Slashdot Mirror

What would make a lot more sense is for banks and credit agencies to stop using the SSN as a master password. That's not what it was ever designed for.

This is exactly right. At least according to The Federal Government.

Social Security expenditures exceeded the programs non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy ... This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly ...

the retirement age is 65. Don't expect that to last.

Indeed. For what it is worth, according to current legislation, the full retirement age is 65 if you were born before 1937. It goes up after 1937, until 1960 where it levels off at 67. John Boehner (R - OH), Speaker of the House, has already floated the idea of rasing it to 70; he did that last year when the Republicans were still a minority in the House. Now that they have a majority, expect to see legislation to raise it higher than 67 if a Republican takes the White House in 2012.
 

Of course there is interest to be paid on the Social Security Trust Fund T-Bills. The average interest paid 2010 was 4.642%. For new SSTF T-Bills in 2010 the average rate was 2.76%. Read all about it here.

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/fundFAQ.html

Makes comprehensive changes in Social Security coverage, financing, and benefit structure. Following are major provisions of the legislation which incorporate the recommendations of the National Commission on Social Security Reform: Covers under Social Security the following groups: (1) Federal employees hired on or after January 1, 1984; ...snip...

No, GP is right.
SSA is exactly analogous to this online poker game.
The "winnings" you receive from SS are either your own money or the money from the player sitting next to you.
And you will never walk out of the casino with more money than you walked in with.
It's not an "investment". It's a Ponzi scheme. And the House. Always. Wins.

Read on

No, they did not "invest" it.
You "invest" by buying stock in WMT, for example.
WMT uses the money to fund operations in their business --to provide a valuable service (distribution of goods).
WMT receives money (profit) in exchange for that service they keep some money (WMT is now worth more) and give some of it to the investors.
At some point you can sell your little piece of WMT (which is now worth a little more).

That's investing.

SSA does not do that.
You give money to the SSA (no choice except for a privileged few); which SSA "invests" by buying US Government securities.
Here is SSA's dismissal of the criticism that these securities are worthless IOUs:

The money you put in to SS is already spent. So when you retire, where does your SSA check come from?
SSA (did you follow the link?) addresses the non-issue of whether the funds will be paid back. Nobody is asking that.
The question is "where are they going to get the money to pay it back?".

Well, that comes from taxes. From the same group of "investors" (citizens) that put the money in the system to begin with.
OK, those people are retired now and don't pay taxes (just ask your grandfather--there's no taxes after retirement; you get to keep it all).
Fine--it's their kids, then. Today's retirees already paid for their parents SS checks last year. Today's workers pay for their parents now.

So, you place the bet, and if you win, they give some money from the player sitting next to you.
It's EXACTLY the same thing.
A more textbook Ponzi scheme does not exist.

Social Security began running at a deficit (benefits payouts exceeds SS tax revenue) last year. Unless your plan is to cut benefits payments to exactly match the drop in SS tax revenue, its shortfall most certainly makes it part of the overall Federal budget we need to be worried about.

"Sticking it to the man". Boy, you don't know me at all. However, I see nothing wrong with what you said beyond DC trying to help the poor. They aren't trying to help them out at all. Having lived in Houston when the Katrina victims came, they were giving people 3 bedroom homes in the suburb for 10 bucks a month, and many did not try to get jobs. This is while students like me have to go into debt to afford tuition and we don't qualify for any of the benefits. However, that being said, the majority of expenses from programs like social security go to elderly people http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm who paid into the program thinking they would some day get benefits.

We also will need to figure out how to replace that income to the general fund, but I would lump the bonds that are held by the Social Security administration in with the retirement plan since that is basically what it is. I have on numerous occasions mentioned the issues with the trust fund and people either think I am a nut job or some political hack even though the Social Security Trustees Annual Report says the exact same thing.

I was trying to imply that deference would be part of the cuts. A good example of waste that has been one of the hot topics is the F-35 JSF that is being developed and is planned to be deployed into service. Our own military doesn't want the stupid thing but they are getting it. Also there is a lot of cuts that can happen in the military that wouldn't endanger our security. We could close all of our foreign bases and bring those troops home (do we really need to defend Europe), we could quit being Team America World Police and get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and any other country we are fighting in (we go into so many I loose track of which ones we are still in). Doing this would not only cut costs, but probably would make use safer since we typically are viewed as occupiers especially in the middle east where our presence is used a a great recruiting tool for terrorists. Now even in the best case we would still have some troops abroad but by far the vast majority of them should be the embassy guards. Also since we wouldn't have troops all over god's green earth we wouldn't need to have as large armed services. This would be a huge cut (probably in the 100+ billion a year range but I don't know of good numbers) and would be real savings. Granted it couldn't be done instantly and would probably take a few years but we would see cos

As far as domestic cuts there are the giveaways that are subsidies but as you point out they are a small amount. One place to start would be with reforming Medicare especially part D where the government can't negotiate drug prices. There are probably lots of things similar to that but smaller which could be reformed.

Yes social security does need reform. The actual numbers from the Social Security Board of Trustees differ from what you are claiming. For instance Social Security is currently not taking in what is pays out. Both this year and last year the program ran a deficit, last years was $49 billion and this year it is projected to be $46 billion. Now granted there is still interest on the debt that is also social security income that is coming in so it isn't a crisis yet. Once the economy gets better there is a consistent projected $20 billion dollar short fall. The value in the trust fund is projected to continue to grow until about 2022 from interest on existing bonds, but after that the trust fund will start to be depleted. This does not conform to your numbers as you claim in 2037 it will stop being a net contributor to the federal budget. Starting in about 2036 (one year earlier than the date in the 2010 report) the trust fund will have been exhausted at which point it is projected that Social security will only be able to pay 75% of promised benefits and the ability to do is continues out to the projected date of 2085 (they probably have a 75 year projection which is why this date is as far as they go). The solvency problem with social security is something that could be corrected by removing the cap on income that is subjected to it and either raising the social security tax rate, raising the retirement age, adjusting the cost of living increases, means test it, and probably some other things that I am forgetting. The biggest issue is that from now until 2022 the amount of money from social security that is borrowed and thus goes into the general fund is going to be decreasing so if you want to keep spending at current non Social Security spending at current levels you will need to either raise taxes or borrow more money. Then from 2022 to 2036 social security will not contribute any money to the general fund as it draws down the trust fund by redeeming those bonds to pay benefits. Now you may think these dates are way far out in the future but for 2022 is only 11 years out and people have been making hay about the coming issues for as long as I have been following politics (about 14 years) but there seems to be a lack of political will hasn't made the situation better and with the polarization in the countr

For somebody born in the 1970s, an SSN application might not have been filed until needed for a job.

Simply not true. I lived it. Back in ye olden days when SSNs were considered the public identifier that they are, I think about 1/4 of my army reserve unit had the same first 5 as me...

There has been a big push to get hospitals to get kids SSNs upon birth for a long time. Maybe a kid born with a midwife in a commune in the 70s wasn't assigned a SSN until the early 90s, but I've never heard of that.

Check out

http://www.ssa.gov/history/ssn/ssnchron.html

If mom an dad opened a minor savings account for the kid after 1970, the bank required a SSN. Any kid attending school was enrolled in 1972, presumably that means any kid born after about 1967 had a SSN issued in 1972, unless they were homeschooled. Looks like in '75 any kid in a welfare family, or in '77 any kid in a food stamp family (which is now something like 30% of the child population) required a SSN. Regardless of job status, any kid with a drivers license in '76 had a SSN.

Theoretically, both in the 70s all the way to the present day, if an uninsured mom had an uninsured kid, were born outside a hospital, the parents never claimed the tax deduction, the kid never had a bank account, the kid never attended school, the kid never received any govt handouts or at least the family never got credit for the kid, the kid never filed a tax return for non-wage income, and finally the kid got a job before the kid got any sort of state drivers license or ID... then, maybe, the kid wouldn't get a SSN before they get a job.

Of course with teenager unemployment running 50% now, and new graduate unemployment nearing that, its all kind of irrelevant now...

FTA: "The researchers sent a follow-up survey to their student participants asking them whether the first five digits of the social security number their algorithm predicted was correct. "

SS numbers are 9 digits long. Matching the first 5 digits isn't matching 9 digits. The first 3 are associated with place, the second 2 are fairly predictable based on when the SSN was issued, but the last 4 are just assigned sequentially. Also, there is no requirement to get an SSN shortly after birth, so SSNs aren't even necessarily associated with birth date.

FTA: "The researchers sent a follow-up survey to their student participants asking them whether the first five digits of the social security number their algorithm predicted was correct. "

SS numbers are 9 digits long. Matching the first 5 digits isn't matching 9 digits. The first 3 are associated with place, the second 2 are fairly predictable based on when the SSN was issued, but the last 4 are just assigned sequentially. Also, there is no requirement to get an SSN shortly after birth, so SSNs aren't even necessarily associated with birth date.

Well, figure it out:

In June the US government paid out $59B in social security payments.

Judging by headlines that came up on a google search, it sounds like maybe $20B or so are missing from Iraq.

So, it sounds like your answer is about 0.04 years or so. As much as I think we waste too much money on the military, it alone is not the solution to social security. That doesn't mean that we can't still reform it.

The current maximum benefit is $38316 (earn high, retire in 2011 at 70):

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/examplemax.html

How does raising the taxable limit by $12,000 (about 10%, cap is $106,800 this year) translate into more than a $4,000 (about 10%) increase in the benefit?

In actuality, we need BOTH things. There's actually enough resources for maintaining low gravity manufacturing, etc. on the Moon (which we actually need to start getting to if you're going to travel to the stars in the first place...) and we need those experiments on the ISS (Which isn't zero gravity (If it was, you wouldn't need to constantly push it back into orbit...), but close enough to count for what we're needing right now...) for the reasons you give.

The brutal truth of the matter is that we're pouring money into "social" programs that are hopelessly mis-managed and we keep trimming the budgets for doing this stuff because "it's unnecessary" (Never mind that we're where we are mainly because of the space and defense budgets of the world...). Something we need to realise isn't a useful utilisation of our collective resources as a species.

We spend $1100+ Billion on some of those social programs ($500 Billion on Medicare, $620 Billion on Social Security, and let's not count all the others).

We spend $19 Billion on NASA (which, incidentally, works out to the amount we spend every 14 months on SS vs the duration of NASA). It's like cutting one vending-machine Coke from your budget when you have have payments on a pair of brand-new cars.

I have never understood the low maximum income level for social security. It's as if it were DESIGNED to punish lower income earners.

(For those who are not aware, "For 2011, the maximum taxable earnings amount for Social Security is $106,800." Any income above that amount does not incur social security taxes. See here.

The $2.6 trillion in the Social Security Trust fund, from the perspective of the federal government, is $2.6 trillion in payment obligations (that is, spend it once, you can't spend it again).

If you go here and use the default settings for the time series report, you will see that the trust fund holds about $2.6 trillion in special government bonds:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/investheld.html

2% of their gross? Really?? FICA being more than the Income Tax?

Here's the 2010 1040 Tax Tables

Please look at the first slots of the tax table. Note that the minimum tax for where you've earned any money is $1. Note that this is owed for $5-15. Now, look at the $1300 starting point on the next column is $130. The reality is that you're dead wrong on things. The minimum is 10% of gross income.

FICA Tax Rate Table

Please look at the line for 1990 and later. W2 employees will pay 7.65% of their gross earnings. Self-employed people will pay in 15.3%. Unless you're self-employed, you will never exceed your Income Tax liability in FICA. You will exceed your liability for FICA taxes, if self employed, when you earn approximately 60k/yr.

I suggest you do a bit of research before spouting off figures. You're gravely wrong on this subject. And it's appeals to emotion without proper facts behind them that has brought all of us to the situations we now face these days.

"Last year, Social Security started paying out more than it takes in"
Only in the lowest-revenue quarter. On an annual basis SS still runs a surplus. See: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html . Over a $68 billion surplus in 2010.

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

To be fair, the current SS tax is already highly progressive. The first dollar paid in each year returns, roughly, six times the retirement benefit of the last dollar paid in each year just before hitting the cap. As well, benefits are indirectly means tested today by partially taxing SS benefits as income IFF other sources of income exceed a threshold.

Therefore, making SS taxation more progressive (such as by removing the salary cap and/or taxing all income including investment income etc) and/or stronger means testing (possibly including asset tests such as those used by medicaid and other programs) has a precedent. However, going too far down this path risks SS becoming viewed as a "welfare program" making it vulnerable to major "reforms" (i.e., cuts).

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

To be fair, the current SS tax is already highly progressive. The first dollar paid in each year returns, roughly, six times the retirement benefit of the last dollar paid in each year just before hitting the cap. As well, benefits are indirectly means tested today by partially taxing SS benefits as income IFF other sources of income exceed a threshold.

Therefore, making SS taxation more progressive (such as by removing the salary cap and/or taxing all income including investment income etc) and/or stronger means testing (possibly including asset tests such as those used by medicaid and other programs) has a precedent. However, going too far down this path risks SS becoming viewed as a "welfare program" making it vulnerable to major "reforms" (i.e., cuts).

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, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that projected non-dedicated sources of revenues -- primarily general revenues -- will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays. That threshold was in fact breached for the first time in fiscal 2010. A Presidential proposal is required by law in response to the latest warning.

, I can say you are the FIRST PERSON I’ve EVER HEARD say that.

That doesn't make me a liar. It makes you unaware.

The last 2-3 annual statements I've received from the SSA have had inserts to that effect. Trust me, I'd much rather have my money than score a political point.

Perhaps it has to do with your anticipated retirement year, e.g. if you're not due to retire till after they run out of money, they include the insert?

For a Government entity that won't even give a hint or speculate about cost of living increases until the consumer price index is officially out every year, you think they would actually have an official stance on something as completely undecided as what *if* congress doesn't fix the problem in the next 15 years? Right-O!

Yes. I do and they do: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/

Your attitude reminds me a lot of the SSA. 'How dare you question us when we are about our very important business?!'

Actually you are wrong, Currently SSA takes in MORE money than they pay out. There is no "Fund" as Congress has been "Borrowing" it to fund other parts of the budget. The best way to maintain benefits after the switchover occurs (when more money is being paid out than put in) is to raise SSA taxes now and feather the retirement age again.

Social Security brought in an excess of 68.6 Billion dollars last year. (thats what remained after all payouts were made)

Don't believe me?

The data is here: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html

See Q21:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Gotta love the internets, where countering a misconception results in yelling for citations when the answer is a relatively simple search away:

http://www.google.com/search?q=ssn+not+to+be+used+for+identification

Perhaps you don't think of the period between 2011 and 1972 as decades?

Wow, you seriously underestimate the effort needed to maintain a household before modern appliances and conveniences don't you.

Justify that statement. I want to know what it is I do that should be taking all day every day if I didn't have a modern appliance.

Your belief is typically chauvinist: to think that women were chained to the kitchen or the washroom until some clever men saved them with their cunning automated substitutes for women. But it was the dearth of men during war and a consequent change of attitude both by and toward women which brought them out of the house. Then employers saw that they could drive down wages with a labour market twice the size, and what was temporarily a choice became an obligation if you want enough money to run a household. Most women have now lost the opportunity for a full motherhood, and we have pride in motherhood substituted with a pride in "juggling work and family" - about as safe for society as "juggling piloting and small-bore rifling".

The average male age 20 can expect to live for an extra 15 years compared to the 1900, the average female for an extra 20 years.

It's convenient to choose "just over 100 years" because then you get to factor in all the deaths of WW1, the influenza pandemic, etc. For the US, compare the white male at 1920. He gets around 10 more years. All the pain of modern living just for 10 more years at the end of your life? No thanks! And not even 10 more years of living, because religious mores the laws on which they are based mean that in almost all developed countries we don't prolong life based on quality of life but based on the idea that life must be preserved.

(Also note what's happening recently, perhaps using more recent data.)

Air conditioning.

That's it? That's what you have to offer? Fucking air conditioning? One side of our family has an apartment on the top floor of a block in a certain Mediterranean city. It's no longer the permanent home, but that generation have (the fates seemed to decree) always had a top-floor apartment. And never with air conditioning. You know what you do when it's hot? You don't sit in direct sunlight, you take some clothes off and you open the window. Or you cool yourself with water. It's free and it takes advantage of the fact that you're an endotherm.

Many people consider this one of the most valuable parts of living. So congratulations on showing that your definition of a "good life" is not in sync with that of many people.

I asked a question. Well done on reading it as an assertion. Are you sure that the yearning for travel is not something engineered into us by alienating us from those living next door and by constantly pummeling tourism adverts at us? Is it actually human nature to want to move around the world? The question is far more subtle than, "Do people today say they want to travel?"

(If you don't believe that such programming occurs, consider asking a white man in apartheid South Africa, "Do you agree with the system of South African apartheid?" Ask the same question in England. If you're born into and develop in a society with a particular strong opinion, and you're taught that the opinion is to your advantage, you take on that opinion.)

I know quite a few people who now lead successful lives due to treatment but a century ago would have been locked up.

Have you ever heard of the LA county jail being called the "largest de facto mental hospital in the world"? Then people were identified as insane and locked up. Today we regard people as free to behave as they please, hold them responsible for their crimes, and then lock them up. If your friends now lead successful lives it is either because they had the benefit of loving intervention or they didn't experience

If I may play devils' advocate for a moment...

Let's assume a person began working in 1960, retired in 2005 and always earned more than the maximum taxable amount for social security. Based on the maximum taxable amount by year, the tax rate by year, and assuming a 7% yearly rate of return, by the time that person retires in 2005, he'll have effectively paid $255144 into social security. Assuming that person was 65, they will receive a monthly benefit of $2,249. Assuming that 7% rate of return continues, that person will be receiving benefits that outweigh their contributions in 15 years; and that number goes down for people that have been earning less started working and retired earlier.

In conclusion, anyone who lives 15 years past their retirement date is a freeloader and not a real 'merican.


Sources:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/taxRates.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/examplemax.html
*Note -- I ignored employer contributions which, in the case of determining if someone is a freeloader, don't count as your own contribution.

If I may play devils' advocate for a moment...

Let's assume a person began working in 1960, retired in 2005 and always earned more than the maximum taxable amount for social security. Based on the maximum taxable amount by year, the tax rate by year, and assuming a 7% yearly rate of return, by the time that person retires in 2005, he'll have effectively paid $255144 into social security. Assuming that person was 65, they will receive a monthly benefit of $2,249. Assuming that 7% rate of return continues, that person will be receiving benefits that outweigh their contributions in 15 years; and that number goes down for people that have been earning less started working and retired earlier.

In conclusion, anyone who lives 15 years past their retirement date is a freeloader and not a real 'merican.


Sources:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/taxRates.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/examplemax.html
*Note -- I ignored employer contributions which, in the case of determining if someone is a freeloader, don't count as your own contribution.

If I may play devils' advocate for a moment...

Let's assume a person began working in 1960, retired in 2005 and always earned more than the maximum taxable amount for social security. Based on the maximum taxable amount by year, the tax rate by year, and assuming a 7% yearly rate of return, by the time that person retires in 2005, he'll have effectively paid $255144 into social security. Assuming that person was 65, they will receive a monthly benefit of $2,249. Assuming that 7% rate of return continues, that person will be receiving benefits that outweigh their contributions in 15 years; and that number goes down for people that have been earning less started working and retired earlier.

In conclusion, anyone who lives 15 years past their retirement date is a freeloader and not a real 'merican.


Sources:
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/ProgData/taxRates.html
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/examplemax.html
*Note -- I ignored employer contributions which, in the case of determining if someone is a freeloader, don't count as your own contribution.

There is already a certain amount of means testing in that up to 85% of social security payments may be taxed for those with a combined income > $34,000.

Social Security expenditures are expected to exceed tax receipts this year for the first time since 1983. The projected deficit of $41 billion this year (excluding interest income) is attributable to the recession and to an expected $25 billion downward adjustment to 2010 income that corrects for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years --Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees 2010 annual report

"For example, some of the digits of the SSN associate with certain states at certain times"

That will no longer be true for new SSNs issued after this summer ... that is, for kids old enough to drive or get a job in 2015 or so.

More relevant to the main question, I still use my college student ID card sometimes when asked to "show ID" for transactions (even though I also have a drivers' license hidden in my wallet)... I've even used it with my voter registration card to vote. I've been out of school for several years now, but it has my name, an issue date, and a still-recognizable picture, so I believe it ought to authenticate me (it helps that I still live in the same town where I went to school). I haven't tried using it to board a plane, though - I have a current passport for that purpose.

Apparently you can decline to get a SSN, but I couldn't find out if you can actually disassociate yourself from it if you already have one. Also while you can legally open a bank account without a SSN, it seems to make the whole process a lot more complicated. My guess is that it's like that for most things; legally allowed, but five times the hassle.

he doesn't have an SSN - sure it made life more difficult.. but at the same time he doesn't have to pay into SS which is nice..

Drug dealers who trade in cash don't "have to" pay Social Security tax either, but that doesn't make it legal. If you work in the United States, you are required to pay Social Security tax, period.

Little history about SSN from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number

From the government's own website.

Social Security Number Allocations
http://www.ssa.gov/employer/stateweb.htm

New Feature - SSN Randomization
http://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html

Little history about SSN from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_number

From the government's own website.

Social Security Number Allocations
http://www.ssa.gov/employer/stateweb.htm

New Feature - SSN Randomization
http://www.ssa.gov/employer/randomization.html

Sorry, what? Are you saying that, if it weren't for the Federal Reserve and Social Security, the last decade of irresponsible spending and investment would not have resulted in the 2008 "crisis"?

- exactly.

Yes, that's what I am saying. If it weren't for Fed printing money, there wouldn't have been the 1920 and 1929 and 1970s and end of 1990s and current crises. These are ALL due to monetary policy, which can be described in one single word: counterfeiting.

Counterfeit money - money that has no backing of either production or resource of any kind. Money that's printed to cover any costs - be it military or unemployment or pensions or welfare or subsidies and bail outs to large government preferred institutions, like banks and insurance companies and even certain car manufacturers.

If there was no Fed, USA would have never lost its extensive railroad system, it never would have had the ridiculous suburban sprawl resulting from the gov't subsidies during FDR. Some of that money came out of airline taxes, some were borrowed, some were printed.

If there was no Fed, USA would have still had CAPITAL SAVINGS, and there would have been jobs in USA because government would have been significantly smaller.

US government started growing at ever increasing rates since the Fed was established.

SS on the other hand was a crutch, implemented during the 1930s depression as a response to the Fed's 'stimulus' then, and it resulted in government growing even bigger, because from the very beginning it was not set up as a fund - in fact gov't argued in front of many courts (and only won in front of the Supreme court) at the time that SS taxes (payroll part) and SS payments were unconnected to each other. That payroll taxes were 'general' and 'unearmarked'. The reason for that was simple - it's really unconstitutional to take money from one person and directly give it to another, be it a fund or whatever. So payroll taxes paid into SS fund for a specific employee would have been unconstitutional. The gov't argued that those taxes were only implemented together with SS payments by coincidence. There was never a fund, that's what this is about - an SS Trustee explaining that SS has no funds and it's a ponzi scheme.

The reason for SS to exist was of-course gov't counterfeiting currency and sending prices up (another failure of a quazi-gov't agency: Fed's 'mandate' was to keep prices stable, which free market before Fed did splendidly, as US Dollar went up in value by a factor of 2 over 19 century and fell by 98% over the 20th, since the establishment of the Fed.) But the reason why people were in dire conditions was destruction of value of currency and also the fact that income tax ate too much of their earnings. But mostly it was currency destruction.
If there was no Fed and no printing and if there was no income tax (which also was implemented in 1913, which is not a coincidence), the US would have not lost its capital investments and people would have been much better off and wouldn't have had any use for gov't SS and Medicare/aide etc. Of-course gov't printing money is another reason why medical insurance and care and education costs have risen so much - gov't guarantees them by providing loans and those institutions can then take everything they see given out by gov't.
---

SS could be run as an investment policy, but it isn't, nor does it need to be. As long as the government behaves responsibly, it doesn't need to have everyone's pension money available - just as banks don't have the total value of all deposits in available cash.

- the fractional reserve is also a scam. FDIC proves it's a scam. There was a reason banks were bankrupt prior to FDIC by bank runs - that's because people don't trust fractional reserve and with a good reason.

Fractional reserve and Madoff's scam and SS and Federal res

You may not realize this, but the social security trust fund is running on SURPLUS because of the boomers paying in all their lives and are just now retiring and drawing from their fund-- they were supposed to DIE before the trust fund ran out at the rates they were paying in. Its their money. Previous generations GOT PAID back my parents are now, if that is a scam....

The SSA are currently paying more in benefits than they are receiving in contributions, and this will only get worse. Your parents were taxed and then now are getting paid through the taxes of others. Don't pretend this is some type of investment fund they put money into.

Now maybe we don't want to pay the gap from the underestimates in cost of living, lifespan, and unregulated medical costs... but they deserve their money back they put in.

Sure but in this case that means raising taxes on younger people in order to give them that money back. Don't young people deserve their money too?

Maybe they shouldn't have added onto the program and we should have let all the retards and autistics starve and die. Maybe its the kids fault his parents generation polluted etc and made them early social security net-losses who have been draining the system prematurely at higher than predicted rates... (or they didn't want to pay what they agreed to support while possibly feeling guilty for contributing to higher rates of needy.)

Yes I'm sure they would all have just died. The problem is that this system is a legal ponzi scheme. It takes from the young and gives to the old, and hopes that there will be enough young in the future to continue the process as the previous youth become old and retire. To think that this is somehow sustainable or even should be done at all is insane.

Since I'm paying into the trust fund most my life I want my money back later and it SHOULD be enough money because I do not live in a baby boom and the population is NOT shrinking. I'd rather they took it and kept it safe than me manually save X amount every paycheck with greater risk and no ability to "sponge" on anybody should I end up a cripple or something.... my bank collapses...etc.

Ok then so let's make it optional. So then people like me who know that trust fund "assets" are based on bonds and other IOUs don't have to have their money stolen and spent. I know how to save money, so why is it mandatory that I pay in? Oh yeah that's right because I'll be retiring far past 2037 and by then the scam will be over.

Social Security is not sustainable over the long term at current benefit and tax rates. Due to the recent economic recession, the program will temporarily pay more in benefits and expenses than it collects in taxes during 2010 and 2011. This pattern will reverse in 2012 through 2014 as the economy recovers. However, in each year after 2014, the program will pay more in benefits and expenses than it collects in taxes (see the chart below). By 2037 the trust funds will be exhausted. At that point, payroll taxes and other income will flow into the fund but will be sufficient to pay only 78% of program costs. As reported in the 2010 Trustees Report, the shortfall over the next 75 years is 1.92% of taxable payroll.

What a load of BS in the summary. http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

Much as the politicians would have you think so, Social Security isn't part of "the budget". It's a separate revenue stream.

This is what the Social Security Administration has to say about it:

However, those involved in budget matters often produce two sets of numbers, one without Social Security included in the budget totals and one with Social Security included. Thus, Social Security is still frequently treated as though it were part of the unified federal budget even though, technically, it no longer is.

The "included in" numbers are, without exception, the ones used for public consumption.

Secondly, SS is just fine. It's running a surplus and can pay full benefits for the next 27 years.

Actually not. SS is now entering the phase where more is being drawn than being contributed (somewhat ahead of schedule - http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html). Further, there is no surplus - there hasn't been for many years. Federal law prohibits it ( http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf). Any surplus must by law be rolled into the general fund (referred to in the document as "borrowing from the Social Security trust fund"). Given that the federal government is currently in debt to the tune of approximately $14Trillion, there is no actual SS money accumulated anywhere.

The situation is dire. Not only is the debt not being reduced, but the deficit is accelerating. Extra taxes aren't going to cover it (they'll probably make the situation worse). Medicare/Medicaid are in even worse shape - and the prior administration made that worse still by signing into law the Medicare Drug Prescription Act.

Bleak indeed.

It's illegal? Good!

Though this does raise the question of why Blockbuster, cable companies, ISPs et al still ask for it with impunity.

He didn't say it was illegal. He said that's the excuse he uses to the peons asking for it, since they don't know any better. It's not illegal for a private entity to ask for it. You can refuse it, but then they can refuse service if you don't provide it.

Details here: http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/78/~/legal-requirements-to-provide-your-social-security-number

http://www.ncsl.org/LegislaturesElections/ElectionsCampaigns/StateRequirementsforVoterID/tabid/16602/Default.aspx

Not all states even require a presented ID. In no state is a driver's licence required to vote. You may want to note that the very first State on the list at the above site, Alabama, does not specifically allow a driver's licence as one of its alternates. Most, if not all, states that have ID requirements issue Voter Registration Cards, and for those states, these are THE primary ID. (I really can't claim all issue cards because, for example, the current Arizona law on this has not yet taken effect, so one state, at least, has no policy or alternatives in place, although they will). Some states always go to a provisional ballot if the person lacks ID, and some states primary method is a signed affidavit and comparison of the signature to one on record. This comparison is by human eye (either the Registrar or attendant Judge of Polls, as required by state law), but now sometimes the signature it is being compared to is not in a physical book in the hands of the poll worker, but is transmitted electronically from a more centralised location. Most states will work with some forms of alternate ID such as a driver's licence, passport, state or county issued ID or sometimes other documents, AND follow this with signature comparison.

Notice that issuing a net ID and still allowing using the net without any ID at all is exactly analogous to what some states on the lists above do for voting. I guess you'd better start writing the election commissions of all those states and telling them too to "Go back to bed."

http://www.ssa.gov/ssnumber/

The Social Security Administration will not give a person a new card or other information upon them merely presenting a driver's licence. In the simplest case, an adult born in the US, who has already had a card and merely wants a replacement, they will require proof of citizenship as well as some form of proof of identity, and must see either a U.S. birth certificate, U.S. consular report of birth, U.S. passport, Certificate of Naturalisation or Certificate of Citizenship for the first. All other cases, such as initial issue of a social security card, are more complex. Requests for specific information and actually applying for retirement are, if anything, more constrained than the simple application for a replacement card, until you actually have one.

OK, I think I've proved that you were spreading misinformation exactly 100% counter to the actual, well known facts. I won't advise you to go back to bed, rather stay with the debate and learn something before you post again.

> Those could be stripped tomorrow with a simple act of Congress.

The US could default on its whole debt by a simple act of Congress, as far as I can tell (though the 14th amendment is vague enough that I might be telling wrong).

Heck, it could effectively default on it by administrative action: just print money until the debt is inflated away.

I'm not going to comment on the $202 trillion figure, which does indeed involve some shenanigans, but the common figure for the US debt excludes the social security trust fund, which is about as "debt" as you can get (it holds US government bonds, like any other holder of US government debt). That's about $2.5 trillion of debt we don't like to talk about (source: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html ).

Back on original topic, I agree that the two-party system's implementation is broken. Just the biased rules for getting on ballots in various states seem like they should be unconstitutional (in the sense that if they're not now, we need some amendments).

And here's fun fact for you: most mandatory spending takes in more money than it spends. Medicare, and social security, as I mentioned, pull their own weight. They are a surplus.

Social Security isn't pulling its weight this year. Supposedly, Medicare will stay solvent till 2029, though the report notes this is based on assumptions that haven't been true in the past. Just getting rid of these two programs almost balances the 2009-2010 budget on its own. Roll over these taxes into the standard income tax. With a considerable cut from defense as well (it is bigger than these two entitlements taken separately), then the US is solvent.

Did you even read what you wrote? When you say "return to standards of living circa 1970", for a large portion of the populace, this wouldn't be a hardship since their standards of living haven't improved since then! Growth as a function of GDP is still increasing in the U.S. But, this growth is disproportionately being done by incomes that are in the top 1%. The middle and lower incomes have basically stagnated. For example, high school graduation rates have been at roughly 70% since 1970. Ideologues like yourself are very fond of quoting that life expectancy has continued to increase, but the reality is, life expectancy is only substantially increasing in the U.S. for people in the top half of incomes. Look at Table 4 in this study. Since 1977, life expectancy has risen 6 years for the top half of incomes, but only 1.3 years for the bottom half of incomes.

There is no money in the trust fund. To quote from this government document: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/51264.pdf - "If in any year revenues are greater than costs, the Secretary of the Treasury, as Managing Trustee of the trust funds, is required to invest this positive annual balance (or cash flow surplus) in securities backed by the U.S. government(3). The purchasing of the securities allows the surplus to be used for other government purposes(4)". Reference (4) goes on to say, "This is often referred to as 'borrowing from the Social Security trust fund.'". So the trust fund contains in essence only IOUs.

Since there is effectively no differentiation between the SS monies and the general pool, interest is not being earned, but being paid on the net negative balance. If you isolate just the SS trust fund, then you're missing the whole picture (large total federal debt and its ongoing growth).

Further, SS ran a deficit this year: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html. Deficits are expected to grow rapidly after 2014 - read the document. But even had this recent downturn not happened, the situation is still dire. Here is a chart showing the problem - made before the recent increases in federal outflows: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0b/Medicare_%26_Social_Security_Deficits_Chart.png.

Not an issue of spending? This government spreadsheet of the most recent and prior federal budgets contradicts your claim: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist01z1.xls. Note how the growth in outlays out-paces the growth in revenue. Note the much bigger jump in outlays between 2008 and 2009 (nearly twice the magnitude of the drop in revenues over the same period).