Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jackson Lee: “Who Wants to Make a Fuss About Social Security When It’s Solvent?”
Cybercast News Service ^ | December 3, 2012 | Elizabeth Harrington

Posted on 12/03/2012 5:08:25 PM PST by Olog-hai

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (D.-Texas) said last week that Republicans are being “frivolous” when they talking about reforming Social Security as a means toward fixing the federal government’s fiscal problems because Social Security is “solvent.”

According to Social Security’s trustees, the program has operated in the red each of the last two years.

“Who wants to make a fuss about Social Security when it's solvent?” she asked on Friday. “And then who wants to make a fuss about Medicare when it's solvent until 2024?” …

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Government; Miscellaneous; US: District of Columbia; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last
To: BobL
Don’t laugh, half of the old people on this site agree with her - at least until they GET THEIR MONEY BACK. LOL. As if any is left.

Yup.

41 posted on 12/04/2012 3:30:12 AM PST by SkyPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan
of course ~ BTW ~ one more item in the great 'I paid my share' debate ~ the cold, hard facts are the Democrats under Carter unleashed enormous inflationary forces and the dollar today is worth about 10% of what the dollar was when LBJ was President.

What that meant was that folks were setting aside $1.00 in Social Security to get back $0.10.

This also meant that folks were 'investing' in Social Security with hard currency at the time of their lives when they were earning the least, and then retiring to receive soft currency at the time of their lives when they were moving out of the productive sector.

Of course they imagine they paid more in than they get out ~ because it's true ~ inflation makes it true.

Today, without inflation ~ in fact, with massive deflation, we get an opposite effect. People paid in soft dollars over the last 30 years, and now they're getting back hard dollars.

Any normal society would have re-issued it's currency somewhere in the middle of all that ~ with new values, and some sense that over time currency probably ought to reflect essentially the same value ~ that is, a dollar today should be able to buy much the same as a dollar then, or a dollar tomorrow.

Alas, we do not have normal societies these days, and the Democrats were in charge so long nobody really knows what Social Security has cost them.

42 posted on 12/04/2012 3:33:19 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Jackson Lee: “Who Wants to Make a Fuss About Social Security When It’s Solvent?”

Okay...

When it's 'solvent' we'll stop fussing.

------

Eesh! What a clueless twit!

43 posted on 12/04/2012 3:43:42 AM PST by MamaTexan (It is impossible to follow the Original Intent of the Constitution and NOT acknowledge secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Exactly. and Obamacare will do that and more.


44 posted on 12/04/2012 6:13:28 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; Olog-hai; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; Gilbo_3; NFHale; ..

” GOP’s failure or fear of making the fact that SS and medicare are both being paid for with borrowed money is the reason why Dems get away with this.”

The GOP operates on 100% fear.


45 posted on 12/04/2012 7:23:42 AM PST by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
and the only issue is whether or not the US Government is going to pay its debt to the Social Security system

And the answer is a resounding "NO"; the negative answer is contained in the obama "tax-cut" which he and touted (and the press allowed him to tout) throughout his term and the recent campaign: "everyone got a tax cut". What he meant was, there was a holiday, by executive decree, on a percentage of the FICA, Social Security contribution, so that people's paychecks contained a little more.
By that exact amount, the Social Security trust fund was diminished over that four year period.
He wasn't cutting taxes at all (you and I both already knew this). He was defunding Social Security. Hey -- that would've been a very effective campaign tool for Romney, had he been willing to use it.

46 posted on 12/04/2012 7:49:51 AM PST by Migraine (Diversity is great; until it happens to YOU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SkyPilot

The only difference between your 401k and a retired person SS account is that the federal government has not taken over your 401k, yet. But the clock is ticking and there is a lot of noise.


47 posted on 12/04/2012 8:27:27 AM PST by jpsb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: danielmryan

daniel—There are a lot of people who make no claim that they paid more in than they go out. Spouses and children who get benefits often paid nothing in. Those who get disability payments are more likely not to have paid as much in.

That said, considering payments from workers of 6+% and a like amount on their behalf from the employer, with a reasonable interest component over an average working life, I imagine most people DO pay more in than they receive in benefits. If the funds had in fact been set aside and conservatively invested (even in money market accounts) solvency would not be an issue.


48 posted on 12/04/2012 8:38:59 AM PST by NCLaw441
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Migraine
The SS fund was deprived of a small portion of the normal amount. Remember that employers pay half ~ they got no cut.

I find it interesting, as well as a bit cynical, to note that the amount of the cut was roughly equal to the amount Republicans were proposing for privatization back under W.

If Social Security mere merely provided the taxes levied on amounts paid to annuitants (yup, it gets taxed eh, for folks with income above a certain amount) ~ it would last an awful long time.

49 posted on 12/04/2012 9:12:36 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Menehune56
We have former Houston mayor Kathy Whitmire (D) to thank for the braintrust known as Sheila Jackson-Lee.

SJ-L couldn't win an election, so Whitmire finally appointed her to a position in Houston. It wasn't long until SJ-L was in WDC sharing her 'truths' with us, such as the 2010 statement about how North and South Vietnam were living alongside each other in peace, as separate countries.

50 posted on 12/04/2012 10:33:00 AM PST by Scoutmaster (You knew the job was dangerous when you took it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Scoutmaster
That pic of Whitmire induces the following . . .


51 posted on 12/04/2012 12:06:39 PM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Yes, inflation really makes a mess of things. Are you old enough to remember the phrase "bracket creep?" The process by which inflation steadily moves middle-class people into tax brackets originally meant for the top 5%?

[Notice that, when the tax code was amended to mandate tax brackets increase along with inflation, that something was done about inflation?]

You're right in that it's a confusing world, financially speaking. There's an odd symbiosis between the banking circuit, the regulatory apparatus and the academy. Bankers and investment dealers come up with shiny new products which promise to mitigate market turbulence. The more complex they are, the more expertise is needed to run them. And where do you get the expertise? In the academy. Having a Ph.D. in statistics can get you a six-figure Wall Street job right off the bat.

And the regulators? Their expertise comes from the same source, and they depend upon professors to a far greater extent than Wall Street. Look at how many economists the Federal Reserve sponsors, whether directly or indirectly.

The 2008 crisis, although triggered by the pop of the housing bubble, was accentuated by a design flaw buried in the complex statistical models used in the Collateralized Debt Obligations products and whatnot. Put simply, it underestimated the correlation between local real estate markets in a bubble. Since the same design flaw was part of the standard model, all of those fancy risk-mitigating products contained the same flaw: in panic time, they blow apart because they underestimate the correlation between different investment classes in a crisis.

With that background in mind, here's the point. None of the experts spotted the design flaw until the entire system blew up! Not the Wall Street experts, not the regulators, not the ratings agencies, not the professors. All these groups were caught with their pants down when the wall fell away. The only ones who spotted it were non-experts, who were largely swept aside as too unsophisticated to know what they were talking about.

A lifetime from now, when everyone hurt has gone to their final rest, people will see the '08 crisis as yet another example of the comedy of specialization. The people who spotted the flaw didn't know enough about the field to avoid being brushed off. The people who knew enough about the system to track down the flaw were too emotionally invested in it to even see the flaw.

As a sideline: have you heard of the Minsky Effect? It says that greater stability leads to greater instability. Whether risk mitigation is provided by government (i.e., tighter regulations) or by the private sector (those risk-mitigating doodads), people become used to the idea that risk is being actively whittled away. Thus, they get lulled into the notion that risk is disappearing entirely. With that false sense of security, they take bigger risks because they assume they're safe. And then, the system becomes more unstable until the inevitable end.

If you know any athletes at the college level, you should tell them about the Minsky Effect. Adjusted, it explains why there's so many concussions in pro football and ice hockey today. Better equipment leads to that false sense of security, leading to...

52 posted on 12/04/2012 4:51:07 PM PST by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NCLaw441; muawiyah
That said, considering payments from workers of 6+% and a like amount on their behalf from the employer, with a reasonable interest component over an average working life, I imagine most people DO pay more in than they receive in benefits. If the funds had in fact been set aside and conservatively invested (even in money market accounts) solvency would not be an issue.

So what you're saying is that there's a leak somewhere that led to the shortfall. All I'll add is that the system could have been protected by forbidding any increase in benefits unless there was a sufficient surplus to pay for it, actuarially speaking. It wouldn't have worked perfectly, as a perfect shield would require predicting what life expectancy would be in the future, but it would have helped.

The trouble is, the Supreme Court okayed Social Security as a combination tax and general-welfare program. In doing so, they gave Congress a free hand to do what they like to benefits and tax rates. The political marketplace being what it is, the benefits rose faster than the taxes.

And as muawiyah pointed out in post 42, inflation bollixed things up. By the time inflation crested, Henry Kaufman was calling bonds "certificates of guaranteed confiscation." Since the admittedly theoretical trust fund holds non-marketable government bonds, it too was gutted by holding "certificates of guaranteed confiscation." Inflation does confuse things.

A side note. The reason why everyone assumes that the employee pays the full assessment of FICA taxes is not just out of courtesy to the employees. There's sound economics behind it. Employers, because they have to pay "their share" out of profits, will adjust wages downwards to the point where the employees end up paying for all of it. It's a process that's largely unplanned, takes a long stretch of time and tends to be exhibited by shaving raises, or by greater measures when the company's in real trouble, but that's what employers collectively end up doing to restore normal profit rates. The system re-equilibrates, with the full brunt falling on the employees.

Ever notice that the inequality mongers always use after-tax data without disclosing that fact?

53 posted on 12/04/2012 5:14:08 PM PST by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson