S. is perfectly okay and that only some minor adjustments will be needed to preserve it. That is patently not true. In order for S.S. to remain solvent over the long haul the government will need to significantly cut government spending and considering how Washington works, that will not happen in my lifetime. With more and more people sucking the government teat each year in the form of food stamps, welfare, disability, social security and now Obamacare the taxpayer base will be squeezed until there is nothing left. So what are the alternatives? For one we will be seeing higher taxes on business and employees just to keep S.S. alive. Strangling government taxes may be okay with you Canadians but traditionally they don't sit well with the middleclass in the US. The other alternative is to cut S.S. and disability benefits but either way "We the People" will get fucked over and over again. Liberals like you are always so open handed with the money and you especially like to open your hand when the money isn't yours.

 

So much for your "minor changes", please get a clue.

I wish I could find the article, but I read too that SS can NOT last as it stands right now. This is happening throughout the Western world as the ratio of workers to beneficiaries gets smaller. Social programs worked well for about a generation, but they are no longer sustainable. Lower people's taxes and use that money to save for your own retirement. Counting on crumbs from the table of brokeass government is suicide.

That has been suggested several times in the past two decades and every time someone mentions a privatized program to augment S.S.  the leftist dementocrats start foaming at the mouth like a pack of rabid raccoons. They just can't stand the fact that a lefty conceived program might not be totally viable in today's world. Furthermore back when S.S. was running a REAL surplus any changes that would have given people a choice of where to put their money was a blow to the government cash cow. No one on the left was ever going to let that happen.