Comments


  • The Oracle asks, "Does that sound like bankruptcy?" And for the 5 or 6th time the answer is:

    The "trust fund" is really not a "fund" that one would traditionally consider a "fund." It consists of NON-MARKETABLE IOU's. The so-called interest paid into the fund is also just more IOU's piled higher and deeper. The only way these IOU's can be converted to cash is by the Treasury buying them back. Where does the Treasury get its legal tender (cash)? It gets it through tax revenue or it borrows it from the public sector which includes foreign governments or from the federal reserve, which is interest free :)

    The system was set up this way so the government would not be subjected to varying interest rates and for other reasons because the social security trust fund is really not borrowed money. Social security is a tax and the fund is just an accounting gimmick to indicate the excess of revenue over expenditures.

    Ironically when the treasury buys back these IOU's and pays social security recipients the federal debt does not change very much. The public portion of the debt goes up but the trust fund debt goes down. Social security probably will not go bankrupt only because the federal government has no legal obligation to pay that so-called "debt. "

    Social Security is just another very expensive entitlement that is dragging the country into bankruptcy. We are completely adrift at every level of government with uncontrolled spending and no inclination to stop much less reduce spending.....and yes that does sound like the path to bankruptcy.

    http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecuri...

    February 2, 2012 at 3:35 p.m.

  • I can't really help. All I have is hearsay and the man I was talking about, passed away a few years ago.

    February 2, 2012 at 2:25 p.m.

  • this is what I read:

    http://news.yahoo.com/social-security...

    From personal expertience, my ex-brother-in-law was on disability, but he went to work one time. He couldn't handle it, but he tried, and I know that some people can work. He actually lost his job more from his temper than anything else, but he had been shot in the face with a shotgun (guess that would make most people grumpy), so there wasn't much he could do for enough hours to make a living. Some may not be able to do the jobs they used to have, but they are able to do some jobs.

    February 1, 2012 at 10:55 p.m.

  • Social Security pays benefits to people who cannot work because they have a medical condition that is expected to last at least one year or result in death. Federal law requires this very strict definition of disability. While some programs give money to people with partial disability or short-term disability, Social Security does not.

    Certain family members of disabled workers also can receive money from Social Security. This is explained in "Can my family get benefits?"

    How Do I Meet The Earnings Requirement For Disability Benefits?
    In general, to get disability benefits, you must meet two different earnings tests:

    A “recent work” test based on your age at the time you became disabled; and
    A “duration of work” test to show that you worked long enough under Social Security.
    Certain blind workers have to meet only the “duration of work” test.

    http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10029.html

    February 1, 2012 at 10:36 p.m.

  • Social Security has a trust fund of $2.6 trillion. This is money that was paid into the system but hasn't yet been spent by it. The money is all held in government bonds for which the Treasury must pay interest. It earned $119 billion in interest in 2010 and is projected to receive a similar amount in 2011. Total income in 2010 was $788 billion; total outgo was $706 billion. Does that sound like bankruptcy?

    Now, some people regard those interest payments as contributing to the federal deficit. That's correct in in a strictly bookkeeping sense, because the federal government must pay them out of general revenues. But if Social Security didn't own these bonds, someone else would -- perhaps China or a pension fund in California. It is nonsense to suggest they are contributing to the federal deficit, too."

    Certner and Baker both maintain it would be relatively easy to make modest changes to Social Security to close the gap that will emerge in 2037. Among the options: Raise or eliminate the cap on Social Security taxes, which are now paid by employers and employees on only the first $106,900 of income.

    See full article from DailyFinance: http://srph.it/hODMlS

    See full article from DailyFinance: http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/04/1...

    February 1, 2012 at 10:23 p.m.

  • I think I read somewhere that more people are signing up for disability because so many disabled people, who had jobs of some kind, are losing their jobs and they have no other choice.

    February 1, 2012 at 10:08 p.m.

  • Nation wide about 61 million people or about 20% of the population receive some kind of social security benefit.

    http://www.intellectualtakeout.org/li...

    Social Security will cost about one trillion dollars per year in five years. Currently the cost is increasing about 4% per year increasing to 9% in five years.

    Social Security Disability is also going broke at an even faster rate it's cost are out of control because of all the people applying for benefits - money for nothing.

    February 1, 2012 at 9:39 p.m.

  • I glanced at SS website- Victoria's office covers a several counties.
    Next closest offices is Houston and Corpus.

    February 1, 2012 at 7:20 p.m.

  • Probably talking about Victoria County, which, in 2010 had 86,793, but still, that is more than half. Something wrong with that number, "unless" that is the number that the Victoria office is handling. There aren't that many offices in Texas, so each office covers a large area.

    February 1, 2012 at 6:58 p.m.

  • Melissa,
    47,000 people collecting SS in Victoria! That is amazing.
    How large of an area are you talking about? It must be more than just the city. If the city is 60,000, this is 78% of the population.
    Please elaborate.

    February 1, 2012 at 5:25 p.m.