Social Sec will stay solvent for 20 years... *IF* we pay off 1/3 of the National Debt

[Little-Acorn]

When Social Security was first implemented in the 1930s, the government assigned the "retirement age" to be 65. After that, you could start drawing benefits.

By some strange coincidence, the average age of death in the 1930s was..... 65.

Meaning, half the people who would pay in all their lives, would never draw out a dime, except for death benefits.

And the rest wouldn't draw out very much before they, too, kicked off.

Social Security was designed to be "self-supporting"... for that time. With no thought of what might change in the future... like medical science advancing enough to enable people to live a LOT longer.

BTW, all the money you've paid in, has already been spent. In the SS Trust Fund is nothing but IOUs from the government. Remember Obama's statements a year or so ago, that if the Debt Ceiling wasn't raised, Social Security checks couldn't be written to its benefits recipients?

The money has been "borrowed" by other government agencies, and spent. All the money being paid out as benefits to retirees, is coming from the money you and I are paying in now. None of it is being saved for us. This is the defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme.

Which brings us to the other issue.

Remember the other predictions various govt officials have made, saying that SS will be "solvent" for the next 15 or 20 or 30 years (depending on which politician you listen to)? They mean that they will be able to pay retirees their scheduled benefits from that money supposedly in the Trust Fund, until then.

But all the Trust Fund money has been "borrowed", and is gone. This means that those agencies that "borrowed" it, have to pay back ALL the money by that deadline (15 or 20 or etc. years from now), so it can be paid out to retirees that need it. And of course, if they are going to be replenishing the Trust Funds this way, they can't borrow any more while they're paying it back.

So, how much money is owed to the SS Trust Fund and other such govt-held trust funds?

Answer: 30.1% of the entire National Debt is owed to these Trust Funds. That's $4.7 trillion. (See reference below.)

That's how much must be paid back into the SS Trust fund and other such funds, to keep them "solvent" for that long.

Has anyone heard of any plans to pay off 30% of the National Debt within the next 15 years? Or 20? Or.....?

Neither have I.

Next time someone tells you how solvent the Social Security Trust fund is, or any other government trust fund, show him the numbers and see what he says then.

Reference: See Current and Back Issues: Overview: Daily Treasury Statement: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service . Pick a recent date, and and look under "Intergovernmental Holdings".

 

[Oddball]

Hmmm...Guess I'll buy more coin.

 

[Lakhota]

The OP is basically bullshit. I would suggest you link to Social Security instead of Treasury - and also do some research on what a real Ponzi scheme is.

Social Security Trust Fund Data

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

The Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

 

[ScienceRocks]

The OP is basically bullshit. I would suggest you link to Social Security instead of Treasury - and also do some research on what a real Ponzi scheme is.

Social Security Trust Fund Data

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

The Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

You make a good point with that. SSI isn't a damn Ponzi scheme but what the people want.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When Social Security was first implemented in the 1930s, the government assigned the "retirement age" to be 65. After that, you could start drawing benefits.

By some strange coincidence, the average age of death in the 1930s was..... 65.

Meaning, half the people who would pay in all their lives, would never draw out a dime, except for death benefits.

And the rest wouldn't draw out very much before they, too, kicked off.

Social Security was designed to be "self-supporting"... for that time. With no thought of what might change in the future... like medical science advancing enough to enable people to live a LOT longer.

BTW, all the money you've paid in, has already been spent. In the SS Trust Fund is nothing but IOUs from the government. Remember Obama's statements a year or so ago, that if the Debt Ceiling wasn't raised, Social Security checks couldn't be written to its benefits recipients?

The money has been "borrowed" by other government agencies, and spent. All the money being paid out as benefits to retirees, is coming from the money you and I are paying in now. None of it is being saved for us. This is the defining characteristic of a Ponzi scheme.

Which brings us to the other issue.

Remember the other predictions various govt officials have made, saying that SS will be "solvent" for the next 15 or 20 or 30 years (depending on which politician you listen to)? They mean that they will be able to pay retirees their scheduled benefits from that money supposedly in the Trust Fund, until then.

But all the Trust Fund money has been "borrowed", and is gone. This means that those agencies that "borrowed" it, have to pay back ALL the money by that deadline (15 or 20 or etc. years from now), so it can be paid out to retirees that need it. And of course, if they are going to be replenishing the Trust Funds this way, they can't borrow any more while they're paying it back.

So, how much money is owed to the SS Trust Fund and other such govt-held trust funds?

Answer: 30.1% of the entire National Debt is owed to these Trust Funds. That's $4.7 trillion. (See reference below.)

That's how much must be paid back into the SS Trust fund and other such funds, to keep them "solvent" for that long.

Has anyone heard of any plans to pay off 30% of the National Debt within the next 15 years? Or 20? Or.....?

Neither have I.

Next time someone tells you how solvent the Social Security Trust fund is, or any other government trust fund, show him the numbers and see what he says then.

Reference: See Current and Back Issues: Overview: Daily Treasury Statement: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service . Pick a recent date, and and look under "Intergovernmental Holdings".

The general fund only has to make up the difference between what is taken in in payroll tax and what has to be paid out in benefits.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama twice now said Social Security has no assets and can only pay current benefits by borrowing.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So the question remains:

With benefits from Social Security's so-called "Trust Fund" dependent on paying off part of the National Debt, has anyone heard of any plans by Fed Govt officials, to pay off any ofthe National Debt at all?

 

[AmazonTania]

The OP is basically bullshit. I would suggest you link to Social Security instead of Treasury - and also do some research on what a real Ponzi scheme is.

Social Security Trust Fund Data

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

The Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

So much wrong with this graph, it's basically based on ignorance.

1. Who a business or venture is operated by doesn't make a Ponzi Scheme any less of a Ponzi Scheme.
   
2. Ponzi Schemes and Social Security generally tell their participants where their investments are coming from. Very few people invest their money blindly, even if they are not aware they're investing in a Ponzi Scheme. Most investors want to know what type of investments they are getting into. Investor sentiments can be a crucial factor when it comes to the increase or decrease of certain investments.
   
3. In the eyes of the law, if your business model operates like a ponzi scheme, you can and will be convicted for running a ponzi scheme. This has happened numerous times throughout history where legitimate business models were taken down because of this. Mark Drucker is a good example of how this can happen to anyone who is running a legitimate business.
   
4. All Ponzi Schemes are different in the sense that they are unique relative to it's size.The US Bond Market paid into by investors all over the world. The European Kings Club had almost 100,000 investors. Ron Rewald ran a firm with only 400 investors. The way the US Bond Market/Treasury is currently run, it doesn't make it any less of a ponzi scheme than The European Kings Club. Also The European Kings Club isn't any less of a Ponzi Scheme than Ron Rewald's hedge fund. It doesn't make Social Security any less of a Ponzi Scheme than Bernie Madoff's Derivatives/Options Fund.
5. Who Ponzi Schemes/Pension funds are managed by is irrelevant.
   
6. Ponzi Schemes and Social Security both offers negative returns to their investors.
   
7. Ponzi Schemes do have general investments. Some Ponzi Schemes ran models where the investments were made into US Securities. This part is erroneous just as the rest of the points of this graph.
   
8. Both Ponzi Schemes and Social Security can be tweaked, expanded or cut. It all depends on how the both investment schemes run. Bernie Madoff has been running his Ponzi Scheme since the 1970's. He didn't accomplish this from just mere luck.
   
9. Some Ponzi Schemes have operated for decades. Again, Bernie Madoff is a great example of this. The point is, all Ponzi Schemes generally fail. Social Security has ran deficits 8 years earlier than previously forecast. If my hedge fund had this sort of accounting error, it would be brought up on charges regarding securities fraud.
   
10. They're both Ponzi schemes.
    

You make a good point with that. SSI isn't a damn Ponzi scheme but what the people want.

Considering that both of you don't really understand the sophistication of how Ponzi Schemes have generally run, Social Security has generally run the exact same way Ponzi Schemes have run. It has a physical effect on the economy, as well as an emotional effect.

They both operates under fails pretenses, they both invest in real capital, it offers negative returns for investors and runs the classic model of what a Ponzi Scheme is. Many have justifiably been accused of running a ponzi scheme and participants of that scheme have testified on behalf of the schemer in vouching for the solvency, as well as credibility of the scheme. The same way politicians, economist and bureaucrats vouch on the solvency and credibility of Social Security. It robs people of much of their wealth, while the politicians and political connected industries profit at the expense of the poor and middle class.

It's a Ponzi Scheme.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP is basically bullshit. I would suggest you link to Social Security instead of Treasury - and also do some research on what a real Ponzi scheme is.

Social Security Trust Fund Data

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

The Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

So much wrong with this graph, it's basically based on ignorance.

1. Who a business or venture is operated by doesn't make a Ponzi Scheme any less of a Ponzi Scheme.
   
2. Ponzi Schemes and Social Security generally tell their participants where their investments are coming from. Very few people invest their money blindly, even if they are not aware they're investing in a Ponzi Scheme. Most investors want to know what type of investments they are getting into. Investor sentiments can be a crucial factor when it comes to the increase or decrease of certain investments.
   
3. In the eyes of the law, if your business model operates like a ponzi scheme, you can and will be convicted for running a ponzi scheme. This has happened numerous times throughout history where legitimate business models were taken down because of this. Mark Drucker is a good example of how this can happen to anyone who is running a legitimate business.
   
4. All Ponzi Schemes are different in the sense that they are unique relative to it's size.The US Bond Market paid into by investors all over the world. The European Kings Club had almost 100,000 investors. Ron Rewald ran a firm with only 400 investors. The way the US Bond Market/Treasury is currently run, it doesn't make it any less of a ponzi scheme than The European Kings Club. Also The European Kings Club isn't any less of a Ponzi Scheme than Ron Rewald's hedge fund. It doesn't make Social Security any less of a Ponzi Scheme than Bernie Madoff's Derivatives/Options Fund.
5. Who Ponzi Schemes/Pension funds are managed by is irrelevant.
   
6. Ponzi Schemes and Social Security both offers negative returns to their investors.
   
7. Ponzi Schemes do have general investments. Some Ponzi Schemes ran models where the investments were made into US Securities. This part is erroneous just as the rest of the points of this graph.
   
8. Both Ponzi Schemes and Social Security can be tweaked, expanded or cut. It all depends on how the both investment schemes run. Bernie Madoff has been running his Ponzi Scheme since the 1970's. He didn't accomplish this from just mere luck.
   
9. Some Ponzi Schemes have operated for decades. Again, Bernie Madoff is a great example of this. The point is, all Ponzi Schemes generally fail. Social Security has ran deficits 8 years earlier than previously forecast. If my hedge fund had this sort of accounting error, it would be brought up on charges regarding securities fraud.
   
10. They're both Ponzi schemes.
    

You make a good point with that. SSI isn't a damn Ponzi scheme but what the people want.

Considering that both of you don't really understand the sophistication of how Ponzi Schemes have generally run, Social Security has generally run the exact same way Ponzi Schemes have run. It has a physical effect on the economy, as well as an emotional effect.

They both operates under fails pretenses, they both invest in real capital, it offers negative returns for investors and runs the classic model of what a Ponzi Scheme is. Many have justifiably been accused of running a ponzi scheme and participants of that scheme have testified on behalf of the schemer in vouching for the solvency, as well as credibility of the scheme. The same way politicians, economist and bureaucrats vouch on the solvency and credibility of Social Security. It robs people of much of their wealth, while the politicians and political connected industries profit at the expense of the poor and middle class.

It's a Ponzi Scheme.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Social Security did not run a 'deficit'. Social Security in the last 2 years paid its benefits out of payroll tax revenues plus a small amount of earned interest on its securities.

That is not running a deficit.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the question remains:

With benefits from Social Security's so-called "Trust Fund" dependent on paying off part of the National Debt, has anyone heard of any plans by Fed Govt officials, to pay off any ofthe National Debt at all?

It's not dependent on paying down the national debt.

1. Social Security takes in X amount of dollars per year in payroll tax.

2. Social Security earns Y amount of dollars per year in the form of interest on the bonds it sells to the Federal government.

3. Social Security pays out Z amount of dollars per year in benefits.

4. T is the Trust Fund, which equals all of SS's revenues collected that it did not have to pay out in benefits.

X plus Y equals SS's annual income. Z equals SS's annual spending.

As long as X is greater than Z, the federal government's general fund does not have to pay anything to Social Security.

As long as X plus Y is greater than Z, the federal government only need pay a portion of SS's earned interest.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The OP is basically bullshit. I would suggest you link to Social Security instead of Treasury - and also do some research on what a real Ponzi scheme is.

Social Security Trust Fund Data

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

The Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

The CBO is not bullshit. The government has stolen more than 33.8 trillion dollars from Social Security. Here's the link to the CBO, enjoy having your vision of utopia shattered Lakhota.

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011/11guide.pdf
Go ahead to page 15 of the pdf. Then go to "Social Insurance Net Expenditures" then read the attached asterisk. Enjoy slavery Lakhota!

Lakhota is going to realize how bad she's been lied to. It's in plain sight for every citizen to see. Will Lakhota commit suicide?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Social Security did not run a 'deficit'. Social Security in the last 2 years paid its benefits out of payroll tax revenues plus a small amount of earned interest on its securities.

That is not running a deficit.

That would be true, if the only expenditure of Social Security was payouts to the recipients. Do you know how much money has been burrowed from Social Security? Oh yeah, 33.8 trillion dollars!

 

[AmazonTania]

The OP is basically bullshit. I would suggest you link to Social Security instead of Treasury - and also do some research on what a real Ponzi scheme is.

Social Security Trust Fund Data

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

The Biggest Holders of US Government Debt

So much wrong with this graph, it's basically based on ignorance.

1. Who a business or venture is operated by doesn't make a Ponzi Scheme any less of a Ponzi Scheme.
   
2. Ponzi Schemes and Social Security generally tell their participants where their investments are coming from. Very few people invest their money blindly, even if they are not aware they're investing in a Ponzi Scheme. Most investors want to know what type of investments they are getting into. Investor sentiments can be a crucial factor when it comes to the increase or decrease of certain investments.
   
3. In the eyes of the law, if your business model operates like a ponzi scheme, you can and will be convicted for running a ponzi scheme. This has happened numerous times throughout history where legitimate business models were taken down because of this. Mark Drucker is a good example of how this can happen to anyone who is running a legitimate business.
   
4. All Ponzi Schemes are different in the sense that they are unique relative to it's size.The US Bond Market paid into by investors all over the world. The European Kings Club had almost 100,000 investors. Ron Rewald ran a firm with only 400 investors. The way the US Bond Market/Treasury is currently run, it doesn't make it any less of a ponzi scheme than The European Kings Club. Also The European Kings Club isn't any less of a Ponzi Scheme than Ron Rewald's hedge fund. It doesn't make Social Security any less of a Ponzi Scheme than Bernie Madoff's Derivatives/Options Fund.
5. Who Ponzi Schemes/Pension funds are managed by is irrelevant.
   
6. Ponzi Schemes and Social Security both offers negative returns to their investors.
   
7. Ponzi Schemes do have general investments. Some Ponzi Schemes ran models where the investments were made into US Securities. This part is erroneous just as the rest of the points of this graph.
   
8. Both Ponzi Schemes and Social Security can be tweaked, expanded or cut. It all depends on how the both investment schemes run. Bernie Madoff has been running his Ponzi Scheme since the 1970's. He didn't accomplish this from just mere luck.
   
9. Some Ponzi Schemes have operated for decades. Again, Bernie Madoff is a great example of this. The point is, all Ponzi Schemes generally fail. Social Security has ran deficits 8 years earlier than previously forecast. If my hedge fund had this sort of accounting error, it would be brought up on charges regarding securities fraud.
   
10. They're both Ponzi schemes.
    

You make a good point with that. SSI isn't a damn Ponzi scheme but what the people want.

Considering that both of you don't really understand the sophistication of how Ponzi Schemes have generally run, Social Security has generally run the exact same way Ponzi Schemes have run. It has a physical effect on the economy, as well as an emotional effect.

They both operates under fails pretenses, they both invest in real capital, it offers negative returns for investors and runs the classic model of what a Ponzi Scheme is. Many have justifiably been accused of running a ponzi scheme and participants of that scheme have testified on behalf of the schemer in vouching for the solvency, as well as credibility of the scheme. The same way politicians, economist and bureaucrats vouch on the solvency and credibility of Social Security. It robs people of much of their wealth, while the politicians and political connected industries profit at the expense of the poor and middle class.

It's a Ponzi Scheme.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Social Security did not run a 'deficit'. Social Security in the last 2 years paid its benefits out of payroll tax revenues plus a small amount of earned interest on its securities.

That is not running a deficit.

A wee bit misinformed, aren't we? Social Security has ran a deficit for 3 consecutive years now.

Every year, the Government borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund, by law, and uses the extra funds to fund the general budget where the Government can spend the money how it wants to spend it. The following year, every year, the government takes in a bigger portion in Social Security taxes but it has to pay the interest on these bonds. This money has already spent so the money is taken from the general budget and used to help pay beneficiaries. The more beneficiaries, the more revenue accumulates, the more the Government borrows, the greater the interest.

Eventually, majority of the revenue collected will be consumed in interest payments alone, leaving the rest to pay out some beneficiaries, creating a cash-flow deficit. A cash-flow deficit means that the Treasury can no longer cover interest payments to the Social Security fund by issuing bonds. Instead, Social Security has paid out beneficiaries by using the General Budget.

Social Security is obligated by law to take whatever surpluses remain and invest them. It cannot do this because there are no surpluses, it is currently running a deficit. Just because the Social Security Administration is forced to acquire funds from other parts of the General Budget doesn't make this any less of a deficit. You really don't have a clue how Social Security works, but I can only assume you expect to collect 100% what you paid into it when you have retired. Well, good luck with that.

 

[billyerock1991]

social security has nothing to do with the national debt ... by paying 1/3 off will not help it ... unless there has been more people hired to work ... more workers, more money into social security

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Come on Lakhota, don't be afraid to confront the truth that Social Security is in a $33.8 trillion debt. No MSNBC talking points, no Marxist website (Salon.com who supports Nazi gun control) can deny this basic fact. Come on. Say something...

 

[rightwinger]

Social Security will be solvent if we raise the retirement age to 70 for those under 40

 

[billyerock1991]

Come on Lakhota, don't be afraid to confront the truth that Social Security is in a $33.8 trillion debt. No MSNBC talking points, no Marxist website (Salon.com who supports Nazi gun control) can deny this basic fact. Come on. Say something...

you say the stupidest shit ... it's amazing how stupid republicans are .... social security isn't in any kind of debt ... pull your head out

 

[billyerock1991]

Social Security will be solvent if we raise the retirement age to 70 for those under 40

not really... if you start people who get 250,000 a year paying into social security then it will be solvent for many, many, many, years... republicans refuse to do this ... the reason social security isn't bringing in as much money as it use to bring is is do to less workers ...

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Come on Lakhota, don't be afraid to confront the truth that Social Security is in a $33.8 trillion debt. No MSNBC talking points, no Marxist website (Salon.com who supports Nazi gun control) can deny this basic fact. Come on. Say something...

you say the stupidest shit ... it's amazing how stupid republicans are .... social security isn't in any kind of debt ... pull your head out

According to the CBO, it is 33.8 trillion dollars in debt.

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2011/11guide.pdf
Go ahead to page 15 of the pdf. Then go to "Social Insurance Net Expenditures" then read the attached asterisk

U MAD BRO?


U MAD BRO?


U MAD BRO?

 

[AmazonTania]

Social Security will be solvent if we raise the retirement age to 70 for those under 40

It might still be solvent if you increase the retirement age and lower benefits, but it will still provide negative returns. But even this idea has trouble working.

Social Security is sustained by nothing more than the Government's ability to tax the hell out of people.