Technically, yes. There is no "lock box" or "social security fund", all the money goes into "general revenues", which means the political pigs can spend it on whatever they want to. Unfortunately, the Federal government doesn't have to live under the same accounting rules "we the people" do.
2007-03-26 15:41:05
·
answer #1
·
answered by texasjewboy12 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Not now, but it's going to be worse than bankrupt. Although technically seperate from the general budget, the government has gotten around this law by buying special zero interest treasury bonds. Treasury bond money goes into the general fund. So when the baby boomers start to collect their money there will be less workers than retirees. That means the workers social security goes straight to the the retirees (it always has, but there was left overs that went into an account) and since the workers can't fund the retirees, some of those zero interest bonds will be cashed in. So the general fund will be used to pay for social security. To make it more interesting, medicare's troubles are worse ($3 for every $1 of social security). So around 2040 or so when social security and medicare are suppose to hit zero in their accounts, the U.S. will have $40 trillion more in debt in its general fund. This is on top of any debt the U.S. already has which could mean $100 trillion or more in national debt at the current spending level. At some point the people that were buying the government bonds are going to stop and cash in. The only way to quickly cash in is to print money. The more money in the system the more inflation. The U.S. will suffer mass hyper inflation and you get to enjoy that when you have retired.
2007-03-26 22:57:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by gregory_dittman 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
No - It is in excellent financial shape- Its the rest of the government that is bankrupt. Right now the Social Security trust fund has over 2 trillion dollars in U.S. government bonds. - The problem is that President Bush doesn't want to redeem them for cash when it is needed to pay benefits. He wants "debt relief," as if the U.S. was a 3rd world country. - That way he can preserve his tax cuts for the rich and continue to "borrow " money from the social security trust fund. By about 2020 the Social Security Trust fund will have close to 6 trillion dollars in U.S. government bonds. All of this surplus in the trust fund came from FICA taxes on workers' wages that was supposedly earmarked for their retirement. Social Security may need a little tweaking around 2046, but nobody knows how much. It depends on how the economy does in the next 39 years and how much life expectancies continue to increase. Social Security was fixed back in 1983. President Reagan told us so. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8
Or to understand the real problem, take a look at Pat Oliphant's cartoon from 1977, which is even more timely today, than it was then. You can find it here:
http://www.sonic.net/fjf/Oliphantss.html
The only thing that has changed since the 1983 reforms is that congress has been borrowing money from the trust fund at record rates (over 160 billion dollars last year) with no plan in place to pay it back when it is needed to pay benefits. If the CEOs of a big corporation had done this with their employees' pension plan, they would be headed to jail. Unfortunately there is no way to lock up congress.
2007-03-28 02:55:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by Franklin 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Social Security has taken in more than it paid out since it first began. The amount of surplus would have been huge if congress didn't spend the surplus every year for other things.
The day is comming when it will run at a deficit so congress won't have that extra money to spend. They have an answer: cut benefits to all those who paid into the system their whole lives.
That sh&*% won't fly with the voters. Want to see a polititian loose and election by a landslide? The aging population have the vote and they paid in for a long time. I know, business wants to kill social security, but business operates at the pleasure of the people (George Washington first said this)
2007-03-26 22:45:36
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
My understanding is that there is no Social Security trust fund and the unfunded obligations of Social Security are in the trillions of dollars. Social Security is worse than bankrupt.
2007-03-26 22:45:30
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Supposedly not exactly. I am near retirement and certainly hope not. Knowing how Bush is with taking money from everything he can think of to finance his war without raising taxes it wouldn't surprise me if the whole darn government isn't bankrupt in a year or two.
2007-03-26 22:52:59
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
It is bankrupt only because it is a pay as you go system, where surpluses in the SS taxes are spent on other worthless socialist things.
2007-03-29 20:48:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by edward m 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Some experts say yes some say no. I don't know who to really believe. My gut feeling is that for Social Security to Survive we will have to tax more or make unpleasant cuts. I'm for taxing more but I'm presently on SSI.
2007-03-26 22:46:34
·
answer #8
·
answered by Mark A 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Not right now but, it will be by the time you're old enough to collect.
Better start putting some money away.
2007-03-26 22:43:18
·
answer #9
·
answered by GeneL 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
ha! worse. that money has been long spent. just pretend that SS is a really hot ex. you wont get back what you put in, so just move on and look for other options.
2007-03-26 22:39:13
·
answer #10
·
answered by vituperative facetious wiseass 3
·
1⤊
0⤋