I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

Population of the US = 324,443,471
Today's work force = 152,262,046

When you have less people working than taking, what do you think is happening to the Social Security fund? That's not saying that everyone that is not working is receiving SS, but there are a lot of those that did not put into SS that are receiving money from it, regardless of what some will tell you.

Originally Posted by Guest

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

The spending more than we have has been going on for years. Were you concerned during the Obama years that we as a country had to borrow 45% of every dollar we spent?

That the national debt doubled during Obama's reign?

That more people who are not entitled, nor have paid into the system were added each and every year for the last 8 years?

Nothing new on this subject what so ever!!!

Originally Posted by Guest

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

They BORROW it...take it out of thin air...shazam! Another $ trillion to spend! Woo hoo!

Pick me...pick me...I contributed to your campaign.

Originally Posted by Guest

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

Wow! Another thing to credit Trump with: you have awoken from the sleep walk you have been in the last 8 years...Trump is getting things done on all levels!

I applaud your concern, but you would appear wiser if you did a little research prior to making all those assumptions. That will also help you understand what Obamma had done with the deficit...and how you were foolish not to be concerned when you voted in 2012.

If no one attempts to correct the path to depletion of our SS, the first thing that will happen (legally) will be the lowering of the monthly payout. Meaning, each recipient will get a lower check each month. There is a provision for this in the SS regs, so don't act surprised when it happens. Republicans want to do something to sustain SS, while the left wants to ignore the cliff that is approaching fast. It's not all gloom and doom, just fact that it is either fixed or we do without, period.

Originally Posted by Guest

I heard again this morning on one of the news shows that Social Security is solid until 2033. Is that really a factual statement? Social Security is now paying out more than it takes in so monies are being drawn from "Trust Fund" to make up balance. There are no assets in Trust Fund so I assume money is being taken from general fund. Without spending cuts or increased taxes additional money is being borrowed and added to debt. Is my thinking correct on this or am I missing something. Our new president is gearing up for a big spending spree now. I know better but I'm starting to wonder if there is any downside to spending money we don't have?

You are on the right track in your thinking.

It does appear that spending is now the name of the game, although that is a bit unfair, but still have no heard a word about anything but spending. In addition, our newest drama with Mexico could cost a few bucks.

So keep your eye on the spending which is my second biggest concern (our foreign affairs being first) but there is a glimmer of hope.....House Social Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson, R-Texas has introduced legislation aimed at exactly what you speak of and to try and do it with no harm on current recepeints,

The link below will lead you to some details, etc but basically, Rep Johnson proposes raising the retirement age to 69.

In addition, ranking Democratic member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, Rep. John Larson is also introducing legislation to raise the payroll tax cap on Social Security contributions, which would have a major impact.

Even without the obvious new spending, this needs to be done.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/socia...efit-cuts.html

RE: Social Security
Government hoodwinking the population is not at all new. When first sold to the people it was stated as savings plan and you would withdraw YOUR MONEY in the future. That never was the case. New money is TAKEN from people working to pay out to people collecting. When, first established there were aprox 11 people working for every person collecting today because of us, a trmendous bubble of population going through, there are only 2 1/2 people working for every person collecting. Our government has bought votes by expanding benefits without enough increase in social security tax. It is not just the democrats or just the republicans. Bush (R) added prescription coverage with no additional funding. OBAMA (D) added subsidies for Obamacare and to the surprise of far too many citizens, SOCIAL SECURITY HOLDS 42% OF THE NATIONAL DEBT. While we/I did not agree to this LOAN, the loan was made with NO STATED INTEREST RATE OR TIME THAT THE LOAN IS TO BE REPAID.
Typical of any government, our government will not HONESTLY tell us what is going on-THEY WILL SNEAK IT IN. We just qualified for medicare. REMINDER, WE PAID IN WHATEVER THE TOP RATES WERE. Now we get to pay TWICE the minimum for medicare AND WE HAVE NO INFLATION PROTECTION.
Reminder Social Security holds 42% of the national debt. Obama added TEN TRILLION DOLLARS to the national debt. First of all stop and THINK-do you have any idea what TEN TRILLION DOLLARS IS? Our countries GDP (gross domestic product) in 2016 was EIGHTEEN TRILLION dollars. OUR NATIOAL DEBT IS TWENTY TRILLION DOLLARS. THE UNITED STATES IS BY DEFINITION BANKRUPT.

Originally Posted by Guest

Population of the US = 324,443,471
Today's work force = 152,262,046

When you have less people working than taking, what do you think is happening to the Social Security fund? That's not saying that everyone that is not working is receiving SS, but there are a lot of those that did not put into SS that are receiving money from it, regardless of what some will tell you.

As your income goes up you pay more into social security but, as you pay more your benefit for every dollar you are forced to pay in is far less.
Many people do not realize or perhaps do not want to realize that if you work for someone else your employer matches every dollar you send to social security with and equal dollar. That matching dollar is actually tax free income to you.
That is the reason why many businesses hire self employed contractors-they do not pay social security for these people. As an employee you paid 7% into social security. I was self employed and paid 13%. At a certain income level, the money you receive above that is free of any further payment to social security. Were they watching me?????? Every time I made that top figure and received some income free of the 13% Social Security tax
THE GOVERNMENT RAISED THE CEILING THE FOLLOWING YEAR.

Originally Posted by Guest

Wow! Another thing to credit Trump with: you have awoken from the sleep walk you have been in the last 8 years...Trump is getting things done on all levels!

I applaud your concern, but you would appear wiser if you did a little research prior to making all those assumptions. That will also help you understand what Obamma had done with the deficit...and how you were foolish not to be concerned when you voted in 2012.

Ha, ha, ha.....you are speaking of HIS deficit right? Do you even understand what a deficit is? He decreased how large the bill is OVER the budget. Of course, he didn't have a budget but we won't go there. Deficit spending is spending above your means. To say that you lowered your deficit, you should be embarrassed and ashamed. There should not be ANY deficit. There should be a balanced budget and then even spend less than the incoming revenues so that you can pay down on the national debt. No president has paid down on the National Debt since Eisenhower.

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Ha, ha, ha.....you are speaking of HIS deficit right?

Please forgive my clerical error, I meant to type "debt". Needed more coffee this morning, late night at bingo...Thanks for bringing it to my attension.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

Please forgive my clerical error, I meant to type "debt". Needed more coffee this morning, late night at bingo...Thanks for bringing it to my attension.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

No need to apologize on that. My response was a bit abrupt and a knee jerk reaction to a pet peeve regarding deficit versus debt. I am the one that was unfair in my reply.

Originally Posted by Guest

Wow! Another thing to credit Trump with: you have awoken from the sleep walk you have been in the last 8 years...Trump is getting things done on all levels!

I applaud your concern, but you would appear wiser if you did a little research prior to making all those assumptions. That will also help you understand what Obamma had done with the deficit...and how you were foolish not to be concerned when you voted in 2012.

To be kind I have to say your head is in the sand. I suspect I have as good or better understanding of basic economics as you have. Why don't you stop using Sean Hannity and Lou Dobb's talking points and use your own brain. Again Obama could not spend a cent without congress. If my memory serves me correct my republicans gave him everything he wanted rather than put their jobs on line. Tell that Obama line of bull to someone else in this forum.

Originally Posted by Guest

You are on the right track in your thinking.

It does appear that spending is now the name of the game, although that is a bit unfair, but still have no heard a word about anything but spending. In addition, our newest drama with Mexico could cost a few bucks.

So keep your eye on the spending which is my second biggest concern (our foreign affairs being first) but there is a glimmer of hope.....House Social Subcommittee Chairman Sam Johnson, R-Texas has introduced legislation aimed at exactly what you speak of and to try and do it with no harm on current recepeints,

The link below will lead you to some details, etc but basically, Rep Johnson proposes raising the retirement age to 69.

In addition, ranking Democratic member of the House Social Security Subcommittee, Rep. John Larson is also introducing legislation to raise the payroll tax cap on Social Security contributions, which would have a major impact.

Even without the obvious new spending, this needs to be done.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/24/socia...efit-cuts.html

Originally Posted by Guest

If no one attempts to correct the path to depletion of our SS, the first thing that will happen (legally) will be the lowering of the monthly payout. Meaning, each recipient will get a lower check each month. There is a provision for this in the SS regs, so don't act surprised when it happens. Republicans want to do something to sustain SS, while the left wants to ignore the cliff that is approaching fast. It's not all gloom and doom, just fact that it is either fixed or we do without, period.

Thanks for a civil answer, if you're not careful an intelligent exchange of ideas might happen on this forum.

Originally Posted by Guest

Thanks for a civil answer, if you're not careful an intelligent exchange of ideas might happen on this forum.

Uh oh, it must have been a lapse.