Start A Petition

Obama: 'Social Security Is Structurally Sound;' Trustees: 'Unfunded Obligation ... Is $8.6T'

US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, u.s., usa, obama, politics, news, media, government, elections, democrats )

- 2087 days ago -
President Barack Obama said in Wednesday night's presidential debate that Social Security is "structurally sound," but Social Security's Board of Trustees said in their 2012 annual report that the program faced $8.6 trillion in "unfunded obligations"...

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Cam V (417)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 1:23 pm
President Barack Obama said in Wednesday night’s presidential debate that Social Security is “structurally sound,” but Social Security’s Board of Trustees said in their 2012 annual report that the program faced $8.6 trillion in “unfunded obligations”--meaning that it is currently obligated to pay out $8.6 trillion more in benefits than it is anticipated to bring in through taxes.

During Wednesday debate, moderator Jim Lehrer asked Obama: “Do you see a major difference between the two of you on Social Security?”

“I suspect that on Social Security we've got a somewhat similar position,” Obama responded. “Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan and Speaker--Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill. But it is, the basic structure is sound.”

However, in their annual report published on April 25, the Social Security Trustees said that program not only faces $8.6 trillion in unfunded obligations but that the situation became dramatically worse over the previous year.

“The open group unfunded obligation for OASDI over the 75-year period is $8.6 trillion in present value and is $2.1 trillion more than the measured level of a year ago,” said the trustees’ report. “If the assumptions, methods, starting values, and the law had all remained unchanged, the unfunded obligation would have risen to about $7.0 trillion due to the change in the valuation date. The remaining increase in the unfunded obligation is primarily due to updated data and economic assumptions.”

The trustees point out that a major legislative change that increased the unfunded obligation of Social Security was the cut in the Social Security payroll tax that had been advocated by President Obama. This payroll tax funds the Social Security program.

“In 2011, Social Security’s cost continued to exceed both the program’s tax income and its non-interest income, a trend that the Trustees project to continue throughout the short-range period and beyond,” the report said. “The 2011 deficit of tax income relative to cost was $148 billion, and the projected 2012 deficit is $165 billion. The sizes of these deficits are largely due to a temporary reduction in the Social Security payroll tax for 2011 and 2012.”

MmAway M (507)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 2:55 pm
Don't have time to say what I want...and you got it all out there so just going to say ~ Thank You CAM!!!

Paula M (39)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 2:58 pm
Thank you for this very important and topical article.

. (0)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 4:19 pm
Why did it take a debate to "out" Obama and his idiotic policies?

Cam V (417)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 4:54 pm
I think it was because you all were so dang tired and the Hope and Change mantra caught a lot of folks by the spirit of it. If only it had been true instead of empty rhetoric Allan. America would be so better off right now instead of so much worse.

cecily w (0)
Friday October 5, 2012, 4:41 am
The Social Security Old Age Benefits Program IS structurally sound--but it DOES need to be tweaked. Obama is right. It needs to be changed on two points, neither of which has been changed in more than 75 years. (1) Benefits
should be received only under one's own name. (Benefits for perpetual "Non-working spouses", and ex-spouses, need to be gradually phased out.) (2) The minimum number of quarters required to collect should be gradually phased up from the current 40 (ten years) to 100 (25 years). In short, only those who have personally and directly paid in their fair share should be eligible to collect.

Obama hasn't touched this issue at all, and some politicians on the right are trying to deal with this only by coming up with alternate schemes. Can't really blame them since making this program fair for the employees and employers who pay for it would be political suicide.

Cam V (417)
Friday October 5, 2012, 10:55 am
In fact your social security is bankrupt.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in US Politics & Gov't

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.