SS benefits could be the first to go in a matter of days if the US defaults

[T. A. Gardner]

Your dementia is causing you to look stupid, Terry. 330M Americans with "almost 70 million people that rely upon SS every month" would equal 1 in 4.7 Americans.

I suspect part of this is caused by Republicans denying abortions to poor people. A you really advocating "let the little bastards starve", Terry? What does that say about our country?

Geeko stated "1 in 3." I was responding to that. Even at a bit more than 1 in 5, same question, your tu quoque fallacy aside. Why are so many people on social security? What does that say about our country?

[Flash]

Geeko stated "1 in 3." I was responding to that. Even at a bit more than 1 in 5, same question, your tu quoque fallacy aside. Why are so many people on social security? What does that say about our country?

It means the population is aging as baby boomers retire and the birth rate has dropped creating a worker to retiree ration of 3:1 compared to the approximately 40:1 in 1950.

It also means Congress has been too generous with the benefits allowing people to retire early at age 62 rather than full retirement age (now 66). About 70% retire early. Congress also created a cost-of-living allowance increasing SS payments the same rate as inflation. These benefits and many more were not part of the original SS law.

[Doc Dutch]

Geeko stated "1 in 3." I was responding to that. Even at a bit more than 1 in 5, same question, your tu quoque fallacy aside. Why are so many people on social security? What does that say about our country?

You misread what he said, but it figures you think it's not your fault. He was talking voters, you were talking total population. All Trumpers have a stock answer of "Not my responsibility". LOL

He said: "There are almost 70 million people that rely upon SS every month. 231 million people voted in 2020! That's almost 1 out of every 3 voters are drawing SS!"

You said: "1 in 3 people are getting social security, what's that say about our country? A third of the population isn't over 62 1/2, the earliest age you can take SS for retirement."

That's a Bud Light drinker's mistake, Terry. The fact you immediately dodged responsibility, much less correct your mistake, is another reason why I believe you aren't the man you once were, Terry.

[T. A. Gardner]

You misread what he said, but it figures you think it's not your fault. He was talking voters, you were talking total population. All Trumpers have a stock answer of "Not my responsibility". LOL

He said: "There are almost 70 million people that rely upon SS every month. 231 million people voted in 2020! That's almost 1 out of every 3 voters are drawing SS!"

You said: "1 in 3 people are getting social security, what's that say about our country? A third of the population isn't over 62 1/2, the earliest age you can take SS for retirement."

That's a Bud Light drinker's mistake, Terry. The fact you immediately dodged responsibility, much less correct your mistake, is another reason why I believe you aren't the man you once were, Terry.

Here's what he said:

There are almost 70 million people that rely upon SS every month. 231 million people voted in 2020! That's almost 1 out of every 3 voters are drawing SS!

This is wrong on the math to begin with. If 70 million people in the US rely on social security, that doesn't equate to all 70 million actually voting. Turn out in the 2022 election was a mere 47% (rounded off).

https://ballotpedia.org/Election_res..._voter_turnout

So only about half those on SS could be reasonably expected to vote in an election, at most. Then, that 70 million is the total in the general population of about 331 million people or about 21%, call it one in five. That in turn means that only about 1 in 5 voters that actually bother to vote is on social security.

I'd further note that Geeko uses the 2020 election turnout in his statement. 2020 was a year where there was an unusually high number of people voting. Usually in presidential elections only about 60% of voters turn out. But let's go with Geeko's version. There are about 261 million voters in the US.

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...ation-for-2022

That would mean about 155 million people voted in 2020. Of those, about 31 million were on social security.

[Damocles]

LOL.

Well, a compromise was reached and though AOC and her ilk and MTG and her ilk will not vote for it, it will pass and your whole, "The world will end" prognostication will never come to fruition and you will not get to dance on the grave of Social Security.

[Tinkerpeach]

It's the Republican Congress holding paying the debt hostage, not Sleepy Joe.

If the US defaults on its debt, who will American voters blame the most?

Republicans already offered to extend it, it’s the democrats who won’t make any spending cuts

[Doc Dutch]

Republicans already offered to extend it, it’s the democrats who won’t make any spending cuts

Tink, spending cuts are a budget matter. Raising the debt ceiling is a debt matter. An obligation.

When you are behind on your credit card bills, do you try to renegotiate your interest rate? Freebies from Visa or Master Card?

Spin it however you like, but I'm willing to bet that the Republicans put the United States into default...and it won't be pretty.

[ptif219]

That's a terrible excuse, you can do much better.

That is fact

[Bigdog]

Putting surplus SS revenue in special treasuries was part of the original SS law. It is not something that Congress did later to raid the fund. There would be a lot less in the SS trust fund today if it had not been placed in treasuries to earn interest. LBJ's actions (to make defense spending look smaller during Vietnam) did not affect anything in the SS trust fund.

I don't understand your comment about "loaning $2.7T to an entity that is $30T in debt." The federal government would have to borrow those funds whether it borrowed it from the public or from the SS funds. This way, SS collected the interest rather than the bond holders.

I think we can both agree the problem is spending too much money. As the old saying goes, "Democrats tax and spend" and Republicans "borrow and spend." That seems to still be true.

Yes, it was part of the original law. The money is gone, and all we have is a pile of IOUs.

My point is, the U.S. gov't is broke. The gov't has no money, just debt. And with interest rates rising, just covering the interest payments on the debt might consume all revenue.

Yes, it's good to earn interest. But is that how most Americans would have decided to invest their money? IDk if it even keeps it up with inflation, Flash.

IMO, both parties Borrow and Spend too much. The debt increases no matter who is in charge.

[Flash]

Yes, it was part of the original law. The money is gone, and all we have is a pile of IOUs.

My point is, the U.S. gov't is broke. The gov't has no money, just debt. And with interest rates rising, just covering the interest payments on the debt might consume all revenue.

Yes, it's good to earn interest. But is that how most Americans would have decided to invest their money? IDk if it even keeps it up with inflation, Flash.

IMO, both parties Borrow and Spend too much. The debt increases no matter who is in charge.

Treasuries have always been repaid. The SS money is not gone, it is used every month to pay the shortfall between SS revenues and benefits. That is why Reagan increased the SS payroll tax--to pay for the shortfall that is now occurring.

Most investment accounts include treasuries because they are safe--state pension systems, private investment houses, union pension funds, China, Japan, the UK all own U. S. treasuries.

We could have left the money just sitting there, but we would still be using it today to cover the shortfall caused by the retirement of boomers. The only difference is that there would be less money to cover that shortfall because it would only have the original revenues minus the interest.

You are right that treasuries do not pay much, but if Congress had done nothing with those revenues they would be making 0%.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2020...tkoKWAy6LbI9tk

[Truth Detector]

But again, why no complaints from your kind when the debt ceiling was raised under trump

Why do you think there were no complaints? Live in a cave halfwit?

[Truth Detector]

There is absolutely no need for a debt ceiling.

So Government should have no spending restraints? Asinine.

[Truth Detector]

Agreed except it is not a Ponzi scheme as long as government is able to make payments on its bonds and it has never missed a payment. Your comparison to using an investment company is why you look at the bond ratings before investing.

If we were all required to put the 12.4% SS contribution in S&P 500 index funds we would have a lot more money, it could be left to whomever, and government would not have its largest expenditure to worry about that it will have to reform in ten years. The problem is we can't let younger workers put their money into investments because their money is needed to pay current retirees.

Searching for an argument?

[Truth Detector]

You are an idiot my dear

Projection from someone who defines the term.

[floridafan]

So Government should have no spending restraints? Asinine.

It’s up to Congress to regulate spending