Social Security does not add to the deficit

[auditor0007]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

If I'm not mistaken they have had to borrow to cover the SS short fall for last 3-4 years. Maobama payroll tax cut played a huge roll in that. Ya cut funding to a program that was just barely sustaining itself without reducing expenditures you have to cover the difference and pay interest on the borrowed money.

While I agree completely with what you're saying, this shit has gone on for a long time and by Republicans just as much as Dems. I mean seriously, do we need to discuss paying for two wars while cutting tax rates?

 

[auditor0007]

Social Security doesn't add one penny to the deficit. Not one penny...

Look Lakhota, somebody has to pay the IOU's. They aren't going to pay themselves. We have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. Maybe we should just rob Peter, that way we won't have to pay him back.

 

[Lakhota]

What are the Social Security Trust Funds?
How are the trust funds invested?
What interest rate do the trust funds' assets earn?
What happens to the taxes that go into the trust funds?
If all the income is invested, how do benefits get paid each month?
What were the amounts of securities bought and sold during recent years?
Why do some people describe the "special issue" securities held by the trust funds as worthless IOUs? What is SSA's reaction to this criticism?
Can the Social Security Trust Funds remain solvent without making changes to the program?
Were the assets of the Social Security Trust Funds depleted in the past?

Trust Fund FAQs

 

[Clementine]

Of course, Social Security is not supposed to add to the deficit. It is not part of the budget, nor does it matter whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.

Yet, during the last debate on raising the debt ceiling, Obama tried to scare the elderly by telling them that he couldn't guarantee that their checks would come. That was wrong of him to do that and he should have known better than to lie to them in hopes they would pressure their congress critters to agree to raising the debt ceiling. Dirty politics and there was no excuse for that.

Obama also threatened military, active and retired, that they might not get paid. Technically, he could withhold their pay. Of course, the one group that was never threatened was the government dependents. Come hell or high water, his voter base will get their money.

There is supposed to be a lockbox for social security. That didn't stop politicians from getting their paws on that money. It didn't stop them from allowing people who never paid into it to collect.

Of course, initially social security was supposed to be optional, not mandatory. It wasn't supposed to be taxed. It was Dems who changed the rules over the years and put the fund in jeopardy.

Because so many are collecting and there are fewer tax payers, it has proven to be nothing but a Ponzi scheme, which many knew it was in the beginning.

I hope Obama has the sense not to threaten old people during the next debt ceiling debate, but I wouldn't put anything past him.

And the OP needs to send Obama the above article since the Repubs here already know that SS does not add to the deficit. SS would be a little stronger if the government would pay back the trillion dollars it owes the fund.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Social Security doesn't add one penny to the deficit. Not one penny...

Look Lakhota, somebody has to pay the IOU's. They aren't going to pay themselves. We have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. Maybe we should just rob Peter, that way we won't have to pay him back.

However Congress decides to do it, I dont care, but they owe me and millions of other citizens for the decades that we have paid into the system, and adjusted for inflation is probably quite a pretty penny.

Defaulting on that debt will start a shit storm.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Of course, Social Security is not supposed to add to the deficit. It is not part of the budget, nor does it matter whether the debt ceiling is raised or not.

Yet, during the last debate on raising the debt ceiling, Obama tried to scare the elderly by telling them that he couldn't guarantee that their checks would come. That was wrong of him to do that and he should have known better than to lie to them in hopes they would pressure their congress critters to agree to raising the debt ceiling. Dirty politics and there was no excuse for that.

Obama also threatened military, active and retired, that they might not get paid. Technically, he could withhold their pay. Of course, the one group that was never threatened was the government dependents. Come hell or high water, his voter base will get their money.

There is supposed to be a lockbox for social security.

Lockbox? You made me spew my soda, dangit. lololol

That didn't stop politicians from getting their paws on that money. It didn't stop them from allowing people who never paid into it to collect.

Of course, initially social security was supposed to be optional, not mandatory. It wasn't supposed to be taxed. It was Dems who changed the rules over the years and put the fund in jeopardy.

Because so many are collecting and there are fewer tax payers, it has proven to be nothing but a Ponzi scheme, which many knew it was in the beginning.

I hope Obama has the sense not to threaten old people during the next debt ceiling debate, but I wouldn't put anything past him.

And the OP needs to send Obama the above article since the Repubs here already know that SS does not add to the deficit. SS would be a little stronger if the government would pay back the trillion dollars it owes the fund.

Actually it's not a Ponzi scheme, for if it were it would have run out of money within a few years of it being launched.

 

[Lakhota]

Social Security doesn't add one penny to the deficit. Not one penny...

Look Lakhota, somebody has to pay the IOU's. They aren't going to pay themselves. We have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul. Maybe we should just rob Peter, that way we won't have to pay him back.

That's right - just like the government has to pay bond interest to China and other holders of U.S. debt. The government owes Social Security money - hence, must pay interest. Damn, is that so hard to understand.

 

[Lakhota]

Who are the largest holders of US Debt?

Most of the US debt is held by the US citizens only. Foreign holdings of US debt is only 30% of the total debt. China and Japan combine holdings is 50% of all foreign holdings which means 15% of total US debt is held by US. Here are the some of the largest holders of US debt:

1. Social Security Trust Fund

Holds total of $2.67 trillion debt which is 19% of the total debt.
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds invest exclusively in special issue bonds that are only available to the Social Security trust fund. These are not publicly traded securities, but they still constitute a huge amount of debt.​

2. The Federal Reserve

Holds total of $1.63 trillion of treasuries which is 11.3% of the total debt.
The Treasury owes the Fed $1.63 trillion in Treasuries, much of which were bought for the Quantitative Easing programs.​

3. China

Holds $1.6 trillion of treasuries which is 8% of total debt.
China is the highest holder of US debt among the foreign buyers.
​

4. US Households

Holds total of $959.4 Billion of treasuries which is 6.6% of the total US debt.
Household sector includes Hedge funds too, so no surprise that the percentage holdings are high.​

5. Japan

Holds $ 912.4 Billion of treasuries which is 6.4% of total US debt.
Japan happens to be the second highest holder of the US debt among the foreign holders.​

6. State and Local Governments

Holds $506.1 Billion of US treasuries which is 3.5% of the total debt of the US.
​

7. Private Pension Funds

Holds $504.7 billion of US treasuries which is almost 3.5% of total debt.​

8. United Kingdom

Holds $346.5 Billion of US treasuries which is 2.4% of total debt
UK is the third largest holder of US debt among foreign debt holders.
​

9. Money Market Mutual Funds

Holds $337.7 billions of US treasuries which is 2.4% of total debt.​

10. State, Local and Federal retirement funds

Holds $320.9 Billion of US treasuries which is 2.2% of total debt.​

There are other holders of US treasuries including Commercial Banks, Mutual Funds, Oil Exporting companies, Brazil, Caribbean banking Centers, Hong Kong.

Who are the largest holders of US Debt? » WEALTHSON | WEALTHSON

 

[Lakhota]

Senator Calls Out Social Security Haters

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't know. Maybe it's because your candidates have made sure Social security has absolutely zero money in the coffers since you guys started raiding it decades ago and we can do math.

It hasn't been 'raided'. It's been invested by loaning it out for the purpose of generating interest income.

Umm, yeah, Congress is 'loaning' the surplus to itself, kind of like the mob does with pension funds, but the mob goes to jail for that sort of thing, dont they?

And your idea is what? Put it in safety deposit boxes and let inflation and the lack of investment interest make it all deteriorate in value over time?

 

[uscitizen]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

If I'm not mistaken they have had to borrow to cover the SS short fall for last 3-4 years. Maobama payroll tax cut played a huge roll in that. Ya cut funding to a program that was just barely sustaining itself without reducing expenditures you have to cover the difference and pay interest on the borrowed money.

What is the total in the SS trust fund?
Many just do not want to repay the citizens of the USA the money they spent of theirs.
They would rather give a half billion to Amgen.

 

[westwall]

Wiseacre is a supreme idiot. Really...

Why don't you stop running your mouth and offer an explanation as to why what I said is wrong. I tried to dumb it down for you.

You simply can't dumb it down to lacky's and nudlites level, they are so dumb they are off the scale.

 

[westwall]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

If I'm not mistaken they have had to borrow to cover the SS short fall for last 3-4 years. Maobama payroll tax cut played a huge roll in that. Ya cut funding to a program that was just barely sustaining itself without reducing expenditures you have to cover the difference and pay interest on the borrowed money.

What is the total in the SS trust fund?
Many just do not want to repay the citizens of the USA the money they spent of theirs.
They would rather give a half billion to Amgen.

Or Solyndra, or a whole host of other friends of Obama's companies. And so it go's

 

[Lakhota]

Example: When someone deposits money into their bank savings account - what does the bank do with that money? The bank loans it out to others.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It hasn't been 'raided'. It's been invested by loaning it out for the purpose of generating interest income.

Umm, yeah, Congress is 'loaning' the surplus to itself, kind of like the mob does with pension funds, but the mob goes to jail for that sort of thing, dont they?

And your idea is what? Put it in safety deposit boxes and let inflation and the lack of investment interest make it all deteriorate in value over time?

I have more than just one idea, but loaning the money to the general budget kinda defeats the purpose of seperating SSA from the general budget.

One thing we could do is set up a program where people can invest their money like a thrift savings plan or 401k. Where you can look at a balance every day if you want, put it in differing types of investments (one of which would be government bonds where I have my money, lol), and YOU would have control of it. To do what Congress is doing today, you would just put your account 100% into G bonds, same diff, but its acountable.

The way things stand now, Congress is talking like SSA is already busted just because they have had to draw off some of those bonds, and I doubt US treasury bonds/bills are always the best investment. So why cant we have a choice?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Example: When someone deposits money into their bank savings account - what does the bank do with that money? The bank loans it out to others.

But its YOUR choice to put your money in that bank, and anyone that doesnt know the bank will loan it out is an idiot.

But even with the bank, you can put your money into all kinds of options, but with SSA, you have no choice, no accountability, no personal verifiability, and it doesnt FEEL like a retirement account at all. It feels like just another government entitlement that Congrescritters may very well tempt themselves to default on..

 

[Lakhota]

Social Security was designed as a "safety net" - not a gambling fund.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Yes it does, and this is why. According to the Social Security Trust Fund (SSTF), in 2011 it took in 45 billion less than it paid out. That is a deficit that must be paid for by borrowing money and adding to the deficit. Democrats love to play word games to convince the public there is no problem, but in fact the US Treasury had to borrow money to transfer to the SSTF to cover the $45 billion deficit last year. And in the future that deficit will become larger.

If I'm not mistaken they have had to borrow to cover the SS short fall for last 3-4 years. Maobama payroll tax cut played a huge roll in that. Ya cut funding to a program that was just barely sustaining itself without reducing expenditures you have to cover the difference and pay interest on the borrowed money.

What is the total in the SS trust fund?
Many just do not want to repay the citizens of the USA the money they spent of theirs.
They would rather give a half billion to Amgen.

SSN Trust fund is approximately 2.732 TRILLION.

Trust Fund Data

 

[Charles_Main]

Fact-checkers Sputter And Flop Attempting To Explain How Social Security Works, Affects Deficit

Social Security, by law, does not add to the deficit. It is not a driver of long-term debt. We’ve been over this. The reason no one can get it right is because here in this season of the fiscal cliff, no one is getting anything right. It’s a full-on headless chicken panic. Everyone needs to calm down, about a lot of things, but especially about Social Security, which does not even have to come up during the “fiscal cliff talks” because it’s totally irrelevant to the situation and will only complicate everything needlessly.

So, why do Rs want to take (previously earned and therefore entitled to) money away from the elderly?

When our leaders use the slush fund to fund the General Budget. It sure as hell does.

Nice try though.

 

[Charles_Main]

When you count only Normal SS benefits paid out you are right. But that means ignoring the money spend on SSD, and SSI.

lol