this isnt true. Liabilities is the wrong word to use, its a promise not a liability. So that means trillions arent owed. So yes you can say they are solvent, because they are rightly not accounted as private pension funds which are obligated to pay.
In the United States, the Social Security Trust Fund is a fund operated by the Social Security Administration into which are paid payroll tax contributions from workers and employers under the Social Security system and out of which benefit payments are made to retirees, survivors, and the disabled, and for general administrative expenses. The fund also earns interest. There technically are two component funds, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds, referred to collectively as the OASDI funds. When program revenues exceed payments (i.e., the program is in surplus) the extra funds are borrowed and used by the government for other purposes, but a legal obligation to program recipients is created to the extent this occurs. These surpluses add to the Trust Fund. At the end of 2011, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.7 trillion, up $69 billion from 2010.[1] The fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. The trust fund represents a legal obligation to Social Security program recipients and is considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of April 2012, the intragovernmental debt was $4.8 trillion of the $15.7 trillion national debt.[2] In 2011 and 2012, the federal government temporarily lowered the rate of the employees' share of payroll taxes from 6.2% to 4.2% of compensation,[20] advancing the year of depletion of the Trust Fund from 2036 to 2033.[21] The trust fund is expected to peak in 2021 at approximately $3.0 trillion.[22] This means that from 2022 through 2033, the government will have to find approximately $3 trillion in other funding to pay beneficiaries beyond program revenues. If the parts of the budget outside of Social Security are in deficit, which the Congressional Budget Office and multiple budget expert panels assume for the foreseeable future, there are several implications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Trust_Fund
It is instructive to note that the $2.5 trillion Social Security Trust Fund has value, not as a tangible economic asset, but because it is a claim on behalf of beneficiaries on the goods and services produced by the working population. This claim will be enforced by the United States Government although the precise monetary mechanism of enforcement is yet to be determined. In order to repay the Trust Fund, the United States government has three options, which may all be pursued to varying degrees. (1) The government may issue debt by selling treasuries. Thus, $1 in debt to the Social Security Trust fund is replaced with $1 in debt to a different lender. This scenario would increase the tax burden on future generations if the interest rate is higher on the new debt. If the new debt is more expensive and government revenues do not increase sufficiently either through taxes of economic growth, the government would be forced to cut spending on other programs (such as Defense, Education, Research) or else default on all or part of the debt. (2) The government may raise taxes. If taxes are raised across the board, ironically, by reducing take home pay for workers, the government could make it harder for the younger, working generations to invest and save for retirement. However, if taxes are raised only on those whose earlier tax cuts were partially offset by these excess FICA contributions, namely those taxpayers whose marginal rates were reduced from 74% to as little as 28% during the Reagan Administration, the younger, working generations will not lose any ability to save or invest. (3) The government may monetize trust fund obligations by transferring the treasuries held by the Trust Fund onto the Federal Reserve balance sheet. In such a transaction, the bonds would become "assets" on the Fed's balance sheet, and the Fed would create money "out of thin air" to purchase the bonds from the government. Under such a scenario, the bonds are converted into cash, which would then be used by the government to cover social security payments. This scenario would likely lead to increased inflation, as it would inflate the money supply without directly increasing the amount of goods and services produced by the economy as a whole.
What are you talking about? Of course they are liabilities. We made a promise to pay a future obligation, and Congress is required by law to pay it. That is what an entitlement is.
Remember: 1/2 the people have less than average intelligence....and being average ain't all that shit-hot. if everyone has to have insurance, everyone is paying into the health care dollar bucket, so that when I need to go to hospital, and I do have insurance, I will no longer have to foot the bill for all the freeloaders without insurance. Here is a tip..if you think most folks without insurance eventually pay the hospital for their treatment, you belong in the looney bin. I hate cheats, freeloaders, and backsliders. Forcing folks to either purchase insurance or pay a fine, is ok by me.....but again, I pay taxes, and a portion of these losers' bills.
It's unconscionable to me that both parties haven't embraced SS means testing and increased the age for full benefits. Really though it all falls on the voters.
