"tells millions of old people they can no longer have retirement.
#3 | POSTED BY ZED"

It is going to happen in under 10 years regardless. It is bankrupt.

"--------, clown.
#15 | POSTED BY LEGALLYYOURDEAD"

You are you are not very bright, I assume you are talking to me:

"And yes, things are expected to get tight between 2034-2037, according to current projections."

This is a straight up lie. Things don't get tight, the SS fund will default on it promised payments. Of course, they will be able to pay a portion of SS obligations from current taxpayers - but, the fund is exhausted and they have known this for years - which is why it is a Ponzi scheme.

"But no, Social Security will not go bankrupt."

When you can no longer pay your bills in full or on time, you are bankrupt. Saying "I'll give you 77 cents on the dollar" does not change that fact. SS will not be able to pay current pensioners what they have been promised - PERIOD.

"The only way it could exhaust its funds completely is if it gets some help from an administration that is hell bent on killing everything it touches."

In 2034, it will exhausted all funds because it overpromised - as a result, you will receive 77 cents on the dollar. The only way this is avoided - like all Ponzi schemes - is to invest even greater amounts of money to balance it out for the time being.

"The only people who might be in line to receive cuts to their Social Security would be the upper middle class and the wealthy ~ if necessary.
#19 | POSTED BY TWINPAC"

Are you retarded? What the hell do you mean 'if necessary'? The SS fund is empty in 2033/34 as it was designed to be emptied. At that point - ALL RECIPIENTS are taking a 23% haircut in promised benefits unless the government wants to admit that it is a welfare program and only give to the poor people.

"You forgot to say "-------".
#21 | POSTED BY REDIAL"

You are correct, he earned it with that post.

"Well, 1 additional point on both the employer's and employee's side puts SS in balance into perpetuity.
#24 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Putting more money into bad ideas will usually allow them to perpetuate - including Ponzi schemes. You need to correct you statement - it will put into balance into perpetuity until: 1.) Dems increase benefits even more than now, 2.) Massive unemployments hits due to AI, 3.) Democrats vote to give SS to illegals that have paid into the system, 4.) Some other dumb ---- the Democrats decide to do to destroy the country.

"And where in that pantheon is Republicans resetting the fiscal sights of the nation from surpluses to deficits?
#27 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

Do you actually see what ------- Biden has done to the financial status of the country since taking charge?

For me, the best metric we can use for a President is:

(Deficit - interest payment on national debt) / GDP

I subtract off interest payments because they fluctuate with rates and the cost is due to the preceding presidents. It is a very fair metric.

For Trump, he had: 1.07% in 2017, 1.26% in 2018, and 1.94% in 2020. For Biden, I start in 2023 given COVID impacts. In 2023, he has 3.29% and 2024 projected at 4.07%. The nation has not gone over 4% in the metric since 2012 due to stimulus spending. Outside of that Obama averaged ~0.74%, 3.24% for all 8 years. For what its worth, Bush averages -1.03% and Clinton was even better.

The nation CANNOT run this stat up to 4%+ in times of a 'great economy' as Biden claims that we have. What is the justification? We need to get this back to 1% or less if we have any hopes of surviving.

"#29 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER"

You are wasting your time. ------- Danforth will argue until he is blue in the face that SS just needs more money and then it will be fine - somehow thinking this makes it different from Ponzi Schemes or Pyramid schemes that are balanced the same way as long as there are new suckers increasing the dollars flowing into it.

"Got Republican Math?
#30 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

------- Danforth, what happens if the population in the US stops increasing and/or AI takes 30% of jobs? Will SS remained balance in perpetuity?

"If the GOP would have left all of the excess money placed in the plan while Boomers were ascendent then there wouldn't be a shortcoming right now. Maybe you've forgotten Al Gore's 'lockbox' for SSI payments keeping them separate from general revenues.
#36 | POSTED BY TONYROMA"

Are you being serious right now? The SS fund WAS invested in Treasuries with their ---- 1% return. That is why the fund will be exhausted because the investment gains are so small. If the surplus would have been invested in the market in 1983, it would be worth about ---- right now and not run out. Dow Jones was ~1180 in 1983 - so, the return would have averaged about 8.8% yearly. But, you ------- Dems screamed to high heaven to keep the Surplus trapped in Treasuries earning 1% and now you cry about the fund being exhausted. You truly cannot fix stupid.

"60% of Americans have less than $10,000 saved for retirement and these clowns want to cut the only lifeline they will have in old age rather than repaying the money they stole from the trust fund to fund tax cuts for billionaires and military spending.
#45 | POSTED BY NIXON"

Not a single dollar was stolen from the SS Fund - it was invested in ---- yield Treasuries as demanded by the ------- Dems. 100% of the money plus interest is being paid out on the fund - AND - it still goes bankrupt. You really need to stop this ridiculous talking point that it is going bankrupt because the money was stolen as that is a 100% LIE. It is bankrupt because it is a Ponzi scheme and the government cannot find new investors fast enough.

Also, I see none of you liberal -------- want to address my #28 - the reason is clear. You can't deal with actual numbers, only feeling.

"#57 | POSTED BY LEGALLYYOURDEAD"

As I said, liberals cannot deal in facts - only feelings. You are a perfect example of such behavior. By the way, what law school did you graduate from?