If you have an understanding of how the program works, there's no reason for it to not "Be around" unless some politician actively decides to end it.

 

Its biggest issue, IMO, is that not every portion of it adjusts for inflation in the same way. Benefits actually go up at slightly above the rate of inflation, while the tax is actually decreasing relative to inflation, creating a long-term deficit. But because of how it is structured, there's no reason for it not to exist at ~current benefit levels unless someone stops it.

 

Based upon the Trustees own conclusion the reason for it not to exist is if someone does not change it. Here is the conclusion directly from the web site. I totally expect that disruptive consequences to occur.

 

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

Conclusion

 

Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided.

Based upon the Trustees own conclusion the reason for it not to exist is if someone does not change it. Here is the conclusion directly from the web site. I totally expect that disruptive consequences to occur.

 

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

This is entirely true.

 

Let me elaborate on my last point since it was missed.

 

Right now, Social Security benefits grow faster than inflation.

 

However, the amount of money taken in by Social Security is growing slower than inflation...because only the first $112k of income is eligible for the Social Security tax, and that number is not indexed to inflation.

 

Therefore, with time, smaller shares of people's income are taxed to pay for a program growing larger. This is an inherent flaw.

 

In the 1980's, a "Social Security surplus" was created by increasing the Social Security tax rate to prepare for the retirement of the baby boom. Thus, there is a surplus of funds taken in by Social Security over the last 30 years, capable of paying the entire difference for the next 25 years.

 

However, if the cap is never raised and the payout rate is never changed, there will be, sometime around 2035-2040, an immediate 20% cut in benefits to everyone receiving Social Security.

 

This unplanned, unlegislated 20% immediate cut in benefits qualifies as "Disruptive consequences" under the trustees definition and under mine.

 

However...because Social Security grows faster than inflation...a person retiring in 2041 right after this 20% benefit cut would still receive a larger payout from Social Security than a person retiring today.

 

The program is designed to become more generous with time. That can be viewed as a benefit or as a flaw, take your pick. But if you retired after that 20% benefit cut, you would still receive a larger benefit rate than you would if you retired today. The exhaustion of that trust fund will eat up the growth above inflation 25 years out.

 

And if you remove the income cap, then Social Security becomes solvent forever and can continue to be used to fund additional tax cuts.

 

Let me simplify that. If you remove the new investors, the pyramid collapses.

Let me simplify that. If you remove the new investors, the pyramid collapses.

OH GOD, HE'S THREATENING TO KILL ALL THE YOUTH AGAIN! RUN!!!

Let me simplify that. If you remove the new investors, the pyramid collapses.

 

Isn't that the case with our military and every other tax based program?

AUSTIN -- The conservative pundit Ann Coulter has called Gov. Rick Perry “a little bit too much like George Bush” on immigration — and she doesn’t mean it as a compliment. Tea Party loyalists have decried Perry’s opposition to a border fence and Arizona-style enforcement laws. And Mitt Romney has taken not-so-veiled jabs at Perry, criticizing officials who provide “incentives that promote illegal immigration.”

 

As Perry adjusts to his front-runner status for the Republican presidential nomination, his opponents are planting seeds of doubt about how tough the border state’s longest-serving governor has been on illegal immigration, from his compassion for immigrant students to the tightrope he has walked between securing the border and protecting the state’s symbiotic relationship with Mexico. Critics hope his track record —which some have generalized as tough on security, gentle on people — will be a complicating factor for the Republican faithful.

 

The GOP is going to have a credibility issue. Part of the success of the Texas economy are the undocumented workers. I believe Perry needs to conjure up the ghost of Reagan and show how his policies are in line with the untouchable Reagan. Hopefully that will placate the party faithful.

Linked

The GOP is going to have a credibility issue. Part of the success of the Texas economy are the undocumented workers. I believe Perry needs to conjure up the ghost of Reagan and show how his policies are in line with the untouchable Reagan. Hopefully that will placate the party faithful.

Linked

 

It is also a big part of the big bad statistics that the left is already attacking him with. At that point he just blames it on illegal immigration and the right loves him again.

It is also a big part of the big bad statistics that the left is already attacking him with. At that point he just blames it on illegal immigration and the right loves him again.

 

I actually do like his stance on immigration. Prefers personnel to walls. Signed and supported a Texas law to offer in-state tuition to students regardless of their parents legal status. Stuff like that. Now much of his Texas fundraising some from businesses that benefit from these workers, so that may have influenced a little. No wonder Kap hates him, I find him a rather decent nominee on a couple hot button issues for me.

I actually do like his stance on immigration. Prefers personnel to walls. Signed and supported a Texas law to offer in-state tuition to students regardless of their parents legal status. Stuff like that. Now much of his Texas fundraising some from businesses that benefit from these workers, so that may have influenced a little. No wonder Kap hates him, I find him a rather decent nominee on a couple hot button issues for me.

Don't worry, he'll spend the next 6 months repudiating all of that.

Don't worry, he'll spend the next 6 months repudiating all of that.

 

I'm not too certain he will to a great degree. Remember his roots are as a Dem. It didn't switch parties as much as the Dems left him. And for his career, the switch really came at a great time. He will follow a solid strategy and will not make a mistake on the trail. He's going to be tough to beat.

I'm not too certain he will to a great degree. Remember his roots are as a Dem. It didn't switch parties as much as the Dems left him. And for his career, the switch really came at a great time. He will follow a solid strategy and will not make a mistake on the trail. He's going to be tough to beat.

I believe he already had to repudiate his proposal to allow acrosstheborder earth care sales.

 

Anything he's done that was good for people is a weakness for him.

I believe he already had to repudiate his proposal to allow acrosstheborder earth care sales.

 

Anything he's done that was good for people is a weakness for him.

 

As president he will have to support policies that are good for all/most states, not just one state. So naturally some positions will have to change, and I believe we would want any governor who is elected president to do that regardless of what state and political party s/he came from.

I actually do like his stance on immigration. Prefers personnel to walls. Signed and supported a Texas law to offer in-state tuition to students regardless of their parents legal status. Stuff like that. Now much of his Texas fundraising some from businesses that benefit from these workers, so that may have influenced a little. No wonder Kap hates him, I find him a rather decent nominee on a couple hot button issues for me.

 

I don't think we do the right thing when it comes to illegal immigration, we go after them. Why?

 

Go after the why they are here.. employers. If you truly want to get rid of illegal immigration, here is what you do.

 

For every illegal caught at a job site/factory/etc... The CEO/President of the company goes to jail for 1 year.. No deals, no early parole, nothing..

 

With no jobs, there is no reason why an illegal would want to come here.

 

 

I don't think we do the right thing when it comes to illegal immigration, we go after them. Why?

 

Go after the why they are here.. employers. If you truly want to get rid of illegal immigration, here is what you do.

 

For every illegal caught at a job site/factory/etc... The CEO/President of the company goes to jail for 1 year.. No deals, no early parole, nothing..

 

With no jobs, there is no reason why an illegal would want to come here.

 

Sure. Get fooled by a fake ID, go to jail.

Sure. Get fooled by a fake ID, go to jail.

I think the rave act of Joe Biden in 2002 pretty much does that for music and alcohol establishments.

 

Seriously? He quoted himself in the future no less.

Tim Pawlenty endorses Mitt Romney, joins campaign as a co-chair.

Rick Perry just backpedaled on SS.. wow didn't see that coming..

Edited September 13, 201114 yr by VictoryMC98

Watching the Debate tonight...

 

Huntsman just told of his economic plan, which makes sense..

 

Huntsman just lost out his chance.. well not exactly he wasn't close, but damn he seemed the most sane of the group.

Am I the only one watching?

 

Perry just got spanked by Michelle Bachmanm and Santorum .. He isn't looking so good.

just started watching.

Hmm, Miss Universe or Republican debate? One has really good answers to tough questions, the other is a bunch of politicians.

Huntsman just told of his economic plan, which makes sense..

 

Huntsman really has no business being in these debates. He is polling at .00007%

 

I could beat him in the GOP primary.

Perry is bombing.