"The $53 trillion asteroid"

[Oliver]

Glenn Becks article about the 53 trillion Dollar Social Security asteroid certainly is an interesting read, but those numbers sound a little bit exaggerated:

Glenn Beck: The $53 trillion asteroid

Story Highlights:

Medicare trust fund will become insolvent in the year 2019, report says
Paulson: "Rising costs will ... threaten America's future prosperity"
Expert: Unfunded debt is "an IOU of around $455,000 per American household"
Beck: Our financial deficit is only dwarfed by "deficit of trust" we have in our leaders
$200 billion is the approximate total amount of write-downs announced so far as a result of the current credit crisis.
$14.1 trillion is the size of the entire U.S. economy
And $53 trillion is (drum roll please) the approximate size of this country's bill for the Social Security and Medicare promises we've made.Full article: http://us.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html



So what are the factual numbers?

[Darth Rotor]

Glenn Becks article about the 53 trillion Dollar Social Security asteroid certainly is an interesting read, but those numbers sound a little bit exaggerated:

Glenn Beck: The $53 trillion asteroid

So what are the factual numbers?
He posted it on the internet. It is thus an unassailable source. :rolleyes: What is the problem, not enough YouTube for you?

Glenn Beck has a talent for, shall we say, hyperbole.

DR

[Sefarst]

Glenn Beck is a moron.

And honestly, I don't think I need to say any more than that.

Edit: But I will say more, and point you to this: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/look-and-feel-15-years-younger/

And this: http://www.capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/andrew-samwick/193/if-its-spring-there-must-be-trustees-report

[shemp]

Glenn Beck is a moron.

On behalf of myself and my fellow morons, I must ask you to retract this statement, or we shall be forced to file a lawsuit for defamation of our intelligence and good character.

[Policenaut]

Glenn Beck is a moron.

But it is fun watching him go off on a tirade of incompetence.

[Cincinnatus]

Glenn is entertaining. Anyone who says different is a hater. But when he talks economy I zone out.

[Whack01]

53 trillion is 176,000 per person in the US. Glenn beck is blowing smoke

[gtc]

Oliver what is the difference between a flow (income) and a stock (wealth or debt)?

If you have a mortgage of EUR400,000 and an income of 100,000 are you in trouble? No it just means it will take you at least 4 years to pay off your debt.

[Oliver]

I know all of that and agree with all of you - but the question remains: What are the factual numbers concerning the costs of the democrats plans in light of a regularly declining Dollar?

Quite surprising that the Republicans didn't use it yet in the battle for the White House - they're probably waiting until the Dems have their candidate...

[Oliver]

Oliver what is the difference between a flow (income) and a stock (wealth or debt)?

If you have a mortgage of EUR400,000 and an income of 100,000 are you in trouble? No it just means it will take you at least 4 years to pay off your debt.


I understand - but if your mortgage is doubling thanks to inflation and thanks to "new implemented mortage policies", wouldn't it be interesting to know what's going on at the financial horizon?

[Oliver]

I found a nice little summary about the costs including some rough projections [based on the current developements]:

http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/03_NationalHealthAccountsProjected.asp#TopOfPage

Anyway: The report Beck was whining about is this one [will read it later]:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

[Random]

Well, that's $53 trillion over the infinite life of the program. So I propose a solution. We put $50 dollars in a bank account at 2% interest, then simply take a dollar a year out over the next 53 trillion years. That solves the problem neatly.

[Beerina]

Hmmm. It sounds like it's a Ponzi scheme whose endgame rapidly approaches.

[Sefarst]

On behalf of myself and my fellow morons, I must ask you to retract this statement, or we shall be forced to file a lawsuit for defamation of our intelligence and good character.
Very well, I retract my statement and offer my sincere apologies to you and your organization.

[dudalb]

Glenn is entertaining. Anyone who says different is a hater. But when he talks economy I zone out.

He was entertaining when he started. He seemed to want to present a conservative viewpoint without the usual hysterics. But now he is as bad a ranter as any right wing talk show host.
And his economic views are pure Woo much of the time.
And Yes, I do NOT find him entertaining. And I am getting sick of this crap of fanboys labelling anybody who does like the object of their worship a "hater". There are somethings ...uberhack director Michael Bay for instance....of which I would be proud to be labelled a hater.

[dudalb]

Let me guess...Oliver thinks Ron Paul has the answer to this, as Oliver thinks Ron Paul has a solution for everything.

[Pardalis]

Yeah, I get the feeling he wants to refute the Democrats' plan so that Republicans win the presidentials...

and then by magic McCain dies of a heart attack and Ron Paul takes over.

[Oliver]

Let me guess...Oliver thinks Ron Paul has the answer to this, as Oliver thinks Ron Paul has a solution for everything.


Actually ... nope. Quite the opposite: Dr. Pauls ideas of a welfare state are pretty lousy from a social point of view.

On the other Hand: In light of of a non-welfare Constitution, I really can't blame him either. But that's off-topic concerning the question about what will it cost - and is healthcare sustainable under current conditions and in light of the democrats plans if they get the White House?

Keneth E. Thorpe is a professor of health policy at Emory University who worked in President Clinton’s administration and who has evaluated several presidential candidates’ health plans. He might know more about the answer, but I didn't find any of his published papers about the issue yet.

In the meantime I take a look at the Cato institutes publications:
http://www.socialsecurity.org/

[Bob Klase]

Unfunded debt is "an IOU of around $455,000 per American household"

53 trillion is 176,000 per person in the US. Glenn beck is blowing smoke


Let's see- if 53 trillion is 176,000 per person, and the claim is that it's around $455,000 per household, that would mean the average would have to be around 2.59 people per household.

Let's see what the average could be:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14942047/

Sept. 21, 2006

The average number of people living in U.S. households has dropped...

A baby born some time this October will be the 300-millionth American...

When the 300-million milestone is reached, that number will be at a new low of 2.6 people per home—parents, offspring and extended squatters included...


So it seems that 176,000 per person works out to about 455,000 per household. Maybe Beck's not the only one that can blow smoke.

[Random]

It's all garbage anyway. The right just wants to destroy Social Security. They know they can't just go in and trash it without a huge outcry, so they have to ratchet up the "doomed" rhetoric.

I will believe the GOP is interested in saving Social Security when they present a plan that is better that doing nothing.

[Sefarst]

It's all garbage anyway. The right just wants to destroy Social Security. They know they can't just go in and trash it without a huge outcry, so they have to ratchet up the "doomed" rhetoric.

I will believe the GOP is interested in saving Social Security when they present a plan that is better that doing nothing.
Bush all ready suggested privatizing Social Security. You can debate the pros and cons of that positions all day, but it's certainly better than doing nothing.

[WildCat]

It's all garbage anyway. The right just wants to destroy Social Security. They know they can't just go in and trash it without a huge outcry, so they have to ratchet up the "doomed" rhetoric.

I will believe the GOP is interested in saving Social Security when they present a plan that is better that doing nothing.
Meanwhile, the Dems will continue to "fix" it by increasing SS witholdings and reducing benefits.

Classic pyramid scheme, only participation is mandatory.

[Random]

Bush all ready suggested privatizing Social Security. You can debate the pros and cons of that positions all day, but it's certainly better than doing nothing.

Why is it better than doing nothing? I have seen a variety of privitization schemes put forward by the GOP, but when you add up all the pluses and substact all the minuses, they are all worse than the current configuration.

[Random]

Meanwhile, the Dems will continue to "fix" it by increasing SS witholdings and reducing benefits.

Classic pyramid scheme, only participation is mandatory.

Or we could get the money by leaving Iraq or allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire. If you consider Social Security to be part of the Federal Budget, a million options open up. And if it's not part of the Federal Budget, then future retirees will still be getting more money than current ones, so what's the problem?

[WildCat]

Or we could get the money by leaving Iraq or allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire. If you consider Social Security to be part of the Federal Budget, a million options open up. And if it's not part of the Federal Budget, then future retirees will still be getting more money than current ones, so what's the problem?
I don't think the Iraq war budget would even make a dent in the mess that is the SS finances, and certainly the tax cuts wouldn't. And from those suggestions I take it you agree that the only way to make SS solvent is by raising SS witholdings (as you've just suggested in a roundabout way) or cutting benefits?

[Random]

I don't think the Iraq war budget would even make a dent in the mess that is the SS finances, and certainly the tax cuts wouldn't. And from those suggestions I take it you agree that the only way to make SS solvent is by raising SS witholdings (as you've just suggested in a roundabout way) or cutting benefits?

Or we could take it out of the genal fund. We certainly seem to have no trouble taking money from Social Security and putting it in the general fund, why is going the other way such an ideological hurdle for people?

[WildCat]

Or we could take it out of the genal fund. We certainly seem to have no trouble taking money from Social Security and putting it in the general fund, why is going the other way such an ideological hurdle for people?
And what then will you cut from the general fund?

[Random]

And what then will you cut from the general fund?

We could allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, we could cut military spending, we could cut corporate subsidies, we could close the tax loopholes for offshore companies, we could increase tarrifs on turnip imports, etc.

My point is not where the money would come from. My point is that when workers put more money into Social Security than they take out, it gets absorbed into the general fund without comment, but now that the process is getting reversed, suddenly everyone wants to push the idea that the general fund and Social Security are seperate.

If you treat Social Security as completely seperate from the General Fund, there is no problem. Social Security was been saving money for years. The date where the fund would be exhausted keeps getting pushed further and further into the future as the American economy keeps performing better that the Social Security Administration's overly cautious estimates. The trust fund was going to be exhausted in 25 years. Then it was 30 years. Then it was 35 years. Now it's 40 years. At this rate, Social Security is safe forever without changing a thing.

If you treat Social Security as part of the general fund, things look more dire, by why is that Social Security's fault? Social Security has been run responsibly, why does it need to change? And how can anyone justify any sort of tax cut one minute, then cry out that the government is broke the next when talking about Social Security if they are sharing the same checkbook?

[pbergeron]

In my case, SSN is a disaster - someone that does not plan on having children or getting married. Why? My money is not MINE - I have no say-so over where it goes. With personal retirement accounts, I have the option of designating beneficiaries in case of my death. The beneficiaries can be ANYONE of my choosing - in my case I chose both of my sisters since both have families of their own.

With a program like SSN this does not appear possible (see ssa.gov FAQ). Take the worst case scenario; I fund my SSN account in full until I retire at the age of 65 years and 10 months (minimum age to receive benefits as of today). A week later I die. That money is GONE! It is absorbed back into the system. Since I will not be married or have kids, NONE of my loved ones will see a dime of this money. If someone wants to take a stab at explaining to me why this is a good thing, please feel free.

Find a way to pay out to people what they have put in and ABANDON the program.

[KoihimeNakamura]

The idea is that you care for everyone. Since not everyone is as responsible as you. While this may be morally wrong, there's nothing wrong with the program itself if the money stays within the fund. It doesn't, and the government borrowed from it too much.

[WildCat]

We could allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, we could cut military spending, we could cut corporate subsidies, we could close the tax loopholes for offshore companies, we could increase tarrifs on turnip imports, etc.
Protectionist trade policies will not help the economy, and will certainly not result in more money for SS. I also note you're advocating a tax seperate from the SS witholdings to fund SS.

My point is not where the money would come from. My point is that when workers put more money into Social Security than they take out, it gets absorbed into the general fund without comment, but now that the process is getting reversed, suddenly everyone wants to push the idea that the general fund and Social Security are seperate.
I'm not sure what you're calling the "general fund". The SS trust fund? The Federal budget? The Treasury?

If you treat Social Security as completely seperate from the General Fund, there is no problem. Social Security was been saving money for years. The date where the fund would be exhausted keeps getting pushed further and further into the future as the American economy keeps performing better that the Social Security Administration's overly cautious estimates. The trust fund was going to be exhausted in 25 years. Then it was 30 years. Then it was 35 years. Now it's 40 years. At this rate, Social Security is safe forever without changing a thing.
It's only been pushed back through Congressional tweaking of witholdings and benefits. Demographics do not fare well for the current model.

If you treat Social Security as part of the general fund, things look more dire, by why is that Social Security's fault? Social Security has been run responsibly, why does it need to change?
It hasn't been run responsibly! It's a pyramid scheme - funded entirely with witholdings from current workers. Problem is, there's fewere and fewer current workers and more and more retirees due to the baby boomers reaching retirement age, and the fact that people are having fewer children than they used to which means fewer workers. Add to that the increase in life expectancy, so retirees are collecting benefits longer than they used to. This is not responsible management by any stretch of the imagination.

And how can anyone justify any sort of tax cut one minute, then cry out that the government is broke the next when talking about Social Security if they are sharing the same checkbook?
SS is funded by witholdings from worker's paychecks, not through income taxes. There have been no cuts in SS witholdings, in fact they've been increased over the years.

[WildCat]

Double post... forum is especially bad today.

[Random]

Protectionist trade policies will not help the economy, and will certainly not result in more money for SS. I also note you're advocating a tax seperate from the SS witholdings to fund SS.


I'm not sure what you're calling the "general fund". The SS trust fund? The Federal budget? The Treasury?
I am referrring to the Federal Budget. A big part of the Social Security "crisis" stems from a political shell game where Social Security is considered either a part of the Federal Budget or a completely seperate entity based on whatever is needed at the moment to trash talk Social Security.

Social Security running a surplus? Well, that's part of the Federal Budget, and can be used to fund other programs. Social Security running a defecit? Well, Social Security has its own revenue stream, and if it can't pay it's own bills it should be eliminated. Social Security has a huge trust fund of government bonds that can be used to pay the bills for decades? No, sorry. Paying that money back would put a burden on the Federal Budget, so that's not an option. Tax cuts for the rich? Sure we can afford those! Social Security has its own revenue stream after all.

And on and on it goes. If you know what to look for, you can watch Social Security deformers change the fundamental terms of the debate several times in the space of a sentence.

SS is funded by witholdings from worker's paychecks, not through income taxes. There have been no cuts in SS witholdings, in fact they've been increased over the years.
Exactly. Politicians have been using Social Security withholdings as a tax on the working class, and dumping the excess money into the Federal Budget. Then they use that money to fund tax breaks for the rich. The Social Security trust fund has over $2 trillion dollars in it. That is money that has basically been borrowed from the working class by the rich. Now the loans are coming due, and the rich are trying to weasel out of paying the money back.

[WildCat]

I am referrring to the Federal Budget. A big part of the Social Security "crisis" stems from a political shell game where Social Security is considered either a part of the Federal Budget or a completely seperate entity based on whatever is needed at the moment to trash talk Social Security.
I won't dispute it's a shell game.

Exactly. Politicians have been using Social Security withholdings as a tax on the working class, and dumping the excess money into the Federal Budget. Then they use that money to fund tax breaks for the rich. The Social Security trust fund has over $2 trillion dollars in it. That is money that has basically been borrowed from the working class by the rich. Now the loans are coming due, and the rich are trying to weasel out of paying the money back.
I don't understand your class warfare angle. The problem isn't the rich, or the poor, or the middle class. It's politicians and the people they represent thinking that they keep expanding the Federal budget without limit. It's people who think there's such a thing as Federal money - rather than money taken from the people living in the states. It's because of a system where a politician gets credit for "bringing home the bacon", when the reality is he's taking money from the taxpayers of some other state, whose representative takes the money from your state, and so on and so on.

So long as people think there's some magical Federal money spigot that can fund projects that should be funded by the states we will continue to have bloated budgets and budget deficits, no matter which party is in power. The Federal government should not be funding local projects to the extent they do.