Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny thing, You can find literally dozens of Quotes online from Liberals, and Democrats, Dating back decades, saying the same thing Perry said. Calling it a ponzi or Pyramid Scheme. Why the Focus on Perry?

Because Perry is a Republican.

Because he is running for president, you think?

Bachmann beat on him like a drum.

Romney continues to smile.

So, if I understand your point here, you support Bachmann over Perry. I will be sure to let her know she has your endorsement.

 

[Toro]

Moving the goal posts?

I thought cash flow was both into and out of a fund, not just in. No wonder I can't get through to you, you do not use generally accepted accounting standards, you use government accounting.

Maybe I can't get through to you because you're either not reading my posts or aren't understanding basic concepts. So I highlighted for you what you said I did not write.



We are talking about any fund that invests in government bonds. In this example, it is a fund that invests solely in government bonds.



Right. That's the same thing as this.

Government bond fund cash flow
Tax money ---> Buys bonds ---> Your account is credited ---> Government spends all your tax money ---> Government taxes others ---> Government redeems your bonds from the taxes of others and gives you back your money plus interest​

Juxtaposing the two

Client >> money into fund = Tax money
bonds = Buys bonds ---> Your account is credited
time passes = Government spends all your tax money
bonds mature >> client gets paid from his investment and the mature bonds = Government redeems your bonds from the taxes of others and gives you back your money plus interest

That's the same. Let's look at SS.



Since the SS trusts do not buy bonds, I've removed the inserts which don't relate to cash flows. Particularly

>> since current payouts exceed income no money goes to bonds
and
>> no bonds to mature

SS never buys bonds, no matter if the payout does or does not exceed income.

So now your cash flow schematic looks like this

Putting it side by side with this

SS cash flow

Tax money ---> Your account is credited ---> Government spends all your tax money ---> Government taxes others ---> Government gives you back your money plus interest from the taxes of others
​

Taxpayer = Tax money ---> Your account is credited
money goes to retirees = Government spends all your tax money
time passes >> taxpayer gets paid from new taxpayers = Government gives you back your money plus interest from the taxes of others

So removing those two inserts of yours

>> since current payouts exceed income no money goes to bonds
and
>> no bonds to mature

We see that yours and my descriptions of cash flows are the same.

And what did I remove? Your comment that there are no bonds. In the schematics of the cash flows of a government bonds fund and SS, the only thing that has changed is the presence of bonds. A bond is merely a claim on a cash flow. It does not affect the actual cash flow. Whether a bond is there or not does not change the cash flow. If you lend me money and I pay you back, it does not matter if we had a legal contract or I just gave you my word.

That's my point.

The cash flows of the SS trusts and a government bond pension fund are the same. A bond is merely a claim on a cash flow. It does not affect the actual cash flow.

You've just made my argument. You just don't know it.

If you set up a mutual fund that invested solely in government bonds, the cash flows through the bond fund look just like the cash flows through the social security trusts. It is irrelevant that a bond fund is "investing" because all "investing" is is buying and selling securities. And a security is a claim on a cash flow. It does not effect cash flows.

Tell me again how that is no way, shape, or form, a Ponzi game, and how it will continue to work as long as the demographics continue to endlessly grow.

A pay as you go system can continue forever as long as the contributions exceed the payouts. And the contributions can always exceed payouts if economic growth and/or population growth exceeds the interest rate promised to recipients.

You asked me about the difference between cash flow in a pension fund that invest entirely in government bonds and the cash flow in Social Security, then you focus on how the government handles the cash it gets. Since I know you are informed enough to understand that what you asked and what you are talking about are two different things, the only thing I can conclude is you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue for everyone else in this thread, because I would hate to think you believe I would fall for it.

Also, as many people have repeatedly pointed out, payouts currently exceed payins in SS, and will only get worse as time goes on. That makes SS an unsustainable Ponzi game, not a pay as you go system.

I have taken what you have written and showed how you and I wrote the same thing. You just don't understand what you've written. That's why you think cash flow and "how the government handles cash" are two different things. They are not. You yourself have written that how cash flows through the government does not differ from how it flows through the SS trusts and a government bond fund. The only difference is the legal structure through which cash flows. So if you say that SS is a Ponzi scheme, then the government bond market is a Ponzi scheme. In fact, I can show the same thing for any security, not just government liabilities.

 

[keee keee]

I always hear the term Social security trust fund. Can any one tell me the location of this trust fund I would like to see it or is it just a very big old file cabinet with thousands of worthless IOU in it. and to repay these worthless IOU'S you would have to consfiscate the money all over again to make good. Sound like some kind of scam to me!!!!!might not be a true ponzi scheeme but it is still the biggest fraud in American History!!!!

 

[Toro]

I always hear the term Social security trust fund. Can any one tell me the location of this trust fund I would like to see it or is it just a very big old file cabinet with thousands of worthless IOU in it. and to repay these worthless IOU'S you would have to consfiscate the money all over again to make good. Sound like some kind of scam to me!!!!!might not be a true ponzi scheeme but it is still the biggest fraud in American History!!!!

The two trust funds that comprise the SS trust funds are the Old Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Funds and the Disability Insurance Trust Funds. They are managed at the Treasury. The assets and liabilities of the trusts are recorded digitally. I doubt they will let you look at the file.

Hope that helps.

 

[Raoul_Duke]

Also, as many people have repeatedly pointed out, payouts currently exceed payins in SS, and will only get worse as time goes on. That makes SS an unsustainable Ponzi game, not a pay as you go system.

Payouts do currently exceed payins but that's because we're in the middle of a massive recession so lots of people aren't paying in plus we've slashed payroll taxes on the people who still are paying in. Social security is scheduled to be unable to pay 100% of its benefits in 2037. According to the SS actuaries the worst case scenario in 2037 is that SS would only be able to pay 75% of benefits on an ongoing basis. But because SS is indexed to wages, and wages rise faster than priices, 75% of benefits in 2037 will afford a higher standard of living to 2037 retirees than 2011 retirees currently enjoy.

And SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. It only needs about a 0.6% og GDP increase over the next couple of decades to be able to pay 100% of benefits for the next 75 years.

SS is a social insurance scheme. It's always been designed so that current workers fund current retirees. As such it works in much the same way to most inssurance schemes that operate in every country -- current premiums pay current insurance claims. If SS is a Ponzi scheme so are insurance companies.

 

[flacaltenn]

I always hear the term Social security trust fund. Can any one tell me the location of this trust fund I would like to see it or is it just a very big old file cabinet with thousands of worthless IOU in it. and to repay these worthless IOU'S you would have to consfiscate the money all over again to make good. Sound like some kind of scam to me!!!!!might not be a true ponzi scheeme but it is still the biggest fraud in American History!!!!

All you have to do is ask.. USMB will supply...

HERE IT IS -- $4Tril of IOUs (from Mother Jones)..

Glad to see it's in a "lockbox".... It's in the Alexandria Metro Mall. Right where they store the Santa North Pole display and the Easter Bunny..

 

[Toro]

I always hear the term Social security trust fund. Can any one tell me the location of this trust fund I would like to see it or is it just a very big old file cabinet with thousands of worthless IOU in it. and to repay these worthless IOU'S you would have to consfiscate the money all over again to make good. Sound like some kind of scam to me!!!!!might not be a true ponzi scheeme but it is still the biggest fraud in American History!!!!

All you have to do is ask.. USMB will supply...

HERE IT IS -- $4Tril of IOUs (from Mother Jones)..

Glad to see it's in a "lockbox".... It's in the Alexandria Metro Mall. Right where they store the Santa North Pole display and the Easter Bunny..

Bush is stealing your social security! He's taking your file!

 

[saveliberty]

Social Security is a lottery system.

 

[Liability]

The quibbling is illuminating.

TECHNICALLY, of course, the SS system does not meet a formal definition of a Ponzi scheme.

Wiki offers a fair brief synopsis of the essentials of a Ponzi scheme:

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going.

The system is destined to collapse because the earnings, if any, are less than the payments to investors. Usually, the scheme is interrupted by legal authorities before it collapses because a Ponzi scheme is suspected or because the promoter is selling unregistered securities. As more investors become involved, the likelihood of the scheme coming to the attention of authorities increases.

Ponzi scheme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The bolded section starts to illustrate why the use of the term "Ponzi scheme" is still fair in principle, though.

Taxpayers pay into the system hoping to collect later. But their money is not invested. Instead, it is used to pay current recipients. Future payees into the system then provide the money for our eventual collections.

And it works ok as long as the population grows sufficiently to provide a forever-widening base of payees into the system.

While Toro offers useful lessons on assets and liabilities and bonds, etc., which undergird the actual SS system, none of that gets us away from the essential elements that ARE akin to a Ponzi scheme.

As currently set up, is the SS System "sustainable?"

Obviously not.

And can tinkering on retirement age and contribution amounts make it more sustainable for a while? Sure.

But does any of that address the basic flaw with this "system" in the long term? I believe the correct answer is "no." And that problem is also one of the huge problems our entire economy and national budget have.

We fucking SPEND too much and far too much of it is accounted for by borrowing. It is a recipe for eventual disaster. And the time frame is no longer all that far down the road. Why do we persist with this irrational and irresponsible way of dealing with our national budget and needs? Does ANYbody truly think this is the best we can do?

And if it isn't, then why does President Obama keep returning to that same well? Why do we let this happen?

 

[thereisnospoon]

And I called him an asshole at the time for doing so.

Feel better?

Now he wants to extend those cuts, and also give them to the Employers as well, and pay for it all by Raising Taxes on people making over 200k. So he can do more Short Term Stimulus that will only buy a short term Blip in GDP, so he can try and ride the "recovery" to another term.

What is he now?

He is wrong. He is suffering, at least in part, from the Republican Disease, the affliction that causes a person to think that every problem America has can be solved with a tax cut.

While you libs think every problem can be solved with the expansion of government, a new bureaucracy and a tax increase.
Why is it you libs always bitch about how tax cuts are to be paid for but are never concerned about how a tax INCREASE will be paid for?

 

[thereisnospoon]

In case you think I'm opposed to Soc Sec, I'm not.. I adamantly defend the ORIGINAL intent of it. Not the proposed chopblock fixes that are coming.. In fact I see it as contract that should be upheld.

When did I agree to this so-called "contract?"

When SS became law. That's how it works in America. We make laws, you obey them.

If you want to live in a country where you either don't have laws, or don't have to obey the laws you do have,

I would encourage you to move.

Ahh yes, the old "all or nothing straw man argument"....A favorite tact of the Left when they get cornered in the room of no ideas.
Please. No one has suggested "no laws".....
If you think SS is not in trouble or broken you are on the outside.

 

[The T]

If Socialist Security isn't a ponzi scheme, then Mr Madoff needs to be set free.

 

[thereisnospoon]

"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government." Trust Fund FAQs

The argument really boils down to whether you have faith in the United States government to live up to its financial commitments. There is no gold backing our currency and no collateral that backs up any US debt. It's all about faith and trust. Without it, the Social Trust will become worthless as will all treasury bonds, US Savings bonds, and the US dollar. If the Trust becomes worthless, that will be least of our worries.

If the US government pays back SS money it takes for other uses, then why is the system going broke and why did Obama threaten to with hold checks if the debt ceiling was not raised?
Clearly your statement is inaccurate.
How many times do must you be told.....NO matter what you people try to spin this with, at the end of the day there IS NO MONEY.
SS is a TAX. The only difference between Social Security and other taxes is regular taxation by government is returned in the form of services. While Social Security TAX is IN PART returned to workers upon their retirement at age 67.5 or what ever it is today. And only A PORTION of that money ever gets back to the payor.
There is no account. There is no magic pot of money waiting for each person to retire.
It's a bullshit system that greedy politicians with their insatiable desire to spend OUR money, a few decades ago decided that Social Security money.....OUR money was THEIRS!
Theirs to spend on anything they wanted.
Now you people are shitting your pants because smarter people have seen the SS system is due for a change.
I want my money that the government took from me to be there when I retire. Not in the special pork account of some House Member's district in Pocafunckingtello, Idaho!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Maybe I can't get through to you because you're either not reading my posts or aren't understanding basic concepts. So I highlighted for you what you said I did not write.



We are talking about any fund that invests in government bonds. In this example, it is a fund that invests solely in government bonds.



Right. That's the same thing as this.

Government bond fund cash flow
Tax money ---> Buys bonds ---> Your account is credited ---> Government spends all your tax money ---> Government taxes others ---> Government redeems your bonds from the taxes of others and gives you back your money plus interest​

Juxtaposing the two

Client >> money into fund = Tax money
bonds = Buys bonds ---> Your account is credited
time passes = Government spends all your tax money
bonds mature >> client gets paid from his investment and the mature bonds = Government redeems your bonds from the taxes of others and gives you back your money plus interest

That's the same. Let's look at SS.



Since the SS trusts do not buy bonds, I've removed the inserts which don't relate to cash flows. Particularly

>> since current payouts exceed income no money goes to bonds
and
>> no bonds to mature

SS never buys bonds, no matter if the payout does or does not exceed income.

So now your cash flow schematic looks like this

Putting it side by side with this

SS cash flow

Tax money ---> Your account is credited ---> Government spends all your tax money ---> Government taxes others ---> Government gives you back your money plus interest from the taxes of others
​

Taxpayer = Tax money ---> Your account is credited
money goes to retirees = Government spends all your tax money
time passes >> taxpayer gets paid from new taxpayers = Government gives you back your money plus interest from the taxes of others

So removing those two inserts of yours

>> since current payouts exceed income no money goes to bonds
and
>> no bonds to mature

We see that yours and my descriptions of cash flows are the same.

And what did I remove? Your comment that there are no bonds. In the schematics of the cash flows of a government bonds fund and SS, the only thing that has changed is the presence of bonds. A bond is merely a claim on a cash flow. It does not affect the actual cash flow. Whether a bond is there or not does not change the cash flow. If you lend me money and I pay you back, it does not matter if we had a legal contract or I just gave you my word.

That's my point.

The cash flows of the SS trusts and a government bond pension fund are the same. A bond is merely a claim on a cash flow. It does not affect the actual cash flow.

You've just made my argument. You just don't know it.

If you set up a mutual fund that invested solely in government bonds, the cash flows through the bond fund look just like the cash flows through the social security trusts. It is irrelevant that a bond fund is "investing" because all "investing" is is buying and selling securities. And a security is a claim on a cash flow. It does not effect cash flows.

A pay as you go system can continue forever as long as the contributions exceed the payouts. And the contributions can always exceed payouts if economic growth and/or population growth exceeds the interest rate promised to recipients.

You asked me about the difference between cash flow in a pension fund that invest entirely in government bonds and the cash flow in Social Security, then you focus on how the government handles the cash it gets. Since I know you are informed enough to understand that what you asked and what you are talking about are two different things, the only thing I can conclude is you are deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue for everyone else in this thread, because I would hate to think you believe I would fall for it.

Also, as many people have repeatedly pointed out, payouts currently exceed payins in SS, and will only get worse as time goes on. That makes SS an unsustainable Ponzi game, not a pay as you go system.

I have taken what you have written and showed how you and I wrote the same thing. You just don't understand what you've written. That's why you think cash flow and "how the government handles cash" are two different things. They are not. You yourself have written that how cash flows through the government does not differ from how it flows through the SS trusts and a government bond fund. The only difference is the legal structure through which cash flows. So if you say that SS is a Ponzi scheme, then the government bond market is a Ponzi scheme. In fact, I can show the same thing for any security, not just government liabilities.

That is not what I think.

What I think is the cash flow in and out of an investment fund is a separate issue from the cash flow into and out of the investment itself. How the government handles the cash flow of bonds is not what we are talking about, and is not what makes SS a Ponzi game. What makes SS a Ponzi game is how the government handles cash flow into and out of the fund itself, not the bonds.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Also, as many people have repeatedly pointed out, payouts currently exceed payins in SS, and will only get worse as time goes on. That makes SS an unsustainable Ponzi game, not a pay as you go system.

Payouts do currently exceed payins but that's because we're in the middle of a massive recession so lots of people aren't paying in plus we've slashed payroll taxes on the people who still are paying in. Social security is scheduled to be unable to pay 100% of its benefits in 2037. According to the SS actuaries the worst case scenario in 2037 is that SS would only be able to pay 75% of benefits on an ongoing basis. But because SS is indexed to wages, and wages rise faster than priices, 75% of benefits in 2037 will afford a higher standard of living to 2037 retirees than 2011 retirees currently enjoy.

And SS isn't a Ponzi scheme. It only needs about a 0.6% og GDP increase over the next couple of decades to be able to pay 100% of benefits for the next 75 years.

SS is a social insurance scheme. It's always been designed so that current workers fund current retirees. As such it works in much the same way to most inssurance schemes that operate in every country -- current premiums pay current insurance claims. If SS is a Ponzi scheme so are insurance companies.

According to the SS actuaries, we are going to be paying out more money we take in from now until 2037, at which point the fund will be exhausted and the income will only support 75% of promised payouts. That is not the worse case scenario, and actually assumes a pretty rosy economic future that includes a 4% growth rate per year and that we do not extend the current payroll tax cuts. Obama not only requested an extension, he wants to expand them by giving people another 2% tax cut, and wants to throw in an employer side tax cut, and another cut if employers hire unemployed people.

FYI, the fact that something works is not evidence that it is not a Ponzi scheme. How long did Bernie Madoff run his scheme before it fell apart? Did the fact that it worked all that time make it not a Ponzi scheme?

The difference between insurance and SS has been covered in this thread, go educate yourself.

 

[Toro]

That is not what I think.

What I think is the cash flow in and out of an investment fund is a separate issue from the cash flow into and out of the investment itself. How the government handles the cash flow of bonds is not what we are talking about, and is not what makes SS a Ponzi game. What makes SS a Ponzi game is how the government handles cash flow into and out of the fund itself, not the bonds.

But what I'm trying to tell you Quantum is that bonds are merely securities representing claims on cash flows. They aren't cash flows unto themselves. Liabilities can be a promise or a written contract, but it doesn't change the fact that liabilities are outstanding. All a bond does is strengthen the legal claim on the cash flow. It does not change the nature of the cash flow. Because the presence of a written contract or lack thereof does not change the nature of the cash flow, only the legal claim on the cash flow, it doesn't change the economics of the cash flows.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What the Ponzer Right is really all about here is that they are trying to avoid facing a very grim reality and that is that Republican tax cutting, borrowing, and spending policies over the past 30 years are really the only thing that has jeopardized social security in any way.

The Republicans didn't cut Social Security taxes, your Messiah did.

And I called him an asshole at the time for doing so.

Feel better?

I do.

So why did you bring the Republicans into the conversation, they didn't fuck up Social Security.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That is not what I think.

What I think is the cash flow in and out of an investment fund is a separate issue from the cash flow into and out of the investment itself. How the government handles the cash flow of bonds is not what we are talking about, and is not what makes SS a Ponzi game. What makes SS a Ponzi game is how the government handles cash flow into and out of the fund itself, not the bonds.

But what I'm trying to tell you Quantum is that bonds are merely securities representing claims on cash flows. They aren't cash flows unto themselves. Liabilities can be a promise or a written contract, but it doesn't change the fact that liabilities are outstanding. All a bond does is strengthen the legal claim on the cash flow. It does not change the nature of the cash flow. Because the presence of a written contract or lack thereof does not change the nature of the cash flow, only the legal claim on the cash flow, it doesn't change the economics of the cash flows.

There you go talking about one thing when I am talking about something else.

Let me make this easy and stipulate up front that when I say cash flow I am not talking about actual cash, I am talking about little 1s and 0s in a computer file, that way you understand that the I am not talking real money. The bonds are assets, and not part of cash flow until they are traded. The cash flow of the government, what they do with the money they get from selling a bond, is irrelevant to the cash flow of a pension fund that invest in those bonds, or of Social Security.

You handle investments, do your clients require you to track the cash flow of the corporations when you buy stock, or are they satisfied with whether or not the stocks increase in value? Talking about how the bonds, or the stocks, gain value is a side issue here, what is important is how the funds handle the cash.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Far from being "worthless IOUs," the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U. S. Government. The government has always repaid Social Security, with interest. The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the Federal government." Trust Fund FAQs

The argument really boils down to whether you have faith in the United States government to live up to its financial commitments. There is no gold backing our currency and no collateral that backs up any US debt. It's all about faith and trust. Without it, the Social Trust will become worthless as will all treasury bonds, US Savings bonds, and the US dollar. If the Trust becomes worthless, that will be least of our worries.

The argument really boils down to whether you have faith in the United States government to live up to its financial commitments

Those Social Security "commitments" can be altered at a moments notice.

There is no gold backing our currency

The Fed currently holds about $470 billion in gold. As well as $2.8 trillion in other assets.

 

[Toro]

There you go talking about one thing when I am talking about something else.

Let me make this easy and stipulate up front that when I say cash flow I am not talking about actual cash, I am talking about little 1s and 0s in a computer file, that way you understand that the I am not talking real money.

Then you aren't talking about "cash flow." Cash flow is how cash moves from A to B to C. It is how one calculates the economics of an asset. This is why I say the economics does not change when you look at the cash flow of a bond fund or the SS trusts.

FTR, most money and most securities are 1s and 0s. Most bonds do not exist in tangible form. They exist as a computer entry in repositories. You can't actually physically touch those bonds. They are represented only by what are known as CUSIPs, or numbered and lettered identifiers for the specific security. In this sense, the Treasury market is more similar to the nontradable obligations in the SS trusts than you might imagine. You can't go find the stacks of IOUs in the SS trusts. But guess what? You can't find the stacks of bonds representing Treasury securities because they, like the assets in the SS trusts, don't exist in tangible form! In fact, that's true of most stocks as well.

The bonds are assets, and not part of cash flow until they are traded.

That is not true. Bonds are assets but represent a claim on cash flows. It does not matter if it is traded. All trading does is move claims around. It doesn't change the claim. Let's say I borrow money from you. You make me sign a contract that I will pay you interest and principle. You are the lender, I am the borrower. Initial cash flow flows from the lender to the borrower. Future cash flow flows from the borrower to the lender. The terms of the cash flow are defined by the contract. If you sell the contract to someone else, it does not change the nature of the contract. It does not change the nature of the cash flow. Future cash flow still flows from the borrower to the lender. The only difference is the lender has changed since you have sold the contract to someone else. Now I must pay the new owner of the contract.

What you are talking about is "liquidity," the ability to buy and sell. Liquidity does not change nature of the cash flow. Liquidity merely shifts the cash flows around between different buyers and sellers. That will affect the valuation of the cash flows, but it doesn't change the nature of the cash flows. The borrower still has to pay the note holder.

The cash flow of the government, what they do with the money they get from selling a bond, is irrelevant to the cash flow of a pension fund that invest in those bonds, or of Social Security.

Right, sort of. The lender to the government - the buyer of Treasury bonds or contributor to the SS trusts - doesn't care about what the government does with the money they have lent it. What they care about is getting paid back plus interest. So they care about receipts of the government.

As we both noted in our cash flow schematics - and you were correct BTW - the government spends the money they receive from the proceeds of bond sales and SS receipts. They then tax the economy to pay back the cash flows.

You handle investments, do your clients require you to track the cash flow of the corporations when you buy stock, or are they satisfied with whether or not the stocks increase in value? Talking about how the bonds, or the stocks, gain value is a side issue here, what is important is how the funds handle the cash.

Stocks and bonds and valued based on their cash flows. They are valued based on their current cash flows - represented by interest on bonds and dividends on stocks - and future cash flows - future interest payments on bonds and future dividend payments on stocks. Stocks that do not pay dividends are capitalized based on their ability to pay dividends in the future, which is measured by the future cash flow of the company which is discounted back to the present.

The argument that I am making can be applied to any financial asset, not just government bonds. It is confusing, I know. When I started to research SS and how it worked, it took awhile for it to click for me. And finance and assets are my life.