# social security



## infman4x (Jul 7, 2011)

hey congress quit tampering with social security, ill dare you guys, robb from the working taxpayers to fund illegals or slackers with the working folks money that they earned and put in for retirement, most people would go to jail for these actions.
obama has wasted enough money to foreign countries and bailouts plus money/ assistance for welfare and slackers to have corrected social security, dont continue to rob the working people who made this country, working folks have to be responsible with their money,how about government getting their act together and living within their means, and oh by the way fix social security, because you guys screwed it up, theres enough of you guys sittin on your bottoms drawing big pay,lets do something.


----------



## MikeFrank (Jul 7, 2011)

SS should be put into a non touched account, if a private company touched this money they would be locked up, when congress does it for some reason it is legal.


----------



## waltky (Jul 7, 2011)

Social security onna table an' dem politicians gonna take a bite outta it...

*Talks: Inflation change could cut Social Security*
_7 July`11  WASHINGTON  Once considered untouchable, Social Security is now in play in the debt-ceiling negotiations. And that could mean higher income taxes for many U.S. families in addition to shaved benefits for tens of millions of retirees as they age._


> Social Security became part of the private discussions between President Barack Obama and Republican House Speaker John Boehner on coming up with "something big" to reduce deficits by $2 trillion to $4 trillion over the next decade. One option includes a new inflation measure for Social Security that could produce savings close to $200 billion through a combination of reduced benefits and higher taxes, White House officials said Thursday.  Low- and middle-income families could be hit.
> 
> The proposal would represent a reversal for Obama. In contrast to his pledge to target tax increases at the wealthy, high-income families would largely be spared from tax increases that would result from changing the way inflation is measured. And until now, the administration has been adamant that Social Security does not add to the deficit and should not be a part of deficit reduction talks.  Adopting a new inflation measure would allow policymakers to gradually cut benefits and increase taxes in a way that might not be readily apparent to most Americans. The inflation measure under consideration is called the Chained Consumer Price Index. On average, the measure shows a lower level of inflation than the more widely used CPI.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 7, 2011)

Social security is broke now. There is no account anywhere with the $$ that anyone has put their $$ into.
Social Security has been a pay as you go system since inception. 
How does a system work when there are 2 people drawing out of it for every person paying into it?
If there was a system set up similar to social security in the private sector they would arrest the owners of it for fraud.
All social security is and has been is a big Ponzi scheme. 
We should never as taxpayers honor past promises our politicians made THAT THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN KEEP.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 7, 2011)

Lets privatize SS so that Wal Street and JP Chase can mess with the surplus....


----------



## Russell (Jul 8, 2011)

Politicians and social security is like foxes guarding the hen house. The politicians have been drooling, salivating and licking their chops for years, now they are going to pounce on it and tear it to pieces. And if you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 8, 2011)

Why would politicians want social security?
There is NO $$$ in it.
Either we make changes in it or it will be gone in 25 years.
When Americans finally wake up and KNOW that our politicians have made promises THEY CAN NOT KEEP things will get better.
Social Security was never intended to be a retirement program. It was a supplemental program IN CASE you lived past the average age. Fact: average age of an American when social security started was 61. Fact: there were 29 Americans paying into social security when it started for every person drawing a benefit.
Tell us how it works when there is 1 person drawing social security for every person PAYING INTO it.
How do we fund that without CHANGING IT???


----------



## iggy pop (Jul 8, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Lets privatize SS so that Wal Street and JP Chase can mess with the surplus....



Is there a surplus? Why is government even allowed to touch that money?


----------



## Claudette (Jul 8, 2011)

You can thank LBJ for that my friend. 

He needed money to fund the Vietnam War and there were all those billions in SS money just sitting there. 

Not anymore.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 8, 2011)

MikeFrank said:


> SS should be put into a non touched account, if a private company touched this money they would be locked up, when congress does it for some reason it is legal.


That would be pretty simple to do.  All Congress would have to do is change the law to stop S.S. from investing the trust fund in treasury bonds.  In about 10 years the trust would be in a cash position.  Of course it would be earning no interest which would hasten the depletion of the fund


----------



## Flopper (Jul 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Social security is broke now. There is no account anywhere with the $$ that anyone has put their $$ into.
> Social Security has been a pay as you go system since inception.
> How does a system work when there are 2 people drawing out of it for every person paying into it?
> If there was a system set up similar to social security in the private sector they would arrest the owners of it for fraud.
> ...


It is only broke if you consider the two trillion dollars it holds in US treasury bills as worthless.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 8, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Social security is broke now. There is no account anywhere with the $$ that anyone has put their $$ into.
> ...



Those are IOUs only.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 8, 2011)

Claudette said:


> You can thank LBJ for that my friend.
> 
> He needed money to fund the Vietnam War and there were all those billions in SS money just sitting there.
> 
> Not anymore.



Congress funds wars, never Presidents.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Yes, that's exactly what a treasury bill is, no collateral just backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.


----------



## flacaltenn (Jul 8, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



This is 2nd time you've made that assertion, Flopper.. I gave you the back-up on this. 

All that sits at the Soc Sec Admin are "Special Issue" non-transferable "intra-governmental transfer bonds" They are NOT normal Treasury bonds.. Congress could decide to default on these IOUs without affecting the Fed bond market.. 

They cannot be sold to 3rd parties -- Have NO market value.. And if interest is paid on them, *it's the 2nd time it's been stolen from the taxpayers. *You might have missed the ORIGINAL theft of the $2Trill..  But I hope you catch them the 2nd time.... 

MAYBE we should ask the SSA... 

Special-issue securities, Social Security trust funds



> The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund comprise the Social Security trust funds. Both funds are managed by the Department of the Treasury through their Bureau of Public Debt. Since the beginning of the Social Security program, all securities held by the trust funds have been issued by the Federal Government. There are two general types of such securities:
> 
> Special issuesavailable only to the trust funds
> Public issuesmarketable Treasury bonds available to the public.
> *The trust funds now hold only special issues, but they have held public issues in the past*.



Holy SHIT! Were we robbed 3 times?? Wonder what happened to those "public issue" bonds? 

Ask yourself why -- when SS books are going negative fast --- WHY the SSA CLAIMS that the treasury is gonna kick in a SURPLUS (over and beyond what's required to balance the fund) for the next 20 years or so?? That's the 4th GRAND THIEF that most folks aren't even aware of yet..


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 8, 2011)

Russell said:


> Politicians and social security is like foxes guarding the hen house. The politicians have been drooling, salivating and licking their chops for years, now they are going to pounce on it and tear it to pieces. And if you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?



What makes you think there is anything left to tear to pieces?

It is already gone.


----------



## waltky (Jul 11, 2011)

Scare tactics: Social Security benefits at risk, Geithner warns...

*Benefits at risk, Geithner warns*
_July 11, 2011 - Ties Social Security to higher debt cap | Leaders meet; more talks today_


> WASHINGTON - As the nation inched closer yesterday to what the White House says would be a catastrophic default on its massive debt, President Obamas administration ratcheted up the pressure on Republicans by suggesting Social Security checks for some 55 million Americans could be in jeopardy if no deal is reached in the next three weeks.  Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said his agency must borrow 40 cents of every dollar it spends and suggested that without the ability to borrow, it may not be able to deliver crucial benefits to Americans who rely on them to pay for food and other necessities.
> 
> On August 2d, were left running on fumes, Geithner said on CBSs Face the Nation. We have no capacity to borrow. . . . We have to act; Congress has to act ahead of that point. If they dont act, then we face catastrophic damage to the American economy.  President Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties at the White House last night in an effort to reach a compromise to avert default on the debt. Obama and the lawmakers made no statements immediately after the meeting, but they are scheduled to meet again today.
> 
> ...



See also:

*Social Security: Could a new way to measure inflation affect it?*
_July 11, 2011 - Social Security is probably the most controversial thing that would be affected by a change in the way inflation is measured. Besides Social Security, what would be the other effects of a new measurement of inflation?_


> Should Congress use a new measure of inflation to index the tax code? It sounds awfully technicaland it isbut shifting to what most economists believe is a more accurate measure of inflation would gradually raise a substantial amount of new revenue for politicians scrambling to find ways to cut the deficit.  The idea has surfaced in the high-stakes budget negotiations between President Obama and Congress. Government would adopt something called the chained consumer price index (CPI) to adjust programs to reflect changes in the price of goods and services.
> 
> The proposal isnt newit has been kicking around for decades and appeared last year in budget plans offered by both President Obamas fiscal commission and the Bipartisan Policy Center. And it would not only apply to taxesindeed the most controversial change would affect Social Security benefits. But this is TaxVox, so lets take a closer look at what this revision would mean for taxpayers.  The income tax is littered with provisions that are indexed for inflation, including the standard deduction and personal exemption, the earned income credit and the refundable child credit, and IRA contribution limits. In addition, the tax brackets themselves have been indexed for inflation since the Reagan era. This important feature prevents bracket-creep, where taxpayers pay higher rates just because their nominal (rather than real, inflation-adjusted) income rises.
> 
> ...


----------



## Toro (Jul 11, 2011)

infman4x said:


> hey congress quit tampering with social security, ill dare you guys, robb from the working taxpayers to fund illegals or slackers with the working folks money that they earned and put in for retirement, most people would go to jail for these actions.
> obama has wasted enough money to foreign countries and bailouts plus money/ assistance for welfare and slackers to have corrected social security, dont continue to rob the working people who made this country, working folks have to be responsible with their money,how about government getting their act together and living within their means, and oh by the way fix social security, because you guys screwed it up, theres enough of you guys sittin on your bottoms drawing big pay,lets do something.



Hi

Could you post normally, like with sentences, capital letters and periods and such?

Thanks.


----------



## Bern80 (Jul 11, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Are you under the assumption that the 'faith and credit' of the federal government is infinite. WAKE UP. That is exactly what the government is losing.


----------



## Avorysuds (Jul 11, 2011)

uscitizen said:


> Lets privatize SS so that Wal Street and JP Chase can mess with the surplus....



No no no... we should leave it up to the Government so they can spend it into bankruptcy
Odd because the best answer is to not have SS at all. But lol, that cant buy votes!


----------



## Toro (Jul 11, 2011)

We should give people the option of investing in their own private accounts.

We should make SS into a real pension fund that invests in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Everyone has to be part of this new SS fund until they are 40.  At 40, they can transfer their funds to their dedicated retirement account but still must contribute to it until retirement.  However, they can manage it the way they see fit.


----------



## cielo42 (Jul 11, 2011)

Petition Congress to raise taxes and close loops holes in Debt Ceiling debate
Please sign the petition below and email your local representatives/senators!
http://www.change.org/petitions/dema...e-debt-ceiling

The American middle and lower class refuse to bare the entire burden of balancing the United States' massive debt. The people of the United States have grown fearful with the threat of a credit default looming because of a stagnant debate in our Congress about raising the debt ceiling. In recent negotiations, President Obama has put forth a deal that would cut parts of social security and medicare while raising tax revenues. We the people disagree with the notion that our welfare programs must be sacrificed in order to balance the federal government's budget. Republicans have refused to consider raising taxes and therefore I ask that everyone call or email their senators and state representatives demanding that they leave our welfare programs alone and return taxes for the upper class back to pre-Bush-era rates while also closing loop holes for big oil and agriculture.


----------



## MikeK (Jul 11, 2011)

I just wrote a letter to the Democratic National Committee (430 S Capitol St S.E.  Washington DC 20003) to tell them I believe Obama to be a right-wing Trojan Horse.  

He is useless and I will not vote for him in 2012.


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 11, 2011)

Toro said:


> We should give people the option of investing in their own private accounts.
> 
> We should make SS into a real pension fund that invests in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Everyone has to be part of this new SS fund until they are 40.  At 40, they can transfer their funds to their dedicated retirement account but still must contribute to it until retirement.  However, they can manage it the way they see fit.



yeah we need to let someone trustworthy like Wall Street and JP Chase manage SS for us instead of that untrustworthy US government.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 12, 2011)

Bern80 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


If the full faith and credit of the US government is no good, then the problem is not just S.S. All government obligations are suspect including treasury bills, notes, savings bonds, and oh yes the dollars in your wallet.


----------



## Claudette (Jul 12, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > You can thank LBJ for that my friend.
> ...



True. But LBJ had a Dem Congress so no problem. 

They voted to let him have that money and SS was fucked from that point onwards.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 12, 2011)

Too late. FDR was stealing FICA taxes right off the bat and LBJ made official back in 1964 that Social Security taxes would be placed in the general fund. There is no locked box and there was never a locked box and there ain't likely to be a locked box in the future.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 12, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


*Special interest treasury bills are ever bit as safe as ordinary treasury bills.  They are both backed by the full faith and credit of US government. Failure to pay either type is a default.  They are actually safer than ordinary treasuries because unlike other treasuries, the government can not refuse to pay interest or principal without an act of congress.  If the debt ceiling is not raised, the administration could default on ordinary treasuries but not special interest treasuries.
*


----------



## Flopper (Jul 12, 2011)

percysunshine said:


> Russell said:
> 
> 
> > Politicians and social security is like foxes guarding the hen house. The politicians have been drooling, salivating and licking their chops for years, now they are going to pounce on it and tear it to pieces. And if you don't like it, what are you going to do about it?
> ...


If the trust fund is already gone, then it never existed.  From day one the trust fund has been invested in US debt.  Despite the Republican attempt to bring on a default, US debt is still considered one of the safest investments in the world, however that may change in a few weeks.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 12, 2011)

Claudette said:


> You can thank LBJ for that my friend.
> 
> He needed money to fund the Vietnam War and there were all those billions in SS money just sitting there.
> 
> Not anymore.



Reagan helped to raise the rate on SS, so that there would be a huge surplus.  Republicans and Democrats since then have spent it all away.  Everyone is to blame.  Now the only choice is to raise the retirement age in order to insure everyone receives full benefits.


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 12, 2011)

whitehall said:


> Too late. FDR was stealing FICA taxes right off the bat and LBJ made official back in 1964 that Social Security taxes would be placed in the general fund. There is no locked box and there was never a locked box and there ain't likely to be a locked box in the future.



It really is no longer a matter of there being a locked box.  We only have enough coming in to pay current recipients, so there is no longer any additional funds to borrow from.  This has caused a fairly sizable drop in revenue for other expenses and has helped contribute to the massive yearly deficits.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 12, 2011)

There is no "locked box". There never was. Congress started spending FICA taxes as soon as the entitlement was created and LBJ made it "legal" with a presidential authorization.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 12, 2011)

infman4x said:


> hey congress quit tampering with social security, ill dare you guys, robb from the working taxpayers to fund illegals or slackers with the working folks money that they earned and put in for retirement, most people would go to jail for these actions.
> obama has wasted enough money to foreign countries and bailouts plus money/ assistance for welfare and slackers to have corrected social security, dont continue to rob the working people who made this country, working folks have to be responsible with their money,how about government getting their act together and living within their means, and oh by the way fix social security, because you guys screwed it up, theres enough of you guys sittin on your bottoms drawing big pay,lets do something.


So by taxing away workers money, spending it, and then paying those workers retirement with other people's money that could have been invested, Congress is helping the working people? It seems to me like social security _is_ the robbery.

Phase out social security, and abolish it. Allow people to create their own private retirement accounts. They would generate more money. Invest in mutual funds if you worry you do not have the know how to make the decisions yourself. The market provides all you need. The government takes away your hard earned money and pretends like it is doing you a favor when it returns the stolen property.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 12, 2011)

Toro said:


> We should give people the option of investing in their own private accounts.
> 
> We should make SS into a real pension fund that invests in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc.  Everyone has to be part of this new SS fund until they are 40.  At 40, they can transfer their funds to their dedicated retirement account but still must contribute to it until retirement.  However, they can manage it the way they see fit.



And also make SSI a separate "welfare" program, which is exactly what it is. Social Security retirement is not.


----------



## MaggieMae (Jul 12, 2011)

auditor0007 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > You can thank LBJ for that my friend.
> ...



There also needs to be a means test so that multi-millionaires/billionaires only get back what they put in. They don't need it. If a time came when they did, then they could reapply.


----------



## Kooshdakhaa (Jul 12, 2011)

Take away the cap on maximum income that is taxed for SS.  Take social security out at the same rate whether the person makes $25,000 per year or $25,000,000 per year.

The fund would start growing in a hurry.

That as well as quit borrowing from the SS funds for other purposes.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 12, 2011)

whitehall said:


> There is no "locked box". There never was. Congress started spending FICA taxes as soon as the entitlement was created and LBJ made it "legal" with a presidential authorization.


If by lock-box, you mean cash sitting in an account invested in nothing, then no there has never been a lock-box and for good reason.  Most of the 2 trillion dollars in assets in the fund comes from interest earned on investments in treasuries bonds.  Typically the fund earns 50 or 60 billion a year.

By law social security payroll taxes go to the treasury where benefits checks are issued.  Any remaining funds must be deposited in the trust fund.  Most of the funds assets are then invested in US treasury bonds and special issue treasury bonds.  Any other use of the funds is illegal.

In most years there is sufficient payroll taxes coming in to pay all benefits, therefore as bonds mature, the proceeds are reinvested in order to maximize interest payments to the fund.  Once in the 1980's and in 2010 and 2011, payroll taxes were insufficient to cover benefit payments therefor some benefits were paid from the fund.  The amount was about 2% of the fund in 2011, less that the interest being earned.

Anyone that says "S.S. is bankrupt" or "there is nothing in the fund" is showing their ignorance.  

S.S. has real problems.  Very soon S.S. payroll taxes will not be enough to cover the benefit checks so we will start drawing enough from the trust fund to pay benefits.  Sometime in the 2030's, not sure of the year, there will be no assets left in the fund.  So what will happens to S.S?  Benefits will continue to be paid out the S.S. payroll taxes, however the benefits will be reduced by about 25% possibly a bit more.  This is the S.S. problem.  It has little or nothing to do with the deficit.  S.S is considered off budget, so there  is no line item in budget to be cut.

Social Security history Frequently Asked Questions


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > There is no "locked box". There never was. Congress started spending FICA taxes as soon as the entitlement was created and LBJ made it "legal" with a presidential authorization.
> ...



Social security does not own Treasury bonds.  Treasury bonds are marketable bonds that can be bought and sold.  Social security owns nonmarketable government liabilities that cannot be bought and sold.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 12, 2011)

Toro said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


They are also referred to by S.S. as Special Issue Treasury Bonds.  They are not marketable because the fund is not allowed to sell them.  This does not mean they have no value.  They have a face value payable at maturity like any other bond.  Private placement bonds used by businesses, large and small are not marketed but that certainly doesn't mean they lack value.   

According to S.S, there are only two differences between Special Issue Treasury Bonds and Ordinary Treasury Bonds.  Special issues bonds can be redeemed at any time by the fund.  Unlike ordinary treasuries, the government can not default on these bonds without an act of Congress.  This makes the bonds safer from default than ordinary treasuries.

BTW I think a lot people are unaware that the S.S. trust fund is only 1 of 18 trusts managed by the treasury with a total asset value of 2.5 trillion.  To my knowledge all of these funds are invested in US debt.  These are just 18 of 230 government trust funds.  The other funds are not managed by the treasury and there is little information on the Net about them.  I think one of them is an Indian trust fund but I haven't found anything else.  I wonder what these funds might be.


----------



## ShackledNation (Jul 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Most of the 2 trillion dollars in assets in the fund comes from interest earned on investments in treasuries bonds.  Typically the fund earns 50 or 60 billion a year.


And that interest comes from...TAXES! Those treasury bonds are paid for by...TAXES! It is a ponzi scheme. Government taxes us. It invests those tax dollars into itself. Then it spends that invested money. It then has to pay back the money at a later date with interest. Investing money in Treasuries means giving government money to spend. When the government has to pay back to treasury to itself so it can give it back to retirees, it has to use revenue from taxes.

WAKE UP!


----------



## Toro (Jul 12, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I know, I realize all that.  I have this argument all the time with people who say there is no trust, or SS is broke, etc.  But the bonds don't really exist in the tangible sense.  They are accounting entries that are credited and debited to the accounts _as if they were real Treasury bonds._  The liabilities are real in the sense that they are claims on the US government, but as I understand it, there are no identifiers such as CUSIPs which identify each bond separately.  They are conceptual.  Of course, most securities no longer exist in the true tangible sense, i.e. bearer bonds, but at least they can be identified and traded.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 12, 2011)

Toro said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Toro said:
> ...


Well I know they can&#8217;t be traded because that would not be legal.  Special issue bonds have maturities of less than a year to maximum of 15 years. I&#8217;m sure the bonds are laddered with fixed percentages at 15,yr, 10yrs and down to less than a year.  Since the trust is constantly buying bonds to reinvest interest, they must own thousands of bonds with different maturities.  There must be a number assigned to each bond just to keep up with them.

I think I saw something that said the interest rates on new bonds were taking from weekly treasure bill auctions, which sounds reasonable. What seems rather strange is the option to redeem on demand.


----------



## waltky (Aug 31, 2011)

He just playin' to the electorate - just like Sarah Palin...

*Rick Perry: Smart politics for him to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme?*
_August 29, 2011  Washington - If Rick Perry wins the GOP presidential nomination, his remarks on Social Security and other issues could haunt him. But right now, his play to the Republican base appears to be spot on._


> Texas Gov. Rick Perry is at it again, expressing himself pungently on a hot-button issue. This past weekend, it was Social Security. The front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination called the retirement program for seniors a monstrous lie and a Ponzi scheme for ... young people.  Add that to Governor Perrys comments on man-made global warming: a scientific theory that has not been proven. On evolution: just a theory with gaps. And on the Federal Reserves practice of printing more money to boost the economy: doing so again would be almost treasonous. Many conservatives applaud Perry, even as liberals and the mainstream media express alarm.
> 
> The long-term politics of these assertions is tricky. If Perry wins the nomination, the remarks  all on tape  could come back to haunt him. In the general election, he would have to appeal to moderates and independents, and these sorts of comments could give such voters pause.  Short term, though, his play to the Republican base appears to be spot on. Perry has shot into the lead in the two latest polls of Iowa Republican voters, who will kick off nomination season early next year.  Although hes drawn ridicule from Democrats and Republican elites [for his comments on global warming and evolution], our polling suggests hes perfectly in line with the GOP base, writes Tom Jensen, director of the Democratic firm Public Policy Polling.
> 
> ...


----------



## Flopper (Aug 31, 2011)

waltky said:


> He just playin' to the electorate - just like Sarah Palin...
> 
> *Rick Perry: Smart politics for him to call Social Security a Ponzi scheme?*
> _August 29, 2011  Washington - If Rick Perry wins the GOP presidential nomination, his remarks on Social Security and other issues could haunt him. But right now, his play to the Republican base appears to be spot on._
> ...


It will be interesting to see how he plays Florida with all the seniors.  I guess he will try to downplay his statements about social security and medicare.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 31, 2011)

ShackledNation said:


> infman4x said:
> 
> 
> > hey congress quit tampering with social security, ill dare you guys, robb from the working taxpayers to fund illegals or slackers with the working folks money that they earned and put in for retirement, most people would go to jail for these actions.
> ...



There never was a system to invest the $$. From the start this has been a giant Ponzi pay as you go system.
The system NEVER was intended to be a retirement system as the average age of an American when started was LESS than 62 yoa. Social security was set up as insurance IN CASE you lived past 62.
And when started 29 folks paid into it for every beneficiary. This is the part that most Americans DO NOT GET. Now it is less than 3 to 1.
UNSUSTAINABLE.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 31, 2011)

People need to get in their thick skulls:
SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
The taxpayers should not have to pay citizens a retirement.
SS was set up as insurance and as a supplement.


----------



## Full-Auto (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> People need to get in their thick skulls:
> SOCIAL SECURITY IS NOT A RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
> The taxpayers should not have to pay citizens a retirement.
> SS was set up as insurance and as a supplement.



Thats the word now!!!

But during the debate leading up to it.

It will come to you as a right.

Your premiums will never go up.

You can pass it on to your heirs.

ITS PROTECTED BY A TRUST FUND...........................


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 31, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



HOW in the ff'in world can you pop up every Soc Sec thread and contend again that there are negotiable Treasury Bonds in the Trust Fund? I've given you ample proof that it's a farce. MORE THAN ONCE!

*Those papers in the trust fund are NOT general issue transferable bonds. They are worthless paper IOUs.* Backed ONLY by the integrity and ethical content of Congress. Wanna trust them???


----------



## editec (Aug 31, 2011)

infman4x said:


> hey congress quit tampering with social security, ill dare you guys, robb from the working taxpayers to fund illegals or slackers with the working folks money that they earned and put in for retirement, most people would go to jail for these actions.
> obama has wasted enough money to foreign countries and bailouts plus money/ assistance for welfare and slackers to have corrected social security, dont continue to rob the working people who made this country, working folks have to be responsible with their money,how about government getting their act together and living within their means, and oh by the way fix social security, because you guys screwed it up, theres enough of you guys sittin on your bottoms drawing big pay,lets do something.


 
Social secuurity isn't broke if you look at its balance sheet.

But the fact that its one and only DEBTOR is broke is a problem, without doubt.

FIXING the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT is a problem that is NOT on the agenda.


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 31, 2011)

editec said:


> infman4x said:
> 
> 
> > hey congress quit tampering with social security, ill dare you guys, robb from the working taxpayers to fund illegals or slackers with the working folks money that they earned and put in for retirement, most people would go to jail for these actions.
> ...



Social Security went NEGATIVE in 2010.. Largely because of the economy and the theft of payroll taxes that was in the "stimulus" act. MAYBE it's got a couple positive years IF the economy recovers -- but the doom and gloom is HERE -- NOW... 

But you're right -- I don't see it getting fixed without scuttling every aspect of it's original UNIVERSAL intent...


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 31, 2011)

In fact -- look at why the deficit under Obama is exploding.. Under Bush -- SS was running 100BIll surplus which was stolen by congress. In 2010 it ran a 50Bill deficit. 

That's a SWING of 150Bill/yr or because the SS deficit will INCREASE dramatically in the next 10 years, that amount alone probably ADDS $3TRILL to poor unfortunate Obama's bar tab.. 

The guy is a sucker for taking the office given what's been set in motion. A BIGGER idiot will get elected to be swept away by the coming monsoon of debt payments..


----------



## MiddleClass (Aug 31, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Social security is broke now. There is no account anywhere with the $$ that anyone has put their $$ into.
> Social Security has been a pay as you go system since inception.
> How does a system work when there are 2 people drawing out of it for every person paying into it?
> If there was a system set up similar to social security in the private sector they would arrest the owners of it for fraud.
> ...



Right out of the standard Faux News talking points. Some of you really need to get your news from more than one source


----------



## flacaltenn (Aug 31, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Social security is broke now. There is no account anywhere with the $$ that anyone has put their $$ into.
> ...



Just curious -0- As misinformed as YOU are -- what news sources can we attribute THAT ignorance to? Everything GaDawg said has merit. (But actually it's more like 4 retirees for every worker and getting worse). I've got quotes and links for you -- but 1st we need to impeach whatever crap news has made you so sure of yourself..

And BTW: Welcome to USMB.. I believe there's an entire FORUM for folks who think Fox News is useless and evil...


----------



## signelect (Aug 31, 2011)

A democratic congress voted to steel my SS money from the trust so they could give it to their buddies.  Leave my money along, you should all be in jail.


----------



## lehr (Sep 6, 2011)

infman4x said:


> hey congress quit tampering with social security, ill dare you guys, robb from the working taxpayers to fund illegals or slackers with the working folks money that they earned and put in for retirement, most people would go to jail for these actions.
> obama has wasted enough money to foreign countries and bailouts plus money/ assistance for welfare and slackers to have corrected social security, dont continue to rob the working people who made this country, working folks have to be responsible with their money,how about government getting their act together and living within their means, and oh by the way fix social security, because you guys screwed it up, theres enough of you guys sittin on your bottoms drawing big pay,lets do something.



dont worry ! there will always be money for us - IT WILL COME FROM OBAMAS STASH !


----------



## lehr (Sep 6, 2011)

signelect said:


> A democratic congress voted to steel my SS money from the trust so they could give it to their buddies.  Leave my money along, you should all be in jail.



COMMUNIST DEMOKRATS TOOK S.S. FROM A PRIVATE FUND AND PUT IT IN THE GENERAL FUND SO CONGRESS WAS ABLE TO SPEND IT !

COMMUNIST DEMOKRATS PUT A TAX ON S.S. !

COMMUNIST DEMOKRATS INCREASED TAX ON S.S. - KOMRADE GORE CAST THE DECIDING VOTE !

COMMUNIST DEMOKRATS GAVE S.S. TO (ALEGAL) IMMIGRANTS WHO COME TO AMERIKA AT AGE 65

communist demokrats never have enuff money !


----------



## Flopper (Sep 6, 2011)

lehr said:


> signelect said:
> 
> 
> > A democratic congress voted to steel my SS money from the trust so they could give it to their buddies.  Leave my money along, you should all be in jail.
> ...


And when was there a private fund?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Tell that to China. Were we to pay out to others, and not our citizens who worked their whole lives, then the government just as well pack it up. No way would I find it acceptable that the government would pay out money to anybody before paying out to the citizens that contributed the whole of their working lives.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 7, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > infman4x said:
> ...



The single largest voting block in the US are us older people. AARP is a force you will deal with. And the attempt to take what we have earned so that the very wealthy can have even more won't sit well here. 

You just try scuttling SS.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 7, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Social security is broke now. There is no account anywhere with the $$ that anyone has put their $$ into.
> ...



I do not watch Fox News Moe.
Try just a little harder next time. 
Facts are a real bitch for some folks so they make it up as they go.


----------



## Full-Auto (Sep 8, 2011)

MiddleClass said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Social security is broke now. There is no account anywhere with the $$ that anyone has put their $$ into.
> ...



are you a fucking idiot?  













would you like you hand held through this thread?


----------



## Flopper (Sep 8, 2011)

Keeping Social Security in a lock box is really stupid.  Over half the balance in the trust fund came from government interest payments.  To suggest that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme is even dumber.  Social Security loans the balance of the fund to the government and the government spends it.  Thats what businesses, individuals, and government do with borrowed funds.  The government pays interest to on the bonds.   The loan, Special Issue Treasury bonds are payable on demand. 

The contention that the trust fund is worthless and Social Security will eventually fail is based on two equally erroneous assumptions.

The assumption that Special Issue treasury bonds are worthless is based on the belief that if they are non-negotiable then they are worthless and the full faith and credit of the US government is worthless.  Because debt is non-negotiable does not make it worthless.  Loans between nations, loans between banks and the Fed, and loans between state and the federal government are all non-negotiable but that certainly does not make them worthless.  The full faith and credit of the United States is considered among the best in world.

The second assumption is that the federal government will not be able to make good its debt to the trust fund.  For this to occur the government would have to be incapable of cutting expenses, raising taxes, or borrowing money to pay its debt to the fund.   For the government to reach this state, the entire economic system of the country and much of the world would have collapsed which would make the value of the trust fund a moot point.

As far as the safety of Social Security payments, 95% of the social payments come from current payroll contributions.  The 5% that is coming from the fund is projected by the CBO to go to zero by 2014.  Then after a few years, withdrawals from the fund will begin to supplement payroll contributions.  Within about 15 to 20 years the fund would be exhausted.  Then what?  Assuming Congress never took any action during those years, benefits would drop by about 25%.

In short, it is far more likely that you will die before reaching Social Security retirement age, than benefits not being available.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Keeping Social Security in a lock box is really stupid.  Over half the balance in the trust fund came from government interest payments.  To suggest that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme is even dumber.  Social Security loans the balance of the fund to the government and the government spends it.  Thats what businesses, individuals, and government do with borrowed funds.  The government pays interest to on the bonds.   The loan, Special Issue Treasury bonds are payable on demand.
> 
> The contention that the trust fund is worthless and Social Security will eventually fail is based on two equally erroneous assumptions.
> 
> ...



Are you claiming government acts the same as business?
When social security started there were 29 people paying into it for every person drawing a benefit.
Now there are 3 paying into it for every person drawing it.
Explain how social security works when there is 1 person paying into it for every person drawing a benefit.
The system is unsustainable. They state so in their own literature they send out!


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Keeping Social Security in a lock box is really stupid.  Over half the balance in the trust fund came from government interest payments.  To suggest that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme is even dumber.  Social Security loans the balance of the fund to the government and the government spends it.  Thats what businesses, individuals, and government do with borrowed funds.  The government pays interest to on the bonds.   The loan, Special Issue Treasury bonds are payable on demand.
> 
> The contention that the trust fund is worthless and Social Security will eventually fail is based on two equally erroneous assumptions.
> 
> ...



This is like playing Whack-A-Mole.. Same shit every thread on Soc Sec.. NOTHING comes out of "the Trust fund".. Any deficit (like we are seeing today) is funded by issuing NEW DEBT.. 

From the Congressional Budget Office -- for cryin' out loud... 



> http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf
> 
> When a trust fund receives payroll taxes or other income
> that is not needed immediately to pay benefits or cover
> ...



Furthermore -- this insistence that the Govt "is good for it" and will put SS obligations above payments of REAL T-BILL holders is ludicrous.. 

Charles Krauthammer: 'Special issue' bonds don't change the fact that the lockbox is empty



> Krautheimer::::
> 
> Really? If these trust fund bonds represent anything real, why is it that in calculating national indebtedness they are not even included? We measure national solvency by debt/GDP ratio. As calculated by everyone from the OMB to the CIA, from the Simpson-Bowles to the Domenici-Rivlin commissions, the debt/GDP ratio counts only publicly held debt. This means bonds held by China, Saudi Arabia, you and me. The debt ratio completely ignores the kind of intragovernmental bonds that Mr. Lew insists are the equivalent of publicly held bonds.
> 
> ...



40% of the TOTAL $14TRILL debt is owed by the govt TO the govt. You think China, Japan, are goin sit by while the govt pays itself FIRST Flopper? 

And how's about not bailing this time and actually discussing the issue???


----------



## uscitizen (Sep 8, 2011)

Well either paying the money owed to SS is coming out of new debt or perhaps the military expendatures are.  Who is to say which is paid by tax income and what is paid by new debt?


----------



## Flopper (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Keeping Social Security in a lock box is really stupid.  Over half the balance in the trust fund came from government interest payments.  To suggest that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme is even dumber.  Social Security loans the balance of the fund to the government and the government spends it.  That&#8217;s what businesses, individuals, and government do with borrowed funds.  The government pays interest to on the bonds.   The loan, Special Issue Treasury bonds are payable on demand.
> ...


The only way I can explain it is to refer you OASI actuary tables.  See links  below. In 2010 there was 712 billion paid in benefits to about 54 million people. That's a benefit of about 13,185/person.  637 billion was collected in payroll taxes.  Spread that over 155 million earners  and you get a social security tax payment of about 4,100/yr.  So the payroll taxes from 3 earners would be about 12,300/yr.  When you add in 113 billion in interest it's going pretty close to 13,185. 

Social Security Trust Funds
Monthly Statistical Snapshot, July 2011


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 8, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Using your figures when it hits 2 to 1 in 14 years social security will immediately be cut 33% by the government.
YEAH RIGHT.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 8, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Keeping Social Security in a lock box is really stupid.  Over half the balance in the trust fund came from government interest payments.  To suggest that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme is even dumber.  Social Security loans the balance of the fund to the government and the government spends it.  Thats what businesses, individuals, and government do with borrowed funds.  The government pays interest to on the bonds.   The loan, Special Issue Treasury bonds are payable on demand.
> ...


Sure they will, if it every comes to that.  The administration can not refuse to pay Special Issue treasury bond interest or principal without congressional approval, fat chance of that ever happening.  There is no requirement for the administration to seek approval of congress before defaulting on regular treasury bills.

Much has been said about Social Security being a ponzi scheme and the trust fund.  The facts from the Social Security Actuarial Report speaks for itself:

Social Security payroll taxes collected in in 2010 were 637 billion dollars.  
Interest earned by the fund on Special Interest Treasury bonds was 117 billion
Social Security benefits paid were 712 billions

Currently Social Security is not in trouble and it won't be in the future unless the United States collapses or congress fails to update Social Security to current life spans.  Even your own link points out that the trust will last until 2037.  Even if Congress makes no change on Social Security and we totally exhaust the fund.  Social Security payments would be funded by payroll tax collections and paid at about 75% of the current level.  Social Security is a long term problem with a number of no brainer fixes.  It's a diversion from the real economic problems, unemployment and the deficit.


Social Security Trust Funds


----------



## Flopper (Sep 8, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


No, Social Security will be drawing from the trust fund unless Congress makes some changes, which they probably will.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 8, 2011)

You're hopelessly brainwashed.. 


Where did that $117Bill interest payment come from Flopper? *Where did TREASURY get the money?* Did they SELL something? Did they redeem some other IOUS they had laying around? *OMB says * they issued NEW debt instruments or "borrowed" it. There are NO ASSETS generating REAL INCOME in the trust..  

And more importantly ---- the fund deficit for that year was $75Bill.. So Why did they transfer $117B to a fund that retains no cash at year end? That's $42 BILL MORE than was neccessary to balance the fund. WHERE DID THAT GO? I'm sure you're gonna tell me it was INVESTED into more Special Treasury Notes... 

Think about the ramifications of that carefully before you answer..


----------



## Dude111 (Sep 9, 2011)

infman4x said:
			
		

> obama has wasted enough money to foreign countries and bailouts plus money/ assistance for welfare and slackers to have corrected social security, dont continue to rob the working people who made this country, working folks have to be responsible with their money,how about government getting their act together and living within their means, and oh by the way fix social security, because you guys screwed it up, theres enough of you guys sittin on your bottoms drawing big pay,lets do something.


Most people DO NOT KNOW just how much $$$ he has wasted this year alone!!!!

IM TELLING YA,HE WANTS TO BANKRUPT THE US!! (Its been his plan since slipping into office)


----------



## Flopper (Sep 9, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> You're hopelessly brainwashed..
> 
> 
> Where did that $117Bill interest payment come from Flopper? *Where did TREASURY get the money?* Did they SELL something? Did they redeem some other IOUS they had laying around? *OMB says * they issued NEW debt instruments or "borrowed" it. There are NO ASSETS generating REAL INCOME in the trust..
> ...


You got it.  If you don't believe the Actuarial Reports you're helpless.  Click on receipts just above the table.  It's all there.  Social Security Trust Funds

If you want all the information on the fund go to Social Security statistical tables

You don't seem to realize that the trust is not part of operating income.  It is set up by Congress as a separate entity.  Funds cannot be commingled with federal operating funds.  The trust fund is required by law to keep the balance invested in US treasuries.  Special Issue Treasury Bonds issued to the fund are identical to normal treasury bonds with the exception that principal payment is on demand.  Maturities are laddered 1 to 15 years with interest reinvested.  

The fund has the option to invest in public treasuries and it has done so in the past. However, currently the fund is invested in Special Issue which has several advantages over public treasuries.  Special issue treasuries have maturities and payment dates tailored to the needs of the fund.  Maturities are in one year increments.  Upon maturity, reinvestment is immediate by using certificate of indebtedness, which allows the fund to draw interest between the time of maturity and time of reinvestment.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



No offense Flopper but there is NO trust fund bud.
All there is in the "trust fund" is a bunch of IOUs. 
Where is this trust fund you claim has $$$ in it?
Flopper, even the politicians admit there is not one cent in any trust fund.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Sep 9, 2011)

T bonds issued by an entity, the US government that owes 14 trillion in debt, to itself is not real money.
We loaned the money to ourselves. What a crock of shit. 
We loaned the money to ourselves to use all of the cash to pay for something else.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 9, 2011)

Flopper: 

Last time I ask --- WHERE did the Treasury get the $117Bill to cover the SS Deficit??

If they "paid interest" on their own IOUs --- WHERE did it come from??? 

*It did NOT come out of the "trust fund".... *

And if you can get past that -- answer my other question about WHY more money was transferred to SSA than what they needed to cover the present year.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 9, 2011)

Gadawg73 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


First you say there is no trust fund.  Then you say the trust fund is stuffed with IOUs.  That makes no sense.  The trust funds, OASI and DI are treasury accounts held by the federal reserve.   

What do you think a treasury bond is or a US government savings bond?  It's an IOU.  That's what all government debt is. There is no collateral.  It's backed only by the full faith and credit of the United States. You either have faith in your country or you don't.  If you don't then there's no point in discussing this any further.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 9, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



This is where your pig-headedness is causing you to fail... The notes in the fund ARE NOT US government savings bonds and you fail to comprehend the gi-normous diff!

If Congress had made it clear 30 years ago that Soc Sec Trust Fund could ONLY HOLD public issue Treasury Bonds -- *then TODAY -- we would be selling those valuable assets on the open market.* It would be a bonanza because of the interest rates on some of those notes coming in at 6 or even 8%.. 

They didn't do their fidiciary duty. They put in NON-TRANSFERABLE, NON-MARKETABLE IOUs with no intrinsic value OTHER than a wink and a nod.. 

If those IOUs WERE genuine marketable instruments -- I'd be lauding the fund for doing their job.. And I'd be buying them as quickly as the SSA could sell them.. And so would the Chinese and Japanese and Warren Buffett. The only folks who can redeem "the trust fund" is the Treasury with OUR money -- so we end up paying exactly TWICE for the same FICA contributions AND WE PAY the interest on that...

I assume your gonna vote Dem. The reason your party is staring at extinction is because this willful denial of Soc Sec problems is only ANGERING the American people.. *Keep it up.*. It adds to the consensus that leftists are functionally economically illiterate and incapable of comprehending what tool set is available to Govt to tune the economy...


----------



## Toro (Sep 9, 2011)

Flopper said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



This is correct. Any liability that is not collateralized is essentially an IOU. All US government bonds are merely promises to pay based on the taxation powers of the government. The liabilities in the SS trusts are similar. 

The difference is that the government will almost certainly "default" on SS by eventually changing the terms, ie eligibility, amount received, and this "default" will be seen as a good thing by the financial markets, not a bad thing like a Treasury default.


----------



## Toro (Sep 9, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



SS is popular with the American public. Defending it is popular. It's good that we are beginning a discussion of much needed reform, but calling it a Ponzi Scheme is not a winning strategy.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 9, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The goal of the fund is safety of principal.  Public treasuries sold before maturity can incur losses.  Special issue treasuries, surrendered before maturity can not suffer any lose.  They are always bought and sold at face value to eliminate the risk of market fluctuations.  If the goal of the fund included taking some trading risk, then public treasuries would be more appropriate.

Investing in public treasuries puts the fund at greater risk due to market fluctuations. What would be the advantage for the fund since it seeks to minimize risks?  There is no sound reason for the fund to hold transferable and marketable securities.  However, the option to invest in public treasuries does exist.  If there were sufficient political pressure, the fund could switch to public treasuries.  However, the fund would require more management because sale of securities could generate losses.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Flopper, 

The problem here is that those 'investments' really represent debt that will be owed by the general fund and yet that debt is not reported as such.  That 2 trillion that the SS can claim as held assets need to be reflected as 2 trillion in owed debt by the general fund.  Once we get a view on that debt then we can see why there is turmoil about paying those off.  It represents a MASSIVE amount of cash that we simply do not have.  As already pointed out, it is almost a guarantee that the government will default on them as well.  The default will be called something else of course like changing the retirement age and the benefit but it amounts to the same thing.  As I pay into the system with a promised benefit of X, I know that promised benefit will NOT be met and instead I'll get something else.  Hence, the inherent mistrust in the government's ability to manage said monies.  


What they are doing is not investing.  You are not investing when you loan yourself money with the intent to pay yourself back with interest.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 14, 2011)

FA_Q2 said:


> Flopper,
> 
> The problem here is that those 'investments' really represent debt that will be owed by the general fund and yet that debt is not reported as such.  That 2 trillion that the SS can claim as held assets need to be reflected as 2 trillion in owed debt by the general fund.  Once we get a view on that debt then we can see why there is turmoil about paying those off.  It represents a MASSIVE amount of cash that we simply do not have.  As already pointed out, it is almost a guarantee that the government will default on them as well.  The default will be called something else of course like changing the retirement age and the benefit but it amounts to the same thing.  As I pay into the system with a promised benefit of X, I know that promised benefit will NOT be met and instead I'll get something else.  Hence, the inherent mistrust in the government's ability to manage said monies.
> 
> ...



The only purpose of the trust is pay for benefits in years that receipts are less benefits paid. Congress could modify the law wiping out the trust and thus lower the national debt by 2.5 trillion dollars.  40 of the last 53 years, FICA tax receipts have exceeded benefit payments so in the years that the taxes didn't cover benefits, the difference could be paid out of operating expenses.  Congress would have to make a firm commitment in law to do this and it would have to be a nondiscretionary item.  The problem is that trust fund is a stronger commitment because the invested assets are financial obligations of the government.  This is probably why the trust was created.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Sep 14, 2011)

Flopper said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper,
> ...



?  
Did you not understand what I said?  There is already a debt.  That debt is kept 100 percent off the books and is NOT reported.  Wiping out the "trust" fund would actually make that debt reappear as it should be.  There is no 'stronger' commitment.  Congress can change that commitment on a fucking whim and they will do so to make the program solvent though it will make it far less useful.  The fact is that it will not be called a default because the SS fund won't be defaulted on, the American people will.  The government does not need to call it a default when it slashes your payments and raises your retirement age.  That IS a default but not on the held bonds.  Even though the government can't pay them back, they can lie about it and simply not turn them in and instead pay you less.  


That cash is going to come out of the general fund, PERIOD.  I don't see where the big confusion is for you.  Those bonds represent exactly that, debt that is owed through the general fund and that is the only place the future SS payments can be made.  The problem is, there is not enough cash to make those payments.  We are running a trillion dollar + debt every year.  How much do you think the SS fund is going to add to that as the largest workforce this nation has EVER seen retires only to be replaced by on half the damn size.  Where is the problem here.  It does not matter that those funds are 'invested' in government bonds because those bonds DO NOT REPRESENT REAL ASSETS.  THEY REPRESENT FUTURE DEMAND ON GENERAL FUNDS.  If you are solely concerned with the actual payments then, sure they will be made.  All the way up until the country burns to the fucking ground with debt.  


The program must be made solvent.  Period.  The only solutions that the dems have put fourth are to make the program borderline worthless by returning it to what it was - a program that waited to pay you until you were supposed to die.  I prefer one that gives you actual control of your assets and prepares you with actual wealth instead of promised 'just above' poverty.  That is unacceptable.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 15, 2011)

FA_Q2 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


I'm not sure what you mean by 100% off the books.  Are you referring to the budget which is basically a cash budget and does not include entitlements?

The national debt is about 15 trillion which includes:

Securities held by investors outside the federal government, including that held by investors, the Federal Reserve System and foreign, state and local governments and intragovernment debt comprises Treasury securities held in accounts administered by the federal government, such as the *Social Security Trust Fund*.

Congress will fix S.S.  It's a problem not near as complex as fixing the deficit spending.  There are many options.  Also, the increase in payout for baby boomer will not last forever.  Birthrates peaked at 25.3 in 1957 and started falling in 70's.  In 2009 the birthrate was 13.8, almost half what we saw in 1957.  So the baby boomer peak in retirement should occur in 2020's and slowly fall off over the next 30 years. Once Congress fixes Social Security, then the trust fund has no use, at least not until increased life spans cause benefits to exceed revenue.  Hopefully congress will adjust rates to keep up with increased life spans to avoid future problems.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2011)

Toro said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



I'll agree that "ponzi scheme" is inflammatory.. But pointing out the fraud and misrepresentation is VITAL to fixing it. The number of folks here BELIEVING that every penny has been carefully managed and invested is testimony to the work that needs to be done to get the patient's consent to operate.. Some of the same "deniers" want to schedule a surgery without an accurate diagnosis.


----------



## flacaltenn (Sep 15, 2011)

Flopper said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



You're missing the important diff here Flopper. REAL public treasuries in the TF would represent PAST DEBT. Meaning that FICA excess (real money) was traded for EXISTING DEBT that was available for sale on the market. NO NEW DEBT to be issued. 

IOUs promising issuance of future debt --- means the excess FICA was stolen and needs to be replaced IN THE FUTURE with NEW debt issuance. 

Forget the minimal marketing risks Flopper. It's a matter of whether you pay that PRINCIPLE ONCE or TWICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

They SPENT THE PRINCIPLE FLOPPER.. THat's the diff.. They deferred reporting that debt until today when it's issued to cover "interest" and current shortfalls. Should have lived within their means and kept their grubby hands off the FICA funds..


----------



## Flopper (Sep 15, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


When S.S. was first passed there was no trust fund.  Benefits were to be paid out of tax collections with any excesses or shortage coming out of the general fund.  Congress saw this as a problem and the trust fund was created by amendment, I think in 1937.  It has operated pretty much the same since day one.  Payroll taxes collected by the Treasury are used to pay benefits.  The remainder is put in the trust fund.  By law, the trust fund must be invested in government securities.  Revenue has exceed benefit paid in all but 13 years since 1937.  The fund has operated in accordance with the law and is carefully managed.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 15, 2011)

flacaltenn said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


If the trustee had invested the funds in ordinary treasury bonds, instead of the special issue treasuries,  the national debt would still be 15 trillion dollars.  We would have 2.5 trillion less intragovernment loans and 2.5 trillion more debt held by the public.   *The 2.5 trillion the government did not receive from the trust fund would be made up by issuing 2.5 trillion new treasuries to the public.*


----------

