2012 Presidential Candidate Debate

I am confused why you think this is against what I am saying. It basically says the system is viable because we can always reform it then makes an unsubstantiated claim that such reforms are likely to not be drastic.
Because you said you have to reform welfare to make it long-term viable and that paragraph didn't say anything like that? :shrug:

Raising taxes is not the same as reforming Social Security. And just because you claim a small reduction in benefits isn't substantiated, that doesn't mean it's untrue.

Interesting how he is correctly only focusing on the amount taken in vs the amount paid out and not that other money you and KB were trying to say is the difference maker.
Why is that interesting? The government still owes the Social Security Trust Fund. Theoretically speaking, the money that has been taken out will be put back in when necessary.

Pretty lofty claim to not get into why at all.
I think the author did, I just didn't quote that part. You can go read the entire thing, and the author explains (before that statement, I believe).

Since when is the bold part not my point?
I believe your point was that I was irrational when I disputed your claim Social Security is not long-term viable without major changes, and I believe the part what wasn't your point was the part that said Social Security wasn't going broke, and the part that said:

My article said:
This year’s report by the trustees who oversee the fund found that, if left alone, the Social Security system will continue to be able to pay its bills for at least the next 40 years...A separate analysis by the Congressional Budget Office figures the fund is in good shape until 2052.
Strange how you omitted that part, especially considering it was the pertinent section of I posted from MSNBC.

Maybe you just missed it? I'd hate to think you selectively chose to ignore the major theme of what I posted to try and prove yourself right. I would hope you are more intellectually honest than that.

This is a stupid statement that kind of falls back towards my issue in general. You can't just say a program will be fine because you can continually pull in money from elsewhere to fund the deficiencies.
That's not what the article said at all. I'm not sure where you got that from.

What the article said was the Social Security is not paid from the Trust Fund, Social Security is paid by today's workers and the Trust Fund (which is made up from excess payments to Social Security) covers any shortfalls of payment in a given year. However, even if the Trust Fund were to empty, Social Security still would be fine, because Social Security isn't paid from the Trust Fund. And that's ignoring the fact Social Security only began having a shortfall in their payment in 2009 or 2010, which just so happened to coincide with the Great Recession.

Again, I'm not sure where you got the idea the author said we'll pull funds from elsewhere.

I said it wasn't long-term viable without reform.
You also said I was being irrational, when clearly I was anything but irrational.

Feel free to apologize for your misstatement.


But I've yet to see where reform is necessary. There is nothing wrong with Social Security. The problem we have isn't with the system, but rather the economy and lower taxes. If/when our economy straightens out, and if taxes go back up to the levels they were before 2000, I would imagine our Social Security system would be just fine. Those aren't reforms to Social Security, those are just returns to where we were before.

I clarified that by viable I mean cash flow positive. None of what you presented disagrees with that.
But it's only been in the last two years, years hit hard by economic recession, where it hasn't been cash flow positive. And, again, I point out that Social Security's doom has been predicted for decades.

Specifically for the irrational comment I was mostly talking about your assertion that a program being able to last 20 years made it the Best in the World.
I didn't say that at all. What I asked you was how many other government programs could run 20+ years completely on their own. To the best of my memory, you haven't provided me with a single program in response.

Government is not business. You cannot think of it in the same way. The fact we have, at minimum according to you, 20 years, and up to 40 years according to the CBO study the article I quoted referenced to, AND the fact Social Security has been around since the mid-1930s would suggest Social Security as a government program is as much long-term viable as any government program could hope to be.

About all that means is that Social Security is in a better current state than the medi programs. Which brings me to my second question, why are we not talking about those programs?
Uhh...Medicare and Medicaid are being talked about extensively this election year. Not sure what you mean here.
 
Strange how you omitted that part

Well, that is one way to look at it. How about we post the summary of the whole report and see who what they say sounds more like.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

A SUMMARY OF THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:

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 our 2012 Annual Reports.

The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons. The actuarial deficit in the Medicare Hospital Insurance program increased primarily because the Trustees incorporated recommendations of the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Panel that long-run health cost growth rate assumptions be somewhat increased. The actuarial deficit in Social Security increased largely because of the incorporation of updated economic data and assumptions. Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has 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.

Social Security and Medicare are the two largest federal programs, accounting for 36 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2011. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth in the coming decades due to aging of the population and, in the case of Medicare, growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP. Through the mid-2030s, population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment will be the largest single factor causing costs to grow more rapidly than GDP. Thereafter, the primary factors will be population aging caused by increasing longevity and health care cost growth somewhat more rapid than GDP growth.

Social Security

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012.

Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable earnings will grow rapidly from 11.3 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17.4 percent in 2035, and will then decline slightly before slowly increasing after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and the Trustees project these costs will increase gradually to 6.4 percent of GDP in 2035 before declining to about 6.1 percent of GDP by 2050 and then remaining at about that level.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.67 percent of taxable payroll, up from 2.22 percent projected in last year's report. This is the largest actuarial deficit reported since prior to the 1983 Social Security amendments, and the largest single-year deterioration in the actuarial deficit since the 1994 Trustees Report. This deficit amounts to 20 percent of program non-interest income or 16 percent of program cost. The 0.44 percentage point increase in the OASDI actuarial deficit and the three-year advance in the exhaustion date for the combined trust funds reflect many factors. The most significant factor is lower average real earnings levels over the next 75 years than were projected last year, principally due to: 1) a surge in energy prices in 2011 that lowered real earnings in 2011 and is expected to be sustained, and 2) slower assumed growth in average hours worked per week after the economy has recovered. An additional significant factor is the one-year advance of the valuation period from 2011-85 to 2012-86.

While the combined OASDI program continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance, it does satisfy the test for short-range financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined trust fund assets will exceed one year’s projected cost for more than ten years, through 2027.

However, the Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the long-range test nor the short-range test. DI costs have exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the Trustees project trust fund exhaustion in 2016, two years earlier than projected last year. The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now.

Medicare
The Medicare HI Trust Fund faces depletion earlier than the combined Social Security Trust Funds, though not as soon as the Disability Insurance Trust Fund when separately considered. The projected HI Trust Fund's long-term actuarial imbalance is smaller than that of the combined Social Security Trust Funds under the assumptions employed in this report.

The Trustees project that Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) will grow substantially from approximately 3.7 percent of GDP in 2011 to 5.7 percent of GDP by 2035, and will increase gradually thereafter to about 6.7 percent of GDP by 2086.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 1.35 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.79 percent projected in last year’s report. The HI fund again fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected assets are already below one year's projected expenditures and are expected to continue declining. The fund also continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. The Trustees project that the HI Trust Fund will pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all future years, as it has since 2008. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2024, the same date projected in last year's report, at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 87 percent of HI costs. The Trustees project that the share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 67 percent in 2045, and then rise slowly until it reaches 69 percent in 2086. The HI 75-year actuarial imbalance amounts to 36 percent of tax receipts or 26 percent of program cost.

The worsening of HI long-term finances is principally due to the adoption of short-range assumptions and long-range cost projection methods recommended by the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Review Panel. Use of those methods increases the projected long-range annual growth rate for Medicare's costs by 0.3 percentage points. The new assumptions increased projected short-range costs, but those increases are about offset, temporarily, by a roughly 2 percent reduction in 2013-21 Medicare outlays required by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The Trustees project that Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which provides access to prescription drug coverage, will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year’s expected costs. However, the aging population and rising health care costs cause SMI projected costs to grow rapidly from 2.0 percent of GDP in 2011 to approximately 3.4 percent of GDP in 2035, and then more slowly to 4.0 percent of GDP by 2086. General revenues will finance roughly three quarters of these costs, and premiums paid by beneficiaries almost all of the remaining quarter. SMI also receives a small amount of financing from special payments by States and from fees on manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs.

Projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the "Affordable Care Act" or ACA). Most of the ACA-related cost saving is attributable to a reduction in the annual payment updates for most Medicare services (other than physicians’ services and drugs) by total economy multifactor productivity growth, which the Trustees project will average 1.1 percent per year. The report notes that sustaining these payment reductions indefinitely will require unprecedented efficiency-enhancing innovations in health care payment and delivery systems that are by no means certain. In addition, the Trustees assume an almost 31-percent reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services will be implemented in 2013 as required by current law, which is also highly uncertain.

The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, the Social Security Act requires that the Trustees issue a "Medicare funding warning" because projected non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—are expected to continue to account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays, a threshold breached for the first time in fiscal year 2010.

Conclusion

Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

Well, maybe they actually meant something different than it reads so let us see how the New York Times covered the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/politics/financial-outlook-dims-for-social-security.html


Hmmm well surely it hasn't been like this for a while. Here is the 2007 report.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/tr/TR07/II_conclu.html

E. CONCLUSION

Under current law the cost of Social Security will soon begin to increase faster than the program's income, because of the aging of the baby-boom generation, expected continuing low fertility, and increasing life expectancy. Based on the Trustees' best estimate, program cost will exceed tax revenues starting in 2017 and throughout the remainder of the 75-year projection period. Social Security's combined trust funds are projected to allow full payment of scheduled benefits until they become exhausted in 2041. At that time annual tax income to the trust funds is projected to equal about 75 percent of program costs. Separately, the OASI and DI funds are projected to have sufficient funds to pay full benefits on time until 2042 and 2026, respectively. By 2081, annual tax income is projected to be about 70 percent as large as the annual cost of the OASDI program.

Over the full 75-year projection period the actuarial deficit estimated for the combined trust funds is 1.95 percent of taxable payroll-somewhat smaller than the 2.02 percent deficit projected in last year's report. This deficit indicates that financial adequacy of the program for the next 75 years could be restored if increases were made equivalent to increasing the Social Security payroll tax immediately and permanently from its current level of 12.4 percent (for employees and employers combined) to 14.35 percent. Alternatively, changes could be made equivalent to reducing all current and future benefits by about 13 percent. Other ways of reducing the deficit include making transfers from general revenues or adopting some combination of approaches.

If no action were taken until the combined trust funds become exhausted in 2041, then the effects of changes would be more concentrated on fewer years:

For example, payroll taxes could be raised to finance scheduled benefits fully in every year starting in 2041. In this case, the payroll tax would be increased to 16.41 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041 and continue rising to 17.60 percent in 2081.
Similarly, benefits could be reduced to the level that is payable with scheduled tax rates in each year beginning in 2041. Under this scenario, benefits would be reduced 25 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041, with reductions reaching 30 percent in 2081.

Either of these examples would eliminate the shortfall for the 75-year period as a whole by specifically eliminating annual deficits after trust fund exhaustion. Because of the increasing average age of the population (due to expected improvement in life expectancy and continued low birth rates), Social Security's annual cost will very likely continue to grow faster than scheduled tax revenues after 2081. As a result, ensuring solvency of the system beyond 2081 would likely require further changes beyond those expected to be needed for 2081.

The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers. Making adjustments sooner will allow them to be spread over more generations. Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of this year's 50 million beneficiaries, and 163 million covered workers and their families. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, we will work with Congress and others to ensure that Social Security continues to protect future generations.

I didn't link direct to any CBO reports but from what I can tell they are not all that different. Based on things like this from the Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/2/social-security-deficit-deepens/

From reading that I get the impression they might have been a little more optimistic last year and that makes me wonder if your article was leaning on that old report.

You can quibble over how we define certain words and seek alternate opinions but the facts clearly show that changes of some sort are needed and it probably makes more sense to do them sooner than later.
 
Well, that is one way to look at it. How about we post the summary of the whole report and see who what they say sounds more like.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html

A SUMMARY OF THE 2012 ANNUAL REPORTS
Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees

A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:

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 our 2012 Annual Reports.

The long-run actuarial deficits of the Social Security and Medicare programs worsened in 2012, though in each case for different reasons. The actuarial deficit in the Medicare Hospital Insurance program increased primarily because the Trustees incorporated recommendations of the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Panel that long-run health cost growth rate assumptions be somewhat increased. The actuarial deficit in Social Security increased largely because of the incorporation of updated economic data and assumptions. Both Medicare and Social Security cannot sustain projected long-run program costs under currently scheduled financing, and legislative modifications are necessary to avoid disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers.

Lawmakers should not delay addressing the long-run financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare. If they take action sooner rather than later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has 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.

Social Security and Medicare are the two largest federal programs, accounting for 36 percent of federal expenditures in fiscal year 2011. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth in the coming decades due to aging of the population and, in the case of Medicare, growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP. Through the mid-2030s, population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment will be the largest single factor causing costs to grow more rapidly than GDP. Thereafter, the primary factors will be population aging caused by increasing longevity and health care cost growth somewhat more rapid than GDP growth.

Social Security

Social Security’s expenditures exceeded non-interest income in 2010 and 2011, the first such occurrences since 1983, and the Trustees estimate that these expenditures will remain greater than non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to expenditures was about $49 billion in 2010 and $45 billion in 2011, and the Trustees project that it will average about $66 billion between 2012 and 2018 before rising steeply as the economy slows after the recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Redemption of trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury will provide the resources needed to offset the annual cash-flow deficits. Since these redemptions will be less than interest earnings through 2020, nominal trust fund balances will continue to grow. The trust fund ratio, which indicates the number of years of program cost that could be financed solely with current trust fund reserves, peaked in 2008, declined through 2011, and is expected to decline further in future years. After 2020, Treasury will redeem trust fund assets in amounts that exceed interest earnings until exhaustion of trust fund reserves in 2033, three years earlier than projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2086.

A temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax rate reduced payroll tax revenues by $103 billion in 2011 and by a projected $112 billion in 2012. The legislation establishing the payroll tax reduction also provided for transfers of revenues from the general fund to the trust funds in order to "replicate to the extent possible" payments that would have occurred if the payroll tax reduction had not been enacted. Those general fund reimbursements comprise about 15 percent of the program's non-interest income in 2011 and 2012.

Under current projections, the annual cost of Social Security benefits expressed as a share of workers’ taxable earnings will grow rapidly from 11.3 percent in 2007, the last pre-recession year, to roughly 17.4 percent in 2035, and will then decline slightly before slowly increasing after 2050. Costs display a slightly different pattern when expressed as a share of GDP. Program costs equaled 4.2 percent of GDP in 2007, and the Trustees project these costs will increase gradually to 6.4 percent of GDP in 2035 before declining to about 6.1 percent of GDP by 2050 and then remaining at about that level.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit for the combined Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds is 2.67 percent of taxable payroll, up from 2.22 percent projected in last year's report. This is the largest actuarial deficit reported since prior to the 1983 Social Security amendments, and the largest single-year deterioration in the actuarial deficit since the 1994 Trustees Report. This deficit amounts to 20 percent of program non-interest income or 16 percent of program cost. The 0.44 percentage point increase in the OASDI actuarial deficit and the three-year advance in the exhaustion date for the combined trust funds reflect many factors. The most significant factor is lower average real earnings levels over the next 75 years than were projected last year, principally due to: 1) a surge in energy prices in 2011 that lowered real earnings in 2011 and is expected to be sustained, and 2) slower assumed growth in average hours worked per week after the economy has recovered. An additional significant factor is the one-year advance of the valuation period from 2011-85 to 2012-86.

While the combined OASDI program continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance, it does satisfy the test for short-range financial adequacy. The Trustees project that the combined trust fund assets will exceed one year’s projected cost for more than ten years, through 2027.

However, the Disability Insurance (DI) program satisfies neither the long-range test nor the short-range test. DI costs have exceeded non-interest income since 2005, and the Trustees project trust fund exhaustion in 2016, two years earlier than projected last year. The DI program faces the most immediate financing shortfall of any of the separate trust funds; thus lawmakers need to act soon to avoid reduced payments to DI beneficiaries four years from now.

Medicare
The Medicare HI Trust Fund faces depletion earlier than the combined Social Security Trust Funds, though not as soon as the Disability Insurance Trust Fund when separately considered. The projected HI Trust Fund's long-term actuarial imbalance is smaller than that of the combined Social Security Trust Funds under the assumptions employed in this report.

The Trustees project that Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) will grow substantially from approximately 3.7 percent of GDP in 2011 to 5.7 percent of GDP by 2035, and will increase gradually thereafter to about 6.7 percent of GDP by 2086.

The projected 75-year actuarial deficit in the HI Trust Fund is 1.35 percent of taxable payroll, up from 0.79 percent projected in last year’s report. The HI fund again fails the test of short-range financial adequacy, as projected assets are already below one year's projected expenditures and are expected to continue declining. The fund also continues to fail the long-range test of close actuarial balance. The Trustees project that the HI Trust Fund will pay out more in hospital benefits and other expenditures than it receives in income in all future years, as it has since 2008. The projected date of HI Trust Fund exhaustion is 2024, the same date projected in last year's report, at which time dedicated revenues would be sufficient to pay 87 percent of HI costs. The Trustees project that the share of HI expenditures that can be financed with HI dedicated revenues will decline slowly to 67 percent in 2045, and then rise slowly until it reaches 69 percent in 2086. The HI 75-year actuarial imbalance amounts to 36 percent of tax receipts or 26 percent of program cost.

The worsening of HI long-term finances is principally due to the adoption of short-range assumptions and long-range cost projection methods recommended by the 2010-11 Medicare Technical Review Panel. Use of those methods increases the projected long-range annual growth rate for Medicare's costs by 0.3 percentage points. The new assumptions increased projected short-range costs, but those increases are about offset, temporarily, by a roughly 2 percent reduction in 2013-21 Medicare outlays required by the Budget Control Act of 2011.

The Trustees project that Part B of Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI), which pays doctors’ bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D, which provides access to prescription drug coverage, will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law automatically provides financing each year to meet the next year’s expected costs. However, the aging population and rising health care costs cause SMI projected costs to grow rapidly from 2.0 percent of GDP in 2011 to approximately 3.4 percent of GDP in 2035, and then more slowly to 4.0 percent of GDP by 2086. General revenues will finance roughly three quarters of these costs, and premiums paid by beneficiaries almost all of the remaining quarter. SMI also receives a small amount of financing from special payments by States and from fees on manufacturers and importers of brand-name prescription drugs.

Projected Medicare costs over 75 years are substantially lower than they otherwise would be because of provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (the "Affordable Care Act" or ACA). Most of the ACA-related cost saving is attributable to a reduction in the annual payment updates for most Medicare services (other than physicians’ services and drugs) by total economy multifactor productivity growth, which the Trustees project will average 1.1 percent per year. The report notes that sustaining these payment reductions indefinitely will require unprecedented efficiency-enhancing innovations in health care payment and delivery systems that are by no means certain. In addition, the Trustees assume an almost 31-percent reduction in Medicare payment rates for physician services will be implemented in 2013 as required by current law, which is also highly uncertain.

The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, the Social Security Act requires that the Trustees issue a "Medicare funding warning" because projected non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—are expected to continue to account for more than 45 percent of Medicare's outlays, a threshold breached for the first time in fiscal year 2010.

Conclusion

Lawmakers should address the financial challenges facing Social Security and Medicare as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will leave more options and more time available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare.

Well, maybe they actually meant something different than it reads so let us see how the New York Times covered the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/us/politics/financial-outlook-dims-for-social-security.html


Hmmm well surely it hasn't been like this for a while. Here is the 2007 report.

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/tr/TR07/II_conclu.html

E. CONCLUSION

Under current law the cost of Social Security will soon begin to increase faster than the program's income, because of the aging of the baby-boom generation, expected continuing low fertility, and increasing life expectancy. Based on the Trustees' best estimate, program cost will exceed tax revenues starting in 2017 and throughout the remainder of the 75-year projection period. Social Security's combined trust funds are projected to allow full payment of scheduled benefits until they become exhausted in 2041. At that time annual tax income to the trust funds is projected to equal about 75 percent of program costs. Separately, the OASI and DI funds are projected to have sufficient funds to pay full benefits on time until 2042 and 2026, respectively. By 2081, annual tax income is projected to be about 70 percent as large as the annual cost of the OASDI program.

Over the full 75-year projection period the actuarial deficit estimated for the combined trust funds is 1.95 percent of taxable payroll-somewhat smaller than the 2.02 percent deficit projected in last year's report. This deficit indicates that financial adequacy of the program for the next 75 years could be restored if increases were made equivalent to increasing the Social Security payroll tax immediately and permanently from its current level of 12.4 percent (for employees and employers combined) to 14.35 percent. Alternatively, changes could be made equivalent to reducing all current and future benefits by about 13 percent. Other ways of reducing the deficit include making transfers from general revenues or adopting some combination of approaches.

If no action were taken until the combined trust funds become exhausted in 2041, then the effects of changes would be more concentrated on fewer years:

For example, payroll taxes could be raised to finance scheduled benefits fully in every year starting in 2041. In this case, the payroll tax would be increased to 16.41 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041 and continue rising to 17.60 percent in 2081.
Similarly, benefits could be reduced to the level that is payable with scheduled tax rates in each year beginning in 2041. Under this scenario, benefits would be reduced 25 percent at the point of trust fund exhaustion in 2041, with reductions reaching 30 percent in 2081.

Either of these examples would eliminate the shortfall for the 75-year period as a whole by specifically eliminating annual deficits after trust fund exhaustion. Because of the increasing average age of the population (due to expected improvement in life expectancy and continued low birth rates), Social Security's annual cost will very likely continue to grow faster than scheduled tax revenues after 2081. As a result, ensuring solvency of the system beyond 2081 would likely require further changes beyond those expected to be needed for 2081.

The projected trust fund deficits should be addressed in a timely way to allow for a gradual phasing in of the necessary changes and to provide advance notice to workers. Making adjustments sooner will allow them to be spread over more generations. Social Security plays a critical role in the lives of this year's 50 million beneficiaries, and 163 million covered workers and their families. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, we will work with Congress and others to ensure that Social Security continues to protect future generations.

I didn't link direct to any CBO reports but from what I can tell they are not all that different. Based on things like this from the Washington Times.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/oct/2/social-security-deficit-deepens/

From reading that I get the impression they might have been a little more optimistic last year and that makes me wonder if your article was leaning on that old report.

You can quibble over how we define certain words and seek alternate opinions but the facts clearly show that changes of some sort are needed and it probably makes more sense to do them sooner than later.
I'm not quibbling over how we define certain words. I'm quibbling over your assertion that I'm being irrational because Social Security is no where near close to being broke.

The facts CLEARLY show I'm right. Furthermore, the facts also show that Social Security ONLY started paying out more than they took in starting in 2009-2010, which was barely past the highest point of the recession. The facts have also clearly shown that the doom of Social Security has been predicted for decades.

So, again, I'll ask you to apologize for your misstatement.
 
I have come to find it amusing how Sly builds his narrative and refuses to acknowledge anything except what he deludes himself into believing is the true story. It is remarkable how quickly he becomes an expert on things. When we started this conversation he incorrectly said the program took in more than it paid out and that the only issue was the money borrowed. Neither of which were correct at all. Then he reads a few articles that support his side, comes up with a couple of loosely related catchphrases and now everyone else is a moron if they can't see how sound his point is. If this is the type of god most people worship then no wonder I am an athiest.

I'm not quibbling over how we define certain words. I'm quibbling over your assertion that I'm being irrational because Social Security is no where near close to being broke.

That wasn't my assertion.

The facts CLEARLY show I'm right.

Caps lock = must be true.

Furthermore, the facts also show that Social Security ONLY started paying out more than they took in starting in 2009-2010, which was barely past the highest point of the recession.

True but misleading at best since even the most optimistic projections suggest this is going to continue for a long time and the recession isn't the whole issue.

The facts have also clearly shown that the doom of Social Security has been predicted for decades.

Relevance? It will survive because it always has is a convenient way to just ignore the present issues. You think they have never reformed the program before when issues have come up?

So, again, I'll ask you to apologize for your misstatement.

But each time I don't you do such a good job of proving my point.
 
I have come to find it amusing how Sly builds his narrative and refuses to acknowledge anything except what he deludes himself into believing is the true story.
I'm sorry, but is that an ad hominem fallacy I see before me? I believe so, which is remarkable, since I thought this was just a discussion. Are you really this desperate to "beat me"?

It is remarkable how quickly he becomes an expert on things. When we started this conversation he incorrectly said the program took in more than it paid out
Nope, this is false. Here's how it started:

I'm not certain about Medicare, but Social Security is actually pretty strong. The reason why people are concerned about it is because it HAS been so strong, our government has been borrowing from it to fund other things (and have been for decades). What many people don't realize when they talk about the $16t debt is that a very large percentage of it is what we owe to ourselves.

So, again, I'm not certain about Medicare, but Social Security is long-term viable. It just has to quit being used to fund other government programs, a practice that has been in use for decades.

Again, I can't help but notice how loosely you're playing with the truth.

As for taking vs. paying out, here's what I said originally:

I don't think Social Security pays out more in benefits than it takes in (or at least it didn't for a very long time, could be changing with Baby Boomers retiring, coupled with the recession and tax cuts). It pays out more to the government, as the government borrows from it, but in terms of what it takes in compared to what it pays out in benefits, I think what gets paid in is greater than what is paid out in benefits.

Thus, the Social Security model is very much long-term viable, especially when the payroll tax cut expires.
You'll notice I CLEARLY added an aside where I noted it didn't pay out as much as it took in for a long time, but that could be changing as Baby Boomers retire and the economy/taxes changed.

So please tell us again...who refuses to look at anything but the narrative built in their own mind?

That wasn't my assertion.
Again, let's look at what exactly was said.

Well, it started in 1935, so...


But even if we take it from today, ignoring for the moment we've been told numerous times over the last 30 years that Social Security would be bankrupt in "insert year here", the fact is 20+ years is as dependable of a program as we currently have on the books. How many other government programs could run for 20+ years completely on their own?

That is not remotely a fact. You clearly are irrational about this topic. I have no idea why so many young people are just sitting around happy to be ripped off by social security.
Again, I ask...who is refusing to look at anything but the narrative built in their own mind?

Caps lock = must be true.
Caps lock = emphasis, not validity.

True but misleading at best since even the most optimistic projections suggest this is going to continue for a long time and the recession isn't the whole issue.
I'm curious to see your optimistic projections which state this. Because it's been understood for a while now Social Security and Medicare were going to become more strained when the Baby Boomer bubble became of age, but that it was the exception, rather than the rule.

Relevance?
That Social Security isn't going to end?

It will survive because it always has is a convenient way to just ignore the present issues. You think they have never reformed the program before when issues have come up?
They have, and I'm sure it will be altered again. However, just because it's changed, that doesn't mean Social Security itself is not a long-term viable program. It may have to be tweaked from time to time, to adjust to modern day issues, but the program itself is viable long-term.

But each time I don't you do such a good job of proving my point.
An amusing statement, given the posts I quoted earlier in this post.

Again, I'll await your apology for your misstatement. And while you're at it, go ahead and throw in an additional "whoops, my bad" for claiming that I do what I've proven you do. What was it Bill Clinton said at the convention? It takes some brass to criticize someone for something you did.
 
I only skimmed the beginning and it didn't seem worth looking closer at.

I'm curious to see your optimistic projections which state this. Because it's been understood for a while now Social Security and Medicare were going to become more strained when the Baby Boomer bubble became of age, but that it was the exception, rather than the rule.

I see you didn't actually read what I linked. Clearly primary sources aren't your cup of tea.

That Social Security isn't going to end?

Again, relevance? If I thought Social security was going to end I wouldn't care about the cost to keep it going.

They have, and I'm sure it will be altered again. However, just because it's changed, that doesn't mean Social Security itself is not a long-term viable program. It may have to be tweaked from time to time, to adjust to modern day issues, but the program itself is viable long-term.

See this just boils down to the stupid quibbling over semantics. I don't know what you think I was stating but this was never it.

This whole discussion stems from this comment.

Are you seriously suggesting that these programs are long-term viable without any changes just because they aren't actually "bankrupt" yet?

My next comment was basically

I think we may have different definitions of long-term viable. I know Social Security can survive as is for a while but that isn't what I am talking about. Social Security already pays out more than it takes in but because of interest on the nest egg it is still cash flow positive until around 2020. I don't think this "money owed" would change that significantly but maybe I am wrong.

So why have you said I was wrong and spent so much time trying to convince me of exactly what I said from the beginning. Notice how your hunch about the cash flow was wrong and my hunch about the money you and KB kept trying to paint as the real problem initially was correct. Also, notice how I put bankrupt in parentheses and think about what that normally means. Like I said. Typical Sly. No interest in an evolving discussion and just interested in repeating his talking points. By gawd, I referred to the second post he made as in the beginning of the discussion, clearly this means I have no idea what I am talking about and he has no interest in distracting with pointless semantics :rolleyes:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,826
Messages
3,300,734
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top