Thursday, August 20, 2009

Socialism Is Going Broke

U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus says Social Security may go broke in two years.

TUSCALOOSA - Social Security could face a deficit within two years, according to U.S. Rep. Spencer Bachus who met with The Tuscaloosa News editorial board Tuesday.

“The situation is much worse than people realize, especially because of the problems brought on by the recession, near depression,” said Bachus, R-Vestavia Hills, in an interview with the Tuscaloosa News editorial board.

Bachus, the ranking member of the House Committee on Financial Services, said most people seem unaware of the impending crisis. He initially said Social Security could face "default" within two years, but his staff responded later saying the Congresssman intended to say "deficit."

“What this recession has done to Social Security is pretty alarming,” he said. “We’ve known for 15 years that we were going to have to make adjustments to Social Security, but we still thought that was seven or eight years down the road. But if things don’t improve very quickly, we’re going to be dealing with that problem before we know it.”
Yep. All that money in the lock box was ransacked at night while no one was looking. Actually it was hijacked in broad daylight by Congress. Think of it this way. If the money was invested in Wall Street you could lose 1/2 or 3/4s in a serious market downturn. If the market is going up there are profits. Give the same money to Congress to "invest" and you lose it all. Which is the better deal?

Just how bad is it?
“The way Social Security works, taxes from current workers go straight to paying for the benefits of current retirees. Your money is not being “saved” anywhere to be withdrawn later. In 1950, there were 7.3 working-age people for each person over 65; now, the ratio is 4.7 to 1, and it is scheduled to drop to 2.7 to 1 by 2035. That’s a lot less people paying in.” (My money.com)

“The trustees predict that in 2018, the amount being paid out for benefits will begin to exceed the amount being paid in. There is enough money to keep paying full benefits until 2041. The CBO predicts the system will fall apart about 10 years later.”( Social Security Trustees and Congressional Budget Office)

If you are 40 or under do you really expect to draw a dime of Social Security?
Of course that is the general outline of the problem. The actual date when outgo exceeds income will vary according to economic conditions at the time. Our current economic troubles are speeding up the timetable.

So how about Medicare? Not so hot either.
“The current and future financial status of the separate trust funds is the focus of the annual reports of the Medicare and Social Security Boards of Trustees, a focus necessitated by law that may appropriately be referred to as the “trust fund perspective.” The latest reports show that while in the near term the trust funds are in surplus, in the long run the funds will have substantial deficits due to impending demographic shifts and projected growth in per capita health care costs.” (This paper is an expanded version of Appendix E of the 2004 Medicare Trustees’ Report that treats the same topic in a more abbreviated form. Contact James E. Duggan (james.duggan@do.treas.gov) for questions or comments.)

Another Governmental Program scheduled to go BROKE..
The trust funds are a joke. Have they been invested in productive resources to generate an income stream? Not unless you count Government Motors and Goldman Sachs as wealth generators.

The way out? I'd like to see more investment in researching potential wealth generators. Things like Polywell Fusion.

You can learn more about Polywell and its potential at: Bussard's IEC Fusion Technology (Polywell Fusion) Explained

The American Thinker has a good article up with the basics.

WB-8 Contract Details

We Will Know In Two Years

Why hasn't Polywell Fusion been fully funded by the Obama administration?

Cross Posted at Classical Values

2 comments:

kurt9 said...

The myth is that social security is a pension fund. It is not. It is simply a direct transfer of money as taxation (called social security payroll contribution) from workers to retired people. People received money from it who had never paid into it when it was first established in the 30's. It is a direct transfer system. Nothing more. However, until 1967, the social security fund was kept separate from the general fund. In 1967, the congressional democrats, under LBJ, decided to commingle it with the general fund.

snakeoilbaron said...

Great. If Republicans make enough gains in the 2010 elections the media will be able to blame the collapse on them. Of course, even if there is one Republican in the House they will blame the collapse on him or her but it will require less contortions to do it if there are lots of targets.

I'm not saying that replacing social security with some sort of charity designed to help those who were stupid enough or taxed enough to have to believe in it instead of saving and investing for retirement is not a good thing but it is annoying that the timing of the collapse is likely to work to the Demonut's advantage.