Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit

S.S. is funded separately. This the not the government 'borrowing from itself'.

"Separately" from what? Social Security isn't part of the government? Where is the non-government fund?

Can anyone really be this stupid?
 
It is bankrupt. you see money that has already been spent, isn't there any more.

This is called basic finance people.

Depends on who's where in line if the U.S. government begins failing to meet its obligations.

Who's first? The Chinese or Social Security?

Wrong. It doesn't depend on that. If the government ever renigs on payment to bond holders, it will instantly lose the ability borrow any more money. How do you imagine it will issue checks to Social Security beneficiaries then?
 
From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

...why should Social Security be expected to make financial sacrifices for having invested its revenues in U.S. treasuries,

with the implied, and reasonably expected, full faith and credit of the US government behind those bonds??

Social Security won't be making any sacrifices, turd. The taxpayers will be making all the sacrifices. The question is, why should your children and grandchildren live like paupers so you can't get a government check?
 
Well, the solution is relatively simple. A 6.2% SS tax on all income right to the top. A means testing for those getting SS. No SS that would push an income to over $70,000 a year. In other words, if you have an income of $50,000, your SS is cut off at $20,000.

So the system is fully funded and can actually pay a bit more to those on the low end. And you have the means testing the GOP states it desires. In fact, you might even be able to fund Medicare out of the new income.

You can take your tax increases and stick them where the sun don't shine.

You propose turning SS into a welfare program. Why not just admit it and make it means tested?
 
Social Security has always made surplus income, it is the only beurocracy that does, That's a no brainer duh.The main thing that is killing this country is politicians, greedy ones at that. The more people you have working the wider the tax base, or does that make too much sence for you. Want a stronger America bring back our jobs. This my country not the efin third world.
 
From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

...why should Social Security be expected to make financial sacrifices for having invested its revenues in U.S. treasuries,

with the implied, and reasonably expected, full faith and credit of the US government behind those bonds??
From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

Why have the program at all?....It certainly hasn't been run in a logical, ethical, sensible way.

If sucking out and squandering the cash reserves on federal programs, meant to do little more than buy votes from favored constituencies, isn't evidence of this, what would be?
 
All that's in the "trust fund" are a bunch of T-bills, which are no more than yet-to-be-collected taxes from (in many cases) yet-to-be-born taxpayers.

If anyone ran "trust fund" like that out in the real world, they'd be behind bars.

How do you think a trust fund is run in the real world?

the managers buy stocks and bonds - You know, things that have real value, not worthless government I.O.U.s

Lol...wow. where to begin? Let's start here:

Do you think most trust funds have any bonds in them? munibonds? t-bills?

Do you think that piece of paper guaranteeing you rights to ownership in Lucent has "real value"?
How about the for ownership in Bear Stearns?
 
Last edited:
Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit
Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has taken exception to the popular notion that Social Security is going broke. In response to a recent Associated Press story, EPI’s Monique Morrissey pointed that the Congressional Budget Office—the source for AP’s dire account—has reported the trust fund for Social Security is actually still growing. It projects the fund to increase from $2.5 trillion this year to $3.8 trillion by 2020. AllGov - News - Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit


If it has a surplus why is it that people on social security haven't seen a cost of living raise the past 2 years? I know because my son get SS after his mother passed away.
 
From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

...why should Social Security be expected to make financial sacrifices for having invested its revenues in U.S. treasuries,

with the implied, and reasonably expected, full faith and credit of the US government behind those bonds??

Investing? Is that what they call out right robbery nowadays?

I'll take that as an admission you don't have an argument for it.
 
From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

...why should Social Security be expected to make financial sacrifices for having invested its revenues in U.S. treasuries,

with the implied, and reasonably expected, full faith and credit of the US government behind those bonds??

Investing? Is that what they call out right robbery nowadays?

I'll take that as an admission you don't have an argument for it.

You really need to change your sig. It's a little out of date.....especially since Nov 2, 2010 when you got your flabby asses kicked to the curb.
 
Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit
Thursday, March 25, 2010

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) has taken exception to the popular notion that Social Security is going broke. In response to a recent Associated Press story, EPI’s Monique Morrissey pointed that the Congressional Budget Office—the source for AP’s dire account—has reported the trust fund for Social Security is actually still growing. It projects the fund to increase from $2.5 trillion this year to $3.8 trillion by 2020. AllGov - News - Social Security Has a Surplus Not a Deficit


Yup SS is solvent.

It is just now starting to spend more than it bring in and assuming that the government continues to pay back the money the SSA LOANED to the government, SS will remain solvent until about 2050.
 
It is amazing how many people are unfamiliar with the concept of an IOU.

It's amazing how many people think you can give an IOU to yourself, spend the money, and then still have funds.

That characterization is wrong. SS is funded by the payroll tax, not general revenues. SS buys US bonds, historically the safest investment in the world.

Yes there are politicians and others who want to mischaracterize this situation because they want the people who have paid into and are paying into SS take a big hit on their investment in order to alleviate woes elsewhere in the government that have nothing to do with SS.

Granted, SS should be rationalized actuarily, that is, SS should be modified to assure that the payouts don't wildly exceed the revenues taken in,

but to blame SS for our fiscal woes, or to characterize SS as bankrupt, is bullshit.
 
From a logical, ethical, sensible perspective...

...why should Social Security be expected to make financial sacrifices for having invested its revenues in U.S. treasuries,

with the implied, and reasonably expected, full faith and credit of the US government behind those bonds??

Investing? Is that what they call out right robbery nowadays?

I'll take that as an admission you don't have an argument for it.


The financial statements prepared by the Treasury Department which use proper accrual accounting show that SS and Medicare are technically insolvent. The net present value of Social Insurance programs for 2010 is a negative figure: ($30.9 Trillion).

Current Report: Financial Report of the United States: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service


The Federal Government's budgetary process is a financial fraud.
 
Investing? Is that what they call out right robbery nowadays?

I'll take that as an admission you don't have an argument for it.


The financial statements prepared by the Treasury Department which use proper accrual accounting show that SS and Medicare are technically insolvent. The net present value of Social Insurance programs for 2010 is a negative figure: ($30.9 Trillion).

Current Report: Financial Report of the United States: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service


The Federal Government's budgetary process is a financial fraud.

I don't put much stock in statistics that are prefaced by a disclaimer that they probably aren't accurate.
 
I'll take that as an admission you don't have an argument for it.

You really need to change your sig. It's a little out of date.....especially since Nov 2, 2010 when you got your flabby asses kicked to the curb.

lol, fuck off grandpa. DADT got repealed since 11/2/10, another major defeat for conservatism.

Oh boy, you got something for your friends. Whooopeeee. We let you have that so you wouldn't cry and whine after Nov 2, 2010. Big sissy.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top