Well now that the Leftists won in Greece lets see how yalls Utopia pans out

No confusion, fagboy. You are desperately parsing words to avoid admitting your ignorance. If SS is under-funded by 50%, it means half of its future liability is fully funded and the other half is unfunded. Does that make it clearer for you? Study up on actuarial accounting if you hope to be taken seriously. Originally Posted by lustylad

Exactly but then that is why I used the word tweak....like Reagan did, remember. He saved SS!

But you are missing the bigger picture as usual.

The choice will be cut military spending or cut SS. Can you predicate how this will play out? Just go back in time if you want to understand.

Board of Trustees releases an annual status report ("annual" means every year) with updated actuarial assumptions - you are the dumbfuck who thinks they stick with the same numbers for "ten - twenty years out"... Again, study up on actuarial accounting if you want to have any credibility here. Originally Posted by lustylad

Tweaking is not done annually. It was last done in 1983 you gay fruity fart. Could you try and ketchup.

SS has not had to borrow money. Originally Posted by WTF

Sure it has. For several years when outlays exceeded intakes around 2010...something that wasn't supposed to start until 2025.

Sure it has. For several years when outlays exceeded intakes around 2010...something that wasn't supposed to start until 2025. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Even lustyfornuts would have not gotten this wrong like you have.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/op...security-aaron
Social Security derives revenues from three sources: payroll taxes levied on covered earnings, earmarked income taxes levied on benefits, and interest earnings on reserves. According to the Social Security Trustees' annual report, released in May 2009, revenues from these sources in calendar year 2010 were projected to be, respectively: $701 billion, $26 billion, and $120 billion, for a total of $848 billion. Expenditures were anticipated to be $709 billion.
These numbers indicate two key facts. First, there is no surprise in the fact that outlays exceed payroll tax revenues. This front-page story is based on something that was anticipated nearly a year ago. The weakness of the economy means that the gap may be a bit larger than the trustees projected in 2009. But if the gap was news, it is last year’s news. Second, the trust fund was projected to run an overall surplus of $138 billion in calendar 2010. The Congressional Budget Office now puts the projected surplus for fiscal year 2010 at $91 billion. The surplus is smaller than anticipated last year because of economic weakness, but a sizeable surplus will remain.

Exactly but then that is why I used the word tweak....like Reagan did, remember. He saved SS!

But you are missing the bigger picture as usual.

The choice will be cut military spending or cut SS. Can you predicate how this will play out? Just go back in time if you want to understand.

Originally Posted by WTF

“Exactly...?” First you parse words (unfunded vs. under-funded) and call me confused, then you flip-flop and agree that both words apply. Make up your mind, fagboy. You're the one who is confused. Your flip-flopping – along with your pathetic attempts to change the subject to Reagan or defense spending - only underscores your ignorance of actuarial accounting. You can't tell the difference between an overfunded plan, an underfunded plan or your boyfriend's buttplug!

Tweaking is not done annually. It was last done in 1983 you gay fruity fart. Could you try and ketchup. Originally Posted by WTF

Nice try, tranny licker. Re-read you previous posts. You said “dumb fucks like you seem to think you can plug in numbers and ten - twenty years out those numbers are still spot on.” Bullshit! You are making stuff up again! Nobody thinks projections made 10-20 years ago are “spot on” today. If you weren't so clueless, you would know that the actuarial assumptions underpinning Social Security are tweaked every year, whether or not Congress changes taxes or eligibility rules. Your ignorance of this fact makes you the dumbfuck. Now take my advice and start studying up on actuarial accounting if you hope to be taken seriously.

.

Sure it has. For several years when outlays exceeded intakes around 2010...something that wasn't supposed to start until 2025. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Even lustyfornuts would have not gotten this wrong like you have. Originally Posted by WTF

Gnadfly is referring to intakes from payroll taxes alone... they did start to exceed payouts in 2010, meaning we are no longer adding to reserves in the Trust Fund but are starting to draw them down.

“Exactly...?” First you parse words (unfunded vs. under-funded) and call me confused, then you flip-flop and agree that both words apply. Make up your mind, fagboy. You're the one who is confused. Your flip-flopping – along with your pathetic attempts to change the subject to Reagan or defense spending - only underscores your ignorance of actuarial accounting. You can't tell the difference between an overfunded plan, an underfunded plan or your boyfriend's buttplug! Originally Posted by lustylad

I wasn't the one parsing words. bm said unfunded and your dumbass said underfunded. It has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus.

“



Nice try, tranny licker. Re-read you previous posts. You said “dumb fucks like you seem to think you can plug in numbers and ten - twenty years out those numbers are still spot on.” Total bullshit! Nobody thinks projections made 10-20 years ago are “spot on” today. If you weren't so clueless, you would know that the actuarial assumptions underpinning the Social Security program are tweaked every year, whether or not Congress changes taxes or eligibility rules. Your ignorance of this fact makes you the dumbfuck. Now take my advice and start studying up on actuarial accounting if you hope to be taken seriously.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

No matter how much you lie about what I said, it does not change the fact that SS is not presently unfunded, nor for that matter underfunded. It is projected to be underfunded in 2037. Even at that point , you still will have a huge revenue stream.

The problem is not presently SS but other Federal spending, the major portion being Defense. Which has been my fucking point in these discussions for the last decade.

Reagan being the wily politician that he was knew he could not sell a tax increase to pay for increased Defense spending , so they increased SS and the books have looked good since then.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/bu.../25social.html
Analysts have long tried to predict the year when Social Security would pay out more than it took in because they view it as a tipping point — the first step of a long, slow march to insolvency, unless Congress strengthens the program’s finances.
“When the level of the trust fund gets to zero, you have to cut benefits,” Alan Greenspan, architect of the plan to rescue the Social Security program the last time it got into trouble, in the early 1980s, said on Wednesday.
That episode was more dire because the fund could have fallen to zero in a matter of months. But partly because of steps taken in those years, and partly because of many years of robust economic growth, the latest projections show the program will not exhaust its funds until about 2037.

Gnadfly is referring to intakes from payroll taxes alone... they did start to exceed payouts in 2010, meaning we are no longer adding to reserves in the Trust Fund but are starting to draw them down. Originally Posted by lustylad

Wow....what brainics you two aren't. He said SS had to borrow money. From their own damn accounts! Have you ever had to borrow money from yourself? .

You two dipshits are talking about the itty bitty finger painted picture of a third grader and I am trying to discuss

I wasn't the one parsing words. bm said unfunded and your dumbass said underfunded. It has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus.

No matter how much you lie about what I said, it does not change the fact that SS is not presently unfunded, nor for that matter underfunded. It is projected to be underfunded in 2037. Even at that point, you still will have a huge revenue stream. Originally Posted by WTF

Jumping Jesus, you're flip-flopping AGAIN? Or is this a double backwards flip-flop-flip? I'm getting dizzy! Your posts are the equivalent of John Kerry saying "I actually did vote for it before I voted against it and then voted for it again!"

So lemme get this straight. You're now back to claiming Social Security is NOT "underfunded"? And as evidence you point to the $2.5 trillion in the Trust Fund, right? Ok, that sounds like a lot of money! Question for fagboy - If SS is not underfunded, is it overfunded? Exactly how much needs to be in the Trust Fund for SS to be 100% funded on an actuarial basis?

Study up on actuarial accounting before you try to answer the question. Better yet, talk to a real actuary.

.

So lemme get this straight. You're now back to claiming Social Security is NOT "underfunded"? And as evidence you point to the $2.5 trillion in the Trust Fund, right? Ok, that sounds like a lot of money! Question for fagboy - If SS is not underfunded, is it overfunded? Exactly how much needs to be in the Trust Fund for SS to be 100% funded on an actuarial basis?

Study up on actuarial accounting before you try to answer the question. Better yet, talk to a real actuary.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Have you stopped beating your wife? Is not a yes or no question for the majority of us, as it seems to be for you.

Your question has a "Who Cares" aspect as the fund has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus. The problem is not SS, it is other Federal deficit spending , mostly Defense. As of now SS is expected to be able to pay 100% benefits until 2037. In the ensuing twenty plus years , we as a nation may change our priorities. We may decide to forego all our SS benefits to pay for military spending. We may decide to cut military spending and shift that saving to SS .... but when you have a twenty plus year window to tweak the system , questions like your are moot, Chicken Littlish. Because a whole lot of factors can and will change in the next twenty years.

That would be like buying a house that has a twenty year balloon and not having the balloon payment presently, you have the ability to tweak your savings plan to adjust for paying off your house because your income stream is solid .......but not if you continue to buy a new school in Iraq every year.

That is called looking at the bigger picture and the real problem.

Actually that is called,"Trying to deflect from the fact you just had your ass handed to you . . . AGAIN!"

Actually that is called,"Trying to deflect from the fact you just had your ass handed to you . . . AGAIN!" Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Look old man , the last ass you ever seen handed to anyone was Rock Hudson 's to your lips.

You've made such an obnoxious fool of yourself in economic discussions that they won't even allow you in the Conference Room!

Your question has a "Who Cares" aspect as the fund has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus.... but when you have a twenty plus year window to tweak the system, questions like yours are moot, Chicken Littlish. Because a whole lot of factors can and will change in the next twenty years. Originally Posted by WTF

Is this your way of tapping out? "Who cares?" That's your answer? Why don't you tell that to the Chicago public employees whose pension plans are 50% under-funded with a total unfunded liability of $26.8 billion. Here is a link to the City website. This whole convo started when you (the self-proclaimed SS expert) admitted you don't even know what an unfunded liability is. The website defines it for you.

Now let's be sure to tell anyone who frets about underfunded pensions that fagboy says NOT TO WORRY! We got 20 years to tweak it! The question is moot! Don't be a Chicken Little! And who the fuck cares about your stupid pension anyway?


"An unfunded pension liability is the difference between the value of the promises made to retirees and employees for services already rendered and the funds available to pay for those promises."


http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en...the_facts.html

.

Your question has a "Who Cares" aspect as the fund has a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus.... Originally Posted by WTF

Since you obviously tapped out and can't answer the question, I will do it for you. The $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund is not a "surplus". It is a set-aside for future liabilities (akin to assets in a private plan). According to the 2014 SS Trustees Report, those liabilities (excluding SS disability which is a separate program) add up to a net present value of $10.6 trillion over the next 75 years. So if you do the math as you would for a private pension plan, SS would be considered underfunded by $8.1 trillion or 76%.

Of course, that excludes the SS disability and Medicare programs which are in even worse shape.

But hey, fagboy says who cares? And he's a self-proclaimed expert on the subject. Just don't confuse him with numbers, or actuarial concepts, or silly stuff like unfunded liabilities.

Now let's be sure to tell anyone who frets about underfunded pensions that fagboy says NOT TO WORRY! We got 20 years to tweak it! The question is moot! Don't be a Chicken Little! And who the fuck cares about your stupid pension anyway?




. Originally Posted by lustylad

You are like a fool on the Titanic fretting over the weather in New York. Who cares wtf the weather in New York City will be if you hit an Iceberg and sink you little picture cocksucker.

Defense spending is out biggest driver of debt. If we do not get it under control , then 20 years from now SS will be the least of your worries.

Let me put it in terms you might understand. If you had prepaid to have JewishLawyer and his gay HIV positive friends to butt fuck you bareback for the next twenty years, once a month , why the fuck are you worried about getting butt fucked for another 50 years?

Little minded folks focus on one thing because they can not see the big picture. Your narrow minded focus about having a dick in your ass no matter if it is on a railroad track has blinded you to the fact that a freight train is soon to be coming up your pooper.

So again....if we do not do one single thing in twenty years to SS, nobody will miss a payment. It will not have borrowed a dime. It will not have added to the Federal deficit. Yet you and other would have us believe that entitlement spending is the problem.