How much will it cost to not go broke?

[lehighguy]

We all know SS and Medicare are actuarialy bankrupt, and we are given rough years when this will happen.

What I want to know is how much of a budget surplus we would have to run starting in 2008 in order to make thier 75 year projections actuarially solvent.

Also, since the government already spent the "trust fund" I don't want those fictitious funds included in the calculation.

[Moseley]

Your question is confusing. First you say social security is bankrupt, which it isn't. It's running a 2 trillion surplus, but you're not counting that because it's been spent to fuel the budget deficits.

If we start running a budget surplus, and pay back the 2 trillion over 67 years, that would be 29,850,746,270.00 a year. Pay interest on an average balance of 1 trillion at 5% and that's another 50,000,000,000.00 a year.

Say 80 billion a year, give or take a few bucks and we will have paid ourselves back for the money we stole.

Of course, this is an exercise in futility, as there is no way the United States of America will be a sovereign country in the year 2050.

There is no way we can continue paying for wars, like the one in Iraq and building 600 million dollar embassies, along with funneling billions to a country and then losing track of it and not go broke.

[pvn]

How much do you have? We might need more!

[Exsubmariner]

It is a practical impossiblity for the government to behave in such a way as to actually get out from under the interest owed on the national debt.

In fact, the trust fund was raided in order to pay that interest. Paying interest with savings is not healthy financial situation to be in and if you ever had to do it, you would be aware that you were [censored].

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
We all know SS and Medicare are actuarialy bankrupt, and we are given rough years when this will happen.

What I want to know is how much of a budget surplus we would have to run starting in 2008 in order to make thier 75 year projections actuarially solvent.

Also, since the government already spent the "trust fund" I don't want those fictitious funds included in the calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't address your question, but if the suggestion is that we must either run a huge surplus soon or SS and medicare are doomed to inevitable insolvency, I don't agree. This isn't to say the estimates are wrong, but claiming we need a huge surplus or SS/Medicare will eventually go belly-up is a false dichotomy. Making SS and Medicare solvent could merely involve changing the benefit structure.

As an aside, I doubt anyone can answer your question with any kind of confidence. I don't agree with Copernicus on anything, but I suspect he would give you the best answer on this, if anyone could.

[T50_Omaha8]

Think of everything that happened between 1925 and 2000.

Is it really practical for ametuer economists (I'm being generous here) to make predictions about fiscal balance over the next 75 years? Can we expect to get anything meaningful out of this?

And if our knees buckle under debt financing, the Japanese will already be smothered by it.

[lehighguy]

There are studies out there, but a preliminary google search yields nothing.

[lehighguy]

Cutting benefits to the point they don't achieve thier stated aims isn't all that different from going belly up.

I'm sure the holders of subprime mortgages will eventually get thier 50 cents on the dollar, but I still consider that going belly up.

[lehighguy]

So your saying $80B a year surpluses from here on out would push of the insolvency date till the trust fund depletion date. How much more to make it actually solvent.

BTW, where are you getting the numbers you referenced, I want to read through them.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We all know SS and Medicare are actuarialy bankrupt, and we are given rough years when this will happen.

What I want to know is how much of a budget surplus we would have to run starting in 2008 in order to make thier 75 year projections actuarially solvent.

Also, since the government already spent the "trust fund" I don't want those fictitious funds included in the calculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't address your question, but if the suggestion is that we must either run a huge surplus soon or SS and medicare are doomed to inevitable insolvency, I don't agree. This isn't to say the estimates are wrong, but claiming we need a huge surplus or SS/Medicare will eventually go belly-up is a false dichotomy. Making SS and Medicare solvent could merely involve changing the benefit structure.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, the US has a fine history in making programs less expensive, and limiting/lowering benefits.

The dems will never propose this ...and any repub who even thinks of speaking the words will be villified as a "poor hating, racist, elderly hating demon" by the left. The repub party always backs down to the tax and spend lefties. I think they are just tired of getting beat with the same bat for the last 40 years. It seems many of them (repubs)have "joined up" and they continue to play "who can spend us into oblivion" first.

How can these aholes take half of our money and still have the stones to say "it's not enough" F F F F F F F !

Please have a blimp sized meteor hit the capitol bldg in the next session. If that happens... I will consider that proof of god and renounce my atheism.