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

[Flopper]

Hey genius, Social Security HAS NO MONEY. The federal government has been taking OUR money, replacing it with IOU's and using the funds for other things.

Yep, that's true of pretty much all the so-called "trust funds" the Fed govt has been running.

It's those IOUs that will have to be redeemed, if the govt is to pay the benefits is it comitted to paying, in the next 15 or 20 or whatever number of years.

Those IOUs are part of the National Debt. Redeeming them, means paying off 30% of the National Debt.

Have you heard of any politicians making any plans to pay off 30% of the National Debt during the next 20-whatever years?

Neither have I.

"Houston, we have a problem."

Yes, we do have a problem with people who consider government debt held by Social Security as worthless. The only reason Social Security debt or any US obligation has value is that people believe "the full faith and credit of United States government has value. If not, then there is no basis for the value of the US dollar, any government obligation, government bond funds, pension funds, government trusts, or US banks and foreign banks that dependent on the value of those obligations. In short, our entire economy and the world economy hinges on the faith that the US government will meet it's obligation.

There's only one thing you need to know about the government debt. It's not a like household debt. The government, unlike us, doesn't need to pay back its debts before it dies, because it doesn't die. In other words, the government can just roll over its debts in perpetuity. Your children and grandchildren will never need to payback the debt. There is one caveat. Growth of debt must decrease so it does not exceed economic growth over a long term.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thanks for censoring most of my post.. You can stomp your heels, whine up a storm.. The SS surplus was SPENT without putting ANYTHING of value into the trust fund. No US Treasury bonds --- just "special issue" accounting memos like the link I provided from the SSA says..

When the fund went NEGATIVE in 2010, CURRENT taxpayers made up the diff. OR the Treasury issued NEW DEBT which is liability --- not an ASSET --- to current and future taxpayers. I don't know why you insist on propagating a myth that even the SSA and the CBO and FORMER HEADS of SSA have already acknowledged.

Congress is giving these agencies to continue the lie about the trust fund. They should be in cuffs for forcing YOU to pay TWICE with interest for the same SS deficit dollar in 2010.

Of course taxpayers paid the difference. That's because taxpayers borrowed the Trust Fund assets. THAT'S HOW THE TRUST FUND EARNS INTEREST.

In the last 2 years the SS drew some of the earned interest out of the Trust Fund assets to supplement the year's payroll tax revenues to pay recipients.

That is no different than you would do if you had retirement money invested somewhere and decided to draw off some of the annual earned interest to supplement your pension, or whatever.

Why is that so difficult for you simpletons to understand?

What part of "the SURPLUS money was STOLEN and NOTHING of value left in its place except DEBT for future taxpayers." don't you understand. You think this "interest" is suppose to make the victims feel better? WHere the fuck is the PRINCIPLE then?

Oh yeah --- future taxpayers and their grandkids will paying that.

How smart is it really to pay current SS deficit dollars to SS recipients with dollars that cost the current taxpayer 1.25 or 1.30 ?? eh???

You've paid that current SS deficit dollar TWICE now.. Once when it was stolen out of your paycheck back in the 80s and squandered on mohair subsidies. And NOW you're paying it AGAIN TODAY so that some senior in Chicago can give his nephew a birthday check.

What a deal..

Where do you think the Trust Fund money is supposed to be? In a gigantic safety deposit box somewhere, earning no interest and losing value to inflation every single day?

Do you have any idea what an investment is?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is merely a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2033. That's another twenty-one years. Trustees Report Summary So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

Ahh.. The usual SS robbery deniers are all here now...

There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Treasury at the end of the year.. It's MORE than all spent you moron.. THe surplus was ROBBED from you and NOTHING OF VALUE was left in it's place.. All the bookkeeping entries at SSA couldn't buy you a fudge sundae.

SS went BROKE in 2010 -- 7 years ahead of projections.. Largely because your Dear Leader started to STEAL from the premiums and knows nothing about fixing broken ass economies. It was negative by about $40Bill a year for 2010, 2011, and 2012.. Those deficits were not taken out of some lockbox piggy bank. The Treasury charged CURRENT and FUTURE taxpayers for the difference. So when Obama said he "didn't know if the SS checks would go out" --- he wasn't just threatening Seniors and making them pee their pants for POLITICAL purposes --- he DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY to pay the checks.

Time for the lies to end and for the last Japanese warriors to surrender... You "denialist holdouts" ought to get mad finally when you realize how duped you've been..

Hang on.. I've got a box of Rolex watches out in the car I want you to see. My brother has to get rid of excess inventory and I can sell you one for about $260...

SS did not go broke in 2010. You're retarded.

 

[Lakhota]

The bad metaphor — which you’ve surely heard many times — equates the debt problems of a national economy with the debt problems of an individual family. A family that has run up too much debt, the story goes, must tighten its belt. So if Britain, as a whole, has run up too much debt — which it has, although it’s mostly private rather than public debt — shouldn’t it do the same? What’s wrong with this comparison?

The answer is that an economy is not like an indebted family. Our debt is mostly money we owe to each other; even more important, our income mostly comes from selling things to each other. Your spending is my income, and my spending is your income.

So what happens if everyone simultaneously slashes spending in an attempt to pay down debt? The answer is that everyone’s income falls — my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better.

This isn’t a new insight. The great American economist Irving Fisher explained it all the way back in 1933, summarizing what he called “debt deflation” with the pithy slogan “the more the debtors pay, the more they owe.” Recent events, above all the austerity death spiral in Europe, have dramatically illustrated the truth of Fisher’s insight.

And there’s a clear moral to this story: When the private sector is frantically trying to pay down debt, the public sector should do the opposite, spending when the private sector can’t or won’t. By all means, let’s balance our budget once the economy has recovered — but not now. The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity.

More: The Austerity Agenda - The New York Times

 

[tjvh]

The entire system will fail when shortsighted Americans discover that amnesty for illegals didn't create more Taxpayers, amnesty created more people on Welfare.

 

[flacaltenn]

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is merely a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2033. That's another twenty-one years. Trustees Report Summary So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

Ahh.. The usual SS robbery deniers are all here now...

There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Treasury at the end of the year.. It's MORE than all spent you moron.. THe surplus was ROBBED from you and NOTHING OF VALUE was left in it's place.. All the bookkeeping entries at SSA couldn't buy you a fudge sundae.

SS went BROKE in 2010 -- 7 years ahead of projections.. Largely because your Dear Leader started to STEAL from the premiums and knows nothing about fixing broken ass economies. It was negative by about $40Bill a year for 2010, 2011, and 2012.. Those deficits were not taken out of some lockbox piggy bank. The Treasury charged CURRENT and FUTURE taxpayers for the difference. So when Obama said he "didn't know if the SS checks would go out" --- he wasn't just threatening Seniors and making them pee their pants for POLITICAL purposes --- he DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY to pay the checks.

Time for the lies to end and for the last Japanese warriors to surrender... You "denialist holdouts" ought to get mad finally when you realize how duped you've been..

Hang on.. I've got a box of Rolex watches out in the car I want you to see. My brother has to get rid of excess inventory and I can sell you one for about $260...

SS did not go broke in 2010. You're retarded.

Not at all retarded. Highly pragmatic and informed. First we back up my assertion that Soc Sec went broke in 2010 thru 2012...

Trustees Report Summary

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under
currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive
consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than
later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers

There are the numbers (from the horse's mouth).. $150BILL cash shortfall for those 3 years. Now -- because NOTHING OF VALUE came out of the "trust fund" to cover those costs (see my quotes from SSA and CBO), and the Treasury was brokeass empty --- NEW debt was issued to cover that shortfall.. NEW debt that current and future taxpayers are responsible for paying.

What was stolen from your paycheck in 1980s and 90s is now STILL NOT an asset to the taxpayers and YOU are paying for the shortfall TWICE.. Because it was "refinanced", the debt is STILL NOT PAID...

((Felonious trust fund accounting doesn't change reality))

If you don't understand the fraud you're trying to perpetrate here -- then I'm not the retarded one..

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course taxpayers paid the difference. That's because taxpayers borrowed the Trust Fund assets. THAT'S HOW THE TRUST FUND EARNS INTEREST.

In the last 2 years the SS drew some of the earned interest out of the Trust Fund assets to supplement the year's payroll tax revenues to pay recipients.

That is no different than you would do if you had retirement money invested somewhere and decided to draw off some of the annual earned interest to supplement your pension, or whatever.

Why is that so difficult for you simpletons to understand?

What part of "the SURPLUS money was STOLEN and NOTHING of value left in its place except DEBT for future taxpayers." don't you understand. You think this "interest" is suppose to make the victims feel better? WHere the fuck is the PRINCIPLE then?

Oh yeah --- future taxpayers and their grandkids will paying that.

How smart is it really to pay current SS deficit dollars to SS recipients with dollars that cost the current taxpayer 1.25 or 1.30 ?? eh???

You've paid that current SS deficit dollar TWICE now.. Once when it was stolen out of your paycheck back in the 80s and squandered on mohair subsidies. And NOW you're paying it AGAIN TODAY so that some senior in Chicago can give his nephew a birthday check.

What a deal..

Where do you think the Trust Fund money is supposed to be? In a gigantic safety deposit box somewhere, earning no interest and losing value to inflation every single day?

Do you have any idea what an investment is?

You are silly enough to use the term "trust fund money" in the same post as investment.

I don't think it's anywhere silly wabbit.. It never existed.. And today when when we need it -- IT'S STILL not paid.. Instead we issue MORE DEBT to cover the shortfalls in 2010 --> 2012..

 

[MikeK]

You are silly enough to use the term "trust fund money" in the same post as investment.

I don't think it's anywhere silly wabbit.. It never existed.. And today when when we need it -- IT'S STILL not paid.. Instead we issue MORE DEBT to cover the shortfalls in 2010 --> 2012..

America's most serious monetary problems began when Ronald Reagan initiated his supply side economic policy, which is in fact the very same Milton Friedman brainchild used to ruin the economies of Chile, Argentina, and basically the entire Southern Cone. This so-called "trickle down" strategy has in fact caused our Nation's wealth resources to be siphoned up to and hoarded by a tiny percentage of the population, commonly referred to as the One Percent. The following is in response to the question of just where all that money has gone:

(Excerpt)

A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

(Close)

Inasmuch as the Americans' share of these trillions are hidden offshore to evade taxation I believe that would justify summary confiscation.

What do you think of that prospect -- which would enable the U.S. to pay off its entire debt?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2037. That's another twenty-four years. So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

All you've done was just explained how Social Security works, in theory. You haven't explained why it was 'secure and solvent.'

Then again, I don't really expect you to, because it's not.

The Social Security Fund is an amount of money collected by the government via our FICA contributions (paycheck deductions). The government owes this money to existing and future recipients. The Fund presently ensures continuous payouts at the present rate until 2033 with no adjustments to the program. So there is plenty of time within the next twenty years to adjust the program and extend its future solvency indefinitely.

One way to adjust it is to bring the eligibility age up to date in accordance with the present life expectancy projection. (We are living longer today than when the program was conceived, so this would be an equitable adjustment.)

Another way to adjust it is to eliminate the cutoff cap, which is the existing point at which the FICA contributions (paycheck deductions) are discontinued.

Another way to adjust it is impose a means test which would be based on one's personal assets. For example, a suggested projection of this means test which I read about would reduce my present Social Security allotment by $200 a month, which I wouldn't miss (although my grandkids would). If it means preserving the program for those who really need it, I really don't mind. These adjustments would be progressive depending on individual means. Those who are worth millions and have absolutely no need for a monthly allotment would receive none.

One way or another, Social Security will remain secure and solvent. So don't pay attention to the doomsday propagandists who make up these Chicken Little warnings.

Is that a clearer explanation? If not, go here for more details: Trustees Report Summary

"plenty of time"....Typical. Yes, please do not take care of the problem now. Just kick the can down the road so that current recipients don;t get pissed off and vote out of office those who were charged with the duty of producing and implementing a solution.
Means testing has been discussed numerous times. The biggest howls of protest come from those with state or private sector union pensions and those who have retired from 6 figure wage jobs. Unfortunately means testing is politically a non-starter.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Although it's true that the Social Security entity is not in possession of any cash assets, the reason for that is it was never intended to be. The Social Security Fund is merely a ledger which is maintained by the General Accounting Office. The money we pay into the Fund is deposited into the Treasury. When you receive a montly Social Security allotment the check comes from the Treasury not the Social Security Administration, which manages the paperwork -- not the money.

Without any adjustments, the Social Security Fund is sufficiently solvent to continue issuing payments until 2033. That's another twenty-one years. Trustees Report Summary So there is plenty of time to tweak the Fund either by raising the eligibility age to conform with contemporary life expectancy; or by eliminating the cap, which is the level at which one's FICA contributions cease; or by imposing a means test predicated on adjusted payments or total ineligibility based on the level of one's personal assets.

Social Security is secure and is not going anywhere. So either Obama doesn't know what he's talking about, or you misunderstood what he said, or you've imagined it.

Ahh.. The usual SS robbery deniers are all here now...

There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Treasury at the end of the year.. It's MORE than all spent you moron.. THe surplus was ROBBED from you and NOTHING OF VALUE was left in it's place.. All the bookkeeping entries at SSA couldn't buy you a fudge sundae.

SS went BROKE in 2010 -- 7 years ahead of projections.. Largely because your Dear Leader started to STEAL from the premiums and knows nothing about fixing broken ass economies. It was negative by about $40Bill a year for 2010, 2011, and 2012.. Those deficits were not taken out of some lockbox piggy bank. The Treasury charged CURRENT and FUTURE taxpayers for the difference. So when Obama said he "didn't know if the SS checks would go out" --- he wasn't just threatening Seniors and making them pee their pants for POLITICAL purposes --- he DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY to pay the checks.

Time for the lies to end and for the last Japanese warriors to surrender... You "denialist holdouts" ought to get mad finally when you realize how duped you've been..

Hang on.. I've got a box of Rolex watches out in the car I want you to see. My brother has to get rid of excess inventory and I can sell you one for about $260...

SS did not go broke in 2010. You're retarded.

Responses such as yours give credence to the fact that you libs have zero credibility.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What part of "the SURPLUS money was STOLEN and NOTHING of value left in its place except DEBT for future taxpayers." don't you understand. You think this "interest" is suppose to make the victims feel better? WHere the fuck is the PRINCIPLE then?

Oh yeah --- future taxpayers and their grandkids will paying that.

How smart is it really to pay current SS deficit dollars to SS recipients with dollars that cost the current taxpayer 1.25 or 1.30 ?? eh???

You've paid that current SS deficit dollar TWICE now.. Once when it was stolen out of your paycheck back in the 80s and squandered on mohair subsidies. And NOW you're paying it AGAIN TODAY so that some senior in Chicago can give his nephew a birthday check.

What a deal..

Where do you think the Trust Fund money is supposed to be? In a gigantic safety deposit box somewhere, earning no interest and losing value to inflation every single day?

Do you have any idea what an investment is?

You are silly enough to use the term "trust fund money" in the same post as investment.

I don't think it's anywhere silly wabbit.. It never existed.. And today when when we need it -- IT'S STILL not paid.. Instead we issue MORE DEBT to cover the shortfalls in 2010 --> 2012..

You simply don't know how the system works and you appear to be too stupid to comprehend any explanation of how it works.

There were no shortfalls in 2010 - 2012. Everyone got their checks, and every dime that was paid out came from either payroll taxes or interest earned on payroll taxes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Ahh.. The usual SS robbery deniers are all here now...

There is NOTHING OF VALUE in the Treasury at the end of the year.. It's MORE than all spent you moron.. THe surplus was ROBBED from you and NOTHING OF VALUE was left in it's place.. All the bookkeeping entries at SSA couldn't buy you a fudge sundae.

SS went BROKE in 2010 -- 7 years ahead of projections.. Largely because your Dear Leader started to STEAL from the premiums and knows nothing about fixing broken ass economies. It was negative by about $40Bill a year for 2010, 2011, and 2012.. Those deficits were not taken out of some lockbox piggy bank. The Treasury charged CURRENT and FUTURE taxpayers for the difference. So when Obama said he "didn't know if the SS checks would go out" --- he wasn't just threatening Seniors and making them pee their pants for POLITICAL purposes --- he DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY to pay the checks.

Time for the lies to end and for the last Japanese warriors to surrender... You "denialist holdouts" ought to get mad finally when you realize how duped you've been..

Hang on.. I've got a box of Rolex watches out in the car I want you to see. My brother has to get rid of excess inventory and I can sell you one for about $260...

SS did not go broke in 2010. You're retarded.

Not at all retarded. Highly pragmatic and informed. First we back up my assertion that Soc Sec went broke in 2010 thru 2012...

Trustees Report Summary

Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under
currently scheduled financing, and legislative changes are necessary to avoid disruptive
consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers. If lawmakers take action sooner rather than
later, more options and more time will be available to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits.

Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers

There are the numbers (from the horse's mouth).. $150BILL cash shortfall for those 3 years. Now -- because NOTHING OF VALUE came out of the "trust fund" to cover those costs (see my quotes from SSA and CBO), and the Treasury was brokeass empty --- NEW debt was issued to cover that shortfall.. NEW debt that current and future taxpayers are responsible for paying.

What was stolen from your paycheck in 1980s and 90s is now STILL NOT an asset to the taxpayers and YOU are paying for the shortfall TWICE.. Because it was "refinanced", the debt is STILL NOT PAID...

((Felonious trust fund accounting doesn't change reality))

If you don't understand the fraud you're trying to perpetrate here -- then I'm not the retarded one..

Your link supports me, not you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Where do you think the Trust Fund money is supposed to be? In a gigantic safety deposit box somewhere, earning no interest and losing value to inflation every single day?

Do you have any idea what an investment is?

You are silly enough to use the term "trust fund money" in the same post as investment.

I don't think it's anywhere silly wabbit.. It never existed.. And today when when we need it -- IT'S STILL not paid.. Instead we issue MORE DEBT to cover the shortfalls in 2010 --> 2012..

You simply don't know how the system works and you appear to be too stupid to comprehend any explanation of how it works.

There were no shortfalls in 2010 - 2012. Everyone got their checks, and every dime that was paid out came from either payroll taxes or interest earned on payroll taxes.

Bzzzzzt.. Wrong again.. What does a $50Bill shortfall mean? Means it DIDN'T come from payroll taxes which were insufficient to pay the checks.

Did it come from the ficticious interest on earned on the MISSING trust fund? Nope, because the Treasury had to issue NEW debt to cover the shortfall.. New debt is NOT an asset. (anyone have problems with that?) It's a liability. Meaning that the missing SS Surplus is STILL not paid back -- is it?

The only reason the Treasury issued that new debt which CURRENT AND FUTURE taxpayers will be forced to pay is "faith", and an IOU accounting entry.. No assets involved.

It's an IOU that needs to be honored. The accounting system for it are entirely fraudulent. But for the time being, we're soaking FUTURE taxpayers for each and every dollar shortfall that occurs in the SS cash flow.

So not only was there no INTEREST to pay the shortfall, --- the shortfall was paid with NEW DEBT which will COST taxpayers interest for the next decade or two...

 

[flacaltenn]

Let's read the fine print at the end of the SSA prospectus again...

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Social Security’s annual surpluses
of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this
year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, <<they didn't --FlaCalTenn>>
and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow
deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires. <<happened in 2010 --FlaCalTenn>>

The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2016, net revenue
flows from the general fund would total $369 billion (1.8 percent of
GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2016 for OASDI, and started in
2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the
trust funds when assets are depleted to help pay benefits in years prior to
exhaustion of the funds. Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

That's EXACTLY what happened in 2010 thru 2012 when the SS program went insolvent.

$40Bill to $50Bill worth of current SS checks had to be "refinanced" thru "additional borrowing". So that current and FUTURE taxpayers paid those checks with NEW DEBT that they will be forced to pay interest on... NOTHING of value came out of "interest on the bonds"...

As it says --- "Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury"

Can you read and comprehend those words????

1) All the Surplus money was stolen.
2) An accounting gimmick was created.
3) No investment was made.
4) No money or value is laying around in accounts.
5) When SS runs in deficit -- the people PAY again with NEW DEBT being issued.
6) It's broken ALREADY 7 years ahead of projections..

Any questions???

 

[Flopper]

If the government can not make good on it's financial obligation to the trust fund, Social Security will be the least of this nation's problems. A failure to meet any redemption or interest payments whether if be to the Social Security Trust Fund, Treasury Bills, Savings Bonds, or whatever would put the US government in default which would result in an economic collapse of the economy.

In 2013, social security tax collections will exceed benefits payments by over 70 billion dollars. Interest will add another 150 billion. The funds assets will exceed exceed 4.5 trillion in 2013. The fund is nowhere even close to being broke unless you consider US debt worthless.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/receipts.pdf
Trust Fund Data

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's read the fine print at the end of the SSA prospectus again...

http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/pdf/tr09summary.pdf

Social Security’s annual surpluses
of tax income over expenditures are expected to fall sharply this
year and to stay about constant in 2010 because of the economic recession, <<they didn't --FlaCalTenn>>
and to rise only briefly before declining and turning to cash flow
deficits beginning in 2016 that grow as the baby-boom generation retires. <<happened in 2010 --FlaCalTenn>>

The combined difference grows each year, so that by 2016, net revenue
flows from the general fund would total $369 billion (1.8 percent of
GDP). The positive amounts that begin in 2016 for OASDI, and started in
2008 for HI, initially represent payments the Treasury must make to the
trust funds when assets are depleted to help pay benefits in years prior to
exhaustion of the funds. Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury,
which must finance redemptions and interest payments through
some combination of increased taxation, reductions in other government
spending, or additional borrowing from the public.

That's EXACTLY what happened in 2010 thru 2012 when the SS program went insolvent.

$40Bill to $50Bill worth of current SS checks had to be "refinanced" thru "additional borrowing". So that current and FUTURE taxpayers paid those checks with NEW DEBT that they will be forced to pay interest on... NOTHING of value came out of "interest on the bonds"...

As it says --- "Neither the redemption of trust fund bonds, nor
interest paid on those bonds, provides any new net income to the Treasury"

Can you read and comprehend those words????

1) All the Surplus money was stolen.
2) An accounting gimmick was created.
3) No investment was made.
4) No money or value is laying around in accounts.
5) When SS runs in deficit -- the people PAY again with NEW DEBT being issued.
6) It's broken ALREADY 7 years ahead of projections..

Any questions???

Social Security is the creditor, not the debtor, you imbecile.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are silly enough to use the term "trust fund money" in the same post as investment.

I don't think it's anywhere silly wabbit.. It never existed.. And today when when we need it -- IT'S STILL not paid.. Instead we issue MORE DEBT to cover the shortfalls in 2010 --> 2012..

You simply don't know how the system works and you appear to be too stupid to comprehend any explanation of how it works.

There were no shortfalls in 2010 - 2012. Everyone got their checks, and every dime that was paid out came from either payroll taxes or interest earned on payroll taxes.

Bzzzzzt.. Wrong again.. What does a $50Bill shortfall mean? Means it DIDN'T come from payroll taxes which were insufficient to pay the checks.

Payroll taxes don't need to pay the checks. The Trust Fund earned over 100 billion in interest income every year. That's what was tapped to add to the payroll taxes.

Do you have no idea how an investment works? Are you that fucking ignorant? Have you never owned a bond that paid interest?

The taxpayers have to pay the interest because the taxpayers borrowed the money. Remember those 2 fucking wars? Remember Bush's Medicare Part D? Remember Reagan's deficits? That's what YOU the taxpayer got from the money you were loaned by Social Security.

Now you have to pay some of it back. Boohoo. That's how borrowing works. You borrow, you pay interest, you pay back the principal.

Read a fucking book.

 

[Flopper]

You simply don't know how the system works and you appear to be too stupid to comprehend any explanation of how it works.

There were no shortfalls in 2010 - 2012. Everyone got their checks, and every dime that was paid out came from either payroll taxes or interest earned on payroll taxes.

Bzzzzzt.. Wrong again.. What does a $50Bill shortfall mean? Means it DIDN'T come from payroll taxes which were insufficient to pay the checks.

Payroll taxes don't need to pay the checks. The Trust Fund earned over 100 billion in interest income every year. That's what was tapped to add to the payroll taxes.

Do you have no idea how an investment works? Are you that fucking ignorant? Have you never owned a bond that paid interest?

The taxpayers have to pay the interest because the taxpayers borrowed the money. Remember those 2 fucking wars? Remember Bush's Medicare Part D? Remember Reagan's deficits? That's what YOU the taxpayer got from the money you were loaned by Social Security.

Now you have to pay some of it back. Boohoo. That's how borrowing works. You borrow, you pay interest, you pay back the principal.

Read a fucking book.

I think you're just beating your head against a wall because he does not recognize that the trust fund is a separate entity from the treasury. His argument is based on the assumption that the special issue treasury bills have no value. So interest paid to the fund or investments made by the fund or just fund transfers. The fallacy is that the special interest treasury bills do have value. They are backed by the full faith and credit of US government just as all government obligations are. A default in payment of interest or principal would be a default regardless of weather the obligation is a special issue treasury bill, savings bond, treasury bill, or note.

 

[flacaltenn]

If the government can not make good on it's financial obligation to the trust fund, Social Security will be the least of this nation's problems. A failure to meet any redemption or interest payments whether if be to the Social Security Trust Fund, Treasury Bills, Savings Bonds, or whatever would put the US government in default which would result in an economic collapse of the economy.

In 2013, social security tax collections will exceed benefits payments by over 70 billion dollars. Interest will add another 150 billion. The funds assets will exceed exceed 4.5 trillion in 2013. The fund is nowhere even close to being broke unless you consider US debt worthless.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/receipts.pdf
Trust Fund Data

I need a source for "soc sec tax collections will exceed benefits by over $70Bill" this year..

That's NOT in the cards..

Is The Social Security Trust Fund Solvent? - Forbes

In the past, when inflows exceed outflows, the surplus was used to fund other government programs. However, beginning in 2010, deficits have been the rule. The deficits in the past few years were as follows: $49 billion in 2010; $45 billion in 2011; and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees expect the deficit to average $75 billion each fiscal year from 2013 to 2018 before rising sharply.

You have no fuckin idea what you're talking about. You're so confused by the Trust Fund accounting gimmicks that you believe those deficits are actually being paid off with imaginary interest.. When in fact -- they are being financed with NEW debt instruments that will cost current/future taxpayers the amount of those deficits PLUS interest..

NOTHING is being paid out of value previously existing in the "trust fund". Those IOUs represent a PROMISE to pay.. Nothing more.. And it doesn't specify WHO PAYS or HOW it is paid.. YOU are paying twice PLUS INTEREST for every SS Surplus dollar that was stolen.
It was NEVER "an investment"..

Please refute that last paragraph... ANYBODY???

 

[flacaltenn]

You simply don't know how the system works and you appear to be too stupid to comprehend any explanation of how it works.

There were no shortfalls in 2010 - 2012. Everyone got their checks, and every dime that was paid out came from either payroll taxes or interest earned on payroll taxes.

Bzzzzzt.. Wrong again.. What does a $50Bill shortfall mean? Means it DIDN'T come from payroll taxes which were insufficient to pay the checks.

Payroll taxes don't need to pay the checks. The Trust Fund earned over 100 billion in interest income every year. That's what was tapped to add to the payroll taxes.

Do you have no idea how an investment works? Are you that fucking ignorant? Have you never owned a bond that paid interest?

The taxpayers have to pay the interest because the taxpayers borrowed the money. Remember those 2 fucking wars? Remember Bush's Medicare Part D? Remember Reagan's deficits? That's what YOU the taxpayer got from the money you were loaned by Social Security.

Now you have to pay some of it back. Boohoo. That's how borrowing works. You borrow, you pay interest, you pay back the principal.

Read a fucking book.

The government STOLE the money -- wrote themselves an IOU --- promised itself interest -- and NOW when the "interest" is due is paying it off on it's credit card at an increased rate of debt plus interest..

Only in the retarded mind of an economically challenged progressive would that be considered "an investment".. The RESULT is that NO VALUE WAS CREATED -- only a snowball of debt and YOU and your grandchildren will pay MULTIPLE TIMES for that theft.

Please refute any of that that you can... Please show me the VALUE and where the treasury GETS the money to pay those deficit checks.

The ONLY thing keeping those monthly checks coming is "hope and faith".. NOT an "investment"...