The "raiding" of the Social Security Trust. What you don't know, and why you're probably an idiot.

[JoeTheEconomist]

That surplus was SPENT.

The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.

Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.

Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?

Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT... ,,,, from the perspective of the working taxpayer..

What the general fund 'squanders' the payroll tax revenue on is of no concern to SS. The government still has to pay it back, and pay interest on it. It was LOANED to the general fund, not given.

Do you understand the concept of a LOAN?

Sure do.. Do you understand that a debt cannot be booked to the Treasury for the same money that is spent elsewhere? That debt was never recorded. There was an (intradepartmental transfer note) placed in the T.F.

All that note is --- is a promise to issue DEBT in the future to cover the theft.. Why do you think Harry Reid called it embezzlement? Nothing of value was given to the working poor that were overcharged for SS for 35 years??

It's simple NYC '
Step 1 --- the taxpayers LOANED the government $1 for the future benefit of Soc Sec.

Step 2 -- the money was spent on stuff that had NO BENEFIT to the SS program. It was NOT used to defer future costs in any way. That's the embezzlement that Harry Reid referred to ..

Step 3 -- An IOU was placed in the ledger that exists in the FILE CABINET that I showed you last night. And the treasury never showed the IOU as a Debt on the US budget for that year. In fact, they used the stolen money to brag about "how the Clinton/Gringrich budget was balanced" and shit like that. WITH the stolen money hiding all their new spending..

Step 4 -- When SS income is no longer sufficient to pay benefits the SSA calls in some old IOUs and the Treasury credits their payment account for the money. HOWEVER -- in order to do that. The Treasury issues NEW DEBT and books it on the unified budget --- thus giving the burden to the TAXPAYERS to pay YET AGAIN for the same dollar stolen.

No "investment".. Fictious interest does not matter because whether it's there or not -- the Treasury is obligated to raise NEW cash to cover SS shortfalls. At least until Congress gets an angry mob or changes the rules.

Also why SS has been insolvent since 2010. Because if the Treasury is obligated to cover the yearly shortfalls by issuing NEW debt --- the whole fictitious T.F. accounting is totally irrelevant to what happens. It's the fairy tale designed to cover the crime..

I happen to be writing an article at this moment on where the money went. It is completely crazy to believe that a system that is mostly a pay as you go system was spent on other things. 82% of the money went to retirees (not other programs), another 10-15% is self-financed interest (again not other programs), This doesn't factor in the nearly 1 T in government subsidies that went TO Social Security. That is about double the amount that you contributed that was actually put into government securities that could be spent by the government.

Harry Reid is a politician who said by the way that SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit.

The use of the Unified Budget measure of the deficit is ideology. Social Security was pulled off budget in 1990 for good reason. Quoting the Unified Budget measure simply says that you want numbers that agree with your ideology.

 

[flacaltenn]

That surplus was SPENT.

The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.

Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.

Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?

Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT... ,,,, from the perspective of the working taxpayer..

What the general fund 'squanders' the payroll tax revenue on is of no concern to SS. The government still has to pay it back, and pay interest on it. It was LOANED to the general fund, not given.

Do you understand the concept of a LOAN?

Sure do.. Do you understand that a debt cannot be booked to the Treasury for the same money that is spent elsewhere? That debt was never recorded. There was an (intradepartmental transfer note) placed in the T.F.

All that note is --- is a promise to issue DEBT in the future to cover the theft.. Why do you think Harry Reid called it embezzlement? Nothing of value was given to the working poor that were overcharged for SS for 35 years??

It's simple NYC '
Step 1 --- the taxpayers LOANED the government $1 for the future benefit of Soc Sec.

Step 2 -- the money was spent on stuff that had NO BENEFIT to the SS program. It was NOT used to defer future costs in any way. That's the embezzlement that Harry Reid referred to ..

Step 3 -- An IOU was placed in the ledger that exists in the FILE CABINET that I showed you last night. And the treasury never showed the IOU as a Debt on the US budget for that year. In fact, they used the stolen money to brag about "how the Clinton/Gringrich budget was balanced" and shit like that. WITH the stolen money hiding all their new spending..

Step 4 -- When SS income is no longer sufficient to pay benefits the SSA calls in some old IOUs and the Treasury credits their payment account for the money. HOWEVER -- in order to do that. The Treasury issues NEW DEBT and books it on the unified budget --- thus giving the burden to the TAXPAYERS to pay YET AGAIN for the same dollar stolen.

No "investment".. Fictious interest does not matter because whether it's there or not -- the Treasury is obligated to raise NEW cash to cover SS shortfalls. At least until Congress gets an angry mob or changes the rules.

Also why SS has been insolvent since 2010. Because if the Treasury is obligated to cover the yearly shortfalls by issuing NEW debt --- the whole fictitious T.F. accounting is totally irrelevant to what happens. It's the fairy tale designed to cover the crime..

I happen to be writing an article at this moment on where the money went. It is completely crazy to believe that a system that is mostly a pay as you go system was spent on other things. 82% of the money went to retirees (not other programs), another 10-15% is self-financed interest (again not other programs), This doesn't factor in the nearly 1 T in government subsidies that went TO Social Security. That is about double the amount that you contributed that was actually put into government securities that could be spent by the government.

Harry Reid is a politician who said by the way that SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit.

The use of the Unified Budget measure of the deficit is ideology. Social Security was pulled off budget in 1990 for good reason. Quoting the Unified Budget measure simply says that you want numbers that agree with your ideology.

Well yeah. The T.F. wouldn't exist as a long term accounting gimmick under "pay as you go". And we're only talking about the mis-management of the surpluses. Not beating on the SS concept.

And the hypocrisy of Harry Reid is not unique. About 20 that I know of have been brave enough to speak out (including Al Gore shortly before he left the stage) and then done 180s and told the same old fairy tales. Reid made that speech in "overtime" on the floor. Early evening with hardly any press or other Senators. It was "plausible deniability" should the caper ever go viral.

What's AMAZING is that Obama and this Admin doesn't explain the their rising deficit and national debt numbers to the public. A considerable portion of "Obama debt" is now SS deficits. YET -- nobody on the left seems to think there's any reason to defend that debt or even acknowledge it's existence. Complete silence. The criminals on both sides have take the oath of silence.

 

[kaz]

That surplus was SPENT.

The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.

Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.

Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?

Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT... ,,,, from the perspective of the working taxpayer..

What the general fund 'squanders' the payroll tax revenue on is of no concern to SS. The government still has to pay it back, and pay interest on it. It was LOANED to the general fund, not given.

Do you understand the concept of a LOAN?

Sure do.. Do you understand that a debt cannot be booked to the Treasury for the same money that is spent elsewhere? That debt was never recorded. There was an (intradepartmental transfer note) placed in the T.F.

All that note is --- is a promise to issue DEBT in the future to cover the theft.. Why do you think Harry Reid called it embezzlement? Nothing of value was given to the working poor that were overcharged for SS for 35 years??

It's simple NYC '
Step 1 --- the taxpayers LOANED the government $1 for the future benefit of Soc Sec.

Step 2 -- the money was spent on stuff that had NO BENEFIT to the SS program. It was NOT used to defer future costs in any way. That's the embezzlement that Harry Reid referred to ..

Step 3 -- An IOU was placed in the ledger that exists in the FILE CABINET that I showed you last night. And the treasury never showed the IOU as a Debt on the US budget for that year. In fact, they used the stolen money to brag about "how the Clinton/Gringrich budget was balanced" and shit like that. WITH the stolen money hiding all their new spending..

Step 4 -- When SS income is no longer sufficient to pay benefits the SSA calls in some old IOUs and the Treasury credits their payment account for the money. HOWEVER -- in order to do that. The Treasury issues NEW DEBT and books it on the unified budget --- thus giving the burden to the TAXPAYERS to pay YET AGAIN for the same dollar stolen.

No "investment".. Fictious interest does not matter because whether it's there or not -- the Treasury is obligated to raise NEW cash to cover SS shortfalls. At least until Congress gets an angry mob or changes the rules.

Also why SS has been insolvent since 2010. Because if the Treasury is obligated to cover the yearly shortfalls by issuing NEW debt --- the whole fictitious T.F. accounting is totally irrelevant to what happens. It's the fairy tale designed to cover the crime..

I happen to be writing an article at this moment on where the money went. It is completely crazy to believe that a system that is mostly a pay as you go system was spent on other things. 82% of the money went to retirees (not other programs), another 10-15% is self-financed interest (again not other programs), This doesn't factor in the nearly 1 T in government subsidies that went TO Social Security. That is about double the amount that you contributed that was actually put into government securities that could be spent by the government.

Harry Reid is a politician who said by the way that SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit.

The use of the Unified Budget measure of the deficit is ideology. Social Security was pulled off budget in 1990 for good reason. Quoting the Unified Budget measure simply says that you want numbers that agree with your ideology.

Isn't it ironic that you're a professional writer, and you're ignoring me now because you can't face the truth.

I've agreed with a lot of what you've said. I've disagreed with others. Particularly when you asked what system is better. I'd say many of them.

but the bottom line is exactly what I said. Why ... should ... we ... give ... our ... retirement ... bills ... to ... our ... children? I mean no duh, that's a better deal for us. But it's just wrong. Even if our parents did it to us. Let's start there, it's a great starting point

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

The surplus was spent because ALL the money they receive is spent. Just like they do when they get funds from issuing Treasury securities. It doesn't matter if there is a surplus or not.

Perhaps this may surprise you, but it doesn't to anyone who has any idea what is going on - when the government gets money, it SPENDS it. This is what it does.

Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?

Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT... ,,,, from the perspective of the working taxpayer..

What the general fund 'squanders' the payroll tax revenue on is of no concern to SS. The government still has to pay it back, and pay interest on it. It was LOANED to the general fund, not given.

Do you understand the concept of a LOAN?

Sure do.. Do you understand that a debt cannot be booked to the Treasury for the same money that is spent elsewhere? That debt was never recorded. There was an (intradepartmental transfer note) placed in the T.F.

All that note is --- is a promise to issue DEBT in the future to cover the theft.. Why do you think Harry Reid called it embezzlement? Nothing of value was given to the working poor that were overcharged for SS for 35 years??

It's simple NYC '
Step 1 --- the taxpayers LOANED the government $1 for the future benefit of Soc Sec.

Step 2 -- the money was spent on stuff that had NO BENEFIT to the SS program. It was NOT used to defer future costs in any way. That's the embezzlement that Harry Reid referred to ..

Step 3 -- An IOU was placed in the ledger that exists in the FILE CABINET that I showed you last night. And the treasury never showed the IOU as a Debt on the US budget for that year. In fact, they used the stolen money to brag about "how the Clinton/Gringrich budget was balanced" and shit like that. WITH the stolen money hiding all their new spending..

Step 4 -- When SS income is no longer sufficient to pay benefits the SSA calls in some old IOUs and the Treasury credits their payment account for the money. HOWEVER -- in order to do that. The Treasury issues NEW DEBT and books it on the unified budget --- thus giving the burden to the TAXPAYERS to pay YET AGAIN for the same dollar stolen.

No "investment".. Fictious interest does not matter because whether it's there or not -- the Treasury is obligated to raise NEW cash to cover SS shortfalls. At least until Congress gets an angry mob or changes the rules.

Also why SS has been insolvent since 2010. Because if the Treasury is obligated to cover the yearly shortfalls by issuing NEW debt --- the whole fictitious T.F. accounting is totally irrelevant to what happens. It's the fairy tale designed to cover the crime..

I happen to be writing an article at this moment on where the money went. It is completely crazy to believe that a system that is mostly a pay as you go system was spent on other things. 82% of the money went to retirees (not other programs), another 10-15% is self-financed interest (again not other programs), This doesn't factor in the nearly 1 T in government subsidies that went TO Social Security. That is about double the amount that you contributed that was actually put into government securities that could be spent by the government.

Harry Reid is a politician who said by the way that SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit.

The use of the Unified Budget measure of the deficit is ideology. Social Security was pulled off budget in 1990 for good reason. Quoting the Unified Budget measure simply says that you want numbers that agree with your ideology.

Isn't it ironic that you're a professional writer, and you're ignoring me now because you can't face the truth.

I've agreed with a lot of what you've said. I've disagreed with others. Particularly when you asked what system is better. I'd say many of them.

but the bottom line is exactly what I said. Why ... should ... we ... give ... our ... retirement ... bills ... to ... our ... children? I mean no duh, that's a better deal for us. But it's just wrong. Even if our parents did it to us. Let's start there, it's a great starting point

I am not a professional writer. I write on the issue for a number of outlets. I am not sure when you asked me what was better. Social Security is actually a very sound concept. The problem with the program is that it is run like a kiddie lemonade stand, with accounting standards that would make Enron's auditors blush. The hole in the system is now so large that it will not be absorbed by a single generation. Our kids are stuck to some extent with filling it. Our job should be not making it larger. There is no way for workers today to pay-off the retirement of Boomers, much less that of Boomers, Silents, Greats, and their own.

Social Security has grown into something that was never intended through a series of cost shifts where every generation was content to screw-over their kids. We are the kids that so many hands have been wrung over.

The debate today is broken. The debate should be about what Social Security should do rather than over how we are going to pay for something that is completely broken.

 

[Fishlore]

Seriously, you don't understand the difference between me loaning money to someone else, and me loaning money to myself. You actually mean that? Seriously?

And as a finance guy, you actually, truly didn't grasp my point that whether or not there is a trust changes zero cash flows ex-ante to anyone, ANYONE, EX-ANTE

you want to look someone in the eye who knows that that means and say you don't get it? I withdraw my statement that I believe you. You are full of shit. And I mean that in the most disrespectful sort of way. In a way that most who say that to you don't. I know what I am talking about. that you don't grasp that your arguement changes zero cashflows is pathetic. If you do what you say, you should be shit canned on the spot.

Cash flows is wall street, Holmes. You don't know that? You aren't Wall Street, you are a janitor, you are a canard:

Toro: There doesn't have to be any money for something to be an asset, WTF are you talking about? Yeah, there does

You're not loaning money to yourself. You keep repeating that mistake.

Tell me the difference between the two are

1. You give the government taxes and you are credited with future SS payments

2. You give the government money for a bond which you are credited for future interest and principle payments.

Tell me what the difference is?

You buy a bond at market price and you can sell it to someone else if you choose. You don't buy the FICA tax, you pay it, and, unlike the bond which has the same price no matter who buys it, the amount of FICA you pay depends on your earned income. You can't sell or transfer you Social Security account like a bond and unlike a bond, the amount in it represents the minimum to which you are entitled. Congress can raise your entitlement and or your FICA tax independently of each other. There really is nothing in Social Security that is in any way the same as the purchase of bonds or stocks. The comparison is a tendentious fallacy invented by talk radio demagogues to arouse the faux indignation of uninformed folks indignant over their marginalization. Sad, really

That's all correct.

My point though is that SS is designed as if it were a pool of government bonds. It looks like a defined contribution pension plan that invests solely in government securities. The economics are no different though, as you rightly point out, there are differences, along with others.

Well, the economics are different because the federal government isn't going to go bankrupt and default on its pension obligation. Look, this SS bashing is stale. Right wing radio was thumping this tub in Obama's first term because the Decider made privatization a GOP issue. All the scare numbers, all the talk about how much better off you'd be playing the market, that's all over now. Not even the loonies of the two dozen loons on the GOP primary slate is going there. It is instant death for any politician. Social Security is the most popular program in US history. Congress will do WHATEVER is necessary to keep it healthy because if it doesn't POOF! and we'll have a new Congress. Time to get over it.

Give me an example of something you leftists just get over with and move on from

EXAMPLE: Stale rants from the Rush Limbaugh program that use wobbly analogies and fake facts to support bitter hatred of the America that has left the fringe right behind.

 

[flacaltenn]

Well if they SPENT IT and didn't put a debt on the books -- how could they use the surplus to "make an investment" in the T.F?

Answer -- they never did. They left it to ANOTHER set of taxpayers to prop up SS deficits. So you got the first SS surplus dollar squandered --- and NOW the taxpayers have to fork over ANOTHER NEW DOLLAR to pay benefits while the SS fund is in deficit.. QUICK --- pull up that fancy calculator on your workstation and calculate the "return on investment" for THAT... ,,,, from the perspective of the working taxpayer..

What the general fund 'squanders' the payroll tax revenue on is of no concern to SS. The government still has to pay it back, and pay interest on it. It was LOANED to the general fund, not given.

Do you understand the concept of a LOAN?

Sure do.. Do you understand that a debt cannot be booked to the Treasury for the same money that is spent elsewhere? That debt was never recorded. There was an (intradepartmental transfer note) placed in the T.F.

All that note is --- is a promise to issue DEBT in the future to cover the theft.. Why do you think Harry Reid called it embezzlement? Nothing of value was given to the working poor that were overcharged for SS for 35 years??

It's simple NYC '
Step 1 --- the taxpayers LOANED the government $1 for the future benefit of Soc Sec.

Step 2 -- the money was spent on stuff that had NO BENEFIT to the SS program. It was NOT used to defer future costs in any way. That's the embezzlement that Harry Reid referred to ..

Step 3 -- An IOU was placed in the ledger that exists in the FILE CABINET that I showed you last night. And the treasury never showed the IOU as a Debt on the US budget for that year. In fact, they used the stolen money to brag about "how the Clinton/Gringrich budget was balanced" and shit like that. WITH the stolen money hiding all their new spending..

Step 4 -- When SS income is no longer sufficient to pay benefits the SSA calls in some old IOUs and the Treasury credits their payment account for the money. HOWEVER -- in order to do that. The Treasury issues NEW DEBT and books it on the unified budget --- thus giving the burden to the TAXPAYERS to pay YET AGAIN for the same dollar stolen.

No "investment".. Fictious interest does not matter because whether it's there or not -- the Treasury is obligated to raise NEW cash to cover SS shortfalls. At least until Congress gets an angry mob or changes the rules.

Also why SS has been insolvent since 2010. Because if the Treasury is obligated to cover the yearly shortfalls by issuing NEW debt --- the whole fictitious T.F. accounting is totally irrelevant to what happens. It's the fairy tale designed to cover the crime..

I happen to be writing an article at this moment on where the money went. It is completely crazy to believe that a system that is mostly a pay as you go system was spent on other things. 82% of the money went to retirees (not other programs), another 10-15% is self-financed interest (again not other programs), This doesn't factor in the nearly 1 T in government subsidies that went TO Social Security. That is about double the amount that you contributed that was actually put into government securities that could be spent by the government.

Harry Reid is a politician who said by the way that SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit.

The use of the Unified Budget measure of the deficit is ideology. Social Security was pulled off budget in 1990 for good reason. Quoting the Unified Budget measure simply says that you want numbers that agree with your ideology.

Isn't it ironic that you're a professional writer, and you're ignoring me now because you can't face the truth.

I've agreed with a lot of what you've said. I've disagreed with others. Particularly when you asked what system is better. I'd say many of them.

but the bottom line is exactly what I said. Why ... should ... we ... give ... our ... retirement ... bills ... to ... our ... children? I mean no duh, that's a better deal for us. But it's just wrong. Even if our parents did it to us. Let's start there, it's a great starting point

I am not a professional writer. I write on the issue for a number of outlets. I am not sure when you asked me what was better. Social Security is actually a very sound concept. The problem with the program is that it is run like a kiddie lemonade stand, with accounting standards that would make Enron's auditors blush. The hole in the system is now so large that it will not be absorbed by a single generation. Our kids are stuck to some extent with filling it. Our job should be not making it larger. There is no way for workers today to pay-off the retirement of Boomers, much less that of Boomers, Silents, Greats, and their own.

Social Security has grown into something that was never intended through a series of cost shifts where every generation was content to screw-over their kids. We are the kids that so many hands have been wrung over.

The debate today is broken. The debate should be about what Social Security should do rather than over how we are going to pay for something that is completely broken.

You got the right concepts there Joe. And I think Kaz has a point. However -- that ship has sailed and there is no more surplus to fight over and the T.F. is now irrelevant. So restructuring because of past criminal mis-management doesn't matter as much as fixing it based on future projections. And you said exactly that in your last post.

But like I said -- before ANY fixes get floated -- the charade about the T.F. and the surplus needs to become common knowledge. Because that IS germane to the issue of trust and faith in the ability to handle that much money without blowing it..

The same folks hiding the problems in UNIVERSAL retirement insurance management are same morons now pushing UNIVERSAL healthcare. So the facts need to be revealed as to HOW this SS program GOT to be anything but --- UNIVERSAL..

 

[NYcarbineer]

What the general fund 'squanders' the payroll tax revenue on is of no concern to SS. The government still has to pay it back, and pay interest on it. It was LOANED to the general fund, not given.

Do you understand the concept of a LOAN?

Sure do.. Do you understand that a debt cannot be booked to the Treasury for the same money that is spent elsewhere? That debt was never recorded. There was an (intradepartmental transfer note) placed in the T.F.

All that note is --- is a promise to issue DEBT in the future to cover the theft.. Why do you think Harry Reid called it embezzlement? Nothing of value was given to the working poor that were overcharged for SS for 35 years??

It's simple NYC '
Step 1 --- the taxpayers LOANED the government $1 for the future benefit of Soc Sec.

Step 2 -- the money was spent on stuff that had NO BENEFIT to the SS program. It was NOT used to defer future costs in any way. That's the embezzlement that Harry Reid referred to ..

Step 3 -- An IOU was placed in the ledger that exists in the FILE CABINET that I showed you last night. And the treasury never showed the IOU as a Debt on the US budget for that year. In fact, they used the stolen money to brag about "how the Clinton/Gringrich budget was balanced" and shit like that. WITH the stolen money hiding all their new spending..

Step 4 -- When SS income is no longer sufficient to pay benefits the SSA calls in some old IOUs and the Treasury credits their payment account for the money. HOWEVER -- in order to do that. The Treasury issues NEW DEBT and books it on the unified budget --- thus giving the burden to the TAXPAYERS to pay YET AGAIN for the same dollar stolen.

No "investment".. Fictious interest does not matter because whether it's there or not -- the Treasury is obligated to raise NEW cash to cover SS shortfalls. At least until Congress gets an angry mob or changes the rules.

Also why SS has been insolvent since 2010. Because if the Treasury is obligated to cover the yearly shortfalls by issuing NEW debt --- the whole fictitious T.F. accounting is totally irrelevant to what happens. It's the fairy tale designed to cover the crime..

I happen to be writing an article at this moment on where the money went. It is completely crazy to believe that a system that is mostly a pay as you go system was spent on other things. 82% of the money went to retirees (not other programs), another 10-15% is self-financed interest (again not other programs), This doesn't factor in the nearly 1 T in government subsidies that went TO Social Security. That is about double the amount that you contributed that was actually put into government securities that could be spent by the government.

Harry Reid is a politician who said by the way that SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit.

The use of the Unified Budget measure of the deficit is ideology. Social Security was pulled off budget in 1990 for good reason. Quoting the Unified Budget measure simply says that you want numbers that agree with your ideology.

Isn't it ironic that you're a professional writer, and you're ignoring me now because you can't face the truth.

I've agreed with a lot of what you've said. I've disagreed with others. Particularly when you asked what system is better. I'd say many of them.

but the bottom line is exactly what I said. Why ... should ... we ... give ... our ... retirement ... bills ... to ... our ... children? I mean no duh, that's a better deal for us. But it's just wrong. Even if our parents did it to us. Let's start there, it's a great starting point

I am not a professional writer. I write on the issue for a number of outlets. I am not sure when you asked me what was better. Social Security is actually a very sound concept. The problem with the program is that it is run like a kiddie lemonade stand, with accounting standards that would make Enron's auditors blush. The hole in the system is now so large that it will not be absorbed by a single generation. Our kids are stuck to some extent with filling it. Our job should be not making it larger. There is no way for workers today to pay-off the retirement of Boomers, much less that of Boomers, Silents, Greats, and their own.

Social Security has grown into something that was never intended through a series of cost shifts where every generation was content to screw-over their kids. We are the kids that so many hands have been wrung over.

The debate today is broken. The debate should be about what Social Security should do rather than over how we are going to pay for something that is completely broken.

You got the right concepts there Joe. And I think Kaz has a point. However -- that ship has sailed and there is no more surplus to fight over and the T.F. is now irrelevant. So restructuring because of past criminal mis-management doesn't matter as much as fixing it based on future projections.

Like I said -- before ANY fixes get floated -- the charade about the T.F. and the surplus needs to become common knowledge. Because that IS germane to the issue of trust and faith in the ability to handle that much money without blowing it..

There's over 2 trillion dollars in the Trust Fund.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives have to make up lies about SS because the truth kills any hope they have of destroying it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Sure do.. Do you understand that a debt cannot be booked to the Treasury for the same money that is spent elsewhere? That debt was never recorded. There was an (intradepartmental transfer note) placed in the T.F.

All that note is --- is a promise to issue DEBT in the future to cover the theft.. Why do you think Harry Reid called it embezzlement? Nothing of value was given to the working poor that were overcharged for SS for 35 years??

It's simple NYC '
Step 1 --- the taxpayers LOANED the government $1 for the future benefit of Soc Sec.

Step 2 -- the money was spent on stuff that had NO BENEFIT to the SS program. It was NOT used to defer future costs in any way. That's the embezzlement that Harry Reid referred to ..

Step 3 -- An IOU was placed in the ledger that exists in the FILE CABINET that I showed you last night. And the treasury never showed the IOU as a Debt on the US budget for that year. In fact, they used the stolen money to brag about "how the Clinton/Gringrich budget was balanced" and shit like that. WITH the stolen money hiding all their new spending..

Step 4 -- When SS income is no longer sufficient to pay benefits the SSA calls in some old IOUs and the Treasury credits their payment account for the money. HOWEVER -- in order to do that. The Treasury issues NEW DEBT and books it on the unified budget --- thus giving the burden to the TAXPAYERS to pay YET AGAIN for the same dollar stolen.

No "investment".. Fictious interest does not matter because whether it's there or not -- the Treasury is obligated to raise NEW cash to cover SS shortfalls. At least until Congress gets an angry mob or changes the rules.

Also why SS has been insolvent since 2010. Because if the Treasury is obligated to cover the yearly shortfalls by issuing NEW debt --- the whole fictitious T.F. accounting is totally irrelevant to what happens. It's the fairy tale designed to cover the crime..

I happen to be writing an article at this moment on where the money went. It is completely crazy to believe that a system that is mostly a pay as you go system was spent on other things. 82% of the money went to retirees (not other programs), another 10-15% is self-financed interest (again not other programs), This doesn't factor in the nearly 1 T in government subsidies that went TO Social Security. That is about double the amount that you contributed that was actually put into government securities that could be spent by the government.

Harry Reid is a politician who said by the way that SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit.

The use of the Unified Budget measure of the deficit is ideology. Social Security was pulled off budget in 1990 for good reason. Quoting the Unified Budget measure simply says that you want numbers that agree with your ideology.

Isn't it ironic that you're a professional writer, and you're ignoring me now because you can't face the truth.

I've agreed with a lot of what you've said. I've disagreed with others. Particularly when you asked what system is better. I'd say many of them.

but the bottom line is exactly what I said. Why ... should ... we ... give ... our ... retirement ... bills ... to ... our ... children? I mean no duh, that's a better deal for us. But it's just wrong. Even if our parents did it to us. Let's start there, it's a great starting point

I am not a professional writer. I write on the issue for a number of outlets. I am not sure when you asked me what was better. Social Security is actually a very sound concept. The problem with the program is that it is run like a kiddie lemonade stand, with accounting standards that would make Enron's auditors blush. The hole in the system is now so large that it will not be absorbed by a single generation. Our kids are stuck to some extent with filling it. Our job should be not making it larger. There is no way for workers today to pay-off the retirement of Boomers, much less that of Boomers, Silents, Greats, and their own.

Social Security has grown into something that was never intended through a series of cost shifts where every generation was content to screw-over their kids. We are the kids that so many hands have been wrung over.

The debate today is broken. The debate should be about what Social Security should do rather than over how we are going to pay for something that is completely broken.

You got the right concepts there Joe. And I think Kaz has a point. However -- that ship has sailed and there is no more surplus to fight over and the T.F. is now irrelevant. So restructuring because of past criminal mis-management doesn't matter as much as fixing it based on future projections.

Like I said -- before ANY fixes get floated -- the charade about the T.F. and the surplus needs to become common knowledge. Because that IS germane to the issue of trust and faith in the ability to handle that much money without blowing it..

There's over 2 trillion dollars in the Trust Fund.

No.. There's over $2Trill spent on bombs, viagra, and ethanol subsidies. Does this file cabinet holding the "Trust Fund" LOOK like has $2Trill in it??

 

[NYcarbineer]

I happen to be writing an article at this moment on where the money went. It is completely crazy to believe that a system that is mostly a pay as you go system was spent on other things. 82% of the money went to retirees (not other programs), another 10-15% is self-financed interest (again not other programs), This doesn't factor in the nearly 1 T in government subsidies that went TO Social Security. That is about double the amount that you contributed that was actually put into government securities that could be spent by the government.

Harry Reid is a politician who said by the way that SS has not contributed a penny to the deficit.

The use of the Unified Budget measure of the deficit is ideology. Social Security was pulled off budget in 1990 for good reason. Quoting the Unified Budget measure simply says that you want numbers that agree with your ideology.

Isn't it ironic that you're a professional writer, and you're ignoring me now because you can't face the truth.

I've agreed with a lot of what you've said. I've disagreed with others. Particularly when you asked what system is better. I'd say many of them.

but the bottom line is exactly what I said. Why ... should ... we ... give ... our ... retirement ... bills ... to ... our ... children? I mean no duh, that's a better deal for us. But it's just wrong. Even if our parents did it to us. Let's start there, it's a great starting point

I am not a professional writer. I write on the issue for a number of outlets. I am not sure when you asked me what was better. Social Security is actually a very sound concept. The problem with the program is that it is run like a kiddie lemonade stand, with accounting standards that would make Enron's auditors blush. The hole in the system is now so large that it will not be absorbed by a single generation. Our kids are stuck to some extent with filling it. Our job should be not making it larger. There is no way for workers today to pay-off the retirement of Boomers, much less that of Boomers, Silents, Greats, and their own.

Social Security has grown into something that was never intended through a series of cost shifts where every generation was content to screw-over their kids. We are the kids that so many hands have been wrung over.

The debate today is broken. The debate should be about what Social Security should do rather than over how we are going to pay for something that is completely broken.

You got the right concepts there Joe. And I think Kaz has a point. However -- that ship has sailed and there is no more surplus to fight over and the T.F. is now irrelevant. So restructuring because of past criminal mis-management doesn't matter as much as fixing it based on future projections.

Like I said -- before ANY fixes get floated -- the charade about the T.F. and the surplus needs to become common knowledge. Because that IS germane to the issue of trust and faith in the ability to handle that much money without blowing it..

There's over 2 trillion dollars in the Trust Fund.

No.. There's over $2Trill spent on bombs, viagra, and ethanol subsidies. Does this file cabinet holding the "Trust Fund" LOOK like has $2Trill in it??

It holds 2 trillion in US securities that worth as much as any US security anyone holds. The safest investment in the world.

 

[flacaltenn]

Conservatives have to make up lies about SS because the truth kills any hope they have of destroying it.

Think with me for a minute here NYC --- If there's $2Trill of cold hard cash in the SS T.F. --

Then why did Obama and Dems claim that seniors would not get paid their benefits if the debt ceiling was not constantly raised? Actually they are CORRECT here. But WHY would paying out the T.F. affect the debt ceiling?

Need an answer here...

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Conservatives have to make up lies about SS because the truth kills any hope they have of destroying it.

The people you are calling conservatives are also known as the Trustees of the Trust Funds. So you are saying that the Trustees are right wing conservatives intent upon destroying the system? Have you thought that one through?

Yes the Trust Fund holds $2.8 trillion. It is held against liabilities of more than $28 trillion. The difference is the decimal point.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Conservatives have to make up lies about SS because the truth kills any hope they have of destroying it.

Think with me for a minute here NYC --- If there's $2Trill of cold hard cash in the SS T.F. --

Then why did Obama and Dems claim that seniors would not get paid their benefits if the debt ceiling was not constantly raised? Actually they are CORRECT here. But WHY would paying out the T.F. affect the debt ceiling?

Need an answer here...

That isn't what Obama said - you need to watch words. I have a recent article on the debt ceiling and Social Security. I have ones that deal specifically with Obama's quote from 2012.

Social Security, the Debt Ceiling and Partisan Politics : FedSmith.com

 

[flacaltenn]

First of all -- the word Obama doesn't appear in your link. And I'm 99% certain he demagogued this point to death during the "debt ceiling" debates.

Secondly --- I'm shocked you're buying into crap like ---

The debt held by the Social Security Trust Fund can be refinanced without increasing the total debt outstanding. The government has to issue bonds which will increase the debt outstanding. The proceeds are, however, used to pay down debt. The net impact on total outstanding debt is zero. - See more at: Social Security, the Debt Ceiling and Partisan Politics : FedSmith.com

That's another version of the Quantitative Easing trick. Where the government buys its own debt by printing money. We've had about as much of that as we can. And I seriously doubt that this trick really works with "intragovernmental transfer notes" because that cash doesn't benefit the open bond market and has no financial upside to the quality of the Treasury credit to the rest of the world. And to my knowledge --- it's never been done..

 

[flacaltenn]

You're seriously gonna lose on "what Obama threatened" about the ability to pay full SS checks during these ceiling debates ----

http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...-deadline-default-government-shutdown-2013-10

Early Thursday morning, Potomac Research Group analyst Greg Valliere predicted that if the debt-ceiling deadline grew closer, President Barack Obama would play his "trump card" in the debate. He would remind seniors that if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks.

A few hours later, Obama did just that during a speech at M. Luis Construction Company in Rockville, Md. He spent much of the speech warning that while the ongoing government shutdown was damaging, failure to raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline would be even worse.

"In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown — if we don't raise the debt ceiling — they don't go out on time," Obama said. "In a government shutdown, disability benefits still arrive on time. In an economic shutdown, they don't."

 

[thereisnospoon]

There is much discussion on this on this board. Almost any time SS and it's solvency (or lack thereof) is discussed, everyone talks about how SS has been "raided" and used to pay for other things. The problem here is that most of you, Democrat and Republican alike, who say this don't have a clue what you're talking about. So here, I'll explain it to you. I'd like to say that we could put the issue to rest once and for all, but I doubt that will be the case.

Before I begin, a prediction: Many of you will rush to respond without bothering to read, and in the process you'll jump to conclusions and make an ass out of yourself. Some will rail off on wild tangents. Many dissenters will be folks who claim to be conservatives, but are really just fake ass Cinos who like to complain and whine, and will be completely oblivious to the highly damaging implications I'll be presenting against the entire SS system. But you'll feel good because touching yourself always feels good. Many dissenters will be liberals, who will "like" this post, will note the Cinos dissenting for all the wrong reasons, and based upon that, will launch into your Hooray for Government dance, as if idiots being wrong instantly means that government is the solution to all our problems. Finally, if most people are adequately drawn to my blue highlighting of this paragraph so as to read it, and subsequently see their planned reaction described herein, few responses will be made because you'll realize that you've already been identified and you're now embarrassed at how much of an ass of yourself you were about to make.

Okay, now that that's cleared up, let's talk about the Social Security Trust, and what happens to the money.....

Overall, the Social Security Trust is fairly simple. Money goes in with the express purpose of being used to fund Social Security. It can't be used to pay to fuel up Air Force One for Obama's latest golfing venture. Simple. That being said, money static is money lost. That is to say, if money just sits on the coffee table, it's not doing anything except sitting there. In our personal lives most people know that building up a nest egg of cash that is doing nothing typically means lost opportunities. We could invest that money and make more money. Even something as simple and safe as putting it into a Certificate of Deposit with your bank might return a little bit of cash, all while you sit back and play video games for the next 18 months. If you're not going to be using your nest egg anyway, it's like giving up free money to just let it sit there.

That's why many, many years ago Congress passed a law that requires excess funds in the Social Security Trust to be "invested." Instead of just sitting there and collecting dust, the excess is invested and collects interest, which is then rolled back into the Trust. This "investing" is done in the form of intra-governmental loans. Basically, the government borrows money from itself, on a short term basis, in pretty much the same fashion as other government borrowing occurs. A bond is given to the Trust, and a few months later the Trust is repaid with interest.

Now, you might be thinking that "Well, this really does amount to raiding the SS Trust to pay for other things." On it's surface, it might appear that way. But in reality, it's not that way. And there are two reasons for that:

1 - At it's core, it's little more more than moving around cash. If your car broke down on Wed and you were short on cash, causing you to transfer $500 from your savings into your checking until payday Friday, at which point you put back the $500 plus added your normal per-paycheck savings contribution, would you call that "raiding" your savings account to pay you mechanic? Of course not. All you did was move your own cash around so that your check won't bounce.

2 - The law requires that the Trust be invested in his way. It doesn't matter how much or how little the government is spending on other things. Congress could pass a balanced budget, and the same thing would happen. Heck, the Congress could pass a budget that only authorizes $1,500 in spending, and the same thing would still happen. The Trust would still be invested, and the government would still borrow from itself.

This is why you may have heard such seemingly absurd things as "The debt is $18 trillion, but the real dept is only $10 trillion." What the "real" debt refers to is the amount of debt that is not in the form of intra-governmental loans; intra-governmental loans are included in the official calculation of the debt, so a sizable part of the $18 trillion includes cash that the government has just shifted around between accounts. (***Note: I do not know the actual figures off the top of my head, the $10 trillion amount is merely an explanatory tool).

Now that we understand that investing the excess funds in the Social Security Trust by means of intra-governmental debt is a long standing legal requirement that happens without regard to how much the government spends, some people might be ready to rejoice in the alleged marvel that is the Social Security system. Some might feel relieved that in fact the SS Trust is not being "raided" and might even see this as evidence that SS can remain solvent for many decades to come. But don't be so fast to celebrate. Because everything I've just said actually underscores the fact that Social Security is a drain on the American economy, and on the taxpayer.

As I explained, when excess funds from the SS Trust are loaned out to other parts of the government they are paid back with interest. This brings more money into the Trust. That money didn't come from your SS payroll taxes. It comes directly from your income tax. You are investing more money into the SS Trust than just your SS taxes!! The SS Trust is like a black hole. It sucks in money from every direction, and all it spits out are the decayed remnants of what's left over.

The amount of money a person receives in terms of SS retirement benefits will almost always be less than what you've paid into it as SS taxes. And now that we understand that we invest more than just our SS taxes into the SS Trust, the disparity of return is understood to be even greater. Allowing individuals to retain their SS taxes would allow them to instead invest those funds into retirement plans that would yield better returns, resulting in having more funds available for their own retirement. Additionally, the interest that the SS Trust sucks in from the taxpayers would result in a net savings of government expenses, allowing for lower deficits.

"Invested".....Unsuccessfully. Or more accurately, on nonsense. Hence the reason why SS is going broke.
The fact is, SS, like most pension plans, is a ponzi scheme.
The tax ( and yes SS is a tax) is collected from those currently in the workforce and use to pay those collecting SS. The bad part is for many reasons, one being illegals being paid under the table, and another is a growing underground economy where instead of creating a paper trail many people are doing business in cash or by barter and of course the most prevalent issue that the labor participation rate is at it's lowest in 4 decades. The SS system is an abject failure and should be scrapped.
The new system should tax EVERY person. No ceiling. Federal workers should be placed on the SS system THat would add over two million people contributing.
The system should be such that every dime taken from an individual is HIS or HERS. The money placed in some kind of interest bearing account or investment vehicle such as a low risk mutual fund. Upon that person's retirement, the money is then disbursed back to the person from which it was taken.
No more of this crap of using creative accounting so that the retiree only gets a portion deemed by government to be appropriate. The person earned it. It is THEIR money.

 

[thereisnospoon]

One minor quibble is that government has gotten used to these loans to provide part of the budget. Plus as long as SS has a collection surplus, they really don't have to "pay back" anything, new loans are made as the old ones are "cashed out".

Beyond personal finance, once SS becomes non-self sufficient, no more loans will be made, and SS will have to collect on the loans outstanding.

I'm going to disagree with your opening premise. Investing excess cash in the Trust is always going happen, regardless of spending by Congress. It does not fund other parts of the budget. It merely uses cash on hand now, and redirects incoming cash next week or next month back into the SS Trust. If the SS Trust did not have an excess for intra-governmental loans, the cash would be obtained by selling bonds to extra-governmental entities.

You seem to be under a false idea that government's debts are akin to a maxed credit card of $10,000 where the holder only pays the $25 minimum payment each month. Government debt is accrued by the selling of short term bonds. You give us $1000 now, we'll give you $1050 in three months (actual maturation periods vary). This is a continual cycling that occurs. The cash in the SS Trust that is loaned out is constantly being repaid, and subsequently reloaned.

The only thing is there is no "investment". Not in the sense that the money is taken to be placed in some sort of vehicle whereby there is a positive return.
No, this so called investment is merely a payment to some social obligation or social pact. Meaning, it gets spent on some entitlement program, never to be seen again. In simple terms, a rat hole.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives have to make up lies about SS because the truth kills any hope they have of destroying it.

The people you are calling conservatives are also known as the Trustees of the Trust Funds. So you are saying that the Trustees are right wing conservatives intent upon destroying the system? Have you thought that one through?

Yes the Trust Fund holds $2.8 trillion. It is held against liabilities of more than $28 trillion. The difference is the decimal point.

Nothing you say above is backed up by any evidence.

 

[auditor0007]

And the problem is that we are now at the point that there are no excess funds, so we now must pay back the trust to meet its obligations.

Would you really care whether the money was borrowed from the Trust Fund or China? The problem is at some point we have to pay back our obligations. The name on the check doesn't really make a difference.

I don't care where the money was borrowed from. The fact is that it now must be paid back. The other and bigger problem is that now we need more revenue because there are no excess funds available to cover the shortages in the general fund.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You're seriously gonna lose on "what Obama threatened" about the ability to pay full SS checks during these ceiling debates ----

http://www.businessinsider.com/obam...-deadline-default-government-shutdown-2013-10

Early Thursday morning, Potomac Research Group analyst Greg Valliere predicted that if the debt-ceiling deadline grew closer, President Barack Obama would play his "trump card" in the debate. He would remind seniors that if Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, seniors wouldn't get their Social Security checks.

A few hours later, Obama did just that during a speech at M. Luis Construction Company in Rockville, Md. He spent much of the speech warning that while the ongoing government shutdown was damaging, failure to raise the debt ceiling by an Oct. 17 deadline would be even worse.

"In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shutdown — if we don't raise the debt ceiling — they don't go out on time," Obama said. "In a government shutdown, disability benefits still arrive on time. In an economic shutdown, they don't."

I hadn't seen that speech. I had only heard the 60 minutes piece with Scott Pelley. Obama was simply wrong. The law is clear about Social Securities resources. In fact, I think that Social Security can use Trust Fund resources to pay administrative costs. He was baiting seniors, and I am sorry you bit on it. In the Pelley segment, he referred to 'those checks' so you could argue about which checks to which he was referring. Here he is wrong. The checks are sent electronically. The seniors would get their money unless the Federal Reserve didn't open.