Social Security is Not a Ponzi Scheme, Mr. Perry

[JakeStarkey]

Truth is hard for those on the Left In fact, it is there worst enemy Anyone who makes the silly claim that it can be easily remedied is disingenuous or politically naive But since someone made the silly claim, they can give us objective evidence (numbers) of these "easy political" fixes, please Most posters know, that these will not be forthcoming from the source of these silly claims

Two liberal economists can't be wrong

Again

The Hard Left wingers are just fearful of any reform that would make the gov't's role less and replace it with more personal responsibility.

God forbid, people should have more control over their own money
After all, what good is a gov't program for a statist, if they can't hang it over peoples'
head every election to get votes through false promises or fear​

Some of the above makes some sense, but the concept that the Hard Right has anymore sense than the Hard Left is silly. Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both hate the workers and the every day citizen.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The issue with the loans is they can not be redeemed on demand for cash without borrowing.

I'm not aware of ANY loans that can be redeemed on demand for cash without borrowing. If I have cash on hand to redeem a loan - why did I need the loan in the first place? Even when you redeem the funds in your bank account for cash, if the bank goes below their reserve limit after that redemption, they have to borrow.

 

[flacaltenn]

You are getting too retarded to talk to. Did Social Security make all its recipient payments last year or not?

They were able to pay every dollar to beneficiaries. But the $40BIll that they were short because of revenue deficit had to be covered by NEW DEBT issued in 2010. It did not come out of the Trust Fund.. There are now TWO Debt instruments to cover $40Bill that was stolen in the past.

1) The phoney IOU in the trust fund when excess FICA was stolen with all it's elaborate accounting ruses.. AND
2) The NEW T-Bond issued in 2010 to cover an actual shortfall. Payable to Japan, China or maybe someone on USMB like me.

It was not because of "interest payments" on the IOUs.

You paid excess FICA for 30 yrs. And now when SS is actually running a deficit -- you will pay again. WITH interest. The Trust Fund is an accounting fiction.

If the Trust Fund had real investments with real value -- the Treasury wouldn't need to put today's taxpayers on the hook for $40Bill NEW dollars to pay back $40BILL that was stolen from them in the past..

'We' pay the interest on the Trust Fund because the Trust Fund invests in US treasuries. If the Trust Fund didn't invest in US treasuries 'we' would have borrowed the money elsewhere and still have paid the interest.

If the Trust Fund invested in marketable securities we STILL would have to pay the interest on them, and,

as to the marketability of them? If the US was in default, where would the Trust Fund sell them?

Use your head.

What is in the Trust Fund is NOT MARKETABLE by definition. They are non-transferable "special issue" notes.. At best an IOU. A promise use FUTURE taxpayers to pay again for the same stolen FICA. You're still not getting the diff.

The diff is that you could LOSE the entire file cabinet containing those IOUS and it would make NO DIFFERENCE in how SS deficits are gonna get covered. They are getting covered with NEW DEBT that has just been issued. Past Congresses took the excess premiums and never did anything to fund future liabilities. NO INVESTMENT of any kind..

If that excess FICA had bought REAL open market EXISTING treasuries, no NEW debt would have been created. It was already out there. Just transferred title. COULD be bought and sold at any time. COULD be a source of real cash for shortfalls.. Excess FICA would have purchased an investment. And taxpayers would see NO NEW DEBT being issued to cover shortfalls. Only the Debt Instruments that had already been issued on the open market..

If you don't get that diff --- you're hopelessly marooned..

 

[MiddleClass]

Gore was right when he stated we should put a lock box on the Social Security Fund, as decades of borrowing from it to pay for social programs has placed our government in a huge IOU situation. Democrats could only pass social welfare programs with Republican help, and Republicans only went along if the money was borrowed from the social security fund to pay for these programs. Not a ponzi scheme, as some lie about, but a practice that has left most American's only retirement money in deep jeopardy.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Gore was right when he stated we should put a lock box on the Social Security Fund, as decades of borrowing from it to pay for social programs has placed our government in a huge IOU situation.

It wouldn't have changed a damn thing, the same debt would just be owned by the public instead of by the Trust Fund.

Democrats could only pass social welfare programs with Republican help, and Republicans only went along if the money was borrowed from the social security fund to pay for these programs

.

Bullshit. the debt burden on the general fund is the same.

 

[saveliberty]

The issue with the loans is they can not be redeemed on demand for cash without borrowing.

I'm not aware of ANY loans that can be redeemed on demand for cash without borrowing. If I have cash on hand to redeem a loan - why did I need the loan in the first place? Even when you redeem the funds in your bank account for cash, if the bank goes below their reserve limit after that redemption, they have to borrow.

Its called cash flow dipwad.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The issue with the loans is they can not be redeemed on demand for cash without borrowing.

I'm not aware of ANY loans that can be redeemed on demand for cash without borrowing. If I have cash on hand to redeem a loan - why did I need the loan in the first place? Even when you redeem the funds in your bank account for cash, if the bank goes below their reserve limit after that redemption, they have to borrow.

Its called cash flow dipwad.

If the loan is redeemable on DEMAND the lender would have to be able to predict the whim of the borrower to be certain they would not have to borrow from someone else to pay the demand.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They are getting covered with NEW DEBT that has just been issued.

And? Since expenses exceed current revenues - that's how ALL treasury obligations are ultimately covered - marketable or not. What's your point?

 

[saveliberty]

If the loan is redeemable on DEMAND the lender would have to be able to predict the whim of the borrower to be certain they would not have to borrow from someone else to pay the demand.

A borrower can redeem a loan at any time. Most banks don't even charge a penalty for doing so. A lender IS limited on redemption.

P.S. The borrower already has the money, otherwise THERE IS NO LOAN.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

A borrower can redeem a loan at any time.

If its not a demand loan then they can't redeem it from the issuer until the maturity date. You really are stupid

P.S. The borrower already has the money, otherwise THERE IS NO LOAN.

So borrowers borrow money just so they can have it so they can pay back the lender - yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You really are a moron.

Here's a clue for you. When you deposit your money in a bank - THEY LOAN MOST OF IT OUT. They loan out the deposits of thousands of people. They keep a little on hand to pay people who ask for their money back - but if too many people ask for their money all at once, they have to borrow the funds to pay them, they can't just go recall the loans they've made. I've got a home loan. The bank can't just say "hey buddy, we'd like all our money now". They get it paid in set amounts each month, and although I have the option to pay early, they don't have the option to force me to pay early.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Truth is hard for those on the Left In fact, it is there worst enemy Anyone who makes the silly claim that it can be easily remedied is disingenuous or politically naive But since someone made the silly claim, they can give us objective evidence (numbers) of these "easy political" fixes, please Most posters know, that these will not be forthcoming from the source of these silly claims

Two liberal economists can't be wrong

Again

The Hard Left wingers are just fearful of any reform that would make the gov't's role less and replace it with more personal responsibility.

God forbid, people should have more control over their own money
After all, what good is a gov't program for a statist, if they can't hang it over peoples'
head every election to get votes through false promises or fear​

Some of the above makes some sense, but the concept that the Hard Right has anymore sense than the Hard Left is silly. Libertarianism is the flip side of communism: both hate the workers and the every day citizen.

Not only are you clueless on what being a conservaitve is, you also fail to understand the premise of communism and libertarianism. Does that make you a complete idiot, or just brain dead?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the first to be paid debtors of the USA's debts are NOT the US citizens who trusted their government, one ought to be asking oneseelf why they are NOT the first in line.

But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, that appearently never occcurs to our right wing neighbors.

They fully understand and insist that the FED pay its debts to everybody EXCEPT the workers of this nation.

Why?

Because they basically hate those workers and their first loyalty is to CAPITAL, that's why.

"If the first to be paid debtors of the USA's debts are NOT the US citizens who trusted their government, one ought to be asking oneseelf why they are NOT the first in line"

Because the Supreme Court said they weren't. Based on the law signed by FDR.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Perhaps Ponzi scheme isn't quite descriptive enough...

How about a government slush fund, started by Democrats, used by Democrats and potentially sunk by Democrats..

 

[saveliberty]

A borrower can redeem a loan at any time.

If its not a demand loan then they can't redeem it from the issuer until the maturity date. You really are stupid

P.S. The borrower already has the money, otherwise THERE IS NO LOAN.

So borrowers borrow money just so they can have it so they can pay back the lender - yeah, that makes a lot of sense. You really are a moron.

Here's a clue for you. When you deposit your money in a bank - THEY LOAN MOST OF IT OUT. They loan out the deposits of thousands of people. They keep a little on hand to pay people who ask for their money back - but if too many people ask for their money all at once, they have to borrow the funds to pay them, they can't just go recall the loans they've made. I've got a home loan. The bank can't just say "hey buddy, we'd like all our money now". They get it paid in set amounts each month, and although I have the option to pay early, they don't have the option to force me to pay early.

A demand note can be paid back at any time by the borrower, unless called by the lender. Still, there is no maturity date, therefore the borrower WILL pay it back prior.

No dumbass, the borrower has the cash from the loan available for its stated purpose. In some cases it is to have cash flow and may not be needed immediately. In that case, yes, it is available to repay the loan. You seem to be hung up on the demand loan concept of the call.

 

[Lakhota]

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

Social Security Is Not A Ponzi Scheme | Research | Media Matters for America

 

[Lakhota]

As stated above, money flowing into the trust funds is invested in U. S. Government securities. Because the government spends this borrowed cash, some people see the trust fund assets as an accumulation of securities that the government will be unable to make good on in the future. Without legislation to restore long-range solvency of the trust funds, redemption of long-term securities prior to maturity would be necessary.

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.

Many options are being considered to restore long-range trust fund solvency. These options are being considered now, over 20 years in advance of the year the funds are likely to be exhausted. It is thus likely that legislation will be enacted to restore long-term solvency, making it unlikely that the trust funds' securities will need to be redeemed on a large scale prior to maturity.

Trust Fund FAQs

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A Venn Diagram for Rick Perry: Social Security Is Not a Ponzi Scheme | Mother Jones

Social Security Is Not A Ponzi Scheme | Research | Media Matters for America

You must be desperate, why else dig up old threads?