MSNBC's Shuster falsely claimed Social Security "will run out of money unless we make some major changes, at least in the next several years"
SUMMARY: On MSNBC Live, David Shuster stated that Social Security "will run out of money unless we make some major changes, at least in the next several years." In fact, according to the 2008 reports by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees, Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2041, at which point it will be able to cover 78 percent of benefits if no legislative changes are made. It will not "run out of money ... in the next several years," or in 2041.
On the September 18 edition of MSNBC Live, correspondent David Shuster stated, "[T]oday, we're taking a look at the issue of saving Social Security, which will run out of money unless we make some major changes, at least in the next several years." In fact, the 2008 Social Security trustees' report forecast that Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2041, and according to the same report, the Social Security program will not "run out of money" when the trust fund is depleted in 2041, as Media Matters for America previously noted based on the report's 2007 data.
The 2008 trustees' report explained that Social Security will be able to pay full benefits until 2041, at which point it will be able to cover 78 percent of benefits if no legislative changes are made, and further noted that "[e]ven if a trust fund's assets are exhausted ... tax income will continue to flow into the fund":
Redemption of trust fund assets will allow continuation of full benefit payments on a timely basis until 2041, when the trust funds are projected to become exhausted. This redemption process will require a flow of cash from the General Fund of the Treasury. Pressures on the Federal Budget will thus emerge well before 2041. Even if a trust fund's assets are exhausted, however, tax income will continue to flow into the fund. Present tax rates are projected to be sufficient to pay 78 percent of scheduled benefits after trust fund exhaustion in 2041 and 75 percent of scheduled benefits in 2082.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the September 18 edition of MSNBC Live:
SHUSTER: And welcome back to MSNBC, the place for politics. Barack Obama is out with a new campaign ad in the battleground state of Michigan, and he's taking direct aim at John McCain on the issue of privatizing Social Security.
NARRATOR [video clip]: A broken economy, failing banks, unstable markets, families struggling. To protect us in retirement, Social Security has never been more important. But John McCain's voted three times in favor of privatizing Social Security. McCain says, "I campaigned in support of President Bush's proposal."
SHUSTER: And this brings us to our daily segment we call "Where They Stand." And today, we're taking a look at the issue of saving Social Security, which will run out of money unless we make some major changes, at least in the next several years.
Hey, maybe we should let the republicans have their way and move our SS into the stock market. That's a good idea, right?
And put Todd Palin in charge of the new WFI department Mccain wants to create ( re make government bigger ) Spread the republican incompetence around.
Todd? what about the woman "who liked cows when she was a girl" who heads up the Ag department. Another brilliant choice.
Ooh! Ooh! Mr. Kotter! How about a trillion dollar infusion? That seems to be the solution of choice for everything else these days!
I liked money when I was a boy, can I be Secretary of the treasury?
The Palins At Home
(above)United States V.P. hopeful Sarah and husband Taahd, proposed Secretary of WFI, enjoy a refreshing beverage after a successful hunt on the Alaskan tundra.
What? No TANG?
Oh Taahd... That's so funny I forgot to laugh.
family photograph to show the grandkids someday....in three momths... how life used to be so grand and memorable.
Could he really be this dumb or so ignorant of the facts regarding SS? These people really are hopeless.
He's both-- and more than a little dishonest. A young guy on the make--just a little while ago, he made the disingenuous comment, that, to paraphrase, 'well, it seems like both candidates don't know what they're talking about when it comes to fixing the economy..."
That's classic republican 'spread-the-blame-they're all a-holes' evasion-tactics. And it's a lie-- there is no comparison between McCain's ineptitude and Obama's competence. But the memo says otherwise.
The Republicans have been pushing idea for years so it's no surprise to hear Shuster say it. The MSM pretty much repeats what ever the GOP says. I would love to see a report which includes an analysis of what would have happened if Bush had been successful in pushing for partial privitization of SS. I wonder what the odds of that happening are?
Why would they stop saying this? Who's gonna correct them, The Media? Har!
BTW, "Join the Discussion" is so much more warm and friendly than "SHOW!"
Well Col, you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still sexism in sheeps clothing...
This wouldn't be a problem if we had a proper transmorgrifier. A lack that Sarah is all over......ah, over.
I agree Col. The new format is nice. It will probably take a little while to work out any bugs, but so far i t seems that it works very nicely.
(and apparently they foresaw that html text formatting would be a problem, darn it! Drat, foiled again!)
To the COL., and NEON. I just zipped an e-mail to MM complaining about the new format. My little pea-brain figured it out in a jiffy. Now I feel like such a fool. Nothing new, there, being a liberal and all.
The liberals -- like those that post on this site -- have gone past just being stupid or moronic. No, instead they are being purposely DECEITFUL.
Conservatives -- and in this case Shuster, who seems to have had a rare jolt of smarts -- are trying to sound the alarm that unless we act early the system will go broke, or begin to take in less that it needs to pay out, whether in 2041 or whenever. Why not get out front and try to craft a solution now?
You can be sure that when we have a revenue shortfall, liberals will be pointing the finger of blame at conservatives. We're seeing that exact same behavior this week. Turn a blind eye to the truth, discourage reform and allow corruption to thrive and then feugn outrage when the inevitable happens. And then use crisis to consolidate government control.
The powerful liberals end up rich and the rest of us end up paying the bill. The sad thing is you idiots who post on this site and others are tools of these deceitful leaders. WAKE UP!
You mean like the horrible things that were going to happen to our economy but were averted by de-regulating the banks and lending in '99?
Boy, I sure don't want to be a tool of the powerful rich liberals by spending trillions of dollars bailing out social security. Thanks for waking me up and bringing this potential disaster to light, NoTurnsLeft. It's conservative fiscal policies for me from now on...
"Why not get out front and try to craft a solution now?"
I agree, we need a president like Obama to craft a REAL solution, not a private investment scheme. Just think where SS and millions of seniors would be right now had Bush's plan come to fruition.
"Turn a blind eye to the truth, discourage reform and allow corruption to thrive and then feugn outrage when the inevitable happens."
The "reform" you speak of is Republicans like Phil Gramm rolling back regulations and creating the freedom for Wall Street to act irresponsibly. It's been slowly happening for over 20 years now and finally "the inevitable" has happened. The results of deregulation, lassez-faire and trickle-down speak for themselves. We don't have the manfacturing workforce that we used to, so we can't fall back on American productivity anymore when "the inevitable" happens. We've become an economy that simply buys and sells money, instead of generating real wealth through manufacturing and self-sustenance.
"The powerful liberals end up rich and the rest of us end up paying the bill."
And just who are the priviledged few who are getting rich right now?
The powerful liberals end up rich and the rest of us end up paying the bill. The sad thing is you idiots who post on this site and others are tools of these deceitful leaders. WAKE UP!
Hey, I've got a great idea!! Why don't we privatize Social Security, and then everybody can have big bank accounts that we can invest on Wall Street!
yeah!
While he did have one valid point in there, it was unfortunate that it was buried in a stinking, steaming heap of lies, self-serving speculation and irrational invective.
NoLeft may have 1/2 a point , Bill. I think it's been common knowledge for years that the system needs some adjustments to make sure it's working in the future, it's just that all the Cons have been suggesting is dismantling/privatizing. NLT may have thrown you off, by being a few years behind on the issue, he almost appeared to get it.
I'm not sure where NoLeft thinks the lefties are being "deceitful" here, but I probably shouldn't ask.
True, I may have overstated his point. It's unfortunate that the last almost a decade has been wasted trying to fend off efforts to kill SS through privatization. The solution could have been even milder than it will have to be now. I have high hopes that the coming Democratic President and stronger Democratic Congress will be able to do what is necessary and put this issue behind us.
NLT's discussion style leaves a lot to be desired.
What has Congress proposed in the last two years????? Right now, it looks like we'll be making major changes in 30+ years (when benefits will be cut to 78% of their projected amount). That's a great, major change.
Realistically, there was still little chance of getting good reform of SS done with only 49 Democrats in the Senate and an almost certain veto in the White House. The congressional Democrats have been stymied in their ability to put through significant measures by those two factors. Also, I'm not impressed with the current Democratic leadership. I would love to see Hillary Clinton as the new majority leader.
Considering that SS is not in a crisis situation, it makes sense to wait for a stronger majority and a Democratic President. That would allow meaningful adjustments to be made, with much less compromise necessary with the party that wants to gut the system.
What I'm wondering is why they want to talk about SS during one of the worse financial crisis ever? They are discussing making changes to a system they helped bankrupt as they make the largest bailout of failure using taxpayer's dollars sure reeks of smug hipocracy to me. How about they put some of the money they helped siphon off back while they're bailing out their rich buddies?
I don't think he's saying that SS will run out of money in the next several years.
No, you're right. He only said that explicitly-- how foolish of us to underestimate him. He didn't say that because he said it. MMFA owes him an apology.
No, he didn't say that explicitly. Here's what he said:
The phrase "in the next several years" could be seen as referring to running out of money, but it doesn't look to me as if he meant it to. The way I read it, "in the next several years" refers to the time frame for making changes. That makes more sense to me than the other.
ss is just fine until republicants raid it to pay for their wars and give tax cuts the people who already have the most
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't SS benefits increased according to wage growth and not inflation. As such, come the year 2040 or whatever, won't the 78% paychecks recipients receive actually buy more than the 100% paychecks being received today (assuming wages increase faster than inflation - which is usually the case)? I agree with peebs, saying SS is in "crisis" is borderline rediculous.
"...what about the woman "who liked cows when she was a girl" who heads up the Ag department."
Actually, Ultra, that sounds like a better idea than McCain or Palin anywhere near the White House. I mean at least the women like cows. I am pretty sure neither McCain or Palin are that in favor of the Constitution given their present stances on various issues. And at least Palin it could be argued is not in favor of the Union at all as she has spoke and delivered messages of appreciation to Alaskan separatists.
Really, if Obama's wife had belong to a black nationalist group we would have never heard the end of it. But do talk about the "first Dude".
"The liberals -- like those that post on this site -- have gone past just being stupid or moronic. No, instead they are being purposely DECEITFUL."
Nice one. Straight out of the Rush Limbaugh-Sean Hannity playbook... which is pretty much the playbook of being asinine.
Now follow this... because this is complicated. Estimates on what is needed to fix the Social Security shortfall is somewhere around one-quarter of the Bush tax cuts, of which a little more than 66-percent of the total money goes back to those making $1-million or more.
A very simple fix is rolling back one-quarter of the Bush tax cuts that are skewed toward the rich, and roll it into a Social Security tax increase. But the GOP has people like you silent because they're thrown you a bone while making sure the real meat of the cut goes to the wealthy.
But a Social Security solution is never anything you'll ever see out of the Republicans because the kooky-cons in control see it as a socialist program that really needs to be eliminated. Of course, none of the GOP leaders will ever say this because nobody publicly stating that as a part of a platform will ever be chosen for a leadership position.