Government

Reid Was Wrong: CBO Says Social Security Running Permanent Deficit

(The Blaze/AP) — It looks like Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) was wrong. New Congressional Budget Office projections released today show Social Security’s finances are getting worse as the economy struggles to recover and millions of baby boomers stand at the brink of retirement, in stark contrast to recent comments made by the Senate Majority Leader.

Those projections specifically show Social Security running deficits every year until its trust funds are eventually drained in about 2037.

This year alone, Social Security is projected to collect $45 billion less in payroll taxes than it pays out in retirement, disability and survivor benefits, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. That figure swells to $130 billion when a new one-year cut in payroll taxes is included, though Congress has promised to repay any lost revenue from the tax cut. Social Security will post nearly $600 billion in deficits over the next decade

The massive retirement program has been feeling the effects of a struggling economy for several years. The program first went into deficit last year – the first deficit since it was last overhauled in the 1980s. But CBO said last year that Social Security would post surpluses for a few more years before permanently slipping into deficits in 2016.

The outlook, however, has grown bleaker as the nation struggles to recover from its worst economic crisis since Social Security was enacted during the Great Depression. In the short term, Social Security is suffering from a weak economy that has payroll taxes lagging and applications for benefits rising. In the long term, Social Security will be strained by the growing number of baby boomers retiring and applying for benefits.

The deficits add a sense of urgency to efforts to improve Social Security’s finances. For much of the past 30 years, Social Security has run big surpluses, which the government has borrowed to spend on other programs. Now that Social Security is running deficits, the federal government will have to find money elsewhere to help pay for retirement, disability and survivor benefits.

“It means that Social Security is increasingly adding to our long-term fiscal problem, and it’s happening now,” said Eugene Steuerle, a former Treasury official who is now a fellow at the Urban Institute think tank.

But that’s not what Reid said as recently as January 9, in an interview with NBC’s David Gregory:

He made a similar statement over the summer, calling any talk of Social Security going broke “fear tactics”:

It’s a bad time for the nation to be hit with more financial problems. The federal budget deficit will surge to a record $1.5 trillion flood of red ink this year, congressional budget experts estimated Wednesday, blaming the slow economic recovery and a tax cut law enacted in December.

Lawmakers from both parties have vowed to address the nation’s financial problems, including such contentious issues as Social Security and Medicare. The political climate, however, has made it difficult. Some Democrats have criticized plans to cut Social Security benefits as secret plots to destroy the program. Many Republicans have refused to consider tax increases.

“We need to get past the politics of the past and deal with this issue, making the hard decisions that have to be made,” Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said Thursday at a Senate hearing on the budget deficit. “As we move forward in that context, I personally believe strongly that all aspects of the spending and revenue side of the equation must be on the table.”

He also called on President Barack Obama to become engaged in the issue.

A debt commission appointed by Obama has recommended a series of changes to improve Social Security’s finances, including a gradual increase in the full retirement age, lower cost-of-living increases and a gradual increase in the threshold on the amount of income subject to the Social Security payroll tax.

Obama, however, has not embraced any of the panel’s recommendations. Instead, in his State of the Union speech this week, he called for unspecified bipartisan solutions to strengthen the program while protecting current retirees, future retirees and people with disabilities.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said he is ready to work with Obama on Social Security and other tough issues.

“I take the president at his word when he says he’s eager to cooperate with us on doing all of it,” McConnell said.

Social Security experts say news of permanent deficits should be a wake-up call for action.

“So long as Social Security was running surpluses, policymakers could put off the need to fix the program,” said Andrew Biggs, a former deputy commissioner at the Social Security Administration who is now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “Now that the system is running deficits, it simply becomes clear that we need to act on Social Security reform.”

More than 54 million people receive retirement, disability or survivor benefits from Social Security. Monthly payments average $1,076.

The program has been supported by a 6.2 percent payroll tax paid by both workers and employers. In December, Congress passed a one-year tax cut for workers, to 4.2 percent. The lost revenue is to be repaid to Social Security from general revenue funds, meaning it will add to the growing national debt.

Social Security has built up a $2.5 trillion surplus since the retirement program was last overhauled in the 1980s. Benefits will be safe until that money runs out. That is projected to happen in 2037 – unless Congress acts in the meantime. At that point, Social Security would collect enough in payroll taxes to pay out about 78 percent of benefits, according to the Social Security Administration.

The $2.5 trillion surplus, however, has been borrowed over the years by the federal government and spent on other programs. In return, the Treasury Department has issued bonds to Social Security, guaranteeing repayment with interest.

Social Security supporters are adamant that the program will be repaid, just as the U.S. government repays others who invest in U.S. Treasury bonds.

“It’s an IOU that is backed by Treasury bonds and the faith and credit of the United States government,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comments (131)

1 2 3 4
  • fishlore
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:26pm

    People with self respect would probably be embarrassed, but obviously that doesn’t apply to Reid. I just wonder if liberals ever get tired of being wrong or if they ever feel bad about personifying the term hypocrite. It’s amazing how almost every single Republican talking point over the last couple years has come to fruition in spades. Oh well, this stopped surprising me a long time ago.

    Report Post »  
  • april 12 1861
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:25pm

    Does anyone remember the Iraqi minister of defense announcing to the world that Iraq had stopped the US at the boarder? And behind him, an American tank was driving down the road.

    Good luck harry. No tanks here.

    Report Post » april 12 1861  
  • B-Neil
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:15pm

    Socual Security doesn’t have a problem. The Government has the problem reembursing the SS for the money they took. Who was in control for forty years ripping off Socual Security?? Thats right, the Democrats……As for the SS taking in less money, Less jobs less money. They can recoope the lost revenue by taxing imports. The jobs were moved overseas, product comming back pays. No rocket scientest needed here….Carry on McDuff

    Report Post »  
  • MistaB
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:14pm

    Thanks Nevada!

    Report Post »  
    • Hephzibah
      Posted on January 28, 2011 at 11:14am

      A lib who lives in LV told me it was the Republican’s fault for running a ditz against him. They had no choice but to vote for Reid. Give me a break…libs must be either lazy or stupid. They apparently have no logic whatsoever. The only things they seem to have are feelings and filthy mouths.

      Report Post » Hephzibah  
  • simplygilly
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:12pm

    So much for transparency from the HEAD OF THE SENATE. He‘ll tell us what HE want’s us to know, nothing more. What an incompetent jerk!

    Report Post » simplygilly  
  • wash1776
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:08pm

    Reid is nothing but a lying liberal progressive. You really have to wonder about the people in Nevada voting this hapless twit back in!

    Report Post »  
  • bcarron4
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:07pm

    Let me get this straight. All it takes for Social Security to be in good shape is for the Fed that currently is $14 trillion in debt to pay back the $2.5 trillion it borrowed from the trust fund at the same time it is borrowing 40 cents on every dollar it spends and at the same time the Social Security system is having its own deficit of somewhere between $44 billion and $100 billion per year. They better go to the mail box to see if China sent them a few more credit cards. Harry Reid needs to be held accountable for misleading the American people.

    Report Post »  
  • DominicanDandy
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:05pm

    Unfortunately Harry Dweeb can’t be recalled in Nevada.
    But like in Calif.(re-electing Governor Moonbeam), we’ll learn the hard way, and pay for it.

    Report Post » DominicanDandy  
  • exliberalgrl
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:05pm

    When is Harry Reid ever right?!?

    Report Post » exliberalgrl  
  • time4termlimits
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:05pm

    Nevada, we Americans in the other 49 states are so proud of your ability to select such a wonderful leader. Don’t get me wrong, there are some pretty bad ones throughout Capitol Hill, but Harry is just so, well….his talents for government leave me speechless.

    Report Post »  
  • rfycom
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:59pm

    Hear 55 and under may be high and dry on received the big SS. Do we refund all the money these fine people paid in?

    Report Post »  
  • countryboy42
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:59pm

    Awesome, it goes under 2 years after I can collect! Just think, $1100 per month might just cover the cost of a loaf of saw dust bread and a can of cat food to put on the bread. Oh, boy!
    I would be happy to just take what I have put into it right now, and depend on my self. Heck, they can even keep the interest it should have accrued, had I been able to put it into a basic savings account.

    Report Post »  
  • Dale
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:58pm

    Poor harry suffers from a inferiority turned superiority complex. He is interested in the battle and will do whatever he needs to to win. Poor, pathetic harry; in trying to win, he shows that he is a LOSER!

    Report Post » Dale  
  • landis
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:55pm

    Harry Reid wrong?????? What else is new?

    Report Post »  
  • drawls
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:54pm

    Who didn’t know Reid was an idiot? Obviously the residents of Nevada, since they just voted him back in again.I used to go to Vegas 3 to 4 times a year, but since they’ve turned to a liberal state, Nevada is on my no go list. And I‘m sure Reid wasn’t wrong, he just told us wanted he wanted us to believe. This stuff goes on every day, it’s something else.And the idiots that voted Obama in like it..

    Report Post » olddog  
  • SheriS
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:53pm

    I believe Harry has proved himself to be just another idiot progressive and proves how really bad off the progressives have become for leadership! Poor Harry proves how pathetic he truly is each time he opens his mouth! Problem for him is he has no facts to back up anything he says—he just spews his venom and goes into hiding protected by the idiots that elected him as their leader!

    Report Post »  
  • trueblueday
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:51pm

    The SS system is in dire straights (broken) and no politician wants to be the one to fix it. Harry Reid doesn‘t give a rat’s pittootie – his retirement I’m sure will be grand. Will we soon hear a formal speech on Social Security’s Insolvency? No, there’d be riots in the nursing homes. Throughout our lives we work, pay into this corrupt system and won’t get a thin dime in return. Stock futures continue to be highly uncertain and it’s tough to save a dime when the utility bills are due. Rely on the gov’t and get screwed in return. Yea, I know, we weren’t supposed to live long enough to enjoy “retirement years”. So we’ll work as long as our old bodies hold up, stand on our own two feet AND consider SS taxes as non-deductible charity contributions. Thanks for nothin.

    Report Post »  
  • JohnQTaxpayer
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:51pm

    Why would anyone believe this idiot, he could not find his ass with both hands and a mirror

    Report Post » JohnQTaxpayer  
  • BoilitDown
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:47pm

    “Reid Was Wrong” begs the question, which thing are you talking about? There are so many things to choose from. A feature comedy film could be made about Reid’s wrongness.
    I think most everybody knew how stupid his remarks about social security have been. I‘ve resigned myself to being stiffed by the social security system and concluded that I’ll be working until the day I die. Business is so bad because of the economy and government now that I’ll have to die soon.

    Report Post »  
  • SoCalWalt
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:41pm

    Harry Reid wrong? When was he ever right?

    Report Post »  
  • Gita
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:40pm

    Here is my proposal. I promise to not collect my social security when I am of eligible age if the progressives in congress and the white house will immediately leave office today!

    Report Post » Gita  
  • bableson
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:39pm

    We all know about the CBO releasing very conservative figures. I wonder how conservative these are? I would like to know of all the figures, numbers, etc. produced by the the CBO, what percentage are correct, within 5%. I am very interested in this figure. Then wonder why we even waste our time with even listening to any # they give

    Report Post » bableson  
  • 1unwashed
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:37pm

    Where did he go to college. See my point

    Report Post »  
  • Ironmaan
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:27pm

    He wasn’t wrong, he lied.
    http://guerillatics.com

    Report Post »  
  • bikerr
    Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:26pm

    Recall vote!

    Report Post »  
    • taxed
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:28pm

      This is about as funny/sad as when Krugman eluded to a SS surplus…

      http://conservativepoliticalforum.com

      Report Post »  
    • cnsrvtvj
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:30pm

      Who didn’t know that Harry Reid is an idiot? This is the same guy that said “only 36,000 people lost thier job today, and that’s a good thing.” Everyone knows that Social Security is in trouble and needs to be fixed. They will just continue to attack the Republicans for trying to deal with this mess.

      http://www.donsmithshow.com – political news and humor

      Report Post » cnsrvtvj  
    • PreserveOurFreedoms
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:30pm

      Harry didn’t get the memo.

      Report Post »  
    • taxed
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:31pm

      Krugman also talked about a “misinformation campaign” that spread to the CBO as well. Well, what do you expect from an academic…

      http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/index.php?topic=522.0

      Report Post »  
    • tower7femacamp
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:32pm

      I say if we lose SS then we default on the debt owed to the Federal Reserve
      and China.

      Report Post » tower7femacamp  
    • cessna152
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:33pm

      Oh come on now… Reid only lies when he is speaking. I don’t know how much more of these pathological liars I can take. I don’t even listen or watch them at all… not even snippets.

      Report Post » cessna152  
    • BMartin1776
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:34pm

      This is a perfect example of the lie being told to America by monsters like Reid. Nothing to see here move along is their motto. He tells constituents what they want to hear in return for their votes. He makes promises and greases the wheels of big business so in return his net worth goes up!

      All the while lying to America. Dont you worry in a day or two he will come out saying what CBO said is inaccurate blah blah falling right in line with what Beck has said “the things you know that are solid will be liquid, and thse things liquid will be solid” You will be told actual facts are not true the things you see and read with your own eyes are not real.

      Do not trivialize this man or say he is an idiot, dumb etc.. he like his ilk is dangerous!

      Time to take things up a notch or two and give these people a “lethal dose” of their own medicine through http://www.savingtherepublic.com

      Report Post » BMartin1776  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:35pm

      The bastich needs to be thrown out of office for not letting the HC repeal vote come up in the Senate.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
    • August_Somers
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:37pm

      Dingy Harry strikes again. What a buffooon.

      Report Post »  
    • Rogue
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:41pm

      Funny how these numbers just snuck up on the CBO. This is why that department is worth less than the paper clips sitting in thier offices. They used whatever numbers they wanted to last year to determine it would remain solvent until 2016, plugging in thier best-case economic growth numbers. If they had been forecasting based on quarterly trends over the past 3-4 years, not using imaginary “what-if” numbers, they would have accurately seen this coming a decade ago.

      They wouldn’t have told the truth last year, leading up to an election, however – they have to keep the public content. Anyone want to bet the CBO outlook changes dramatically next year, before the 2012 elections? We will always see the worst news immediately after one election is past.

      Report Post » Rogue  
    • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 3:53pm

      The scary part of this equation with the SS running deficits is that the CBO bases its numbers upon what Congress gives to them; and the numbers right now they are used are for the BEST CASE scenario at hand – watch for the hidden fist to come, something in in the woods making noise to keep us distracted.

      Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • abc
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:04pm

      This is not rocket science. SS has a surplus (speaking on a cash basis), but is underfunded (looking at it on an accrual basis). It will run out of its surplus funds in 2037 unless we lower the benefits, raise the tax or raise the retirement age. If we do the third, increasing it by 2 years over the next 20, then SS stays solvent. There have been multiple studies done that have shown that this will work.

      As an aside, it is highly annoying to me how people hyprocritically switch from cash to accrual accounting depending on whether the treatment will help them make a political argument. For example, let’s look at accrual accounting if we want to bash Democrats over social security, but let‘s do cash accounting to avoid facing the fact that Bush’s decision to cut taxes, wage war in two countries and pass Medicare Part-D together do far more damage to our overall debt load than anything Obama has done in his first two years as President. If you are going to attack Harry Reid using accrual accounting, then you had better attack Bush as the biggest budget buster of all time. Else, you are a hypocrite.

      Report Post »  
    • What-A-Joke
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:24pm

      Wrong? Or Lying?

      http://www.clubseabreeze.net/TimPhillips

      Report Post » What-A-Joke  
    • portague
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:28pm

      abc
      the ss surpluss was spent on us bonds ss can not hold actuall money and have to invest it. So all ss funding numbers are based on assumned value of bonds. The actual cash is returned to the general fund and spent. so there is no money in SS.All the bonds are considered debt.
      department of treasury (2011), (note this is in the billions) Liabilities: Federal debt securities held by the public and accrued interest 9,060. (9.06 trillion)
      So your cash argument does not work considering it has been spent else where. The way ss works is the working pay for the retirees, the haves are forced to give to the have nots. This is how ss has always worked. So all the money people pay is not for their retiremnet but for someone else who is retireed.
      A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

      SS has more incomen with a ponzi scheme. Investors are paid back there money not by any actuall investment but from future investees who put in money fore their retirement not knowing its paying someone else who was there first.

      Report Post »  
    • timeisnow
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:36pm

      Dirty Harry is always wrong! he lies for a living, thats his job

      Report Post »  
    • CatB
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:47pm

      Hey IF we threw out all the illegals sucking us dry .. maybe we could pay Grandma and Grandpa what was PROMISED!

      Report Post »  
    • MOVETERAN
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 4:55pm

      Say it ain’t so Joe!!!!!!!!!!!!! Reid wrong again? How will I ever go on knowing that Scary Harry was wrong again?

      Report Post » MOVETERAN  
    • DashRipRock
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 5:26pm

      Hey
      If Harry Reid says its so
      Then by-golly thats good enough for me!

      Buuuwaaaaaaahahahhaahahahahahahahahaaa

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 5:37pm

      Portague,

      I understand that there is no “lock box” with cash sitting in it. When I use the word cash, I am referring to cash versus accrual accounting, not physical cash. We talk about SS under cash accounting, since we only look at current cash inflows and current cash outflows. Since the inflows outsize the outflows, there is no problem. Under accrual accounting, which is what the SEC requires companies to use, the money being taken in today should be accounted for as a liability to be reversed out when the individuals paying in expect to retire, thereby comparing it to the future liabilities that are being accrued now although they hit in the future. That presentation would highlight the shortfall in funding in future years. My point is that we should talk about all government spending this way, but politicians do not because they prefer to highlight their opponents’ failings and hide their own by switching between the two. Accrual accounting would show George W. Bush to be the worst president in US history in terms of adding unfunded liabilities to the American balance sheet.

      Now, you are claiming that SS is a Ponzi scheme, which is not true. One can raise the retirement age and prevent SS from showing a deficit on an accrual basis. And there is much work out there supporting that claim. Because SS is not guaranteeing a return, unlike a Ponzi scheme, you are essentially lowering the return to ensure that something is provided. This is a fundamental difference between the two systems. Whether you can get there politically is another matter, but to insist that SS must fail, as a Ponzi scheme does is simply not true. Moreover, the fact that there is no lock-box with cash in it that is ready for immediate withdrawal is irrelevant. No one would question a savings bank although the actual amount of money in the bank at any time is insufficient to cover all claims on that money if they were to occur at the same time. Such an event, known as a run on the bank, remains a rare event when the bank is properly run using accrual accounting and honest bookkeeping, and when confidence in the bank is not wrongfully impugned. Sadly, although SS is not inherently flawed either as an insurance system, although it does require reform, many people regularly attempt to portray it in such a light. This is wrong, since it is untrue and can create problems for the millions that are properly relying on that system for part of their retirement.

      Report Post »  
    • portague
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 6:24pm

      abc
      So if the expect business to account that way than they should as well. Considering a business would of gone under if ran like this a long time ago. Far as i am concerned about bush I did not agree with his spending. Far as obama how is adding more similiar systems in place going to help the deficit. So by accrual standards its in the red big time. Simply raising the age wont be enough taxes would have to go up at some point as wel or cuts else where. The main problem with it is that sense conception is that it works by taking in cash from those working and giving out cash to those who do not.
      But most people think its a retiree fund for them wich it does not work that way because your money spent on someone else so retirement is gone. You have to have new workers put in to pay you. No investor would do an all or nothing bet on one bond. what happens when the working vs retiree gap tightens even further in coming years. They should of been putting some of the surplus in gold to hedge the money against inflation and invested in other stable funds. It would of been easier by making it easier for people do it themselves. Let the people keep their 6% and invest as they see fit. It the individuals responsibility for retirement not the government. Why does everyone think the govermnet is the awnser.

      Report Post »  
    • ron the veteran
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 6:32pm

      surplus my butt there is no surplus they been robbing the money for years. its just been one big ponzi sceam so the government could fleese it. they were told this would fail when they inacted it. and here we are…..

      Report Post »  
    • chazman
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 6:33pm

      Harry Reid … someone America can be TOTALLY ashamed of! A jackass of the FIRST DEGREE!! An incredibly STUPID person! The proof of his stupidity could be shoved down his throat and he would still say you were WRONG!!

      Report Post »  
    • Eblaze44
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 6:43pm

      The citizens of Nevada are granted the authority to perform a recall election by Section 9 of Article II of the Nevada Constitution, which says:

      “Every public officer in the State of Nevada is subject, as herein provided, to recall from office by the registered voters of the state, or of the county, district, or municipality which he represents.”

      The broad right of recall in Nevada applies to all elective officers after the first six months of the term to which the incumbent was elected. Although the state’s constitutional authorization for recall includes members of the U.S. Congress, the Nevada Secretary of State issued an advisory letter in 1978 saying that voters in the state cannot actually vote to recall the federal politicians from their state.[1]

      Report Post » Eblaze44  
    • APatriotFirst
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 6:48pm

      PORTAGUE……………The way ss works is the working pay for the retirees, the haves are forced to give to the have nots.

      Those have nots, have spent their lifes paying in also.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 7:34pm

      Portague, you keep stating things that are not true, with all due respect. You do not need to raise taxes to keep SS solvent. You merely need to raise the retirement age of the system. It is not a system of haves paying have nots, since: 1) many folks receiving SS actually have a lot more than the young people paying in; and 2) the folks receiving have paid into the system for years. Finally, you keep referring to it as a retirement scheme, which it is not. It is a safety net scheme. People can and do invest their savings in other ways to secure for retirement. This system was conceived after a brutal financial crisis that wiped out all the other normal retirement sources. Having just gone through a similarly (although not nearly as) brutal experience, one should be able to appreciate the need to have a system that is there even when the individual has failed through bad luck, stupidity, or an act of God, to secure any other source of retirement funds. Obviously, I think the system should also be means tested, so that wealthy recipients do not use a safety net that they do not need. However, even if such a policy could not pass, the system itself can remain solvent by raising the retirement age. Our retiree-to-worker ratio will not rise so much that increasing the retirement age won’t take care of it. You can make a philosophical argument that the government should not be providing safety nets. If people screw up their savings, then they should starve to death or find a soup kitchen and a bridge to sleep under. But to make claims about SS that are factually untrue should not be allowed, unless you can demonstrate through facts and logic that the claim made by many economists, which I repeat here, that SS can remain solvent well past 2037 with an elevated retirement age is patently false. I would welcome such a demonstration if you can provide it.

      Report Post »  
    • GONESURFING
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 7:49pm

      Reid was right once, when he called Chinas’ president HU a dictator. He can’t be wrong all the time.

      Report Post » GONESURFING  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 8:30pm

      I beg to differ. Reid wasn‘t ’wrong’, he lied. If I knew this was the truth, so did he.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • My Sacred Honor
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 9:01pm

      “Reid was wrong”.
      That ain’t news.

      Report Post » My Sacred Honor  
    • exdem
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 9:20pm

      Harry wrong???? Not nearly as wrong as the morons that reelected him. On behalf of the other 49states (or 56 if your Obama), thanks alot Nevadans for f@#$ing over our whole nation by putting this joke of a politician back in power. And the same to all the dopes that gave us a socialist president.

      Report Post »  
    • My Sacred Honor
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 11:28pm

      ABC, why do you constantly try to attach Bush to Conservatism? He AIN’T one of us and we know that now! That arguement and moveon tactic is SO last year! And besides to say “Bush did it, why can’t we?” is something a fourth grader would say. You operatives are constantly trying to say this oxymoronic and illogical statement “Bush did it and you complain the left is doing it now. It was VERY bad when HE was doing it, but it is ok for obama to do it now.” It just don’t make sense. Bush and republican congress doing it. BAD = obama and liberal congress doing it BAD. Same for same. Frivolous overspending is bad regardless of what letter is by your name. And oh yeah, Medicare part D? Already forcast as completely unfundable and will spiral our economy so far out of control it will make SS funding look like overspending on beer when you have the power bill due.
      I just got one W-2 from this year on a part time job where i made $1,600 in pay, paid $9 in fed and state taxes-refundable, and $100 in SSI-non-refundable. YOU do the math on that one. SSI has become a slush fund to be dipped into whenever we can’t get China to “let us hold a dollah” as the street bums would ask me. Been happenning for a long time now, and you want to come at us here and say SS is funded til 2037??? You show me that study, link it here, and i will give it a look over. Until then, keep pulling numbers out of your poop-hole and be laughed at by the smarter who post here.
      I ain‘t havin’ it.

      Report Post » My Sacred Honor  
    • My Sacred Honor
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 11:35pm

      Something else that just occured to me, 15 years ago my Grampa predicted this. He said “in 2010, when all the baby-boomers (those born in 1945 after the WWII sexcapade) start retiring en-masse, social security will begin to crumble. Don‘t EVER rely on social security because it won’t be there for you, it can’t sustain. Invest, invest invest”. And now I see he was right in that. We are about to be FLOODED with new retirees that want their SS, and the coffers can’t take it. Do the math. baby boomers started being born in 1945. Retirement age is 65. 1945 plus 65 is…. 2010 starting date, and it will only get worse from here on out. Better find a new way to prepare for your future, 30-40 somethings. You will not be getting a check.

      Report Post » My Sacred Honor  
    • My Sacred Honor
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 11:38pm

      “first we have to pay back any money that was taken from the fund’. Did you hear THAT, ABC? Or was Reid lying for the first time ever in his life?

      Report Post » My Sacred Honor  
    • My Sacred Honor
      Posted on January 27, 2011 at 11:47pm

      You want to create jobs? You want to fund our bloated budget? Cut corporate taxes down to 5% and watch the big boys not only come back, but Australian, New Zeland, Brittish, Swedish, German, the entire GLOBE flock here to have a manufacturing plant or technology plant here to make their money! And have so many jobs available we will NEED to hire amigos to do the jobs “America just doesn’t have the manpower to do”.The funds made up from cutting the corporate tax will be MORE than made up by the income taxes paid by new workers. Not to mention the state local sales taxes collected to fund failing state budgets! I’m just a dumb white boy from west Georgia, but how can you ignore the math on that one? We don’t have jobs because corporations are fleeing the states and the United States in droves due to our high corporate taxes! This is insanity! And is so easy to fix! Hell, you even say “for the next two years there will be zero corporate tax, then for the next ten there will be 5% tax” and watch us flourish again!

      Report Post » My Sacred Honor  
    • My Sacred Honor
      Posted on January 28, 2011 at 12:37am

      Also, ABC, another poster made a valid point, although rather radical and incoherant….if you find those illegally getting a SS check (through illegally having a false SSN bought from their “Coyotes”) how much money would that save us? The illegal immigrant problem is so far reaching into our state’s economic problems it pales the comparison to the paltry Federal economic hardship they incur. The states individually have to pay for illegal’s education, medical, welfare, everything real taxpayers have to pay for to receive and they pay nothing into it. Deport til your deport finger gets a blister, and then get your replacement to deport some more. Repeal the 14th amendment, or actually do what it says,

      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF THE LAW. Find out if the parents of such anchor baby brought that unborn child here to be born on our soil to be protected by the 14th amendment! Which, by the way, was created to ensure that slaves born on this soil were full US citizens, NOT as a loophole to make the unborn child of an illegal a legal “naturalized” citizen of these United States!

      Report Post » My Sacred Honor  
    • KICKILLEGALSOUT
      Posted on January 28, 2011 at 12:45am

      We already knew he was wrong a long time ago! This man is a pure traitor to this country! It is amazing that he is allowed to walk freely and hold a position in our government. Where is the justice in this country?

      Report Post » KICKILLEGALSOUT  
    • mikem1969
      Posted on January 28, 2011 at 8:28am

      Those of us that have been paying attention already knew that SS was in the red. Only the libs and progressives wanted us to think it was not. They love to lie.

      Report Post »  
    • abc
      Posted on January 28, 2011 at 10:15am

      MySacredHonor, There is too much data out there showing that raising retirement ages will fix the system, so to keep saying the system is doomed to go bust because of your grandfather’s comments is really an ignorant comment to make. First, there are many studies showing what can be saved by raising SS eligibility. McKinsey calculates that raising the early eligibility age (EEA) from 62 to 64 adds $13T to the (cash accounting) surplus. Brookings and Heritage have shown that raising the full benefits eligibility age from 66 to 70 effectively cuts the 25% gap in funding to outflows down to less than 5%. Doing both solves the funding problem, which is why many Republicans (Pawlenty, Boehner, et. al.) support doing this. Second, the alternative idea of merely cutting fraud is a far less credible solution than anything currently on the table (raising EEA, raising taxes, cutting benefits, etc.) Cutting fraud is always a good idea, until you hit the point at which the cost of finding fraud exceeds the value of the remaining fraud uncovered. In any case, the numbers on that are tiny compared to those I’ve described here. People love to talk about all sorts of budget saving ideas that in reality are rounding errors upon rounding errors that don’t solve anything–reminds me of the old adage: “those who fail to do the math are doomed to talk nonsense.”

      Speaking of which, your suggestion that we cut corporate tax rates to 5% will solve our jobs problem is very funny for a couple of reasons. First, you clearly don‘t realize that Ireland’s government and finances did not collapse because they spent too much on entitlements–they didn’t, since their pensions and benefits were far below the average of the EU or developed countries in the OECD–but because they taxed too littled–their corporate tax rate was a measly 12.5% and their income tax rates were also well below developed country averages. The inability of the Irish government to sufficiently tax led to inability to pay off debt led to financial collapse. This would happen to the US also if they passed such low tax rates. You’re proposing a rate too far to the left on the Laffer Curve to be tax receipt generative. The second reason that it is funny is because it helps to propagate the silly idea out there that US companies pay too much in taxes, when nothing could be further from the truth. While it is true that the official rate is the highest in the world (with Japan a close second), the reality is that no company pays that rate, since there are all sorts of tax loopholes that make the average rate much lower–below the OECD average actually. Proof? Google corporate tax rates as a percentage of GDP. What you find is that the US rate, which has fallen significantly under Bush and even further under Obama, is actually well below the average of developed countries. You can lower the rate, but you‘d have to close a ton of loopholes or you’d be collecting nothing from companies. Again, you really have to know the numbers and get your facts straight, lest you look like you have no idea what you are talking about. And even if you don’t know enough to read and understand numbers, you ought to have at least heeded Warren Buffett’s comments on this a few years back, when he noted the very same facts I am pointing to now. As the world’s greatest investor and probably one of its smartest men, you should heed what he says. A 5% corporate tax rate is just a totally unworkable and unnecessary proposal in light of the foregoing.

      Report Post »  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love